PDA

View Full Version : ***OFFICIAL HEALTHCARE SUMMIT THREAD***



JohnnyMack
2/25/2010, 10:17 AM
Obama still hasn't figured out that he's the POTUS and not campaigning to be the POTUS.

Boomer.....
2/25/2010, 10:17 AM
Mods, can you please move this to the Politics Forum?

JohnnyMack
2/25/2010, 10:21 AM
Dammit. We have a politics forum?

sooner_born_1960
2/25/2010, 10:23 AM
If you're watching this thing, please keep us updated.

JohnnyMack
2/25/2010, 10:26 AM
Obama leads off. Tries to cut legs off of R's attack. R's come back, ignore Obama and go right to talking points. So far, zero surprises.

JohnnyMack
2/25/2010, 10:27 AM
Obama is sitting there like a smug **** who knows they're gonna ram this thing through with reconciliation anyway.

JohnnyMack
2/25/2010, 10:32 AM
And the R's come out of nowhere and ask for the D's to NOT use reconciliation!!!!!!!!!! Did not see that coming!!!!!

JohnnyMack
2/25/2010, 10:43 AM
I wanna tie Nancy Pelosi's ankle to a braided asbestos rope that's about 1/2 mile long. I wanna attach the other end to the space shuttle. So when the space shuttle launches it doesn't burn her up in the flaming exhaust, rather it snatches her up as it gains altitude and drags her into the stratosphere.

JohnnyMack
2/25/2010, 11:08 AM
Dr. Tom is on a tear!!!!

ndpruitt03
2/25/2010, 11:18 AM
Dr. Tom was 100% right go after costs don't try and give everyone health care that's an unrealistic goal. Hell some people don't even want health care. Try and make health care insurance cheaper and people will buy it

JohnnyMack
2/25/2010, 11:31 AM
Dr. Tom was 100% right go after costs don't try and give everyone health care that's an unrealistic goal. Hell some people don't even want health care. Try and make health care insurance cheaper and people will buy it

When Pelosi says things like, "we have a moral obligation to provide healthcare", what Dr. Tom says seems to become irrelevant, sadly.

NormanPride
2/25/2010, 11:39 AM
That's just because it makes your brain smaller.

sooner_born_1960
2/25/2010, 12:15 PM
I haven't heard anything that will actually reduce the cost of healthcare. They seem to be only tackling this from the insurance angle.

sooner_born_1960
2/25/2010, 12:17 PM
Health insurance would be cheaper if healthcare was cheaper.

sooner_born_1960
2/25/2010, 12:17 PM
What is the leading driver to the cost of healthcare?

ndpruitt03
2/25/2010, 12:20 PM
None of this is about making health care cheaper. Even the democrats will admit that it's about making health care insurance cheaper. The democrats think having control of it will make it cheaper some how.

tommieharris91
2/25/2010, 12:50 PM
Dr. Tom was 100% right go after costs don't try and give everyone health care that's an unrealistic goal. Hell some people don't even want health care. Try and make health care insurance cheaper and people will buy it

How does the gubmint go after costs and keep it constitutional though? Can they?

Bourbon St Sooner
2/25/2010, 01:46 PM
None of this is about making health care cheaper. Even the democrats will admit that it's about making health care insurance cheaper. The democrats think having control of it will make it cheaper some how.

They can if they can get total control of it, because then they can ration it. As I stated in another thread, just because you have coverage doesn't mean you get care.

Collier11
2/25/2010, 01:58 PM
exaggery

Stitch Face
2/25/2010, 02:00 PM
Excruciating.

Not a substantive discussion about anything (not that I expected any.) Just democrats waxing poetic about how everyone deserves care and how they're "so close" to agreeing on everything and Republicans trying to hit the talking points about what people hate about this monstrous dictatorial bill. Obama tries to cut anyone off if they veer from talking about what they "agree on" in the current bills.

Collier11
2/25/2010, 02:02 PM
I guess Obama is finally realizing that good will earned in a popular election doesnt last long if you prove to be FOS all the time

ndpruitt03
2/25/2010, 02:07 PM
How does the gubmint go after costs and keep it constitutional though? Can they?
You could be right, what both sides want to do with changing health care in going after the fraudulent costs may be unconstitutional. But that's one thing both sides kinda agree on.

The entire thing comes down to how they want to do things. The republicans/conservatives want to try and solve this using states/individuals. The democrats think they need to have comprehensive reforms at the national level.


They can if they can get total control of it, because then they can ration it. As I stated in another thread, just because you have coverage doesn't mean you get care.

Yep that's what's happened everywhere else in the world it'll happen at a bigger level in the US because the population is so much higher. Universal care is meant to take care of a certain amount. Most of the countries that have that type of care don't have 300 million people to cover.

soonerscuba
2/25/2010, 02:09 PM
dictatorial billHaving no stomach for yet another thread like this, I don't want to talk specifically about healthcare. But I do want to ask you a question, under what circumstances could legislation passed with a majority of Congressmen (admittedly icky circumstances) and signed by a President under which all members, including the minority party, were elected under free and fair elections be considered "dictatorial"? As a follow up, how would one reconcile the idea of a dictator presenting a model to representative body which authorizes funding, which in turn funnels to private enterprise?

