Vs.

[Immanuel]

Immie at least you've been specific about what concerns you. That's more useful than some of the wild claims I've been reading about. I would think if someone has specific concerns and those concerns can be shown to be unfounded then they should feel a little more relaxed about the proposed system.

The problem is that you can't show me that those concerns are unfounded, nor can I prove to you that I am right in my concerns. Congress is working on a bill that in my opinion will destroy health insurance. I can't prove that will happen until it does and you can't prove that it won't until it is too late.

Driving home today, I looked over to the side of the road and I saw a small independent health care agent and I wondered if he'd be in business in six months. The agent that handles my employers coverage, will he be in business in six months? Honestly, it appears to me that this bill as it is today will drive everyone of those independent agents to bankruptcy which means more unemployment too.

As for the one size fits all, I am a little less confident about that. I suppose if Congress had any brains... big if, I know... they could set it up so that plans varied, but looking at Social Security, I see the eventuality of all plans being the same and that won't make Americans happy either.

You and I have known each other a long time. Long enough, I suppose that you know my feelings about Abortion and maybe you even remember how I was in the old days. I'm pretty certain that the one size fits all plan we are headed for will include abortions and quite frankly that upsets me. Although, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the health insurance plan I have provides abortion services, at least it is not government mandated.

Euthanasia... even if this health care bill doesn't pan out, we're probably headed down that road one way or another in the next couple of decades regardless of which party controls Washington. That doesn't mean, I'm going to zip my lip and be happy about it.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

First of all, a) and b) is basically what Medicare does. How many covered by Medicare complain about those two? And we're generally in worse health overall than you younguns, needing more frequent and better services. The one-size-fits-all works quite well for us, thank you very much. It's not like shopping for a car. We couldn't care less if the color is red or green.

Second, you are correct that throughout the draft bills it is clear that only ELIGIBLE Americans living here LEGALLY will be covered. And lastly, federal payment for abortions is already against the law, and nowhere in the draft bills would a loophole allow abortions thereby circumventing existing law.

One size fits all may work well for you Maggie and if it does I'm glad for you. But for me, it doesn't work at least not now when I have options. If I live long enough, that may change, but for right now, I look at the fiasco of Social Security and say, "and now they want us to hand them our health care?"

This whole plan is nothing more than an attempt to rule our lives even more than they do now. I don't trust them as it is. Why would I want to give them more control? And, no, I didn't trust them under Bush either.

No loopholes for abortion? Maybe not today... just wait.

Immie

I do not for one minute think there is any kind of evil motivation like "ruling our lives" by promoting health care reform. You can distrust the government's handling of it, but I don't think any president nor any lawmaker takes on the job with an underlying hidden agenda.

 

[Annie]

Immie at least you've been specific about what concerns you. That's more useful than some of the wild claims I've been reading about. I would think if someone has specific concerns and those concerns can be shown to be unfounded then they should feel a little more relaxed about the proposed system.

The problem is that you can't show me that those concerns are unfounded, nor can I prove to you that I am right in my concerns. Congress is working on a bill that in my opinion will destroy health insurance. I can't prove that will happen until it does and you can't prove that it won't until it is too late.

Driving home today, I looked over to the side of the road and I saw a small independent health care agent and I wondered if he'd be in business in six months. The agent that handles my employers coverage, will he be in business in six months? Honestly, it appears to me that this bill as it is today will drive everyone of those independent agents to bankruptcy which means more unemployment too.

As for the one size fits all, I am a little less confident about that. I suppose if Congress had any brains... big if, I know... they could set it up so that plans varied, but looking at Social Security, I see the eventuality of all plans being the same and that won't make Americans happy either.

You and I have known each other a long time. Long enough, I suppose that you know my feelings about Abortion and maybe you even remember how I was in the old days. I'm pretty certain that the one size fits all plan we are headed for will include abortions and quite frankly that upsets me. Although, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the health insurance plan I have provides abortion services, at least it is not government mandated.

Euthanasia... even if this health care bill doesn't pan out, we're probably headed down that road one way or another in the next couple of decades regardless of which party controls Washington. That doesn't mean, I'm going to zip my lip and be happy about it.

Immie

Immie, a voice of reason. It's always an honor to discuss things with you.

You're correct in that we won't 'know' until it's done, which will be too late if wrong.

My concerns? Seems the emphasis is on 'getting it passed' with notes on how it addresses
1. preexisting conditions
2. addresses, but doesn't resolve the issues with tort reform
3. portability
4. wellness

Seems to me these basic reforms, that are add ons with the bills, should be the focus of reform of an industry, rather than the annihilation of that industry. Maybe I'm missing something here?

