The Obama Administration thread

[jarmo]

spread President Obama's socialist ideology."

The S-word! Oh no!


For somebody who lives in the "socialist world", this shit is fucking ridiculous.

It seems like anything to the left of ultra conservative right wing Christians is socialist.

We're not talking about the Soviet Union or China here.

But the way some use the S-word, you would think Obama is the new Lenin. 




/jarmo

[sandman]

spread President Obama's socialist ideology."

It seems like anything to the left of ultra conservative right wing Christians is socialist.

for some people, yes. but the lunatic right and the lunatic left are not the majority. they just get talked about the most.

socialism is too broad a category. most americans support some socialist ideals, but are strongly against others. it's just a difference of opinion.

[jarmo]

Yes.

I don't think many people think having libraries is a bad idea.

It's socialism!

Now, making the state own all companies, that's also socialism..... But many of us think it would be a bad idea.



/jarmo

[Smoking Guns]

Obama is one of the best speakers we have ever had as president.  Its hard not to buy into everything he says. He is brilliant in that regard. 

[djcleaver]

Well again Obama gave a great speach followed by a retarded follow up by the republicans.  I agree the -S- word stirs up a frenzy of neg. reactions from avg. americans, and for no good reason. I really think if more of the christian/heartland americans had a desire/chance to visit europe alot of this fear of socialism would be replaced by outrage for being duped by the right wing for so long.

[freedom78]

Well again Obama gave a great speach followed by a retarded follow up by the republicans.  I agree the -S- word stirs up a frenzy of neg. reactions from avg. americans, and for no good reason. I really think if more of the christian/heartland americans had a desire/chance to visit europe alot of this fear of socialism would be replaced by outrage for being duped by the right wing for so long.

I've never seen a good follow up to anything (usu. State of the Union) by either party.  They ALWAYS suck. 

[sandman]

Well again Obama gave a great speach followed by a retarded follow up by the republicans.  I agree the -S- word stirs up a frenzy of neg. reactions from avg. americans, and for no good reason. I really think if more of the christian/heartland americans had a desire/chance to visit europe alot of this fear of socialism would be replaced by outrage for being duped by the right wing for so long.

I've never seen a good follow up to anything (usu. State of the Union) by either party.  They ALWAYS suck. 

so true man. they are such a waste. i tried watching it last night and i made it through about 7 seconds before i flipped back to the phils game.

the speech was great. despite the claims by some, most people (Rs and Ds alike) are on the same page as far as what results are needed. there are some differences in how that is accomplished. he sure doesn't seem to believe the public option is a requirement, and it was great to hear that tort reform has not been taken off the table (which i thought it was). still alot of unanswered questions though.

and what a classless move by that guy shouting out during the speech.

[Jdog0830]

Yes.

I don't think many people think having libraries is a bad idea.

It's socialism!

Now, making the state own all companies, that's also socialism..... But many of us think it would be a bad idea.



/jarmo

No socialism is more of used as a type of policy the government has on the economy but its true that most goverments that use that system give no freedoms to their people mainly it means No privately owned property

[Axl4Prez2004]

D, are we not required to buy insurance if we drive a vehicle?  Where the fuck are people shouting "Socialism!" from the tops of rooftops about this "pre-Communist" requirement??

Not everybody has a vehicle, and if they don't, they don't have to buy that kind of insurance.  Last I checked, everybody's got a body, and needs to maintain that body...to live! 

I saw an interesting article the other day that described how the areas most in need of affordable healthcare (the poor areas notably including the South) are the most opposed to reforms that will lower the cost and increase the number of people covered.  Ironically enough, many of these areas are the ones that most heavily supported a certain past president who disproportionally slashed tax rates on the wealthiest of the wealthy.  Brilliant!   

I have faith the system will work.  A deal will be negotiated that meets just left of center...and that's a good thing in my eyes.

 

[D]

Vehicle is different because u are affecting other people's lives.

If I crash into u and don't have insurance, I am hurting someone else

People can talk all this about "I pay for these people's medical bills blah blah blah and they get all self righteous and shit about it and all i can say is, yeah in a way but people act like Taxes would all be disappear if we have universal health care.

what? u gonna save 2 dollars a month or something cause people who think if everyone were insured, their taxes would magically be lowered are insane.

It is a good idea don't get me wrong, but don't tell me I HAVE to do something.

