The hate for Obama

Overheal

irish_bob wrote: »

your forced to cough up for two major wars , have you any say in that

/pulls out paystub

"Gross Pay"...."Social Security"....."Medicare"....."Fed Tax"..."State Tax"....nnnn-WAIT-.....no. No "Two Foreign Wars" deduct from my paycheque.

Manic Moran

irish_bob wrote: »

your forced to cough up for two major wars , have you any say in that

At least that is explicitly within the remit of the Federal Government per the Constitution. I see nothing in the Constitution about the Federal Government being in any way responsible for the provision of healthcare.

If a socialised healthcare system is required, it can be implemented on a State by State basis, just like pretty much any other program, be it the dole or education. That way the people in Maryland can have their socialised system, and the people in Montana don't need to pay for it.

NTM

snow scorpion

Manic Moran wrote: »

At least that is explicitly within the remit of the Federal Government per the Constitution. I see nothing in the Constitution about the Federal Government being in any way responsible for the provision of healthcare.

Bill O'Reilly was discussing this on TV tonight with lawyers Megyn Kelly and Liz Wheil. They said that the commerce clause of Article 1 will be the basis for arguing that the federal government can compel American citizens to buy health insurance.

Wheil says the argument holds water; Kelly said it will take "days and weeks" of research to get the answer, and O'Reilly said it sounds unconstitutional to him.

LostinKildare

Overheal wrote: »

/pulls out paystub

"Gross Pay"...."Social Security"....."Medicare"....."Fed Tax"..."State Tax"....nnnn-WAIT-.....no. No "Two Foreign Wars" deduct from my paycheque.

Are you deliberately being obtuse? Would it make it easier for you if "federal tax" was renamed "war and everything else tax"? Sheesh.

irish_bob

Manic Moran wrote: »

At least that is explicitly within the remit of the Federal Government per the Constitution. I see nothing in the Constitution about the Federal Government being in any way responsible for the provision of healthcare.

If a socialised healthcare system is required, it can be implemented on a State by State basis, just like pretty much any other program, be it the dole or education. That way the people in Maryland can have their socialised system, and the people in Montana don't need to pay for it.

NTM

dont get me wrong , i believe the war in afghanistan is nesscessery and must be see through , however , the fact that the wars in afghanistan and iraq will most likely end up costing more than obama health plan yet hasnt caused near as much outrage in middle america does strike me as a tad strange , that said , it aint my country

Manic Moran

however , the fact that the wars in afghanistan and iraq will most likely end up costing more than obama health plan yet hasnt caused near as much outrage in middle america does strike me as a tad strange , that said , it aint my country

It's not an issue of the cost, it's an issue of the principle behind it. The Federal Government's primary purpose is to represent the interests of the United States (all fifty of them) in foreign dealings, to include wars. Its secondary purpose is to provide a framework in which the United States (all fifty of them) can interact together for the common betterment.

Dealing with social issues, especially one which can be dealt with at the individual's level in most cases, is simply not a function for the Feds outside, perhaps, of the bill of rights (At least, once any particular right has been incorporated against the States, which hasn't happened to all of them yet). I acknowledge the Wheil comment, in practical terms the "Interstate Commerce Clause" has been spread so expansively that the Feds in practice can control almost anything, but it still receives opposition from those who believe that such issues are a function for the States to deal with on their own level: The problem affects individuals, not national interests. That's exactly why the States have their own legislatures and budgets, to deal with this sort of thing. Some States have done so already, I believe "Romneycare" in Massachussets is fairly well regarded.

This is especially so when it is likely that there will be an imbalance in the distribution: It is, I think, unlikely that all the various States will receive back benefits equal in percentage to to the amount they are going to pay in taxes for it. You can imagine the objections. At least a foreign war, for better or worse, will affect all States equally. And if they would indeed all receive equal percentages, then why bother adding an additional layer of bureaucracy and get the Feds involved anyway? Just sort it out at the State Capitol level and not have the money leave the State to begin with.

NTM

Overheal

LostinKildare wrote: »

Are you deliberately being obtuse? Would it make it easier for you if "federal tax" was renamed "war and everything else tax"? Sheesh.

Nobody has yet to raise my taxes for the purposes of fighting a war.

Anonymous1987

Echoing some of the early comments I think Obama should really concentrate on the crisis at hand in the economy and deal with healthcare later maybe even set the stage for a second term. It would seem its not a priority to a lot of Americans right now. Its not surprising the level of hatred for Obama, the US is so diverse almost any President is likely to have both fanatical supporters and opposers.

If you think healthcare reform in the US isn't necessary look at the figures below from the WHO. The NHS seems to be far more efficient at a little over half the relative cost to the US.