Collier11
2/25/2010, 02:10 PM
ummm, pushing through a bill that most people dont want just cus you have the majority???

ndpruitt03
2/25/2010, 02:26 PM
Here's how I've seen it so far. The democrats try as much as possible to go after the emotion and talk about sob stories about how bad our health care is right now. The republicans are throwing out facts on what they think would solve this issue. The democrats almost want to pass this thing only because they think the current system sucks and they don't care about the results of trying to pass a big bill like they have right now only because the current system will end up in some immediate disaster in their minds.

yermom
2/25/2010, 02:30 PM
i think #1 they want to say they did it and use that to get reelected. in a few years when it sucks they will worry about it then and shift the blame somewhere else

Stitch Face
2/25/2010, 02:30 PM
I'm not keen on the feds saying people have to buy a commercial product under penalty of law. And not just any insurance tailored to your needs, but a massive package plan with coverage benefits determined by the HHS secretary.

I don't like the federal gov't fixing prices, therefore eliminating normal market forces, eventually collapsing insurance companies and forcing people into the gov't exchange where they pay the gov'ts prices for the gov'ts pre-determined basket of benefits.

I think that's getting dangerously close to dictatorial for a "democratic republic."

soonerscuba
2/25/2010, 02:47 PM
I think that's getting dangerously close to dictatorial for a "democratic republic."Once again, put aside the politics for a second and focus on policy, how is this dictatorial, or are you just being hyperbolic?

sooner_born_1960
2/25/2010, 02:51 PM
stitchface, your post works just fine without the word "dictatorial". Then soonerscuba would have just posted "this" in reply.

soonerscuba
2/25/2010, 03:14 PM
stitchface, your post works just fine without the word "dictatorial". Then soonerscuba would have just posted "this" in reply.I'm actually against the current legislation, although I though I do think there is a place for actual competition between insurance companies and I do like a public option (hence, why I'm against current legislation). I just find hyperbole to be somewhat offputting and think if people tried to reason out their opposition, even if I disagree with it, everybody is smarter for the effort. The RAWR OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST DICTATOR111111!!!!!1!!!ELEVEN!!! stuff is just boring.

Tulsa_Fireman
2/25/2010, 03:27 PM
http://www.kappamedical.com/images/300%20Prostate.gif

OU Adonis
2/25/2010, 04:32 PM
Why is universal health care considered a basic right?

I would think food and shelter would rank higher than health care. Try getting the Federal government to give you a place to live and free food as a single able bodied male.

SCOUT
2/25/2010, 05:17 PM
Why is universal health care considered a basic right?

I would think food and shelter would rank higher than health care. Try getting the Federal government to give you a place to live and free food as a single able bodied male.

Because it is harder to demonize a farmer or a construction worker?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/25/2010, 06:10 PM
Is it still going on? RIP, and mercifully let it end with our very own Bammer eating Deserved Crow. spinning his wheels, and resting on his laurels. In God We Trust-not Feds.

Stitch Face
2/25/2010, 06:15 PM
It may sound hyperbolic, but I do feel that the bills mandate certain things which are dictatorial in nature. I, personally, do not think it is the government's right (or within the spirit of the Founders' intentions for this country) to force people to buy a certain product in order to exist in this country, and then for others to give up more of their wealth specifically to subsidize others who can't buy said product.

Republics and democracies can and do, at times, give their leaders dictatorial powers. The Greeks did it with the Tyrants and the Roman senate would occasionally nominate someone Dictator in order to effect some drastic change or protect the state from some threat. I feel that the current Democratic majority is likewise being coercive in some of the things it is trying to promulgate right now.

Do you not find it interesting that the Romans would elect a Dictator to handle crises when the Republic was deemed too inefficient and we are now hearing howls of the US being "ungovernable" during this "crisis" while the party in control finds novel ways to impose these rules on a frightened public? All exclamation points aside, it's a bit "dictatorial" in my opinion.

soonerscuba
2/25/2010, 06:36 PM
It may sound hyperbolic, but I do feel that the bills mandate certain things which are dictatorial in nature. I, personally, do not think it is the government's right (or within the spirit of the Founders' intentions for this country) to force people to buy a certain product in order to exist in this country, and then for others to give up more of their wealth specifically to subsidize others who can't buy said product.

Republics and democracies can and do, at times, give their leaders dictatorial powers. The Greeks did it with the Tyrants and the Roman senate would occasionally nominate someone Dictator in order to effect some drastic change or protect the state from some threat. I feel that the current Democratic majority is likewise being coercive in some of the things it is trying to promulgate right now.

