Anyone watching/watched the health care summit??? Thoughts?

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
Republican brought the bills out and Obama called it a prop and political theater.

Rightly so IMO

A HUGE pile of paper they want to force on the American people... It was a brilliant move.

It is a bill and it is good to see a comprehensive plan to address the healthcare crisis as opposed to unfunded, unsupported "idea" papers the GOP has pretended to put forward.

Given the enourmity and complexity of the healthcare system wouldn't a bill that takes that into account make sense?

Honestly this has to be one of the most inane and idiotic rhetorical bits that the GOP has tried...it's bad because it is so many pages!

Do they feel that way about the bible?

But the republicans actually used pages from the bills to make arguments, and the President seemed clueless, and his rebuttals were ineffective at best.

At one point an aid rushed to Obama and handed him a note, and that seemed to cause the President to concede the point... Priceless moment..

Not sure we watched the same conference...that note was to inform him of the vote in congress where he informed everyone they had to break and take bus to go vote...wasn't it?

Other than that the President did terrific. Intelligent, articulate, didn't let any political rhetoric or BS slide.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


No, I'm not misrepresenting it. If Obama were independently moderating the summit, I would agree. The problem is that Obama is highly biased on the issue. He's setting one set of rules for his position and another for the opposition by doing that. The GOP is going into it with one hand tied behind their backs; granted, I'm sure they knew it going in.

But again, I'm not intending to defend the GOP. All I'm saying is that its rather obvious that neither side went into this as honest brokers. Nothing will change and both sides will continue their previous plans regarding this issue. It was all for show and was a waste of time.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by vor78]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I suppose I didn't think of "high risk" in that sense. All I could imagine was sick, elderly, bed-ridden, hospitalized indigents being kept "alive" simply because their family members can't bare to let them go. Looking at it from you perspective, I would have to agree that a large pool would work best.

Apart from the left vs. right bickering, I would have to say that the terminology used during this health care reform fiasco is part of the problem. Meaning that they use vague terms that, unless specifically defined, leaves lots of room for interpretation by the "Average Joe".

reply to post by ChrisCrikey


I get the opposite reactions from the health care people I know. One physician in particular said he would have to quit his practice because the government still owed him in excess of $36,000 from 2009. If more government intervention is implemented, he will be unable to keep his business open.

reply to post by vor78

'I don't count my time because I'm the president.'

He is the moderator...he is responding to both sides after they speak. How can you count his time as only democratic???

That is ridiculous...but it will be played over and over on Fox News out of context.

Originally posted by searching411
reply to post by ChrisCrikey

 

I get the opposite reactions from the health care people I know. One physician in particular said he would have to quit his practice because the government still owed him in excess of $36,000 from 2009. If more government intervention is implemented, he will be unable to keep his business open.

Simple fix to that is quit accepting medicare & medicade patients....oh, but I forget, physicians love that government money & tax breaks.

reply to post by Aggie Man

I do not want my money to go towards keeping someone alive for a few extra months.

But this is how insurance works. You need enough people who are not currently using the health insurance (young healthy individuals) so the company has enough money to cover ones that need to use it (older and sicker individual) .

This is how ALL insurance works...auto, life, health.

Now, I would like a strict definition of "high risk"

They haven't given one...but currently if you are old, fat, smoker, been sick in the past, or have relatives that had certain diseases...you are high risk. I would probably be high risk because my mom had cancer. No one else in her family ever had cancer...no one else in my family has cancer. But all it takes is one...and bang...your high risk. I said we will all eventually be in that high risk pool because they do consider old age high risk by default. So eventually we are all going to get there...unless we die young and die quickly...which isn't ideal.

reply to post by maybereal11


It's too big, and gives the government too much power over a large portion of the US economy.

It needs to be scrapped period, the American people have been screwed enough by big government already, we don't need them and their bureaucracies determining when or if we must have a rectal exam and how much we must pay for it as well.

I mean, really... Isn't government BIG enough already thanks to decades of legislation/laws, amendments, reforms etc, passed by both democrats and republicans?

There has to be a simple way to reform the system by removing fraud and corruption and reducing costs without giving the government 2,000+ pages of NEW LAWS over its people.

And yes, apparently we were watching a different "show"

Then again, maybe it is all a matter of perspective eh?

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Meaning that they use vague terms that, unless specifically defined, leaves lots of room for interpretation by the "Average Joe".

True. That's why it's important that the Average Joe put down the joystick, turn the TV away from the ESPN and turn it to CSPAN and start educating himself on this stuff. Otherwise, he's either against or for something based on the letter behind the name of the person pushing it.

But the average Joe seems to be happy to wallow in willful ignorance.

(I don't consider you an average Joe at all.)

[edit on 2/25/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

As I have said...I'm on a delay because I am watching it taped.


Latest development...republicans are saying the CBO's OFFICIAL estimation is WRONG. So this one republican has said that even though he agrees with the CBO numbers...they aren't realistic...and gave his own version of what is realistic.

Xavier Becerra called them on it saying if they don't trust the CBO's numbers then there can be no discussion...and Paul Ryan agreed that he does trust the CBO....but added...but he doesn't think their numbers are realistic.




