The Obama Administration thread

[pilferk]

"Socialized" health care: Critics charge that Obama's health care proposals will lead to a government takeover of health care. They fear that private insurers would be driven out by a public option, leading to health care system entirely run by the government.

I agree with the definition.

I'm skeptical that the "doom and gloom" outlook is realistic.  There's too much money to be made in the private sector, and too much ingenuity, for it to bear fruit.

What REALLY gets me is how hypocritical the stance is, coming from Republicans.

This is a party that would have you believe that government is inefficient in pretty much all things concerning industry.  They're unable to deal with market issues nearly as well or as efficiently as corporations.  Big government is bad, expensive, and unable to cut through it's own beurocracy to act...and would make a HORRIBLE single payor.

BUT, in terms of a public health care option, they would be a pillar of industry so efficient, with such stellar products and services,  and so able to realize cost savings to the consumer in their offerings, that the government would drive every othre private option out of business?

Really?  REALLY?  'Cause that doesn't sound like what we've seen before.  We've seen the government act as sort of a de facto "control group", and almost NEVER have they proven to be such a distracting market influence as to lure away a HUGE market share.  I see the public option as being in place for those who NEED it, but not the first choice of those who can "do better".   I've seen little evidence to the contrary.

What the public option would LIKELY do is force the private options to be more efficient and offer better service, at a competitive price point.  Yes, the private option may no longer be a license to print money...they may have to trim those profit margins and actually be a service oriented industry (again).  I don't have a problem with that, really. 

[freedom78]

also, a key facet of the plan is this new competition from the public plan, as if 1,300 health insurers in the U.S. is NOT enough competition.

That level of competition leads to supply meeting demand at a level that leaves 45 million uninsured.  If there were a large, not-for-profit insurance program that wouldn't turn anyone down then that could fundamentally change the nature of the competition.     

[freedom78]

Just in case:

Tom Ridge as GOP candidate for President, 2012. 

Setting himself apart from Bush with this book, moderate from a key swing state.  As nominee, he could take back PA and possibly OH, not to mention VA.  I could be wrong, as it's early (but it's earlier every cycle), but you heard it here first (erm...unless you heard it elsewhere). 

There have been a lot of "I'm not responsible for Bush" books, but only one from a former governor of a swing state.

[Jdog0830]

Just in case:

Tom Ridge as GOP candidate for President, 2012. 

Setting himself apart from Bush with this book, moderate from a key swing state.  As nominee, he could take back PA and possibly OH, not to mention VA.  I could be wrong, as it's early (but it's earlier every cycle), but you heard it here first (erm...unless you heard it elsewhere). 

There have been a lot of "I'm not responsible for Bush" books, but only one from a former governor of a swing state.

I could care less if he wasn't responsible for Bush his actions alone should prove that and that's to all republicans stop making fucking stupid books like this if you weren't a reason Bush became president how could he have won twice without support from his party trying to win with just Texis no they need to get their heads out of the clowds and deal with the issues if they want support from people not this I was Anti Bush bull crap when at one point or another they were backing him all the way

[freedom78]

Just in case:

Tom Ridge as GOP candidate for President, 2012. 

Setting himself apart from Bush with this book, moderate from a key swing state.  As nominee, he could take back PA and possibly OH, not to mention VA.  I could be wrong, as it's early (but it's earlier every cycle), but you heard it here first (erm...unless you heard it elsewhere). 

There have been a lot of "I'm not responsible for Bush" books, but only one from a former governor of a swing state.

I could care less if he wasn't responsible for Bush his actions alone should prove that and that's to all republicans stop making fucking stupid books like this if you weren't a reason Bush became president how could he have won twice without support from his party trying to win with just Texis no they need to get their heads out of the clowds and deal with the issues if they want support from people not this I was Anti Bush bull crap when at one point or another they were backing him all the way

Fair enough, but people like to cast that vote and say "not my fault" when the person they voted for fucks up.  John McCain's Iraq stance was "we fucked up...wasn't my fault...here's how I'll fight the war".  He apparently didn't have enough credibility for people to buy that stance, but Ridge has more and is backing it up early by writing a book.  I'm not saying he's right or wrong...but he's either protecting his legacy (which is minimal) or planning a run for something.  I suppose it could also be the Senate against Specter in 2010 or Casey in 2012, but he could also run for Senate in 2010 AND Pres in 2012.   