Do you not find it interesting that the Romans would elect a Dictator to handle crises when the Republic was deemed too inefficient and we are now hearing howls of the US being "ungovernable" during this "crisis" while the party in control finds novel ways to impose these rules on a frightened public? All exclamation points aside, it's a bit "dictatorial" in my opinion.It doesn't sound hyperbolic, it is hyperbolic. A dictator is an absolutist power, there is a difference between legislation you don't like and tyranny. So, you are implying that Dems are engaging in dictatorial behavior based on the fact that they hold a majority of Congress and the executive? As one George W Bush famously said "elections have consequences". A lecture on Athenian democracy has absolutely nothing to do with Congressional process. The Republicans simply are not going support any legislation regarding health care, Dems have the ability to pass it without them, and are going to do so. I don't like it, but it doesn't make it dictatorial. Also, reconciliation is hardly novel.

badger
2/25/2010, 06:40 PM
I think Obama should stick with beer summits. Those provide just as many things to comment on, media to take photo ops at, and they're much more civil than health summits.

beer summit > health summit

soonerscuba
2/25/2010, 06:46 PM
I think Obama should stick with beer summits. Those provide just as many things to comment on, media to take photo ops at, and they're much more civil than health summits.

beer summit > health summitWe should combine the two, at least it would be way more interesting.

Stitch Face
2/25/2010, 06:51 PM
There's a reason why many states, including Oklahoma, have passed or are attempting to pass legislation making it illegal to force their citizens to buy health insurance (despite knowing full well that such laws would be superseded by the federal law.) It's because many Americans, quite possible a majority based on numerous polls, think it's unlawful for a central power to coerce, by threat of fine or imprisonment, the citizenry into buying something or participating in something, the details and requirements of which are solely determined by the central power writing the law. Sorry if I'm putting you off, but what do you call such a "policy?"

It's not the process being used, it's the spirit of the legislation, and should it pass it will be challenged widely in courts of law. It's sad when federal power used in ways that would make the founding fathers **** their pants is ignored as just being the majority's prerogative and any accusations of overreach are ridiculed as being hyperbolic.


Dems have the ability to pass it without them, and are going to do so. I don't like it, but it doesn't make it dictatorial. Also, reconciliation is hardly novel.

The fact that the Dems have the procedural ability to pass it does not automatically make it constitutional or lawful. We will see if it passes and when the lawsuits come.

And using reconciliation for something of this magnitude and influence is indeed unprecedented, at least according to one of the democratic authors of the reconciliation process.

Stitch Face
2/25/2010, 07:05 PM
Scuba, you seem to be implying that any legislation passed by congress is automatically legitimate. Is that your premise? Do you think it's impossible for a democratically elected body to craft something tyrannical?

soonerscuba
2/25/2010, 07:19 PM
Scuba, you seem to be implying that any legislation passed by congress is automatically legitimate. Is that your premise? Do you think it's impossible for a democratically elected body to craft something tyrannical?If done within the procedeural framework of a freely elected body, legislation passed under those conditions isn't tyrannical. Constitutional? Up to the courts to decide.

You're hardly the first, and liberals were positively gonzo about doing it, but mistaking distaste for tyranny makes Americans look like babies in the face of actual tyranny.

Stitch Face
2/25/2010, 07:43 PM
You're hardly the first, and liberals were positively gonzo about doing it, but mistaking distaste for tyranny makes Americans look like babies in the face of actual tyranny.

I'll give you it's pretty small beans compared to bona fide tyranny, but we may disagree as to whether this legislation is merely distasteful or contrary to the principles upon which the country was founded. Not to sound like Glenn Beck (boo hoo), but piecemeal erosion of liberty over time may give us all something a lot bigger to cry about someday. It may be comforting to look at our situation and say 'at least we're not Iran or Venezuela' but I also think we have a higher standard of personal liberty to protect than do people living under "actual" dictatorships.

Stitch Face
2/25/2010, 07:53 PM
Kind of a side topic which I never thought of before now, but what happens to homeless types if it becomes illegal to not carry a health insurance policy? Does this criminalize certain folks? I doubt it would be enforced in those cases, but could, I suppose, be used to get derelicts off the streets a la vagrancy laws when the mayor feels like crackin' down.

ndpruitt03
2/26/2010, 11:56 AM
What pisses me off about yesterday is that it doesn't really show what it's about in DC right now. This entire health care thing and cap and trade thing for that matter is not democrat vs republican it's democrat vs democrat. The republicans are still irrelevant. The fact that they have their own ideas is good an all, but they still are irrelevant. You didn't see any of the democrats that are probably gonna end up voting the bill down when it comes to being voted for in the house and senate. The reason health care and cap and trade are both on their death bed is because of democrats not republicans.

sooner_born_1960
2/26/2010, 12:23 PM
Kind of a side topic which I never thought of before now, but what happens to homeless types if it becomes illegal to not carry a health insurance policy? Does this criminalize certain folks? I doubt it would be enforced in those cases, but could, I suppose, be used to get derelicts off the streets a la vagrancy laws when the mayor feels like crackin' down.
When they show up at the hospital, just cart them off to jail.

yermom
2/26/2010, 12:24 PM
Kind of a side topic which I never thought of before now, but what happens to homeless types if it becomes illegal to not carry a health insurance policy? Does this criminalize certain folks? I doubt it would be enforced in those cases, but could, I suppose, be used to get derelicts off the streets a la vagrancy laws when the mayor feels like crackin' down.

they are going to be in for a nasty surprise when they do their taxes