 

[Immanuel]

I do not for one minute think there is any kind of evil motivation like "ruling our lives" by promoting health care reform. You can distrust the government's handling of it, but I don't think any president nor any lawmaker takes on the job with an underlying hidden agenda.

I think there is and I think it has a lot to do with power.

I think Washington is as corrupt as the Millennium is long.

It really doesn't matter whether or not there is any evil motivation or underlying hidden agenda, when they control your health care, they control your life. At least in today's market, if I don't like how my health insurance company is doing business I can pack up and find a new provider. That privilege will be gone on Y1 D1.

Immie

 

[Diuretic]

Immie at least you've been specific about what concerns you. That's more useful than some of the wild claims I've been reading about. I would think if someone has specific concerns and those concerns can be shown to be unfounded then they should feel a little more relaxed about the proposed system.

The problem is that you can't show me that those concerns are unfounded, nor can I prove to you that I am right in my concerns. Congress is working on a bill that in my opinion will destroy health insurance. I can't prove that will happen until it does and you can't prove that it won't until it is too late.

Driving home today, I looked over to the side of the road and I saw a small independent health care agent and I wondered if he'd be in business in six months. The agent that handles my employers coverage, will he be in business in six months? Honestly, it appears to me that this bill as it is today will drive everyone of those independent agents to bankruptcy which means more unemployment too.

As for the one size fits all, I am a little less confident about that. I suppose if Congress had any brains... big if, I know... they could set it up so that plans varied, but looking at Social Security, I see the eventuality of all plans being the same and that won't make Americans happy either.

You and I have known each other a long time. Long enough, I suppose that you know my feelings about Abortion and maybe you even remember how I was in the old days. I'm pretty certain that the one size fits all plan we are headed for will include abortions and quite frankly that upsets me. Although, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the health insurance plan I have provides abortion services, at least it is not government mandated.

Euthanasia... even if this health care bill doesn't pan out, we're probably headed down that road one way or another in the next couple of decades regardless of which party controls Washington. That doesn't mean, I'm going to zip my lip and be happy about it.

Immie

We're all in the same boat when it comes to our legislators. Most of us just let them get on with it, perhaps follow some of the legislation on its passages through the legislature by reading the media, few of us have the time, the inclination or the ability (even legislators have lawyers draft their legislation for them) to understand the legislation in detail. We take them on trust, knowing that if they cross us we can throw them out at the next election.

I think the focus on health insurance is somewhat misplaced though. It seems to me that discussing health insurance is not the point, the point is the delivery of health care and how it should be funded.

Health insurance is one option, there are others and those options might be canvassed in the proposed legislation. It is entirely possible that the health insurance industry, as you point out, is going to suffer a loss in business, in profits. It's perfectly reasonable for them to lobby to keep the system as it is because it's in their interests. What's not reasonable is the misinformation campaigns that are being waged by health insurance interests (and I included legislators who are being lobbied) which are aimed at clouding the debate by using fear tactics. I look at the more wild claims and think to myself, I'd be crapping my pants if I thought those things were actually going to happen. But then I look for evidence and it's pretty light on. At least I have a copy of the bill (thank you to the poster) to have a read.

On the specifics, abortion and euthanasia, yes, they have to be closely examined and the facts identified and if people are uncomfortable with those facts then they should get out and lobby and vote to change things.

 

[Immanuel]

We're all in the same boat when it comes to our legislators. Most of us just let them get on with it, perhaps follow some of the legislation on its passages through the legislature by reading the media, few of us have the time, the inclination or the ability (even legislators have lawyers draft their legislation for them) to understand the legislation in detail. We take them on trust, knowing that if they cross us we can throw them out at the next election.

I think the focus on health insurance is somewhat misplaced though. It seems to me that discussing health insurance is not the point, the point is the delivery of health care and how it should be funded.

Health insurance is one option, there are others and those options might be canvassed in the proposed legislation. It is entirely possible that the health insurance industry, as you point out, is going to suffer a loss in business, in profits. It's perfectly reasonable for them to lobby to keep the system as it is because it's in their interests. What's not reasonable is the misinformation campaigns that are being waged by health insurance interests (and I included legislators who are being lobbied) which are aimed at clouding the debate by using fear tactics. I look at the more wild claims and think to myself, I'd be crapping my pants if I thought those things were actually going to happen. But then I look for evidence and it's pretty light on. At least I have a copy of the bill (thank you to the poster) to have a read.

