Originally Posted by k2at

I would still like him to comment on whether Congress should be given the same health care package that he is pushing. What gives Congress the right to pass a package far superior to the ones the public has to accept.

Legally, Congress has that ability to pass anything they want. Ethically, I believe it is an abuse of power.

Obama sidestepped that question quite effectively. Politicians learn that tactic early on in their career.

I bet you that they would fix the Social Security money problem if they were under the same retirement package. "Serve" for a few years and retire as kings?

Originally Posted by k2at

I would still like him to comment on whether Congress should be given the same health care package that he is pushing. What gives Congress the right to pass a package far superior to the ones the public has to accept.

Legally, Congress has that ability to pass anything they want. Ethically, I believe it is an abuse of power.

Obama sidestepped that question quite effectively. Politicians learn that tactic early on in their career.

Using the words ethically and Congress in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

Watching this guy with people who work in the medical field and all felt the same this guy is lost and hasnt a clue about what he is speaking about.and no he did not say congress would take the goverment plan.If this passes lord help those who are sick and want to get second and third opinions because thats not going to happen. Me i couldnt be more pleased with my insurance and i do not want to pay for bunch of freeloaders that live in this country. Sure help the needy but most without insurance dont want to work and pay for it,would rather spend their money on other things.This I know firsthand

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Please relax. I'm guessing your reply is so far off the mark because you are angry. That's what I have a problem with. How in the world can you conclude that I think folks who oppose Obama's plan are bad people? I don't think anyone is a bad person. I just don't like the name calling and angry comments some people make instead of responding with civility. Some time ago you called yourself a member of the "loyal opposition" in a post about the current administration. I responded the same way I am now: It's fine to be an opponent, but would you just stick to responding to the comments posed or questions asked without an angry tone and without name calling or personal attacks.

You can read my original post and how I asked if folks could stop ridiculing the President for using a teleprompter because he did a pretty good job of explaining his health insurance proposal off-the-cuff last night.
I must confess, my last comment was rather a tease, because I suspected none of those who have been ridiculing the President for such a frivolous reason as using a teleprompter would back down and respond to my post directly with something like: "Yeh, I guess he showed he could speak coherently without the teleprompter." cabo's first sentence above was a start but I heard things differently than he did after that.

Again, I respect and admire the intelligence and passion of many of the posters in the political forum, the majority of whom seem to disagree with me. I've learned some things from them. And I'd spend more time reading and writing here if it weren't for the way some posters express themselves.

1, I never....EVER...NOT ONCE...ever said I was a member of the "loyal opposition", nor have I ever used that phrase. Now, a contributing member of this forum uses that. It appears that perhaps you throw anyone who does not support what President Obama is doing into on basket !

2. How did I determine you thought all who opposed Obama were bad. Your sarcasm to start which I took at sarcasm since the only thing you spoke about was the teleprompter....not the subect of much meaty discussion on this forum. I cannot think...if you can bring us a post copy or something of anyone starting a thread about the teleprompter.....now, is it thrown out there in humor...YEP.....much the same way that Bush was called an IDIOT....a COWBOY....a DRUNK...recall those times. That does not count the times his wife and daughters were attacked !

3. Fact is, most on here give the President high marks as an orator !!!

NOW.....tell us about the health plan and why you support it !!!

Originally Posted by ijusluvit Since you are the first respondent who has chose to try to answer the question rather than just attack me, I'll reply to you. The thing I've been most curious about in the new health insurance plan has been whether it would apply to the members of Congress. Did you not hear the sentence immediately following "he babbled about being President and having a doctor at his side constantly" ?


According to the complete transcript of last night's press conference, there was no sentence "immediately following" his babbling answer. This is the entire exchange:

Q And what about yourself and Congress? Would you abide by the same benefit package?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, I would be happy to abide by the same benefit package. I will just be honest with you. I'm the president of the United States, so I've got a doctor following me every minute -- (laughter) -- which is why I say, this is not about me

I've got the best health care in the world. I'm trying to make sure that everybody has good health care, and they don't right now.

He really ducked the question in a deceptive manner because I am sure he knows of the exemption Congress gave themselves in the Health Choices Act section 3116. I believe that bill was moved in June 2009. Google away if you will. There's lots of info on the subject.

http://help.senate.gov/BAI09F54_xml.pdf

His "No, No", response on Medicare cuts was disingenuous as well. I have heard him and his surrogates constantly tout cutting Medicare to help fill the funding gap. That means cutting currently available coverage.

