What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Second, we’ve estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system – a system that is currently full of waste and abuse.
Click to expand...

I've been harping about this from the start, where is this savings? How is it indentified and quantified? Vague promises of "savings" are like promising to increase somebody's income, and then giving them title to the Brooklyn Bridge. Real numbers can have a real impact on this debate.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

What a difference four years makes. Democrats used to be all about Joe Wilson calling the President a liar.

:D
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Kepler said:
What did people think of the actual substance of the speech?

For our quoting pleasure.

(I would put it up but it is 4x the max post length)
Click to expand...

I thought he got the hammer out. If it works great, if not fine, but at least he went straight at the issues and the rhetoric being put out by the mindless automatons.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Red Cloud said:
What a difference four years makes. Democrats used to be all about Joe Wilson calling the President a liar.

:D
Click to expand...

Did he yell it out during a speech on national TV? No. No one is saying that this Wilson guy did not have the right to call the President a liar. Just not in that forum for cripes sake.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

ScoobyDoo said:
Did he yell it out during a speech on national TV? No. No one is saying that this Wilson guy did not have the right to call the President a liar. Just not in that forum for cripes sake.
Click to expand...

Calm down, Biffy. Holy crap.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Whilst sipping a cup of joe this am, I knew this thread would have turned into something all about the "liar" comment.

Gabillions of dollars in debt with 10% unemployment and climbing, et al, I'd say the time for protocol is pretty much done with.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

dropthatpuck said:
Whilst sipping a cup of joe this am, I knew this thread would have turned into something all about the "liar" comment.

Gabillions of dollars in debt with 10% unemployment and climbing, et al, I'd say the time for protocol is pretty much done with.
Click to expand...

I can't wait till this happens.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5Pqhnf6XKC8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5Pqhnf6XKC8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

dropthatpuck said:
Whilst sipping a cup of joe this am, I knew this thread would have turned into something all about the "liar" comment.

Gabillions of dollars in debt with 10% unemployment and climbing, et al, I'd say the time for protocol is pretty much done with.
Click to expand...

LOL

No one ever says boo about all the money going overseas though. Let's just impeach him, after all he's a LIAR.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

When claiming that he won't sign a bill that will add to the deficit, which numbers will he use to base the decision? D's? R's? Or the CBO.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

ScottM said:
I've been harping about this from the start, where is this savings? How is it indentified and quantified? Vague promises of "savings" are like promising to increase somebody's income, and then giving them title to the Brooklyn Bridge. Real numbers can have a real impact on this debate.
Click to expand...

MinnFan said:
23) How can something that costs $900B ($2T after 13 years) after savings have been taken into account not add to the defecit? :confused:
Click to expand...

1) Savings comes from the 80Bn and 155Bn the pharma and medical industries have already pledged in the form of lower payments, reimbursements, etc. That would be approx 250bn of the approx 900bn. Beyond that, there's the tax on expensive insurance plans, as well as a penalty for not having or offering insurance. Lastly, I believe there's some other Medicare related cost savings that they're looking for.

What ought to reassure everybody is if its written into law that the savings and other steps have to cover the cost, or they have to go back and find more savings to make it deficit neutral.

2) I don't believe its 900bn after savings. I think the savings go towards that cost amount.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

The Sicatoka said:
When claiming that he won't sign a bill that will add to the deficit, which numbers will he use to base the decision? D's? R's? Or the CBO.
Click to expand...

:confused: He's not talking about adding to a projection. He's talking about when the fiscal year is over, how much of any deficit would be related to this bill? The Dems, Repubs, and CBO don't have their own estimates for what actually happened, they only have their own estimates for what might happen in the future...
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Did that change anyone's mind or opinion?

Most importantly, seeing how the D's have a majority in the House and Senate bi-partisanship is not necessary.

If he's right his party should be right there with him ram-rodding anything the party leader wants.

But wait, he's taking heat from the far left and the far right (relative term) within his own D camp.

This is where Mr. Clinton had a moment of clarity for his presidency. He found that he liked (cheap shot alert) the cigars at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and took steps to ensure he'd be there for a second term. One of those steps was to lose the ideology and move to the middle. (He even took some R notions and claimed them as his own to take ground.)