US Healthcare

Total population: 302,841,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 44,070

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 75/80

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 67/71

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 8

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 137/80

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 6,714

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 15.3

UK Healthcare

Total population: 60,512,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 33,650

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77/81

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 69/72

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 6

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 98/61

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 2,784

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 8.4

LostinKildare

Overheal wrote: »

Nobody has yet to raise my taxes for the purposes of fighting a war.

No, that would have been far too responsible. The Iraq War was hugely unpopular -- if the American public had known they actually had to pay for it, for how long would that little misadventure have continued? Nah, better to build up a crushing deficit of billions for the next guy -- and the next generations -- to deal with.

Government spending for fake wars, tax breaks for the wealthiest, corporate digouts? A-okay!! Spending to invest in the American people? Socialism!!

EDIT: Actually, residents of most states HAVE had their taxes raised because of the wars. Although Bush financed the war (and the tax cut giveaway to the rich) mostly through massive borrowing, he also had to cut to the bone federal relief to the states and federal budget spending for mandated programs, requiring states to raise state and local taxes, property taxes, and fees for everything from fishing licenses to parking tickets. Don't know what happened in SC -- Repub governors are usually leery of raising any taxes, they'd rather slash programs for the poor and put schools on a four-day week than squeeze an extra nickel out of their base.

Manic Moran

I can't speak for the other States, but I'm fairly certain that California's budget would seriously be in the crapper right now anyway even if the Federal assistance had remained unchanged.

NTM

getcover

Overheal wrote: »

Forcing the other 300m into it is.

Can you explain how the 300 million people who have health insurance would be "forced" into having health insurance?

I'm genuinely interested in this. I've heard some of the ludicrous lies about the NHS being peddled in America by certain people and just can't understand why.

I'm also confused why so many people who proudly proclaim that they possess "Christian values (one of which is to be a good neighbour and look out for you fellow man)" object to a scheme which will be of benefit to their fellow citizens.

Why have proposals for what looks like a sensible system, to look after the health of all citizens, engendered so much vitriol?

norbert64

getcover wrote: »

Can you explain how the 300 million people who have health insurance would be "forced" into having health insurance?

I'm genuinely interested in this. I've heard some of the ludicrous lies about the NHS being peddled in America by certain people and just can't understand why.

I'm also confused why so many people who proudly proclaim that they possess "Christian values (one of which is to be a good neighbour and look out for you fellow man)" object to a scheme which will be of benefit to their fellow citizens.

Why have proposals for what looks like a sensible system, to look after the health of all citizens, engendered so much vitriol?

Seemingly the case here, is that Obamacare will be be so cheap/good (thanx to taxpayer dollars) that the poor ickle Insurance Companies can't/won't be able to compete, ergo some go out of business and lots of average joes end up on Obamacare by default.

Basically the gubment is undercutting Big Business, and that's just so UNFAIR :(

SLUSK

norbert64 wrote: »

Seemingly the case here, is that Obamacare will be be so cheap/good (thanx to taxpayer dollars) that the poor ickle Insurance Companies can't/won't be able to compete, ergo some go out of business and lots of average joes end up on Obamacare by default.

Basically the gubment is undercutting Big Business, and that's just so UNFAIR :(

How are they suppose to finance this so called "universal healthcare"?

irish_bob

getcover wrote: »

Can you explain how the 300 million people who have health insurance would be "forced" into having health insurance?

I'm genuinely interested in this. I've heard some of the ludicrous lies about the NHS being peddled in America by certain people and just can't understand why.

I'm also confused why so many people who proudly proclaim that they possess "Christian values (one of which is to be a good neighbour and look out for you fellow man)" object to a scheme which will be of benefit to their fellow citizens.

Why have proposals for what looks like a sensible system, to look after the health of all citizens, engendered so much vitriol?

im agnostic myself but the term christian in america means something altogether different than it does in ireland and many other places , christians in america believe that jesus was a capitalist , i myself am a capitalist but from what i learned at school about jesus , he was most definatley left wing , christians in the usa have created jesus in the immage of man , hes a republican ( fox news actually had a segment once which asked , is jesus a republican ) hes white ( most absurd of all ) and he doesnt believe in climate change either , in america , the richer you are the better person you are , as i said , im a non believer but i know from my school books that jesus believed in rich people giving away thier money

jank

It's not an issue of the cost, it's an issue of the principle behind it

Tell me again, why are the USA in Iraq?

Overheal wrote: »

Nobody has yet to raise my taxes for the purposes of fighting a war.

See there is this thing called a deficit that all of sudden wasnt a problem before january 2009 now its the death clock of America.... Go figure!

Bush's plan, cut taxes, raise spending and start 2 wars that have cost Trillions of dollars! See NOW you have to pay for it but Obama gets the blame. Hmmm maybe Bush was kinda smart after all....:pac:



The deficit was Bush's doing, Obama is trying to turn around the economy with one hand behind his back. Its an awkward position to be in.
Sorry but the huge hole in the budget is the fault of the guy from Texas

banquo

Let me say straight off that I don't know a whole lot about this and am completely open to correction.