Plus, people DO have a choice with Car insurance, u can just not drive. With the medical thing, its do this or pay this

I bet if we took the median income of everyone on here talking shit, it would be fairly high

What about the minimum wage person who can barely afford a shitty one bedroom apt and takes the bus everywhere? now they gotta come up with THIS amount of money or get fined? How are they going to live?

[jarmo]

What about the minimum wage person who can barely afford a shitty one bedroom apt and takes the bus everywhere? now they gotta come up with THIS amount of money or get fined? How are they going to live?

How did they live during the Bush administration?


As far as I remember, Obama mentioned cutting taxes for those who don't make a lot. Didn't he?



The way I see it, you guys have a chance to improve a faulty system and make it better. You can learn from other countries and not repeat their mistakes.

You got all the chances in the world to make your health care system the best (for every American). Unfortunately some of those with money aren't interested since money fixes everything.




Wonder how many of those who oppose the system would change their mind if they lost their job and health care benefits with it....




/jarmo

[Naltav]

I thought Obama's speach about healthcare was very good. I hope he inspired many americans to start thinking differently.

We who live in Europe (at least Scandinavia, UK, France) are used to thinking more like "all for one and one for all". We all chip in to help the ones less fortunate then ourselvs.

In the US, it seems to be more like "it's every man for himself, and never mind those less fortunate..."

Not saying that Europeans are better human beings because of that. It all comes down to the way you are brought up. How the system shapes your thinking. And hopefully Americans will see the flaws in the way things have been done over there....   

[jarmo]

We who live in Europe (at least Scandinavia, UK, France) are used to thinking more like "all for one and one for all". We all chip in to help the ones less fortunate then ourselvs.

Yeah, and it can be used to the extreme in some cases.

Where you basically have rules to fit a minority. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

For example, we don't have any wine or (proper) beer in our supermarkets because some people have problems handling alcohol. Does it work well? I don't know....




/jarmo

[Drew]

In the US, it seems to be more like "it's every man for himself, and never mind those less fortunate..."

Not true at all. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's well documented that Americans are the most charitable country in the world.

[sandman]

everyone that is trying to make shit up about rich americans, let me repeat....

almost everyone agrees that SOMETHING needs to change with the current health care system. the majority agrees with the GOALS laid out by obama. there are differences in HOW it should be achieved. 

Obama is not suggesting universal health care is the answer. not even close. he made that clear.

the biggest disagreements are tort reform and the public option. and based on his speech, Obama now agrees that tort reform would help. and he does not believe the public option is necessary.

add in the fact that he cut a deal with the drug companies that they are thrilled about, and he's looking more like a Republican than a Democrat.

[Naltav]

For example, we don't have any wine or (proper) beer in our supermarkets because some people have problems handling alcohol. Does it work well? I don't know....

Well, I'm not saying that our system of handling different issues is flawless. We (Sweden and Norway) have to buy our wine and spirits at "specials-stores" . Not to mention at a very high price. A large bottle J?ger costs about 180,- NOK at the TaxFree stores at the airport. In our belowed "special-stores", that same bottle of J?ger costs about 500,- NOK.

But then again, a lot of that extra money that the government bring in on this, is used on the several downsides to alcohol.

We have a tradition that drinking is "un-christian" and it's therefore been done behind closed-doors. We rarely drink during the weekdays but then we consume everything during friday and saturday at private parties and then head to town hidden by the dark of night.

If we all of a sudden started to sell alcohol like they do in Germany and at their prices, I think we couldn't handle that in a sudden transition. It takes time....   

and we kling on to the "stoneage-institution" of Kings and Queens..... 

[freedom78]

What about the minimum wage person who can barely afford a shitty one bedroom apt and takes the bus everywhere? now they gotta come up with THIS amount of money or get fined? How are they going to live?

One of many reasons why the appropriate solution is a single-payer system, but there wasn't a chance in the icy depths of Hell that that was going to happen this time around. 

Some strict regulation with a strong public option is certainly going to do a lot to help, but will it truly "fix" the problem?  No, it will not.  You'll never have 100% coverage and a few will still be unable to afford it (this is partially dealt with by subsidies for some and waivers from the mandate for others, but to my mind the goal is to cover them, not to exempt them from having to buy coverage).  At some point, we'll have to revisit this, either by making the subsidies expansive enough to cover all without coverage or by moving to true universal health care.

[D]

Also, what about the welfare moms and their kids with medical cards etc? Would that system stay in place?

Cause that IMO is where a HUGE amount of costs come for taxpayers.

When you have a medical card, doctors eat those alive. the doctors will run every test imaginable that is somewhat valid whether it is needed or not. I remember Obama mentioning this in one of his speeches and I couldn't agree more.