If you look at any answers he gave to controversial issues, you can see they were rambling and not directly responsive although he eventually would give short lip service to the question. I have seen the technique before. It's used when you don't want to answer the question, accordingly you shift your rhetoric to subject matter you can pontificate with clarity and confidence on.

For the record I would like to see improvements in health care that would include:

Major medical malpractice reform with caps on awards. This is one of the biggest cost escalators in medical care. Superfluous CYA testing would also be reduced. Obama will not go against trial lawyers...he said so. Any medical care reform that does not include medical tort reform is overtly hypocritical and insincere. MHO

Health plans for U.S. citizens and taxpayers only. The exception being for trauma, emergency room admissions. No person should be denied legitimate emergency care.

There's more....but its been said before.

Have a good day in the Villages.

[quote=cabo35;216267]

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Since you are the first respondent who has chose to try to answer the question rather than just attack me, I'll reply to you. The thing I've been most curious about in the new health insurance plan has been whether it would apply to the members of Congress. Did you not hear the sentence immediately following "he babbled about being President and having a doctor at his side constantly" ?

According to the complete transcript of last night's press conference, there was no sentence "immediately following" his babbling answer. This is the entire exchange:

Q And what about yourself and Congress? Would you abide by the same benefit package?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, I would be happy to abide by the same benefit package. I will just be honest with you. I'm the president of the United States, so I've got a doctor following me every minute -- (laughter) -- which is why I say, this is not about me

I've got the best health care in the world. I'm trying to make sure that everybody has good health care, and they don't right now.

He really ducked the question in a deceptive manner because I am sure he knows of the exemption Congress gave themselves in the Health Choices Act section 3116. I believe that bill was moved in June 2009. Google away if you will. There's lots of info on the subject.

http://help.senate.gov/BAI09F54_xml.pdf

His "No, No", response on Medicare cuts was disingenuous as well. I have heard him and his surrogates constantly tout cutting Medicare to help fill the funding gap. That means cutting currently available coverage.

If you look at any answers he gave to controversial issues, you can see they were rambling and not directly responsive although he eventually would give short lip service to the question. I have seen the technique before. It's used when you don't want to answer the question, accordingly you shift your rhetoric to subject matter you can pontificate with clarity and confidence on.

For the record I would like to see improvements in health care that would include:

Major medical malpractice reform with caps on awards. This is one of the biggest cost escalators in medical care. Superfluous CYA testing would also be reduced. Obama will not go against trial lawyers...he said so. Any medical care reform that does not include medical tort reform is overtly hypocritical and insincere. MHO

Health plans for U.S. citizens and taxpayers only. The exception being for trauma, emergency room admissions. No person should be denied legitimate emergency care.

There's more....but its been said before.

Have a good day in the Villages.

Thanks for a great post.

IJUSLUVIT and others who come in and say that there is nothing but negative comments. This post by CABO is typical of the posts on this forum.

I, for one, am getting sick and tired of people saying how negative and how whatever it is in the political forum. For the most part the posts are well thought out, investigated and presented in a civil manner, UNLIKE the drive by posts that speak to NOTHING and simply say..stop being negative.

If you believe in what the President is doing....if you support his programs then you owe it to yourself and him to discuss them with those who do not. Otherwise stop demeaning people who care about this country and want to speak how they feel. You, and that is a generic YOU are not above the rest of us...in fact, your total lack of response on ISSUES tells me you may just not care at all !

There are a number of folks who post here regularly and care....they investigate....they articulate and do it in what you termed a civil manner. Whether you agree or disagree with their bottom line, if you are going to post in return, PLEASE do the same thoughtful thing they did and stop calling names of folks who post in political !

cabo,

Excuse me. You're right. The answer about health insurance for congressmen did not immediately follow when the President "babbled" about his doctor shadowing him. He gave the answer to the same question a few seconds before that. Here are the relevant words:

"...the insurance regulation that we want to put in place will largely match up with what members of Congress are getting through the federal employee plan. That's a good example of what we're trying to build for the American people, the same thing that Congress enjoys, which is they go, there's a marketplace of different plans that they can access depending on what's best for their families."

As I said earlier, I think this is more than symbolic and I strongly favor the President's emphasis on pushing for the same basic plan for everyone. You and I both know that congressmen and other wealthy or influential people will always able to get better health CARE than average or poor folks, but it's a good start if everyone has the the same halfway decent INSURANCE plan.

