Obama Has Failed

[Kohster]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...rhaul

»WASHINGTON – Bowing to Republican pressure and an uneasy public, President Barack Obama's administration signaled Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system.

[480sx]

How is this a failure? I guess........ Stay the course makes more sense to you?

A noteworthy failure would have been if he kept pushing it, got it through, and it effed this country up more.. But all he did was talk it over for a LONG time, and decided against it(REALLY?!?!?! ). Thats called leadership and being a man IMO. Everyone 'fails'. Its how you deal with failure, and on what scale your failure effects the people around you that matters.

For BO, his 'failure' is going to get him blasted for being a flip flopper.


Modified by 480sx at 5:39 PM 8/17/2009

[bobotech]

For BO, his 'failure' is going to get him blasted for being a flip flopper.

I am not a flip flopper.

[AZhitman]

His "failure" was even considering it in the first place.

It's unfortunate that he needed a bunch of capitalist Republicans who fully comprehend the free market to educate him fully on why this was a dumb idea.

The bottom line is, even a state-run insurer is going to require payment of premiums... and if those people were willing to pay for insurance in the first place, there's most likely already a private company that WOULD insure them.

You don't just get it for free. Anyone who thought that is simply stupid - and insurance don't fix stupid.

[AZhitman]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, called the proposal to make government insurance available to many Americans "the best option to lower costs, improve the quality of health care, ensure choice and expand coverage."

In her statement Monday, Pelosi reminded Obama that he'd long endorsed the so-called public option.

"As the president stated in March, 'The thinking on the public option has been that it gives consumers more choices and it helps keep the private sector honest, because there's some competition out there,' " she said.

"We agree with the president that a public option will keep insurance companies honest and increase competition."

BO needs to put a leash on that beeyotch.

[srellim234]

Personally I think the whole program may wind up being reinstituted and voted through.

The GOP has made it clear that they have no intention of voting for ANYTHING. The President still talks about "bipartisanship," but you cant have a bipartisan bill if one side has absolutely no interest in compromise or bipartisanship.

Currently, too many senators (both Republican AND Democrat) have been bought off by the big companies to support any true healthcare reform. That said, I think that once everyone comes to terms with the fact that there is no "bipartisan" possibility, the Democrats will finally just shove through a bill, complete with a public option, sometime around the end of the year.

I think the Dems will finally realize that they have to pass it to get reelected. They have the majority in Congress + the White House and if they can't get something done under those circumstances, the voters will be done with them.

Agree with what they did or not, the Republican track record has always been, "We're going to ram it down your throats and we don't care WHAT you think!" The Democrats are going to have to finally operate the same way or they're done.

[AZhitman]

Well, I don't necessarily agree with that last broad generalization... The GOP believes in staying the hell out of the free market and letting it regulate itself.

However, to pursue bipartisanship JUST for the sake of bipartisanship is silly. If something is diametrically opposed to what a faction stands for, and goes against everything they believe in, why SHOULD they vote for it?

[marlin29311]

I don't understand why we can't just build government run clinics for all the uninsured people to go to, and leave all the regular hospitals to the people with private insurance...I mean, we were ready to dump nearly a trillion dollars on the reform, why not throw up some new buildings with gov doctors and such?

[480sx]

AGREED.

[EazyBreazy]

Marlin,

The feasability of something like that depends on how capable these clinics are. Are they built to handle trauma and staffed with multiple surgeons on each shift, or are they supposed to be more along the lines of a regular doctors office that people generally go to when sick and only open during normal business times? They have health departments here you can go to, the line is ridiculously long, but they can do everything a regular doctor can.

[marlin29311]

I understand what you're saying. My point was just an idea...I mean, like i said, we're all ready in Washington to go and dump billions on something...it could be better diverted into something else. My idea is just infantile...just an idea. But it certianly seems like something that would be much better received by the public than completley flipping the insurance industry...

[AZhitman]

Consider for a moment that you own an insurance company. You've worked hard as hell, for decades, to amass a "book of business", and you're finally becoming profitable.

The "gubmint" decides to throw their hat in the ring and compete with you, providing health insurance to millions of Americans.

Ordinarily, competition is good - You, as a Capitalist, welcome this.

However, how do you know that the competition doesn't get a "leg up" through various legislative decisions? How do you compete with their obvious advantages? How do you know that their regulatory burdens are fair and equitable? What levels the playing field?

Too many questions that can't be answered by our current Administration. Instead, we have people like Pelosi saying, "Don't worry about it, it will work, and it's the RIGHT thing to do."

To all you Dems: Keep in mind, you opposed this line of thinking when we invaded Iraq. This is no different.

[AZhitman]

the Republican track record has always been, "We're going to ram it down your throats and we don't care WHAT you think!"

Your crystal ball is functioning well:

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., becomes the latest to issue a statement of support for the public option...

He says: "When Congress returns in September, the misinformation and anger of a hot summer will subside – and we will continue to move forward. In fact, we will pick up exactly where we left off. There will be a good bill on the floor. There will be a spirited debate with ample opportunity for all ideas and perspectives to be heard. But we will get this done. And we will pass comprehensive reform this year.”