Mr. Obama seems unwilling to step away from ideology. If Mr. Obama can't keep his own party (and some days I think it should be more termed coalition because a NW Minnesota Democrat just isn't the same as a San Francisco Democrat) in step he's playing into Republican victories in 2010 and 2012.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

The Sicatoka said:
Did that change anyone's mind or opinion?

Most importantly, seeing how the D's have a majority in the House and Senate bi-partisanship is not necessary.

If he's right his party should be right there with him ram-rodding anything the party leader wants.

But wait, he's taking heat from the far left and the far right (relative term) within his own D camp.

This is where Mr. Clinton had a moment of clarity for his presidency. He found that he liked (cheap shot alert) the cigars at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and took steps to ensure he'd be there for a second term. One of those steps was to lose the ideology and move to the middle. (He even took some R notions and claimed them as his own to take ground.)

Mr. Obama seems unwilling to step away from ideology. If Mr. Obama can't keep his own party (and some days I think it should be more termed coalition because a NW Minnesota Democrat just isn't the same as a San Francisco Democrat) in step he's playing into Republican victories in 2010 and 2012.
Click to expand...

Seems to me he opened the door to all ideas and took on some Republican proposals during his speech.

The bottom line is the right doesn't want him to get this done. Why? Votes. So, their strategy is to block instead of compromise. It's apparent in their rhetoric and approach. It was talked about yesterday in the thread that the Republicans have 3 Bills out there on this and it's not being covered by the media. Well, as it was pointed out those Bills are not being promoted by the GOP either because they don't want a Bill.

Frankly I hope we just bury our head in the sand and pretend their isn't a problem so it gets worse than it already is. It would match what my State has done on every issue that has come before it since Jesse Ventura took office and now continued with Tim Pawlenty.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

dropthatpuck said:
Whilst sipping a cup of joe this am, I knew this thread would have turned into something all about the "liar" comment.

Gabillions of dollars in debt with 10% unemployment and climbing, et al, I'd say the time for protocol is pretty much done with.
Click to expand...

Funny how you are always able to find a justification for the things you loathed just a few years ago. You are the personification of modern day politics! Everything is wrong until people I support do it, then it is ok :D
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Rover said:
1) Savings comes from the 80Bn and 155Bn the pharma and medical industries have already pledged in the form of lower payments, reimbursements, etc. That would be approx 250bn of the approx 900bn. Beyond that, there's the tax on expensive insurance plans, as well as a penalty for not having or offering insurance. Lastly, I believe there's some other Medicare related cost savings that they're looking for.

What ought to reassure everybody is if its written into law that the savings and other steps have to cover the cost, or they have to go back and find more savings to make it deficit neutral.

2) I don't believe its 900bn after savings. I think the savings go towards that cost amount.
Click to expand...

No. He framed 24) in the context of "savings" based on "waste and abuse" in the existing system. Where are those numbers? Without specifics, any "savings" could be illusory and keep more people on the fence or on the other side. If they can bring out *real* numbers like "x billion" to support their proposal, they may have a real chance.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

I'd say the goal of Obama's speech was twofold:

First, to capitalize on the fact that the country trusts him far more than the minority opposition party to get this done. There was an article written about how despite all the trouble and misrepresentation, health care reform survived the August recess. How many more "death panel" lies can the GOP tell before people stop to think how ridiculous that notion is? I think we're starting to see the answer last night, with a well received speech coupled with idiotic Republican antics. Buck up public opinion and you give some comfort to your party's members about taking a potentially tough vote.

Next, he had to say what he supported and what he didn't. Again, the BIG takeaway from this speech was a provision that they have to go back and find savings if the promised ones don't materialize. That's huge. It ends the biggest real problem (as opposed to killing off old people nonsense) which was what if this ends up being more costly than thought? If that's in the law, it takes away Blue Dog opposition. It probably also gets the two Maine senators to come along too.

So, as far as changing minds, I'd say it reassured the public who really needed details, and also got both ends of the Democratic coalition focused on the goal - passing reform that covers most people within a certain cost parameter. Given the current make up of the GOP Congress (arch conservative, Southern, angry, anti-Obama) you can't expect more than a few to actually engage in bipartisan compromise. Its not worthwhile for them electorally with their base. Enough has been done to win the other side over. Now its time to cross the finish line without them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top