I'm not dodging the issues. I already told you i favor the President's formula for funding the plan. Who can argue with no deficit increase and reallocating existing health care funding. The thing that's debatable is the final 1/3 of the cost. Congressmen are wetting their pants at the thought of having to tax the rich to raise those funds. I've said I can't think of anything more fair. (I could talk for hours about rich/poor and what I really think America stands for.) So what do you think of that solution? You likely spend a lot more time on this than I. Have you seen better ways of funding that 1/3, or compelling reasons why it's wrong to have people with million dollar annual incomes shoulder those costs?

I also like some of your points at the end of your last post. Tort reform is critical, but I think it is purposely being left out of the fundamentals of the President's proposal, not because he is trying to protect the interests of attorneys, but because it's inclusion might bring down the whole effort. Change is incremental and requires patience and resolve. I believe we will not see any significant change in the health care crisis without the unrelenting exercise of influence by the President.

As for as other details of the plan, like my congressmen, I haven't read the 1000 page document. But each of the elements of the outline I've seen or heard the President describe makes sense to me.

There sure are different opinions on what was said duirng President Obama's press conference earlier this week. It was an important one, as we all know, largely addressing the proposals for healthcare reform.

Here's an article by Paul Krugman, economist and columnist for The New York Times. Krugman has not always been a proponent of all that has been done on the economic front by the Obama administration. But in case anyone questions his qualifications, he is the winner of this year's Nobel Prize in Economics. Krugman is also among the winners of this year's Scripps Howard Foundation National Journalism Award winners, announced recently. The foundation cited Krugman's commentary "for courageously and prophetically clarifying complex economic issues, and months later influencing Washington policymakers with his insightful explanation of the global financial crisis."

Here's his article from today's NYT regarding healthcare reform entitled, "Costs and Compassion"...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/op...gman.html?_r=1

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

There sure are different opinions on what was said duirng President Obama's press conference earlier this week. It was an important one, as we all now, largely addressing the proposals for healthcare reform.

Here's an article by Paul Krugman, economist and columnist for The New York Times. Krugman has not always been a proponent of all that has been done on the economic front by the Obama administration. But in case anyone questions his qualifications, he is the winner of this year's Nobel Prize in Economics. Krugman is also among the winners of this year's Scripps Howard Foundation National Journalism Award winners, announced recently. The foundation cited Krugman's commentary "for courageously and prophetically clarifying complex economic issues, and months later influencing Washington policymakers with his insightful explanation of the global financial crisis."

Here's his article from today's NYT regarding healthcare reform entitled, "Costs and Compassion"...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/op...gman.html?_r=1

....Oh, if it was only as simple as "red pill, blue pill."

Compassion is a wonderful thing. We exercise compassion with every charitable donation (labor or money). Yet, I don't know of anyone who took out a $100,000 personal loan and then donated all the money to charity.

The idea of "reforming" health care so that we all have health care services when we need it is a noble one. None of the proposals so far, including HR 3200, identify WHY costs are the way they are (e.g., problem identification), and then HOW the actions (the sections of the bill) will resolve the problem(s). Instead, what we have is a "it doesn't matter what works or what doesn't, change it all" approach which nationalizes an industry for the "public good." That's what happened to railroads, and AMTRAK resulted (and that works well, right?). There is NOTHING in HR 3200 which demonstrates economically, scientifically or logically that the provisions of HR 3200 will do anything other than reconfigure today's system into something else, and that the new system will be any better (or worse) than what's in place now. The only thing we know for sure is that it will be different.

It would be wonderful if there was one scintilla of evidence which showed this HR 3200 experiment will be anything different than another "Mission Accomplished" banner. No one in the Administration or Congress has provided any proof that ANY provision of HR 3200 works anywhere, even in a demonstration conducted by anyone, works! But, what the H#%%, let's just toss out everything and borrow another $Trillion or so, spend it, and see what we have once the money's spend, the contractors have been paid, and the cronies are hired.

If I'm seeing this wrong, please enlighten me. To steal an old line, "Where's the beef?"

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

There sure are different opinions on what was said duirng President Obama's press conference earlier this week. It was an important one, as we all now, largely addressing the proposals for healthcare reform.

Here's an article by Paul Krugman, economist and columnist for The New York Times. Krugman has not always been a proponent of all that has been done on the economic front by the Obama administration. But in case anyone questions his qualifications, he is the winner of this year's Nobel Prize in Economics. Krugman is also among the winners of this year's Scripps Howard Foundation National Journalism Award winners, announced recently. The foundation cited Krugman's commentary "for courageously and prophetically clarifying complex economic issues, and months later influencing Washington policymakers with his insightful explanation of the global financial crisis."

