The hate for Obama

2Scoops

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Your existance does not mean I'm obligated to pay for your health insurance.

No point getting any insurance, so - just pay the market value for your required medical needs.

bobbyjoe

JohnMc1 wrote: »

If you don't want to work hard then that is your problem. If you want to watch TV eat junk food all day why should I pay for hospital bills when your heart fails? If someone wants to smoke XX packs of cigarettes a day why should I pay their hospital bills when their lungs fails? If someone wants to spend one end of the day to the other in a bar drinking beer why should I pay for their hospital bills when their liver fails?

Humanitarianism can and should only go so far. At the end of the day you have to help yourself. Your existance does not mean I'm obligated to pay for your health insurance.

Because we are human beings?
The alternative to your question is to just let them die.

Driver 8

Because all the people who can't afford health insurance in the U.S. are overweight, junk food gourging, lazy smokers?

Apart from the propaganda machine that the insurance companies have mounted, the worst part of this whole debate is the underbelly of callous selfishness that seems to be prevalaent amongst some. This "I've got mine, who cares about anyone else" attitude is disgusting.

JohnMc1

I love how I go away and I come back to post after post of misiing the point entirely. :rolleyes:

Driver 8

Well instead of rolling your eyes, why not clarify your point?

JohnMc1

I've been pretty crystal clear on all my posts here. Whether you choose to accept it or not is up to you.

bobbyjoe

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I've been pretty crystal clear on all my posts here. Whether you choose to accept it or not is up to you.

No your not crystal clear. Just vague.

Driver 8

I can't accept or not accept something that isn't clear. And since, by your admission, at least three people misunderstood your point (or understood and disagreed), clearly I'm not alone.

JohnMc1

Then I suggest you read slowly and very carefully.

Driver 8

That seems horribly patronising. But I've probably misunderstood that too.

:rolleyes:

JohnMc1

I have posted my reasons plenty of times on this very thread. Again whether you want to accept it or not is your problem not mine.

Driver 8

I'm not talking about your reasons, I'm talking about one specific post. But rather than engage in discussion on it, you're just stonewalling and being patronising. It's not my "problem"- it's a discussion forum, how about discussing?

JohnMc1

You seriously expect me to dignify your "Your callous and selfish since you won't pay for Helathcare." nonsense with a response? :rolleyes:

Driver 8

Oh for gods sake...

First, you won't respond to posts, and just tell me and others we've misunderstood you

Secondly, you tell me you re-read your previous posts "slowly" in the most patronising and condescending manner.

Thirdly, you dimiss my post as "nonsense"

Even if you disagree with my point, at least tell me why. The arrogance is doing you no favours.

JohnMc1

Driver 8 wrote: »

Oh for gods sake...

First, you won't respond to posts, and just tell me and others we've misunderstood you

Secondly, you tell me you re-read your previous posts "slowly" in the most patronising and condescending manner.

Thirdly, you dimiss my post as "nonsense"

Even if you disagree with my point, at least tell me why. The arrogance is doing you no favours.

Your post was that I was selfish and callous for not wanting to pay for Healthcare when that is an individuals responsibility. So spare me the whole I hurt your feelings nonsense.

Driver 8

I'm preserving here...

What about the people you genuinely can't afford the insurance? The people who are holding down multiple jobs, and still can't afford the premiums that have been steadily rising in cost. Wouldn't some kind of public option help them?

JohnMc1

Driver 8 wrote: »

I'm preserving here...

Again spare me the I hurt your your feelings bit.

What about the people you genuinely can't afford the insurance? The people who are holding down multiple jobs, and still can't afford the premiums that have been steadily rising in cost. Wouldn't some kind of public option help them?

You know as well as I do that the unproductive are going top benefit from this at the cost of the productive [The Healthcare won't go into effect until 2013 but the 5% tax increase to cover it will go into effect Jan 1st 2010] And anybody working a Full time job will already be eligible for Healthcare from their employers.