So a system needs to be devised to take away some of that greed and abuse.Possible programs to pay off all student loans for medical field personnel, tax breaks for doctors....
Wonder how it would play out if it were completely income based? if you are poor and live in public housing/projects, they take a percentage of your income for rent. so if they could factor a way to charge a certain percentage of income maybe 5 percent or so.

Then, if you make a thousand dollars a month, you would pay 50 dollars a month for medical insurance. That seems pretty reasonable. Don't know logistically if it would work.

[pilferk]

When you have a medical card, doctors eat those alive. the doctors will run every test imaginable that is somewhat valid whether it is needed or not. I remember Obama mentioning this in one of his speeches and I couldn't agree more.

Rather than reply AGAIN, I'm simply going to refer you back to my LAST reply on that subject:

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=55236.msg1199276#msg1199276

[sandman]

i loved Obama's "off the record" comments on Kanye!

this healthcare proposal sounds interesting...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senator Max Baucus unveiled a long-awaited healthcare overhaul on Wednesday that would dramatically revamp insurance rules but does not include a government-run option backed by liberal Democrats.
After months of negotiations, Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, made public a bill that attracted no Republican supporters and alienated some in his own Democratic party.

"The cost of America's broken healthcare system has stretched families, businesses and the economy too far for too long. For too many, quality, affordable healthcare is simply out of reach," Baucus said in an introduction to the measure.
The bill would require all U.S. citizens and legal residents to obtain health insurance, offer subsidies on a sliding scale to help people buy it, levy fees on healthcare companies and insurers, and expand Medicaid, the healthcare system for the poor.

The price tag of $856 billion over 10 years is slightly cheaper than four other bills pending in the Senate and House of Representatives, which all would cost at least $1 trillion. The Senate Finance Committee will vote on the plan next week and each chamber of Congress will take up initial versions of the healthcare measure in coming weeks.

Many elements of the Baucus plan were first released last week and closely mirror President Barack Obama's proposals to overhaul the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system, his top domestic priority.

Opinion polls show Americans are split over Obama's plans, which he says are designed to rein in costs, improve care, regulate insurers to protect consumers and expand coverage to the uninsured. Some 46 million people in the United States -- nearly a sixth of the population -- now have no health insurance.

NO "PUBLIC" OPTION
The Baucus proposal does not include a controversial government-run "public" insurance option but calls for the creation of non-profit cooperatives to create competition in the insurance market and reduce costs. Under the plan, insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and would be barred from offering limited-benefit plans or placing lifetime limits on coverage.

It also would create state-based exchanges where individuals and small businesses could shop for insurance.
The bill does not require employers to offer health insurance, but companies with 50 or more full-time workers would pay a fee for employees who obtain policies subsidized by federal tax credits.

The proposal requires that health insurance providers collectively pay an annual fee of $6 billion starting in 2010, with other health companies making smaller collective payments to help fund the reforms in the bill.
Baucus led months of talks among the so-called "Gang of Six" negotiators -- three Democrats and three Republicans -- in hopes of winning Republican support.

The bill incorporates some proposals designed to ease Republican concerns, including provisions specifying illegal immigrants would not be covered and federal funds would not be used for abortions. It also encourages states to start pilot projects to bolster medical malpractice reform, a traditional Republican concern.

But none of the three Republican negotiators on the Senate panel -- Charles Grassley, Mike Enzi and Olympia Snowe -- or any other Republican has endorsed the proposals so far. Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell said the Baucus plan "puts massive new tax burdens on families and small businesses, to create yet another thousand-page, trillion-dollar government program." "Only in Washington would anyone think that makes sense," McConnell said.

The panel is the last of five congressional committees to take up a healthcare bill. With congressional elections scheduled in 2010, Obama has urged Congress to complete work on the plan by the end of this year.
"We all know that, while this is a very good start, it is not a finished product," Democratic Senator Kent Conrad, one of the six negotiators, said in a statement.

Some Democrats have complained about the concessions made to Republicans, particularly reductions in the scope and elimination of the public option.

Critics of the option say it would hurt insurance companies and give government too big a role. Despite his support for a government-run insurance option, Obama has signaled it is not an essential element of any ultimate healthcare overhaul.

Senate Finance Committee member John Rockefeller, a Democrat and a strong backer of a public option, says he will not support the panel's healthcare bill without significant changes. He is the only Democrat to oppose the plan so far.
(Editing by John O'Callaghan and Jackie Frank)