Here's his article from today's NYT regarding healthcare reform entitled, "Costs and Compassion"...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/op...gman.html?_r=1

Krugman won Noble Prize. Is this the prize that Al Gore won in 2007 during the coldest winter on record because the earth has a fever?
Is this the same left-leaning socialist economist who believes nationalism is the key to fixing our economy?
Krugman...is that the same columnist that the left-leaning pro-communist newspaper hired to write assassination pieces against the Bush administration for 8 years?
Please.. The Noble Prize has turned into a big propaganda machine aimed against capitalism and for a one world government lead by leaders with a socialist agenda.
Of course this is just an opinion of a blue collar, uneducated (institutionally)
man who still has ideals and beliefs in capitalism and the American way.

You're right on, Steve. Cost can be brought way down by eliminating fraud and tort reform. From what I can tell tort reform isn't even mentioned in the Bill. As for Paul Krugman, I wouldn't believe him if he told me it was raining outside and I could see the rain. Awards mean nothing anymore. They almost always go to the left wiingers. The fact that both Al Gore and Jimmy Carter have won the Nobel Peace prize should tell you something.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

There sure are different opinions on what was said duirng President Obama's press conference earlier this week. It was an important one, as we all now, largely addressing the proposals for healthcare reform.

Here's an article by Paul Krugman, economist and columnist for The New York Times. Krugman has not always been a proponent of all that has been done on the economic front by the Obama administration. But in case anyone questions his qualifications, he is the winner of this year's Nobel Prize in Economics. Krugman is also among the winners of this year's Scripps Howard Foundation National Journalism Award winners, announced recently. The foundation cited Krugman's commentary "for courageously and prophetically clarifying complex economic issues, and months later influencing Washington policymakers with his insightful explanation of the global financial crisis."

Here's his article from today's NYT regarding healthcare reform entitled, "Costs and Compassion"...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/op...gman.html?_r=1

Here is a list of 200 Economists. 3 of them Nobel Laureates

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/eco...nomists_a.html

Originally Posted by cabo35

I will give him this....he spoke eloquently for 50 minutes without saying anything. His only fumble was with the question that was off the predetermined script when a reporter hijacked another reporters scripted slot with a question that wasn't supposed to be asked. That question was "Will you and Congress give up your current health plan and go with the one you are pushing" . He babbled about being the President and having a doctor at his side constantly. Never answered the question. We all know they will be exempted from having to take "the plan".

Congress exempts themselves from MOST of the laws that they enact. More palatable for them to be able to write law when they don't have to live by them.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Since you are the first respondent who has chose to try to answer the question rather than just attack me, I'll reply to you. The thing I've been most curious about in the new health insurance plan has been whether it would apply to the members of Congress. Did you not hear the sentence immediately following "he babbled about being President and having a doctor at his side constantly" ?
He then said that the members of Congress would have the same plan, an exchange from which to pick their health care. Of course the gov't will continue to pay for it all, unlike us regular folks who will have out of pocket costs. But the question WAS answered. And to me it is more than symbolic that the intent of the President's plan is to include EVERYONE.
Also, how can you dismiss the comments with "without saying anything". Did you not hear the three main points of his proposal: no increase in the deficit, 2/3 of the costs from reallocation of current tax dollars, 1/3 of the cost from eliminating some tax deductions currently available to those with annual incomes over $1M?
You might have figured out by now that I support this plan. I do, because I cannot think of any solution more fair, and I believe we must have a solution. So go ahead and call me a socialist, communist or anything else you like. But instead of the name calling and personal venom like that spewed by the posters above, you should admit that a plan has been proposed to Congress by the administration, with a strong Obama handprint on it and a cattle prod in his other hand to get it done. And you should admit that the outline of that plan was explained last night.
After you do that, then we can, with civility, debate the philosophical points as to whether we need any plan and how you would pay for it.

I feel that your not communist, socialist or anything like that. I just don't believe that you feel that our Government can think of ANY solution that is better than the one we as individuals make for ourselves! I don't want our Government in my life any more than the minimum THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY! My decision, good, bad or ugly, is what freedom is all about.

Originally Posted by rshoffer

Using the words ethically and Congress in the same sentence is an oxymoron.