Driver 8

Even if it takes til 2013 to come into effect, you don't think the bill's worth passing? For the sake of driving down the cost of insurance if nothing else.

JohnMc1

Driver 8 wrote: »

Even if it takes til 2013 to come into effect, you don't think the bill's worth passing? For the sake of driving down the cost of insurance if nothing else.

How can anybody say with a straight face that its worth passing when the bill is over 1000 pages and none of our elected officials have even bothered to read it? Driving down the cost of insurance could be the only benefit and taht might not be worth it if the Govt starts giving the Doctors headaches on what they can and can't do [and the Govt Will stick their nose in that an almost certainty]

Driver 8

The government already has an influence similiar to what you're seemingly worried about through HMOs, doesn't it?

I know you could bring up the report of Brian Cowen saying he hadn't read the Lisbon Treaty, but shouldn't those elected officials, y'know, read the bill?

Let's be honest, those officials can afford health insurance, and a huge number are already in receipt of hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from insurance companies, so why should they care? Even those genuinely interested risk being labelled a communist or a Nazi thanks to the Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh/Sarah Palin s of this world.

JohnMc1

Driver 8 wrote: »

The government already has an influence similiar to what you're seemingly worried about through HMOs, doesn't it?

But never as much as they currently do. That is what is worrying people. One of Obama's czars Cass Susstein wrote in a book years ago that they should put something in the water to sterilize people. Can you really say you want that guy overseeing your health? I sure as hell don't.

I know you could bring up the report of Brian Cowen saying he hadn't read the Lisbon Treaty, but shouldn't those elected officials, y'know, read the bill?

The less said about Cowen the better. Yes they should read the bills that what we pay them for.

Let's be honest, those officials can afford health insurance, and a huge number are already in receipt of hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from insurance companies, so why should they care?

That should be the clue that this Healthcare isn't all its cracked up to be. When Democrat House and Senate members won't sign up for their Healtplan [despite their claims that its going to be so wonderful] that should clue you in.

Even those genuinely interested risk being labelled a communist or a Nazi thanks to the Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh/Sarah Palin s of this world.

Glen is OTT but he makes very sound arguments. He is well researched. That why his detractors can only knock him on his antics. Since their is going to be a panel to oversee who gets what treatment and who doesn't Gov Palin is correct that there is a Death Panel of sorts [while granted she was sensationalistic but it needs to be known. Plus do you think Pelosi would be sedate about it if Bush or McCain had wanted this same bill that the Dems are pushing. I guarantee she would be screaming " They have a death panel" too]

Driver 8

In terms of panels deciding whether or not people get treatment- Insurance companies already deny people coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Hospitals will stop treating patients whose coverage runs out.

Pelosi never had an opportunity to object to a Bush/Cheney heathcare bill because in eight years there was never even a hint of one.

GovPalin? She hasn't been in office since July. Her bringing up her disabled child to score political points is the worst kind of politics. Apparently she can use her children to further her career, but god forbid anyone else mention them.

And I think those Democat senators not going for this bill is an indication of their hefty contributions from Insurance companies and the fact that they themselves already have insurance.

If Glenn Beck has such sound points, why did the 9/12 protests he organised attract people with signs like "Impeach the Muslim Marxist", "We Came Unarmed This Time", and "Bury Obamacare with Kennedy"?

JohnMc1

Driver 8 wrote: »

In terms of panels deciding whether or not people get treatment- Insurance companies already deny people coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Hospitals will stop treating patients whose coverage runs out.

None of these companies are bull****ting anybody like the Dems are. They tell people what they want to hear instead of telling us the truth. If there is a panel that will tell patients whether or not they will get certain treatments should be known. If someone like Gov. Palin mentions it they call her liar even though she is telling the truth about these panels.

Pelosi never had an opportunity to object to a Bush/Cheney heathcare bill because in eight years there was never even a hint of one.

That was an example on my part about the hypocrisy of teh Dems in certain cases. See below.