[Axl4Prez2004]

Just in case:

Tom Ridge as GOP candidate for President, 2012. 

Setting himself apart from Bush with this book, moderate from a key swing state.  As nominee, he could take back PA and possibly OH, not to mention VA.  I could be wrong, as it's early (but it's earlier every cycle), but you heard it here first (erm...unless you heard it elsewhere). 

There have been a lot of "I'm not responsible for Bush" books, but only one from a former governor of a swing state.

I could care less if he wasn't responsible for Bush his actions alone should prove that and that's to all republicans stop making fucking stupid books like this if you weren't a reason Bush became president how could he have won twice without support from his party trying to win with just Texis no they need to get their heads out of the clowds and deal with the issues if they want support from people not this I was Anti Bush bull crap when at one point or another they were backing him all the way

Fair enough, but people like to cast that vote and say "not my fault" when the person they voted for fucks up.  John McCain's Iraq stance was "we fucked up...wasn't my fault...here's how I'll fight the war".  He apparently didn't have enough credibility for people to buy that stance, but Ridge has more and is backing it up early by writing a book.  I'm not saying he's right or wrong...but he's either protecting his legacy (which is minimal) or planning a run for something.  I suppose it could also be the Senate against Specter in 2010 or Casey in 2012, but he could also run for Senate in 2010 AND Pres in 2012.   

Hey Freedom, agreed.  I'd love to see the Ridge-Palin debate.  Of course the question for Ridge from the moderator would be, "In your book you wrote that you were forced by administration officials to raise the terror alert level...if you in fact felt there was no need to raise the level, why did you do it?"  Cue the big Palin grin as she listens to Ridge try to squirm out of that one.  Palin's response of course will center around how she wouldn't give in to pressures like that.  True mavericks don't give in to outside pressures.     I can't fucking wait. 

Correct me if I'm wrong though...wasn't Ridge pro-choice?  I don't remember. 

[freedom78]

Just in case:

Tom Ridge as GOP candidate for President, 2012. 

Setting himself apart from Bush with this book, moderate from a key swing state.  As nominee, he could take back PA and possibly OH, not to mention VA.  I could be wrong, as it's early (but it's earlier every cycle), but you heard it here first (erm...unless you heard it elsewhere). 

There have been a lot of "I'm not responsible for Bush" books, but only one from a former governor of a swing state.

I could care less if he wasn't responsible for Bush his actions alone should prove that and that's to all republicans stop making fucking stupid books like this if you weren't a reason Bush became president how could he have won twice without support from his party trying to win with just Texis no they need to get their heads out of the clowds and deal with the issues if they want support from people not this I was Anti Bush bull crap when at one point or another they were backing him all the way

Fair enough, but people like to cast that vote and say "not my fault" when the person they voted for fucks up.  John McCain's Iraq stance was "we fucked up...wasn't my fault...here's how I'll fight the war".  He apparently didn't have enough credibility for people to buy that stance, but Ridge has more and is backing it up early by writing a book.  I'm not saying he's right or wrong...but he's either protecting his legacy (which is minimal) or planning a run for something.  I suppose it could also be the Senate against Specter in 2010 or Casey in 2012, but he could also run for Senate in 2010 AND Pres in 2012.   

Hey Freedom, agreed.  I'd love to see the Ridge-Palin debate.  Of course the question for Ridge from the moderator would be, "In your book you wrote that you were forced by administration officials to raise the terror alert level...if you in fact felt there was no need to raise the level, why did you do it?"  Cue the big Palin grin as she listens to Ridge try to squirm out of that one.  Palin's response of course will center around how she wouldn't give in to pressures like that.  True mavericks don't give in to outside pressures.     I can't fucking wait. 

Correct me if I'm wrong though...wasn't Ridge pro-choice?  I don't remember. 

I believe Ridge is pro-choice...if he runs, he'll likely have a Mitt Romney-esque change of heart.

And I believe that, regarding this part of his book, he did NOT change the level.  If he did, it would be just too easy to hammer him.

[Jim Bob]

about health care:

The american people overwhelminling voted in a democratic majority last november.   I believe health care played a huge role here.   The American people want a democratic health care plan and they want a public option.

