President Will Make Case For Public Option Wednesday Night, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 6-9-2009 @ 09:35 AM by Leo Strauss
Well here it is the President will make a case but will not threaten to veto any legislation without a public option.

ABC News
I had a pretty spirited go around with White House Press Secretary Roberts Gibbs and the latest on this dilemma over the public option. The bottom line: Gibbs says the President will make the case for a public option in his speech to Congress on Wednesday but he won't issue a veto threat if it isn't in the final package.


Without a veto it could be empty rhetoric to satisfy the left. More than likely that will be the case. Obama knows he is in deep trouble with his base.


reply posted on 6-9-2009 @ 09:58 AM by mikerussellus
reply to post by Leo Strauss


If there was an actual attempt to reform healthcare, then tort reform, insurance across state lines, cost controls would have been used.

This is not about healthcare. It was a blatant grab for power made by the arrogant elite in DC with the idea that with a democrat in the White House, a democrat led Senate and House, they would have no problem. What they didn't plan on was people reading the bill. What they didn't plan on was people standing up and fighting tooth and nail for this issue.

This is a big pile of poop that Obama stepped in. Can't blame this one on Bush. He's got to weasel his way out of it with compromise and half-hearted debate on an issue that is dead in the water.

What really screwed them up is that now, when they want to pass cap and trade or any other democratic agenda related issue, people will read and react.

Seven months in, and he has become a lame duck president. With control still in the House and Senate (mind you, their poll numbers stink) they won't be able to pass anything.

Hope and change has become, "I hope they don't see the change."


reply posted on 6-9-2009 @ 10:00 AM by vor78
reply to post by Leo Strauss


Anything he says isn't going to matter much, at least not as far as Congress is concerned. There are real ideological differences on how to accomplish healthcare reform and had there been a viable compromise available, it would've already taken place.

This speech is meant for public consumption. He's making a last ditch effort to get the public behind him, but three months and several speeches into this, opinions are already set. Its almost certain that this isn't going to work.

On top of it all, now he has a major scandal brewing with this Van Jones resignation that, in their best case scenario, will likely be a significant distraction for the next several days. Not only is he going to have to answer for how this guy ever got a job in the administration, there will be many, many calls this week for investigations into the rest of his Czars as well, and the questionable statements of several of the others will be getting major airtime in a few days as well. In fact, by Wednesday, I think healthcare may be the least of his political concerns.



[edit on 6-9-2009 by vor78]



reply posted on 6-9-2009 @ 10:12 AM by WTFover
reply to post by mikerussellus


This is not about healthcare. It was a blatant grab for power made by the arrogant elite in DC....

Well stated! If only the groundswell of opposition will realize this is the result of blindly voting D or R, in every election. That would give us the "change" we truly need.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by WTFover]

[edit on 6-9-2009 by WTFover]


reply posted on 6-9-2009 @ 10:29 AM by mikerussellus
reply to post by WTFover


True. I shouldn't have excluded the republicans from this whole debacle as well.


reply posted on 6-9-2009 @ 11:12 AM by WTFover
reply to post by Leo Strauss


I liked this quote, from the original article:

GIBBS: Were going to certainly..People will leave that speech knowing where [Obama] stands and if it takes whatever to get health care done the president is ready willing and able to do that.


Source: blogs.abcnews.com...

How can we trust this when, everytime Obama or any of his cronies says something radical or an outright lie, Gibbs covers them with the standard "He just misspoke" ?



reply posted on 6-9-2009 @ 06:48 PM by Mak Manto
reply to post by WTFover


The reason why that is, WTF, is because guess what happens when someone comes into an emergency room and needs an operation to save their life?

You see, it's the law that no matter what, emergency room doctors have to save your life. So, what do you think happens if someone doesn't have health insurance?

Do you think the health care fairy flies on in and waves her magical wand to save the patients life?

NO. The public has to pay...

And with 46 million uninsured Americans, that's a load of money...


reply posted on 6-9-2009 @ 07:08 PM by Mak Manto
reply to post by kozmo


Absolutely not, not on that scale.

Is there going to be problems and people TRYING to take advantage of the system?

YES! Welcome to the world! No matter what system you have, people will try to take advantage of it!

Though, THIS SYSTEM will be a thousand times better!

When a single mother of four children pays into an insurance company to take care of her health care, and then when she gets sick and the company refuses to help, how does she pay, Kozmo?

When millions of families are unable to pay for major health care because all of their money goes into the necessities, what do they do if they get sick, Kozmo?