IF an uninsured person winds up in the emergency room, gets $25,000 worth of treatment, and legs it, doesn't the govt - fed or state - pick up the tab? Or in just some states? And if that's true, wouldn't it be cheaper to insure everybody?

And how much extra tax are we talking about? Is it really just 1% on all earning about $250,000? If so, is it a matter of principle that people are opposed to it? Because I can think of a hellova lotta things better to oppose on principal than my neighbour's health.

*The $ sign on my keyboard has come in useful for the first time ever.

JohnMc1

banquo wrote: »

IF an uninsured person winds up in the emergency room, gets $25,000 worth of treatment, and legs it, doesn't the govt - fed or state - pick up the tab? Or in just some states? And if that's true, wouldn't it be cheaper to insure everybody?

The taxpayer ends up paying for it.

And how much extra tax are we talking about? Is it really just 1% on all earning about $250,000?

Condisering its estimated at @ $2 trillion [it may even well be higher] every US taxpayer is going to get an increase. Anybody who truly believes that only the rich will be footing the bill for this is on some serious narcotics.

If so, is it a matter of principle that people are opposed to it? Because I can think of a hellova lotta things better to oppose on principal than my neighbour's health.

If weren't trillions in debt and the Dems were more willing to be more upfront than what they currently are people would be more willing to consider it. Instead anybody who questions it is Un-American, racist, bigot, Right Wing Conspirast and whatever stupid insult they can throw out just to smear and gloss over any objection to the Healthcare valid or otherwise [and there has been some very valid questions asked at these Townhalls. ]

Manic Moran

The taxpayer ends up paying for it.

It's a valid question, and I think it's the State. It matters because depending on the solution, members of some States may be inequitably taxed compared to members of other States for a nationwide issue.

NTM

JohnMc1

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's a valid question, and I think it's the State. It matters because depending on the solution, members of some States may be inequitably taxed compared to members of other States for a nationwide issue.

NTM

Via State taxes. The bottom line is all these projects come down to being financed by tax dollars. Every US citizens are going to go up to fund these projects. To truly believe all of this will fall on the wealthy is a huge pipe dream.

LostinKildare

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Condisering its estimated at @ $2 trillion [it may even well be higher] every US taxpayer is going to get an increase. Anybody who truly believes that only the rich will be footing the bill for this is on some serious narcotics.

$2 trillion? Source please.

I've seen $1 trillion over 10 years. (Compare the Iraq War at $3 trillion over 7 years) To be financed by a surtax on the top 2% wealthiest and health care cost cuts. And no, I'm not on narcotics, serious or otherwise.:)


Re what happens to unpaid ER bills for treatment of the uninsured, I don't think that it is correct that the costs are routinely picked up by the state govts. In some localities property taxes help to keep strapped hospitals open; in less affluent counties the hospitals that stay afloat do so by drastic measures such as employing fewer doctors and nurses (worse care, longer waits), not upgrading or replacing aging equipment, cutting the number of beds for emergency patients, performing fewer essential tests, or closing their ERs or trauma centers completely. So not only are the insured already paying for the uninsured through their taxes and higher insurance premiums, they are also "paying" for them in the form of poorer and less accessible treatment for themselves.

There's a good speech by an Atlanta prof and ER doctor who speaks in support of healthcare reform here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VR2yh3-tlM

Here is a quote in which he describes talking to the parents of a kid brought into the ER with serious injuries:

"Your son was in a terrible crash," I said. "The ambulance crew could tell he was severely injured and called a helicopter.

That’s when his mother interrupted me. She said, "doctor, I don't know how to ask you this, but I must. My husband lost his job six weeks ago, I work, but my employer doesn't offer health insurance. Is my son going to get the care he needs?"

Momentarily taken aback, I replied, "ma'am, you're at Grady Hospital, one of the finest trauma centers in the south, I swear to you, we will do everything in our power to save your son."

I meant what I said that night, but I didn't tell her the whole truth. I didn't tell her that our best probably wouldn't be good enough, and that if her son survived he’d probably be disabled for the rest of his life. I didn't tell her that she and her husband would be billed for the helicopter flight, and the days or weeks to come in the intensive care unit, and that the total would probably reach $100,000, maybe a whole lot more. I didn't tell her that she and her husband would empty their savings and mortgage their home in an effort to pay the bill, and that it wouldn't be enough. And that the coins put in a coffee can at the local diner wouldn't come close to covering the difference.