For the minority to expect the majority to concede to their demands is absolutely absurd.   You guys lost the election, and whats even funnier, is you've had 8 years and absolutely NO ideas on health care.   Republicans need to step aside and let us finally fix health care.  If it doesn't work, theres always 2012.

[sandman]

about health care:

The american people overwhelminling voted in a democratic majority last november.   I believe health care played a huge role here.   The American people want a democratic health care plan and they want a public option.

For the minority to expect the majority to concede to their demands is absolutely absurd.   You guys lost the election, and whats even funnier, is you've had 8 years and absolutely NO ideas on health care.   Republicans need to step aside and let us finally fix health care.  If it doesn't work, theres always 2012.

although i disagree with alot of your statements (and plenty of polls prove your statements false), i'll just point out that there is no need to talk to Republicans about health care. the Dems have the majority! talk to your own party!

[Jdog0830]

True but excuse me if I am wrong this is as big an issue for everyone!!!

[Dr. Blutarsky]

about health care:

The american people overwhelminling voted in a democratic majority last november.   I believe health care played a huge role here.   The American people want a democratic health care plan and they want a public option.

For the minority to expect the majority to concede to their demands is absolutely absurd.   You guys lost the election, and whats even funnier, is you've had 8 years and absolutely NO ideas on health care.   Republicans need to step aside and let us finally fix health care.  If it doesn't work, theres always 2012.

Too bad the current polls don't reflect this. Seen any town hall meetings lately?

[Axl4Prez2004]

One of my favorite town hall meetings was the one with Barney Frank.  Frank was incredibly articulate and displayed the patience of Job with some real fucking winners in the audience. 

When I asked a self-described independent friend of mine (who always proceeds to tell me how much he can't stand democrats  ) about whether or not he saw the Frank town hall meeting, he responded with, "No, but I heard the clip of him telling some protester she's from another planet!"  I asked him if he saw the actual town hall meeting on c-span, or just a soundbyte off of ass-hat conservative talk radio...take a guess.    He didn't realize the woman Frank directed his mocking dersion at was holding up a picture of the president defaced with a Hitler mustache.  Funny how that part of the clip isn't mentioned, eh?

[pilferk]

Too bad the current polls don't reflect this. Seen any town hall meetings lately?

See, the current polls I've seen point to confusion, rather than derision.

Most polls show that the majority of those polled are confused about exactly what's being proposed.

Most polls show that the majority is NOT in favor of the Repubs DEPICTION of what the Dems proposal is.  I'M not in favor of the distorted version, for the record (complete socialized medicine with a death board, health care rationing, and "queing" where we're all forced to use the public option).

Most polls show that the majority are happy with their healthcare option.  The thing is: To answer that question you have to HAVE a healthcare option.   And the current plan(s) proposed by the Dems wouldn't take away your option to continue to use exactly what you do right now....though that's not what the Repubs would have people believe.  And "happy" doesn't mean there isn't "room for improvement".  I'm happy with my current option.  I'd be happier if it was less expensive, offered more choices, offered lower co-pays on generic drugs, or provided a path to care that included less red tape (and this is from a guy who KNOWS how to end around the red tape, to some extent, because he works for a healthcare provider so has the benefit of that institution's help).

Look...the people voted in November of '08.  Healthcare WAS a big part of the platform.  I think the majority WANTS reform...it's just a matter of what form that reform takes.  I don't think we've got it 100% right, at this moment.  But I think we're far closer to "right" than "nothing" would be......which is where the Repubs held us for 8 years, and where they'd like us to stay, now.

[jarmo]

Apparently the president telling kids to stay in school and get an education is a bad thing....

It's like he's telling the American parents how to raise their kids! How dare he!

 




/jarmo

[tim_m]

Apparently the president telling kids to stay in school and get an education is a bad thing....

It's like he's telling the American parents how to raise their kids! How dare he!

 




/jarmo

The whole debate about this is completely ludicrous. I think the majority of it is bigotry sadly.

[D]

So i am reading if u don't get insurance u will be fined 3 thousand some odd dollars? Are u kidding me?

If I can't afford insurance, how the hell am I gonna afford the stupid fine.

Once again, that isn't a Democracy

If I don't want Health Insurance, the Govt can go fuck themselves.