GovPalin? She hasn't been in office since July.

Whether you like her or not is your business but she still gets called Gov Palin out of respect for her and the position. ex. Bill Clinton hasn't been President in about 8-9 years but he is still referred to as Pres. Clinton.

Her bringing up her disabled child to score political points is the worst kind of politics. Apparently she can use her children to further her career, but god forbid anyone else mention them.

Then you should be just as disgusted with the Dems for using Ted Kennedy's death to push the Healthcare. If one disgusts you then the other should too.

And I think those Democat senators not going for this bill is an indication of their hefty contributions from Insurance companies and the fact that they themselves already have insurance.

Again if its going to be so great why aren't why aren't they willing to sign. Put your money where your money is sort of deal.

If Glenn Beck has such sound points, why did the 9/12 protests he organised attract people with signs like "Impeach the Muslim Marxist", "We Came Unarmed This Time", and "Bury Obamacare with Kennedy"?

Why did the Democrat rallies attract Bush = Hitler type stuff? Rallies will always attract some nuts. That has nothing to do with Beck or any other organizer.

Again its pure hypocrisy of the left. You don't get to spout off that Bush was a Nazi, a Tyrant [while cozying up to some] claiming its Patriotic and then when Obama gets criticized [in certian cases its been well earned criticizm] its suddenly "Un-Patriotic".

Driver 8

My issue with the protests is primarily that a lot of supposedly "concerned citizens groups" are in reality closely tied to health insurance companies, intent on stirring up discontent about reform because it'll hurt their profits.

I mentioned the lack of a Bush/Cheney health care bill to also bring up the fact that this is a problem they never even attempted to solve, so content they were to cosy up to the insurance companies. Clinton's health care bill may have failed, but at least he made an attempt.

I think mentioning the fact that Tedy Kennedy devoted a large part of his life to health care reform, to attempting to help people less fortunate than himself (i don't want to turn this into a debate on Kennedy, I'm well aware of his flaws), is valid, to a certain extent. Palin bringing up her child is a way of making a cheap political point. Mentioning that Kennedy always fought for health care reform I think isn't cheap, as long as it's brought up in a non-exploitative way because he did devote a large part of his political career to this issue.

As I said, I don't think some Democrats not willing to sign the bill has anything to do with the bill. I'm saying they wouldn't sign ANY bill that cuts off their contributions from insurance companies. Are you telling me this isn't the motivating factors for at least some republicans?

Of course rallies attract nuts, but I mean, people weren't allowed near Bush speeches if their car had the wrong bumper sticker in some instances, whereas people are being allowed quite near to Obama, carrying rifles. It's a little worrying.

My overarching point here is that so much of the debate has been an attempt by insurance companies to stir up discontent and scare people, because they know a public option would hurt their profits. They've already bought and paid for a lot of republican and democratic senators, and are content to misinform large numbers of the public about the reform, when they clearly have an agenda for doing so. I'm all for real debate, but their labelling Obama a communist etc. are a sad reflection on the political discourse of today.

My two questions to you would be, do you accept that the insurance companies have been in any way underhanded in their dealing with this issue, and secondly, what would your solution to this issue be?

norbert64

2 more notable pieces that get us back on track.

That pro-life activist guy Randall Terry is protesting outside Obamas kids school now.
http://www.alan.com/2009/09/16/randall-terry-targeting-obamas-childrens-school/

This from a right wing blog/site that chastises Oprah for supporting Obama.
Scrolling down to the bottom though, I saw something particularly egregious, namely, the blood of Neda?
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/09/16/own-it-oprah/

Overheal

JohnMc1 wrote: »

If you don't want to work hard then that is your problem. If you want to watch TV eat junk food all day why should I pay for hospital bills when your heart fails? If someone wants to smoke XX packs of cigarettes a day why should I pay their hospital bills when their lungs fails? If someone wants to spend one end of the day to the other in a bar drinking beer why should I pay for their hospital bills when their liver fails?