On the specifics, abortion and euthanasia, yes, they have to be closely examined and the facts identified and if people are uncomfortable with those facts then they should get out and lobby and vote to change things.

Unfortunately, our legislatures don't really give a rat's rear end what we think. They know that they pretty much have to really screw up to lose the next election. By screwing up, they pretty much need to be caught standing over the body of a lover with a smoking gun in their hands and a camera showing them pulling the trigger. Other than that, they are set for life. Otherwise, an incumbent is there to stay for as long as they want the job.

For people like you and me, lobbying against certain issues is pointless because there is always someone on the other side with more money and power than we've got.

So basically this entire discussion is a lesson in futility, but hey, it makes me feel better to say something, and believe me... when it pans out... I'm going to make sure and tell MaggieMae, "I told you so!"

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

I do not for one minute think there is any kind of evil motivation like "ruling our lives" by promoting health care reform. You can distrust the government's handling of it, but I don't think any president nor any lawmaker takes on the job with an underlying hidden agenda.

I think there is and I think it has a lot to do with power.

I think Washington is as corrupt as the Millennium is long.

It really doesn't matter whether or not there is any evil motivation or underlying hidden agenda, when they control your health care, they control your life. At least in today's market, if I don't like how my health insurance company is doing business I can pack up and find a new provider. That privilege will be gone on Y1 D1.

Immie

I don't think a rookie lawmaker starts out as corrupt; for one thing, where's the money in it? I also don't think they would recognize it if they are being corrupted until they've been around a while. Thereafter, if they choose to go with the flow, they will become systemic politicians who know how to play the game. But I still don't believe Congress is inherently corrupt. The federal government's administration is simply too big, and by that I mean in sheer numbers. There are so many agencies and sub-agencies employing people duplicating and often quadruplicating the effort, each by its own behemoth set of rules, that it will take nothing short of a bolt of lightening to shock it back to life in order to be a workable piece of machinery.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This current health care "reform" that supposedly will allow people to keep any insurance they already have is a sham.

yes your plan might be grandfathered in but if there are any and I do mean any changes in the terms of your current plan 30 days before the bill is passed, your current plan that you are supposed to be able to keep can be deemed unacceptable by the government.

furthermore, you will have to prove that you had an acceptable plan when you file your taxes. if your plan is deemed unacceptable for any or all of the previous year, you will have an additional tax levied on you of 2.5% of your AGI

so much for promoting competition and freedom of choice in health care.

personally this is ALL I need to know to oppose the bill and I found this in the first 200 pages

 

[MaggieMae]

Immie at least you've been specific about what concerns you. That's more useful than some of the wild claims I've been reading about. I would think if someone has specific concerns and those concerns can be shown to be unfounded then they should feel a little more relaxed about the proposed system.

The problem is that you can't show me that those concerns are unfounded, nor can I prove to you that I am right in my concerns. Congress is working on a bill that in my opinion will destroy health insurance. I can't prove that will happen until it does and you can't prove that it won't until it is too late.

Driving home today, I looked over to the side of the road and I saw a small independent health care agent and I wondered if he'd be in business in six months. The agent that handles my employers coverage, will he be in business in six months? Honestly, it appears to me that this bill as it is today will drive everyone of those independent agents to bankruptcy which means more unemployment too.

As for the one size fits all, I am a little less confident about that. I suppose if Congress had any brains... big if, I know... they could set it up so that plans varied, but looking at Social Security, I see the eventuality of all plans being the same and that won't make Americans happy either.

You and I have known each other a long time. Long enough, I suppose that you know my feelings about Abortion and maybe you even remember how I was in the old days. I'm pretty certain that the one size fits all plan we are headed for will include abortions and quite frankly that upsets me. Although, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the health insurance plan I have provides abortion services, at least it is not government mandated.

Euthanasia... even if this health care bill doesn't pan out, we're probably headed down that road one way or another in the next couple of decades regardless of which party controls Washington. That doesn't mean, I'm going to zip my lip and be happy about it.

Immie

We're all in the same boat when it comes to our legislators. Most of us just let them get on with it, perhaps follow some of the legislation on its passages through the legislature by reading the media, few of us have the time, the inclination or the ability (even legislators have lawyers draft their legislation for them) to understand the legislation in detail. We take them on trust, knowing that if they cross us we can throw them out at the next election.

