Obama Open to Partisan Vote on Health-Care Overhaul, Aides Say , page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times
Topic started on 15-7-2009 @ 01:08 PM by ElectricUniverse
July 14 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama may rely only on Democrats to push health-care legislation through the U.S. Congress if Republican opposition doesn’t yield soon, two of the president’s top advisers said.

“Ultimately, this is not about a process, it’s about results,” David Axelrod, Obama’s senior political strategist, said during an interview in his White House office. “If we’re going to get this thing done, obviously time is a-wasting.”

Both Axelrod and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said taking a partisan route to enacting major health-care legislation isn’t the president’s preferred choice. Yet in separate interviews, each man left that option open.

“We’d like to do it with the votes of members of both parties,” Axelrod said. “But the worst result would be to not get health-care reform done.”

www.bloomberg.com...

So pretty much Democrats are saying that they won't allow anyone to stand in their way, and they will pass the healthcare reform even if Republicans don't agree with it.

This is reminiscent of the years when the Bush administration was trying to send funds to our troops in Iraq to get better equiped, yet Democrats decided to play partisanship and said no.

Healthcare reform sounds great right? Well except when you find out that you ahve to pay, and have healthcare or you will be fined $1,000 for not doing so. Of couse the Obama plan gives power to the STATE, and not the doctors, to decide what treatment patients can have, and President Obama has shown how much compassion he has for the elderly, including his own family, when he stated that maybe it is better for elderly people, or even anyone who is young and has a serious illness, not to get an operation and instead just to keep using some drugs which are less expensive.

That is of course without mentioning that part of the money to pay for this new "healthcare reform" will be taken from medicare and medicaid, in an amount that would be around $300-$313 Billion dollars, but still people will have to pay new taxes in order to pay for the rest of the healthcare, which amount surpasses the "measly" $300-$313 Billion dollars.

Nationalizing healthcare is the worse that can happen to healthcare, but even knowing these facts the Obamatrons continue trying to make excuses, and keep on cheering for President Obama's disastrous reforms.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]


reply posted on 15-7-2009 @ 01:16 PM by jam321
Did you really expect Obama and gang to work with the Republicans?

The Dems are looking after their own agenda and to further fortified their hold on Congress and the White House in years to come. They know that those uninsured voters will thank them with votes if the Dems give them free insurance.

What gets me is that this 1 trillion plus won't cover everybody. How can they fine people when the plan doesn't cover everybody? From a few thing I read, the plan will ultimately cover 16-20 million Americans. That is about $60,000 a person. Will try to find that source and post it.

And how do they make cuts in Medicaid but yet are going to expand the program at the same time?

The Boston Globe wraps the health care debate: "Democrats seemed disorganized and shocked as financial analysts slapped surprisingly high price tags on their plans. Republicans jeered when the health committee’s incomplete bill weighed in at $1 trillion - to insure a relatively paltry 16 million people." But the argument, it writes, seems to be shifting again toward the public vs. private back and forth.


firstread.msnbc.msn.com...



The attached table summarizes our preliminary assessment of the
proposal’s budgetary effects and its likely impact on insurance coverage.
According to that assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net
increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010–2019
period. Once the proposal was fully implemented, about 39 million
individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges.
At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an
employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and
coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net
decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million.


PDF File

[edit on 15-7-2009 by jam321]


reply posted on 15-7-2009 @ 01:54 PM by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by jam321


I wasn't expecting anything from them. This is the sort of move that they make.

You know, i was thinking, there are "at least" 100 Million Americans who are armed, and see the Second Amendment as an indisputable right, yet only about half voted? not only that, but after Obama got in power even more people got armed.

For those Americans who are armed, the Second Amendment is very important, and we know that Democrats, at least those in seats of power are anti-Second Amendment.

Not to mention those Americans who don't want to pay for the healtcare of others would increase the number of Americans who are not very fond of Democrats being in power.

So how is it possible that this time around a Republican who is pro-Second Amendment, and pro-AFFORDABLE healthcare could only get 58 million votes?

Now, isn't that a real conspiracy?

Pages:     ^^TOP^^