In other words, "...we'll listen to the naysayers. But we're till going to do it our way, despite public opinion and the advisement of experts in the field."

[themadscientist]

And the chosen one continues to deliver. Radical, liar, inexperienced, clueless, and now I can add to the list, pussey.

If he truly believed in the issue of public option he should be willing to fight tooth an nail for it. I wanted it discussed, but Barry is too concerned with his personal pursuits to wade into the discussion. maybe if we let him bring his teleprompter and give him limitless do-overs when his true ineptitude crops up he would be willing.

[hannibal]

Time out!

Are you really saying he shouldnt compromise? That the only way this can be good is if Obama "wins" by getting his views on health care passed into law? If he omits the public option he loses, and we still lose? Or do you think the public option should go, as he's finally condisering? Or is the whole idea of HC reform just a leftist idea?

I dont get it. Whats the best case scenario on HC for you guys? Do nothing and spend two weeks at Camp David?

[themadscientist]

What the left-wing talkers and a lot of people who want this bill to succeed can't understand about the opposition is this; It's not the idea of taking care of people that is being rejected. Nobody is going to bat for denying people care, that's a red herring and any thinking person can see through that bulls***. The problem is, when a group with a history of seeking to erode personal freedoms and accumulating more power for themselves says "let us take care of you" a wise man looks to see what they are hiding. Obama, Pelosi, Reed, and their ilk don't care about us, they have demonstrated this. They care about themselves. With that in mind it behooves us to probe for the angle, the dodge, the true motivations for their feigned benevolence.

Is health care f***ed up? You're damned right it is. We need to shake it up and see where there is waste and unfairness and I am 100% behind looking seriously at it and making corrections. And unlike the backpedaling president, I AM FOR A PUBLIC OPTION. Yes, I am for a public OPTION, not what I see in the current house bill where they create a cutoff date and then award themselves the unchecked power to determine what an acceptable plan is. That isn't an option, that is a mechanism for expansion. We have dealt with this system for decades, why suddenly must we "get this done immediately"?

I'll tell you why. Just like the stimulus bill, just like cap and trade, they want to flash it by you like an illusionist when he is trying to deceive an audience. If you don't have time to read the fine print you can't see where they buried the meat of their intentions. I don't know about you, but when I have a contract pushed across the table at me I read that mofo and I start at the bottom, with the 4-point font small s*** because it's last and it's small for a reason, and not because the huckster trying to sell you that Yugo is trying to save the rainforest.

Let's talk about overhauling health care but lets really look at it, like a doctor would. Test the system, see where their is inequity, follow the trail of waste, and then prescribe a treatment. Let's make the insurance companies explain their tactics; that should be fun. And let's drag the pharmaceutical companies in alongside them. Nobody talks about the drug companies, why? Obama loves to demonize the insurance companies, and it is fair, but nobody even whispers about the insane cost of medications, why? Draw your own conclusion...

http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...d=H04

[Kohster]

http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...d=K02

[AZhitman]

Time out!

Are you really saying he shouldnt compromise?

Chris Dodd is.

Go be pissed at him.

[AZhitman]

...and now, apparently Slobberin' Barney is an expert?

NOTE: Barney Frank lambasts the Prez for being flexible on health care reform... Go be pissed at him as well.

http://www.bostonherald.com/ne...ion=0

[Kohster]

LOL @ the woman who was called a dining room table.

[hannibal]

^ that is just stupid. Lost some respect for Frank with that comment.

In that Boston Herald link that Greg posted, the lady's question at 1:31 is a great question. Frank's response seems legit in explaining how this could work. His response to the guy's question is legit as well.

I havent read the bill, and its prolly the best way to learn what's truly being considered and whats just rumor.

I support a public option as a means to provide lower cost HC. Those who distrust the government's ability to run this program can choose (or maintain) private insurance. Those who cannot afford private insurance can choose the public option or simply continue to have no coverage. I feel the necessary benefit of this whole reform idea is that health insurance becomes more affordable. If this reform leads to more affordable insurance from private companies as well, then we are moving in the right direction.

I like Barney's comment about the public option not being a profit seeking endeavor like private insurance companies are. If the ability of health care companies to earn profits was limited AND led to lower costs of care, I would support that.

I doubt Frank is an expert on health care, but I'm sure he is familiar with the bill.

In short, I think a public option is less important than reducing the cost of receiving medical treatment. I havent seen much debate on how costs could be lowered, other than implementing public plans which could force private insurers to compete with a "non profit" enterprise.

I wonder how many people would switch from a private insurer to gov't provided insurance if it was available.

[AZhitman]

If the ability of health care companies to earn profits was limited AND led to lower costs of care, I would support that.

Simply Un-American.

Think. The government should have a say in the profitability of a private corporation?

Shouldn't this then extend to, say. auto and homeowner's insurance? There's people out there who can't afford those either...

If YOUR FAMILY owned an insurance company, you'd want the government telling you how profitable it can be?

In short, I think a public option is less important than reducing the cost of receiving medical treatment.

Agreed 100%. However, blame the attorneys, not the insurers.