I didn't tell her that the unpaid balance of her son’s bill will push Grady hospital closer to insolvency, closer to its own crash, and if Grady closes, north Georgia, a region of more than five million people, will lose its only level one trauma center, its only burn unit, its only poison control center, its only emergency psychiatric unit, and seven hundred and fifty inpatient beds. And that’s not all. If Grady closes, metro Atlanta’s private hospitals, already overburdened by population growth, will topple like dominos one after another.

JohnMc1

LostinKildare wrote: »

$2 trillion? Source please.

Listening to economists

I've seen $1 trillion over 10 years. (Compare the Iraq War at $3 trillion over 7 years)

Do you realize how badly you just owned [pwned, whatever] with that statement? Bush is repsonsible for $1.3 trillion of the debt while the rest was caused by the Obama administration. The left don't seem to realize now that bringing that up is instant suicide anymore.

To be financed by a surtax on the top 2% wealthiest and health care cost cuts. And no, I'm not on narcotics, serious or otherwise.:)

You [and just about anybody else] really have to be on drugs to
believe that only the wealthiest will footing the bill for this.

LostinKildare

Like I said, JohnMc1, source please on that $2 trillion. What economists? A link to a source. Otherwise I can safely assume you're making it up or taking the word of some right-wing nutjob.

Re the $3 trillion for the Iraq War -- who said that was all accumulated deficit? I said spending, buddy. About 50% of federal income taxes collected over the Bush years went to military spending, and he slashed established govt programs and depts (even the post office) for war $$ too. Even if the war ended today the costs of the war so far will continue to accumulate for many years

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html
http://jec.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Reports.Reports&ContentRecord_id=c6616188-7e9c-9af9-716c-d2ecbc191d33&Region_id=&Issue_id=



Read what's written before you attack. And back up your own figures please.

JohnMc1

:rolleyes:

LostinKildare wrote: »

Like I said, JohnMc1, source please on that $2 trillion. What economists? A link to a source. Otherwise I can safely assume you're making it up or taking the word of some right-wing nutjob.

There has been floating around all year from economist saying that the Healthcare would cost aroun $1.6 trillion [so I rounded up. Its probably alot more than estimated ] You will assume I'm a right-wing nutjob anway.

Re the $3 trillion for the Iraq War -- who said that was all accumulated deficit? I said spending, buddy. About 50% of federal income taxes collected over the Bush years went to military spending, and he slashed established govt programs and depts (even the post office) for war $$ too. Even if the war ended today the costs of the war so far will continue to accumulate for many years

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html
http://jec.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Reports.Reports&ContentRecord_id=c6616188-7e9c-9af9-716c-d2ecbc191d33&Region_id=&Issue_id=



Read what's written before you attack. And back up your own figures please.

Nice dodge on avoiding that Obama is responsible for more of the deficit than Bush.

Overheal

SC didnt hold very many meetings. Then again, we're probably already opposed I wouldve gone to one if it wasnt a 5+ hour round trip on a weeknight.

On cost I believe the latest estimate was the bill will cost $30k per family per year. Despite only taking an average tax of $15k per family per year. But I heard it on hannity. *shrug*

imokyrok

I don't understand why Obama doesn't just get on with the job he was elected for, bring in exactly the healthcare programme he wants and tell all those moronic birther/death panel nutjobs and their puppetmasters to go f**k themselves.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

if he did that, no democrat would win the presidency again until sometime in the next century.

JohnMc1

imokyrok wrote: »

I don't understand why Obama doesn't just get on with the job he was elected for, bring in exactly the healthcare programme he wants and tell all those moronic birther/death panel nutjobs and their puppetmasters to go f**k themselves.

What an intelligent post :rolleyes: Considering the left has tried to paint Bush as a dictator for the last 8 years Obama would be a fool to do that. Painting one Pres as a dictator and then Obama actually being one would be a death sentence for the DNC.

imokyrok

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

if he did that, no democrat would win the presidency again until sometime in the next century.

I think that is rubbish frankly. He was given a mandate for these policies. He was elected to do exactly this. It is foolish to permit the machinations of the wealthy undermine what his voters want him to do.

JohnMc1

imokyrok wrote: »

I think that is rubbish frankly. He was given a mandate for these policies. He was elected to do exactly this. It is foolish to permit the machinations of the wealthy undermine what his voters want him to do.

He is a servant of the People. All of the People. We tell him [and every other politician] what to do. They don't tell us.

imokyrok

JohnMc1 wrote: »

What an intelligent post :rolleyes: Considering the left has tried to paint Bush as a dictator for the last 8 years Obama would be a fool to do that. Painting one Pres as a dictator and then Obama actually being one would be a death sentence for the DNC.

That's is exactly the kind of nonsense he should be ignoring. Dictator, kenyan birth certs, death panels, socialists - I mean why pander to the lowest common demoninator. Don't give them time to make up their foolish lies or at least not to spread them . He needs to go for the "wham, bam thank you mam " approach.