Do they just die? Do we just give up on them?

Want to know the scary thing? There have been a few people on here that have said that we should allow them to die, that we shouldn't care if they die because they're unable to pay...

Wonderful, huh...? What a GREAT world we live in!


reply posted on 6-9-2009 @ 09:30 PM by WTFover
reply to post by Mak Manto


So, what you are saying is that the current system is, basically, 'universal health care'. At least from the perspective that those of us who have insurance and cash are paying for those that do not. I agree with that. However, we all agree that the current system isn't working. The reason? There are more people who do not pay, than do. That fact would not change, even under government control. It's the same with Social Security. Long ago, the number of people taking money out of the system exceded that of those paying into it.

The solution is not to take more from the pockets of those who are already footing the bill.

I know that we, as human beings, must take care of those who can not take care of themselves. But, we shouldn't be forced to take care of those who just won't take care of themselves. Unfortunately, most of the current debate does not separate the two. Most of the proposed solutions will only perpetuate the helplessness of a lot of people.


reply posted on 6-9-2009 @ 09:50 PM by jam321
reply to post by Mak Manto


And with 46 million uninsured Americans, that's a load of money...


How many of these 46 million can afford healthcare but choose not to?

Furthermore, why do people continue to believe the awful tales about insurance companies that politicians love to tell. They are saying that insurance companies are doing this and that etc. Don't you find it kinda possible that the only reason insurance companies have been doing this and that is because politicians have let them?

Amazing how politicians can dictate the terms to all other companies, but not the insurance companies.



reply posted on 6-9-2009 @ 10:45 PM by WTFover
reply to post by jam321


Star from me. On two points.

First, the insurance lobby is the strongest of all of them. And has been for quite some time. All that lobbying means a lot of money on the table (or should I say under the table). There are too many problems being addressed under the heading 'Health Care Reform'. Health insurance is just one of them.

The second thing your post brought to my mind is how many people view health insurance. One reason the cost of health insurance is astronomical is because people think they have to use it for every little ache and pain. They don't file on their car insurance for every door ding, rock chip, broken tail light lens, etc. because they know their premiums will increase. The same goes for their home owner's policy. They pay life insurance premiums, knowing only one collection will be made. But, health insurance is used like a checking account with an endless balance.

I have only a catastropic health policy. It does not cover doctor's office visits. Most people don't believe me when I tell them that I pay $35 for a visit, when they pay the same as a co-pay. My premiums are not cheap, but considerably lower than a more comprehensive policy.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by WTFover]


reply posted on 7-9-2009 @ 11:12 AM by Mak Manto
Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by Mak Manto


So, what you are saying is that the current system is, basically, 'universal health care'. At least from the perspective that those of us who have insurance and cash are paying for those that do not. I agree with that. However, we all agree that the current system isn't working. The reason? There are more people who do not pay, than do. That fact would not change, even under government control. It's the same with Social Security. Long ago, the number of people taking money out of the system exceded that of those paying into it.

The solution is not to take more from the pockets of those who are already footing the bill.

I know that we, as human beings, must take care of those who can not take care of themselves. But, we shouldn't be forced to take care of those who just won't take care of themselves. Unfortunately, most of the current debate does not separate the two. Most of the proposed solutions will only perpetuate the helplessness of a lot of people.

No, I'm not saying that. The current system is NOWHERE NEAR to universal health care.

I'm saying when people pay into an insurance company and then the company refuses to pay for the patient, what's the friggin' point of insurance?

Why would you waste five hundred dollars a month on a plan that will not pay for a major health care plan?


reply posted on 7-9-2009 @ 11:15 AM by Mak Manto
Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by Mak Manto


And with 46 million uninsured Americans, that's a load of money...


How many of these 46 million can afford healthcare but choose not to?

Furthermore, why do people continue to believe the awful tales about insurance companies that politicians love to tell. They are saying that insurance companies are doing this and that etc. Don't you find it kinda possible that the only reason insurance companies have been doing this and that is because politicians have let them?

Amazing how politicians can dictate the terms to all other companies, but not the insurance companies.


Actually, that's quite the opposite.

Do you know how many politicians have been on the side of insurance companies? Especially now, since the health care debate is raging.

And I'll tell you, like I told WTF: what's the point of putting into a plan when the insurance company will not help you?

Why should someone waste several hundred dollars a month and if it comes time that they need an operation, and the company refuses to pay on it?

MANY FAMILIES are not able to waste that kind of money.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^