[freedom78]

So i am reading if u don't get insurance u will be fined 3 thousand some odd dollars? Are u kidding me?

If I can't afford insurance, how the hell am I gonna afford the stupid fine.

Once again, that isn't a Democracy

If I don't want Health Insurance, the Govt can go fuck themselves.

That's in the one (of many) compromise bills being pushed, though it isn't supported by the Obama administration. 

I do support a fine for those who don't buy the insurance.  Conveniently enough, I think that the fine should be the same amount as purchasing insurance and, when you pay the fine, you've bought insurance.  In other words, when someone shows up uninsured and needing care, if they can't pay for it right then (which would generally apply to anything other than a routine docs visit) then they get the insurance.  Not sure that would work WITHOUT a public option, though.

RE: "Democracy"...well, I'm not sure what this has to do with democracy.  Technically we're a republic, but that's as close to democracy at the national level that you get in any country these days.

And if you don't want health insurance then YOU can go fuck yourself, as it'll be YOU who, when you inevitably break an arm or have to go to the ER or have (God forbid) to have surgery, YOU will be the one passing along the costs of what YOU can't afford to the rest of us.  Not government.  YOU.  The reason for a mandate is because this isn't just a question of personal choice and responsibility.  Your choices affect the rest of us.  It may be more clear in a case like auto insurance, where you have to be insured so that if you cause an accident the other guy doesn't get screwed.  Well, right now we have that exact same "screw the other guy" system in health insurance.  The millions of dollars of unpaid health bills aren't just eaten by docs and hospitals.  They're passed along to everyone else and, when our insurance has to pay those higher prices, we (or our employers) have to pay higher premiums as a result.  A mandate is about lowering costs for those who ARE insured by fitting into the system the 45 million who are not. 

[Smoking Guns]

Apparently the president telling kids to stay in school and get an education is a bad thing....

It's like he's telling the American parents how to raise their kids! How dare he!

 




/jarmo

I don't get it either.  All kids should get the opportunity to hear the president speak no matter if you voted for him or not.  He is the President, not the enemy.  George Bush and Ronald gave similar speeches.  This was an opprotunity some people chose to waste.

[jarmo]

Apparently the president telling kids to stay in school and get an education is a bad thing....

It's like he's telling the American parents how to raise their kids! How dare he!

 




/jarmo

I don't get it either.  All kids should get the opportunity to hear the president speak no matter if you voted for him or not.  He is the President, not the enemy.  George Bush and Ronald gave similar speeches.  This was an opprotunity some people chose to waste.

True, he's the country's elected leader. Not some dictator.


On that note, how many kids voted?   



/jarmo

[sandman]

tonight's health care address will be interesting. this is huge. he's promising specifics - this could change the debate on healthcare. it could turn out to be a defining moment of his presidency. 

as for the school speech controversy...that's just one of many ugly sides of politics. here's what happened in 1991...


On October 1, 1991, president George H.W. Bush delivered a speech to schoolchildren, almost identical to the one that President Obama is scheduled to deliver today.  Far from being accepted as a motivating message, the Democrat controlled congress immediately ordered a General Accounting Office investigation of the administration, convened extensive hearings, and summoned senior Bush officials to Capitol Hill to testify.

The Washington Post published a front-page story slamming the speech as a partisan political ploy.  "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props," the Post reported at the time.

House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt lambasted the administration: "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president."  Rep. William Ford (D-MI), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, ordered a GAO audit of the speech, and summoned Bush Education Secretary Lamar Alexander and other top Bush administration officials to testify before a House committee investigating the speech.

The audit determined that the costs for the speech totalled $26,750.  At the hearing, Ford said, "As the chairman of the committee charged with the authorization and implementation of education programs, I am very much interested in the justification, rationale for giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event."

The GAO concluded that the funds were spent appropriately.  However, that did not stop the National Education Association from denouncing the speech in the ugliest of terms, calling the speech a "staged media event" and lambasting the expenditure "while cutting school lunch funds for our neediest youngsters."

Like Democrats in 1991, GOP reaction to the Obama speech has been uniformly negative.  Jim Greer, RNC Chairman for Florida, released a statement in which he lambasts the Obama speech: "As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology."
Source: The Examiner