Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33946165/ns/politics-washington_post

The more that comes to light, the less I like this plan. I was never an Obama fan and I feel more justified in my view.

Why does this affect your view of Pres. Obama? If anything, this should affect your view of the Democratic leadership in Congress. These various bills that are being deliberated and voted upon are crafted not by the Obama administration, but rather by the yokels on Capitol Hill...

Well Jeb, he is the main man in this country so anything related to politics, whether fair or not, all fall on Obamas shoulders.

He was also the one who proposed it and pushed it so if something in the bill doesn't look right it's going to be blamed on our new Overlord.

That doesn't mean that anyone is justified in unfairly placing the blame on President Obama. I am no fan of this plan, but I fully understand it is the fault of idiots in Congress for drafting this legislation. The president has even asked DP leadership to not put in controversial elements, like the abortion clauses in the House legislation, to make it more likely to pass, but they ignore him. I think this is out of his hands and should be considered as such.

I'm trying to recall an old saying about gak, something about a hill and rolling down. Nah doesn't sound right. Was it about how it floats... Hmm...

I remember now. It's everyone is full of it.

JEB_Stuart wrote:That doesn't mean that anyone is justified in unfairly placing the blame on President Obama. I am no fan of this plan, but I fully understand it is the fault of idiots in Congress for drafting this legislation. The president has even asked DP leadership to not put in controversial elements, like the abortion clauses in the House legislation, to make it more likely to pass, but they ignore him. I think this is out of his hands and should be considered as such.

If this is the case, then he is ineffectual as a leader and worse than useless.

Careful relapse, you'll get the liberals in here raising a stink and calling you racist...umm, err no matter how lame that sounds.

You can only lead if people are willing to follow. A leader who forces people to follow is called a dictator.

Republicans argued that the report forecasts an increase in total health-care spending of more than $289 billion.

I wonder if the increase in expenditure is expected to result from the expansion of coverage, or an increase in prices.

Relapse wrote:If this is the case, then he is ineffectual as a leader and worse than useless.

Umm, there is supposed to be independence between congress and the executive in the US system. That's a noted feature of the system - remember all that stuff about checks and balances you did in high school?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:That doesn't mean that anyone is justified in unfairly placing the blame on President Obama. I am no fan of this plan, but I fully understand it is the fault of idiots in Congress for drafting this legislation. The president has even asked DP leadership to not put in controversial elements, like the abortion clauses in the House legislation, to make it more likely to pass, but they ignore him. I think this is out of his hands and should be considered as such.

While the plans have been drafted in congress, Obama has always been very strong on paying for some of the plan through a cheaper medicare plan. He's always maintained that $500 million could be found in savings on inefficiencies, and that was pretty plausible when the wider ranging reforms were in place that would have installed a genuinely powerful public option. But that's all been cut while the $500 million in savings has remained, and no system ever has $500 million in easy efficiency savings, unless you undertake serious reform.

My guess is that ultimately $500 million won't be saved, and the healthcare reform won't produce a net surplus. But given the quality of the debate leading up to this legislation, I'm not sure how you expect anything of quality to be produced.

sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:If this is the case, then he is ineffectual as a leader and worse than useless.

Umm, there is supposed to be independence between congress and the executive in the US system. That's a noted feature of the system - remember all that stuff about checks and balances you did in high school?

True, but a large part of a president's job is to create and instill vision that others are willing to follow. It seems all Obama has for the most part are pie in the sky promises that when examined have little or no grounding in common sense or reality. I wish I could remember who did this, but a crew went out into the streets during the presidential campaign asking people what they thought of Obama's and McCain's plans for the nation. The thing was, the crew purposly attributed each candidate's plans to his opponent.
Overwhelmingly, people said they approved of what McCain wanted to do when it was told to them they were Obama's plans and dissaproved of Obama's plan when told they were McCain's.

Fateweaver wrote:Careful relapse, you'll get the liberals in here raising a stink and calling you racist...umm, err no matter how lame that sounds.

Don't be so fething stupid.

Ill educated and knee-jerk reactionary yes, but not racist.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Careful relapse, you'll get the liberals in here raising a stink and calling you racist...umm, err no matter how lame that sounds.

Don't be so fething stupid.

Ill educated and knee-jerk reactionary yes, but not racist.

Brian has spoken. Can't argue with that!