[edit on 25-2-2010 by OutKast Searcher]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Meaning that they use vague terms that, unless specifically defined, leaves lots of room for interpretation by the "Average Joe".

True. That's why it's important that the Average Joe put down the joystick, turn the TV away from the ESPN and turn it to CSPAN and start educating himself on this stuff. Otherwise, he's either against or for something based on the letter behind the name of the person pushing it.

But the average Joe seems to be happy to wallow in willful ignorance.

(I don't consider you an average Joe at all.)

[edit on 2/25/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

I wholeheartedly agree! Thank you for the compliment...I don't consider you an "average joanne" too.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
He is the moderator...he is responding to both sides after they speak. How can you count his time as only democratic???

Do you honestly think that Barack Obama is unbiased in this debate?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
As I have said...I'm on a delay because I am watching it taped.


Latest development...republicans are saying the CBO's OFFICIAL estimation is WRONG. So this one republican has said that even though he agrees with the CBO numbers...they aren't realistic...and gave his own version of what is realistic.

Xavier Becerra called them on it saying if they don't trust the CBO's numbers then there can be no discussion...and mr republican (didn't get his name) agreed that he does trust the CBO....but added...but he doesn't think their numbers are realistic.

I would bet dollars to doughnuts that he would agree with the CBO's numbers and would find them highly realistic if it were his cause that was under the microscope. It's so sad to see so many "can't do's" in Congress...it's almost like they think they were elected so that they can campaign for reelection. They just want to sit by idly and get nothing done...and you know what they say about idle hands...

Originally posted by vor78

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
He is the moderator...he is responding to both sides after they speak. How can you count his time as only democratic???

Do you honestly think that Barack Obama is unbiased in this debate?

I have seen him give both sides as much time as they need to make their points...he hasn't made anyone cut their comments short.

I have also seen him agree to points made by both sides.

His views more naturally lean towards the democrats...so yes he is "biased"...do you expect him to be neutral on this issue?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
His views more naturally lean towards the democrats...so yes he is "biased"...do you expect him to be neutral on this issue?

Of course I don't, and that's the point. If he's biased, and everyone knows he's biased, for him to ignore the time of his own comments hamstrings the GOP from the outset. Its not a level playing field.

Let me put it to you another way: if one side can't see how the other side might view something as simple as this as unfair, how in the hell are they supposed to negotiate over a much more complex legislative matter within the bill itself?

My point here is that BOTH SIDES are clearly being obstinate and have no interest in changing their positions. This was all meant for public consumption, with one last chance for both sides to sway the public in their favor. As for a meaningful exchange of ideas that will ultimately lead to substantive changes in the legislation itself, I definitely do not believe that will happen.


[edit on 25-2-2010 by vor78]

reply to post by vor78

Of course I don't, and that's the point. If he's biased, and everyone knows he's biased, for him to ignore the time of his own comments hamstrings the GOP from the outset. Its not a level playing field.

Again, though, I'm sure the GOP knew this would be the case going in. My point here is that BOTH SIDES have no interest in changing their positions. This was all meant for public consumption, with one last chance for both sides to sway the public in their favor. As for a meaningful exchange of ideas that will ultimately lead to substantive changes in the legislation itself, I definitely do not believe that will happen.

It is Obama's meeting...he called for it. Why shouldn't he be allowed to talk and address points???

He is giving equal time to both dems and repubs of Congress...and he is taking some time for himself.


The problem is that THIS is what you have taken away from this...did you even listen to any more of the discussion???

Originally posted by Walkswithfish

It needs to be scrapped period, the American people have been screwed enough by big government already, we don't need them and their bureaucracies determining when or if we must have a rectal exam and how much we must pay for it as well.

Your fear is that healthcare reform will empower the government to demand you get a rectal exam and then overcharge you for it?

I must have missed that in the bill.

Well, on the reality scale I suppose mandatory rectal exams is better than "death panels"....but both are squarely on the "WTF are you talking about" end of the spectrum IMO

[edit on 25-2-2010 by maybereal11]

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I've seen enough to realize what the end result will be. There will be no substantive exchange of ideas for the members of Congress themselves, because no one in that room had any interest in what the other side had to say.

(And when will I ever learn not to use Obama as a negative example...its like kicking a hornet's nest)

reply to post by vor78


You said yourself that you watched it for a half an hour...out of over 6 hours. You watched 1/12th of the discussion and that was enough for you to know what is going on? You can't deny ignorance while not being informed

I don't care if you bash Obama...I've bashed him for many things. What I do care about is you mis-representing the facts.

All i saw mostly was Naught-bama scolding anyone who didn't agree with his agenda...

He tortured the viewers as he was always searching for a coherent thought... (i do that but i've had a brain hemmhorage hemorrhage and i'm not the President.)

I sort of expect that another year or so of the grating politics from the Repubs. and any Dems. not in his camp, and Naught will fly off his handle,
he's not too tightly wrapped right now... you could see it in his TV exposure over the length of the roundtable meeting instead of the personna he projects at the practiced-rehearsed speeches
or the other snapshot moments that is allowed the public...

this guys got trouble, mental & psychological....at the moment
Ihope it does not get any worse

[edit on 25-2-2010 by St Udio]