I know for a fact that my family has incurred costs WELL over a million dollars to our health care insurance company. We'll NEVER pay that much in premiums. We were quite fortunate, but that was by design - I chose to forego a higher-salaried job early on, and selected one with better benefits.

I havent seen much debate on how costs could be lowered, other than implementing public plans which could force private insurers to compete with a "non profit" enterprise.

The word "force" just reeks of government meddling in the free market system, which takes us one step closer to socialism. The end does NOT justify the means.

How about these ideas for lowering costs: How about easing some of the restrictions on insurers? Offering incentives for them to cover the indigent? Providing assistance to the uninsured by easing their tax burden? Limiting frivolous lawsuits? Holding people accountable for their stupid behaviors?

The biggest question of them all:

WHERE does the money come from to RUN this "non-profit" insurer? From premiums? HA! You think the indigent and the working poor can pay big premiums?

Let me make it worse: Keep in mind, the "non-profit" insurer WILL be covering those who STATISTICALLY are the biggest risk. The working poor smoke more, drink more, work in more dangerous professions, don't exercise as much, don't eat right, tend to have more children, live in higher-crime areas, engage in more high-risk behaviors... the list goes on and on and on.

[Kohster]

[telcoman]

Your crystal ball is functioning well:

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., becomes the latest to issue a statement of support for the public option...

He says: "When Congress returns in September, the misinformation and anger of a hot summer will subside – and we will continue to move forward. In fact, we will pick up exactly where we left off. There will be a good bill on the floor. There will be a spirited debate with ample opportunity for all ideas and perspectives to be heard. But we will get this done. And we will pass comprehensive reform this year.”

In other words, "...we'll listen to the naysayers. But we're till going to do it our way, despite public opinion and the advisement of experts in the field."

Greg

Well two experts that recently spoke out on this issue, President Clinton and Howard Dean make a lot of sense and disagree with your opinion.

(Perhaps you missed that on the news)?

Most of the 53% of Americans who voted last November would disagree with you.Do you expect anyone who voted for President Obama is going to believe the same wacko's, wingnuts, teabaggers and other unintelligent people showing up with guns, shouting and otherwise disrupting town hall meetings?

I certainly dont!

The democrats should just ignore the wacko's step over the republican minority and push healcare reform and the public option into law.We're seeing the same people (closet racists) who preached Obama hung out with terrorists, was not born in the USA and had a questionable minister. Look at the old news clips of the civil rights marches and refusals to allow Blacks to vote or go to public schools and colleges and the people then look the same as the ones disrupting the healthcare town hall meetings.The death panel clause as explained by the GOP is total BS.

The party of no in my opinion is going to die out. The sooner the better for the United States.

Just my $.02

Telcoman

[srellim234]

AZ- I also think that hypocrites like Palin and Grassley need to be condemned and called out for their lies and interfering in private affairs. Pure political opportunism.

http://dissentingjustice.blogs....html

I'm looking for someone on the conservative side to condemn their own whack-jobs instead of just going after the lefties.

Same thing goes the other way. I'm not hearing a lot from the liberals condemning Lyndon LaRouche for his involvement in portraying Obama as Hitler, complete with supplying some of those posters outside of town halls. The lefties are only blaming it on the right.

[audtatious]

I stopped reading when you stated Clinton and Dean were experts.

[AZhitman]

two experts ... President Clinton... Howard Dean

Ummm, sure Howie. Experts to you.

Then again, anyone who agrees with you is an "expert".

Neither is an expert on healthcare reform. Sorry.

wacko'swingnutsteabaggersunintelligent peoplecloset racists

In other words, anyone who doesn't agree with you?

Your contribution, as usual, is useless and emotion-based.

Take your namecalling and broad, unsupported generalizations elsewhere.

Or, you can stick around and respond on a point-by-point basis to the arguments presented above.

[telcoman]

I stopped reading when you stated Clinton and Dean were experts.

OK here is another group of experts that you are sure to approve of.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...-plan/

They are part of the problem

[audtatious]

AZ- I also think that hypocrites like Palin and Grassley need to be condemned and called out for their lies and interfering in private affairs. Pure political opportunism.

http://dissentingjustice.blogs....html

I'm looking for someone on the conservative side to condemn their own whack-jobs instead of just going after the lefties.

Same thing goes the other way. I'm not hearing a lot from the liberals condemning Lyndon LaRouche for his involvement in portraying Obama as Hitler, complete with supplying some of those posters outside of town halls. The lefties are only blaming it on the right.

http://online.wsj.com/article/....html

" The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion." - Palin

Other than using "Death Panel", which is over the top, I don't have an issue with her concern and there is no proof that she is wrong. Those working on the House bill said they took those sections out of the bill so I must assume there were sections of the bill which setup "panels" to discuss death with elderly and such. I don't have time to look up the verbage at this moment so I could be wrong.....

[AZhitman]

AZ- I also think that.....

That's wonderful, but we're talking about health care reform here. New thread plz?

I'm looking for someone on the conservative side to condemn their own whack-jobs instead of just going after the lefties.

No need. They're not in power, nor are they trying to force an ill-advised and poorly thought-out agenda down our throats with a fake sense of urgency.