Humanitarianism can and should only go so far. At the end of the day you have to help yourself. Your existance does not mean I'm obligated to pay for your health insurance.

Your point is valid but not all encompassing. It doesnt apply to all case examples. Take the 3 year college graduate who's given industry/specialization has come crashing to a halt in the last year. Laden with debt; no job; no insurance; One day he breaks his leg after falling down a flight of stairs and is out thousands in debt.

Thats a fictional example. You dont need to nitpick it but I'm just saying, its difficult to dismiss/stereotype what kind of people are uninsured or suffering poverty.

To a point, you are correct. I do not feel good about paying taxes that will go to healthcare that will go to hospitalizing, for example, a morbidly obese teenager and his morbidly obese parents - Sadly thats not a fiction, I;m pretty sure I saw it on A&E. Or maybe it was Discovery Health. I don't recall.

Driver 8 wrote: »

Wouldn't some kind of public option help them?

Im totally against the Amtrak Option. Sorry I meant the Post Office option. I mean! The Public Healthcare option. Sorry.

Opening competition across State Borders, is much easier, and much cheaper, and will drive prices way, way down.

My issue with the protests is primarily that a lot of supposedly "concerned citizens groups" are in reality closely tied to health insurance companies, intent on stirring up discontent about reform because it'll hurt their profits.

I believe the DC Fire Department's estimate was 70-80+ Thousand protestors in Washington this week. You're saying they all worked for, or were coerced or bribed by Insurers?

Driver 8

I'm saying that a lot of concerned citizens groups have been traced back to people very closely tied to the health insurance companies

Is the fact that so many senators are so deeply in their pockets not one that should be more widely publicised, or do people just not care?

I never said bribed by the insurance industry. Misinformed and scared maybe, in terms of a great deal of them, judging both from the interviews that were broadcast, the signs that were seen and the general tone of them defending their country against "communism"

Overheal

Driver 8 wrote: »

I'm saying that a lot of concerned citizens groups have been traced back to people very closely tied to the health insurance companies

Is the fact that so many senators are so deeply in their pockets not one that should be more widely publicised, or do people just not care?

We do care. We definitely care. In fact why beat around the GW Bushes here, why isnt Healthcare a refe- nevermind. How much chaos would ensue? But go ahead lets pose the question, why isnt this a referendum?

But more importantly, if you are that concerned,

Even if it takes til 2013 to come into effect, you don't think the bill's worth passing? For the sake of driving down the cost of insurance if nothing else.

It is so not worth rushing a bill through the House and Senate just so Barack can unlock the "Reform Healthcare" Achievement on Xbox Live.

The truth of the hurry? January 19th, 2010. Senatorial Elections could very well (and likely shall) obliterate the Super-Majority.

But I have to admit, and I think everyone in this room, has to admit (or give me a calm logical counter argument, plz) that the reason they are fixated on the rush is because they (more namely, Obama) are not living up to Bipartisan promises. If we are making a bi-partisan bill (reportedly), whats the hurry? If we were making a bipartisan bill, a change in Senate Seats would matter a damn.

Driver 8

To be fair, even with that majority that exists at the moment- no Republicans will sign on to any kind of reform, and there are enough blue dogs to halt its progress, so it's chances aren't exactly gonna change that drastically after January.

Why isn't their a referendum? Every poll I've seen has approval for a public option at between 60 and 70 percent. Then again, Americans won't even let their president be a elected by a numerical majority, so who knows?

Manic Moran

That rather oversimplifies the issue. Sure, a bunch of people will want the public option, but how many of them want it funded by the taxpayer (given that 'single payer' is no longer on the cards) and how many want it to be simply a semi-state body which is a competitor to the private companies?

And that's before you look at the whole swathe of other changes proposed in the bill. Instead of one omnibus bill, perhaps they would do better to make at least some improvements on the bits that most people can agree on, as opposed to trying to go for the one fell swoop.

NTM