I think the focus on health insurance is somewhat misplaced though. It seems to me that discussing health insurance is not the point, the point is the delivery of health care and how it should be funded.

Health insurance is one option, there are others and those options might be canvassed in the proposed legislation. It is entirely possible that the health insurance industry, as you point out, is going to suffer a loss in business, in profits. It's perfectly reasonable for them to lobby to keep the system as it is because it's in their interests. What's not reasonable is the misinformation campaigns that are being waged by health insurance interests (and I included legislators who are being lobbied) which are aimed at clouding the debate by using fear tactics. I look at the more wild claims and think to myself, I'd be crapping my pants if I thought those things were actually going to happen. But then I look for evidence and it's pretty light on. At least I have a copy of the bill (thank you to the poster) to have a read.

On the specifics, abortion and euthanasia, yes, they have to be closely examined and the facts identified and if people are uncomfortable with those facts then they should get out and lobby and vote to change things.

But those two are NOT there!!! Not even close. Good Lord, when the rationale and then the discussion becomes ALL a "what-if" theme, then nothing at all would ever get done!! I mean "what if" sometime down the line a bill gets passed that provides for the elimination of everyone over 50 (who would then become the highest 'eligible' age)?! (Soylent Green...) WHAT IF is a game that can be played sitting around campfires on Halloween night!!! Enough of the WHAT IF FEARMONGERING!!

 

[Immanuel]

I don't think a rookie lawmaker starts out as corrupt; for one thing, where's the money in it? I also don't think they would recognize it if they are being corrupted until they've been around a while. Thereafter, if they choose to go with the flow, they will become systemic politicians who know how to play the game.

I agree with you here. I think most if not all lawmakers start out wanting to do what is best for the country. Unfortunately, I think when they get to Washington, they very quickly realize that they can't do it alone and someone comes along and offers help for this in return for that and the ball has begun to roll downhill and there is no stopping it from this point forward.

But I still don't believe Congress is inherently corrupt.

Here is where we disagree. Congress is inherently corrupt. A few individuals may hold off the corruption for a short time, but if they are going to stay, they have to play the game and playing the game brings along with it, corruption.

The federal government's administration is simply too big, and by that I mean in sheer numbers. There are so many agencies and sub-agencies employing people duplicating and often quadruplicating the effort, each by its own behemoth set of rules, that it will take nothing short of a bolt of lightening to shock it back to life in order to be a workable piece of machinery.

One quick question here: So why are you advocating adding one more agency with how many sub-agencies that will go along with it?

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

We're all in the same boat when it comes to our legislators. Most of us just let them get on with it, perhaps follow some of the legislation on its passages through the legislature by reading the media, few of us have the time, the inclination or the ability (even legislators have lawyers draft their legislation for them) to understand the legislation in detail. We take them on trust, knowing that if they cross us we can throw them out at the next election.

I think the focus on health insurance is somewhat misplaced though. It seems to me that discussing health insurance is not the point, the point is the delivery of health care and how it should be funded.

Health insurance is one option, there are others and those options might be canvassed in the proposed legislation. It is entirely possible that the health insurance industry, as you point out, is going to suffer a loss in business, in profits. It's perfectly reasonable for them to lobby to keep the system as it is because it's in their interests. What's not reasonable is the misinformation campaigns that are being waged by health insurance interests (and I included legislators who are being lobbied) which are aimed at clouding the debate by using fear tactics. I look at the more wild claims and think to myself, I'd be crapping my pants if I thought those things were actually going to happen. But then I look for evidence and it's pretty light on. At least I have a copy of the bill (thank you to the poster) to have a read.

On the specifics, abortion and euthanasia, yes, they have to be closely examined and the facts identified and if people are uncomfortable with those facts then they should get out and lobby and vote to change things.

Unfortunately, our legislatures don't really give a rat's rear end what we think. They know that they pretty much have to really screw up to lose the next election. By screwing up, they pretty much need to be caught standing over the body of a lover with a smoking gun in their hands and a camera showing them pulling the trigger. Other than that, they are set for life. Otherwise, an incumbent is there to stay for as long as they want the job.

For people like you and me, lobbying against certain issues is pointless because there is always someone on the other side with more money and power than we've got.

So basically this entire discussion is a lesson in futility, but hey, it makes me feel better to say something, and believe me... when it pans out... I'm going to make sure and tell MaggieMae, "I told you so!"