Relapse wrote:True, but a large part of a president's job is to create and instill vision that others are willing to follow. It seems all Obama has for the most part are pie in the sky promises that when examined have little or no grounding in common sense or reality. I wish I could remember who did this, but a crew went out into the streets during the presidential campaign asking people what they thought of Obama's and McCain's plans for the nation. The thing was, the crew purposly attributed each candidate's plans to his opponent. Overwhelmingly, people said they approved of what McCain wanted to do when it was told to them they were Obama's plans and dissaproved of Obama's plan when told they were McCain's.

That's funny because when they did a recent poll asking who people would vote for, McCain or Obama, now that they have a year's hindsight. People overwhelmingly said they would for Obama.

It's because of the Kool-aid. I will never drink Cherry again because that is what flavor was passed around the voting booths in little dixie cups saying "I believe in Change".

Hmm, Obama might be Tzeentch. Food for thought.

Hey don't be dissin' cherry Kool Aid or we are going to have to have a tussle!
In other news:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/67833-holder-dials-back-commitment-to-assault-weapons-ban

Hmm, too much pressure from the Right side I wonder. Sounds like the Obaman administration will try to pursue at a later date though (or at least something similiar to the BB).

Relapse wrote:
True, but a large part of a president's job is to create and instill vision that others are willing to follow. It seems all Obama has for the most part are pie in the sky promises that when examined have little or no grounding in common sense or reality.

I'm curious about these promises. What are they? I mean there's healthcare, but that isn't really a pie in the sky, but a reform package that's actually sitting on someone's desk. Immigration is probably on the docket, but it hasn't really been discussed of late. About the only thing floating around that's really wispy is the climate change stuff, and that's not been discussed since the campaign.

Could someone explain why so many Americans are opposed to healthcare reform/universal healthcare?

I don't get it.

Albatross wrote:Could someone explain why so many Americans are opposed to healthcare reform/universal healthcare?

I don't get it.

Neither do I my fellow dakkaite.
Only the americans understand that things.

We're strongly for healthcare reform. That ain't it.

Albatross: From what I understand, people disagree with the details of this particular reform. I don't think that many ordinary americans think the current system is fine, unless they work for the insurance industry

Exactly.

What about about Socialised Medicine? Why is it so offensive to some of you guys? You don't have private police forces, do you?

The government is required to have a monopoly on violence (or a near monopoly), so that's not really a valid comparison. You hire doctors to cut yourself up, not to cut up someone who's wronged you.

Fire departments or something may be more along the lines of what you're looking for.

The government is required to have a monopoly on violence

How's that working out for you?


I think your statement (even if there was a hint of sarcasm) kind of sums up the problem with the mentality of SOME (key word!) americans.

You trust your government to KILL, but not to HEAL.

Something I'm curious about is if people trying to be doctors in Europe have to pay for their own schooling or if it is for the most part taken care of by the government.
If it is payed for, do they have to honor an agreement to be a doctor for a certain number of years?
Probably totaly naive and silly questions, but It'd be interesting to know the answers.

dogma wrote:

Republicans argued that the report forecasts an increase in total health-care spending of more than $289 billion.

I wonder if the increase in expenditure is expected to result from the expansion of coverage, or an increase in prices.

Just wondering , who pays for the $289 billion?

Albatross wrote:I think your statement (even if there was a hint of sarcasm) kind of sums up the problem with the mentality of SOME (key word!) americans.

You trust your government to KILL, but not to HEAL.

Um... no, it's pretty basic political theory.

There can't be multiple factions with a great deal of power to enact revenge/justice in society for what they judge to be crimes, and use physical harm to make people comply with what they think is best. That would create warring factions, each trying to seize power over the populace. It would be civil war.

It's not about "killing" versus "healing". It's about one person's relation to others. If I want to hire a "police officer" proxy to arrest myself, and imprison myself, that's fine (although it makes no sense to do so), and if I want to hire a doctor to perform surgery on unwilling patients that isn't.

@Relapse - many people qualify for state assistance as far as the UK education system is concerned. I'm pretty sure you are under no obligation to work for the government after that, though. The funny part about all the attacks on the NHS by conservative commentators in the US is that you are not 'forced' to use it. You can go private if you wish, and it's still pretty much cheaper than the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

It's not about "killing" versus "healing".

No, it pretty much is. You can dress it up however you like, but the fact remains that many many Americans trust their government's decision to put people to death, but not to own and operate a healthcare system that is open to all, regardless of financial status. There's something wrong there.

It's about one person's relation to others. If I want to hire a "police officer" proxy to arrest myself, and imprison myself, that's fine (although it makes no sense to do so), and if I want to hire a doctor to perform surgery on unwilling patients that isn't.

I'm not attacking you mate, but this makes no sense. When did anyone mention performing surgery on unwilling patients? I'm really not sure what you're driving at.