Immie

That is so not true. How many high-profile Republicans lost their bid for reelection in 2006, 2008? How many Democrats lost in 1994? Incumbent Representatives are far more vulnerable than Senators who have a full six years to prove their worth. You'll find far more in the Senate who get smug about their reelection, but very few get nervous because they've had their pants down.

And speaking of being smug, I wouldn't suggest too loudly that the group with the most money will 'win' this thing, because the lobbying is much harder AGAINST health care reform, as we are presently seeing come through on our television sets. When you have major lobbying institutions like the US Chamber of Commerce against it, their clout is much stronger than the health care advocacy groups like AARP, which doesn't have such a long reach.

 

[MaggieMae]

I don't think a rookie lawmaker starts out as corrupt; for one thing, where's the money in it? I also don't think they would recognize it if they are being corrupted until they've been around a while. Thereafter, if they choose to go with the flow, they will become systemic politicians who know how to play the game.

I agree with you here. I think most if not all lawmakers start out wanting to do what is best for the country. Unfortunately, I think when they get to Washington, they very quickly realize that they can't do it alone and someone comes along and offers help for this in return for that and the ball has begun to roll downhill and there is no stopping it from this point forward.

But I still don't believe Congress is inherently corrupt.

Here is where we disagree. Congress is inherently corrupt. A few individuals may hold off the corruption for a short time, but if they are going to stay, they have to play the game and playing the game brings along with it, corruption.

The federal government's administration is simply too big, and by that I mean in sheer numbers. There are so many agencies and sub-agencies employing people duplicating and often quadruplicating the effort, each by its own behemoth set of rules, that it will take nothing short of a bolt of lightening to shock it back to life in order to be a workable piece of machinery.

One quick question here: So why are you advocating adding one more agency with how many sub-agencies that will go along with it?

Immie

Because done correctly, an umbrella organization would administer all, instead of separate tentacles. I'd much rather just make the pie myself than have two daughters and four nieces in the kitchen each adding spices. The original design for the Department of Homeland Security was supposed to create a parent organization and syphon off all the sub-agencies that were duplications. But instead, they all just changed their letterhead.

 

[Annie]

Because done correctly, an umbrella organization would administer all, instead of separate tentacles. I'd much rather just make the pie myself than have two daughters and four nieces in the kitchen each adding spices. The original design for the Department of Homeland Security was supposed to create a parent organization and syphon off all the sub-agencies that were duplications. But instead, they all just changed their letterhead.

and that is the way government works. Now, put THAT in charge of your health care. Not me, if I can help it.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Euthanasia is definitely not part of the current bill.

It takes the common practice of consulting individuals and families about their options in various health crisis or terminal illness and allows Doctors to be compensated. If anyone has been in the situation in recent years they have gone through the consultation. I have with close relatives.
The decisions do not lie with the Doctors but with the family and the individual. It is why it is advisable for all to have a living will so the decision is not put on the family.

The problem is almost the opposite of Euthanasia. Today's medical science allows us keep individuals alive with machines etc. for an indefinite period. The question is quality of life.
This is a serious medicl ethics question we all must participate in.

The answer is to make that decision yourself through a living will.

As medical science advances they will be able to keep us all alive indefinitely. But if we are a vegetable laying in a bed, is that right. If they pull the plug in that situation, is that euthanasia. I say absolutely not. But it must be an individual decision.

 

[Immanuel]

Unfortunately, our legislatures don't really give a rat's rear end what we think. They know that they pretty much have to really screw up to lose the next election. By screwing up, they pretty much need to be caught standing over the body of a lover with a smoking gun in their hands and a camera showing them pulling the trigger. Other than that, they are set for life. Otherwise, an incumbent is there to stay for as long as they want the job.

For people like you and me, lobbying against certain issues is pointless because there is always someone on the other side with more money and power than we've got.

So basically this entire discussion is a lesson in futility, but hey, it makes me feel better to say something, and believe me... when it pans out... I'm going to make sure and tell MaggieMae, "I told you so!"

Immie

That is so not true. How many high-profile Republicans lost their bid for reelection in 2006, 2008? How many Democrats lost in 1994? Incumbent Representatives are far more vulnerable than Senators who have a full six years to prove their worth. You'll find far more in the Senate who get smug about their reelection, but very few get nervous because they've had their pants down.

But it is true. Those Republicans screwed up. People were pissed about another war that has no end that they put us into. Honestly, not enough of them lost there seats if you ask me.

And in fact, the issue with 1994, 2006 & 2008 was that people wanted change during those times and those who lost their seats refused to change. That was a major screw up.

Okay! I'm stretching that a bit, but really had those legislators been paying attention to Americans they would have kept their seats. They didn't pay attention and they went home.

This Congress isn't paying attention either... who knows, maybe some high profile Democrats will be going home in 2010. Buh Bye Nancy! Well, I can dream can't I?

And speaking of being smug, I wouldn't suggest too loudly that the group with the most money will 'win' this thing, because the lobbying is much harder AGAINST health care reform, as we are presently seeing come through on our television sets. When you have major lobbying institutions like the US Chamber of Commerce against it, their clout is much stronger than the health care advocacy groups like AARP, which doesn't have such a long reach.

As I said, this is a lesson in futility. They are not listening to America. This is a done deal. It is all over but putting the frosting on the cake. We're going to like it whether we like it or not!

Whoops, I mean we're going to get it whether we like it or not.

Immie

 

[Liability]

You're right too...Obama would like to see universal care, but he knows it's a pipedream. So ironically, he went with the next best thing--health insurance for everyone--which has been proposed by REPUBLICANS in the past. The problem, of course, is that in order to fine tune even that much smaller version takes a few pages to construct. After all, the last Harry Potter book was 700 pages long.

Bull. He only very recently altered his rhetoric. He STARTED by talking about Universal Health Care. When he discovered that the American people are less than thrilled with his utopian vision of nirvana, however, he did not alter his goals. He ONLY altered the way he communicates it. In other words, he lies.

HE now pretends that he is seeking a change in health insurance policy. But he is still seeking universal health care.

His vision is absurd and dangerous.

A problem that has been plaguing Americans AND Congress AND every president for the last 60 years is an absurd and dangerous vision? Sir--that is called bullshit, not mine.

And you couldn't be more WRONG about the mood of Americans for universal health care. Obama didn't change direction because the people changed direction. He was being realistic and knew the a "universal" plan was too big an undertaking in these precarious economic times.

This link takes you back many months, and a few years, so you can see for yourself. There are rather interesting questions among some of these polls, such as "Would you be willing to have your taxes raised so that all Americans could afford good health care?" Overwhelmingly, the majority say YES.

Health Policy (2)

Also check all the questions posed by the extensive Kaiser Family Foundation in July. Scroll down in this link about 3/4 of the way to find it.

Health Policy

But hey, if all I was ever exposed to was right wing propaganda, I would believe exactly as you do.

The bull fecal deposits are all yours, Mags.

The "problem" allegedly plaguing us for years and years is NOT the same thing as the METHOD BY WHICH President OBama and his fellow Marxist ideologues intend to deal with that alleged problem.

You accept as "truth" left wing propaganda and you brook no deviation from that orthodoxy. If the rest of us were as close-minded as you, hey, we'd all believe exactly as you do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But your meaningless opening salvo contributes nothing whatsoever.

It is fear mongering and you know it. If you preface your discussions with words like "Obamacare, Socailism, death boards, etc", what else would you call it?

And if you only focus your responses on those things, and utterly ignore anyone who is reasonably presenting their concerns, what are YOU doing?

 

[VaYank5150]

And if you only focus your responses on those things, and utterly ignore anyone who is reasonably presenting their concerns, what are YOU doing?

I LOVE to debate on facts. Please give me just ONE example from this board of a "reasonable concern".

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Obama is doing EXACTLY what he said he was going to do - like it or not.

I don't agree with him 100%, but during the campaign they tried very hard to get him to say that he would delay action on healthcare if the economy was still bad. He steadfastly refused. He said healthcare reform is too important to wait.

You may not like it - but he is doing EXACTLY what he said he would. Any suggestion to the contrary simply shows that someone just wasn't paying attention.

No one is saying he isn't doing what he said he would do with respect to healthcare. What they are saying is the COUNTRY DOESN'T HAVE A POT TO PISS IN OR A WINDOW TO THROW IT OUT OF. Now Obama proposes another 1.5 trillion dollar boondoggle when he can't even get the Medicare/Medicaid fraud problem under control.

and......just in case you were wondering...YOU will be paying for whatever healthcare bill comes up...not only those making $250k a year or more.

 

[nodoginnafight]

No one is saying he isn't doing what he said he would do with respect to healthcare.

Really?

Bull. He only very recently altered his rhetoric. He STARTED by talking about Universal Health Care. When he discovered that the American people are less than thrilled with his utopian vision of nirvana, however, he did not alter his goals. He ONLY altered the way he communicates it. In other words, he lies.