It's true!
In the video clip below, Barack "I'm the President" Obama discourages the widespread use of free speech by certain parties, saying that he doesn't want those who got us into "this mess" to do "a lot of talking."
Instead, he wants them to "get out of the way" and let his administration clean up "the mess."
So, these parties should take warning. The president wants them to not oppose his administration's efforts (get out of the way) and not exercise free speech much (not do a lot of talking).
Got it?
Presumably, if they do exercise their free speech right too much, they could be reported to the president's "fishy speech" reporting center.
Now, how are the parties to know who they are? Well, in the clip above the president doesn't specify which issues he's talking about (presumably he did before the clip began), but I'm guessing that they're financial and related to the housing crisis.
In that case, the president is opposing the use of too much speech by people like Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer. . . .
Or maybe, if he was thinking of the mess of Medicare and Medicate, he's putting LBJ ON NOTICE.
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac
Medicare, Medicaid
Obama-bailouts, Obama-care
Thing 1, Thing 2
I hope Obama bankrupts the country. It will finally get Americans to wake!
up!!!
Yeah, I got an email from my union saying that I need to go support the Democrat congressman in the town where I work because right wing and tea party style opposition are “disruptions”. I thought it was called free speech.
This certainly looks like very “fishy” talk from our President to me. Unfortunately, we don’t know the entire context of his speech. I’m sure we all know how sound bytes can be taken out of context (e.g. Christopher West).
He talks about cleaning up a “mess”, but there is no mess.
Until very recently, there has not been, in this country, any kind of wide recognition or expectation that health care is a legal right. There are *far* more people insured now than there were fifty years ago.
If we have now decided, as a society, that health care ought to be a right like legal representation is a right, then that’s fine, but it’s not been brought on by any real crisis. It’s only that our expectations have changed. The idea that health care is in crisis or is a “mess” is nothing but drummed up propagandizing. The health care system is doing exactly what we have (up until now) expected of it.
So talk about the system being broken and needing fixing is all gas. We had one system, and now we have changed our mind and seem to want another.
I would like to point out, though, that the current “choice” we are being offered (as if it were a free choice) is between Hudge and Gudge… big business or big government. The truth is that government is already up to its elbows in health care, and that big business will certainly continue to do well under Obamacare. The pharmaceutical companies are already lining up at the trough.
I agree with those who would rather see the Church once again doing this kind of work, but I don’t see it happening, as the society is too busy rejecting everything the Church has stood for. Of course, that is to a great extent our fault for allowing ourselves to be far more influenced by the culture than we are by our faith.
The claim: “So talk about the system being broken and needing fixing is all gas.”
It’s not gas to the many millions of people who are uninsured. It’s not gas even to people who currently have insurance but who have a pre-existing condition. A pre-existing condition can limit people’s choices, not because of the pre-existing condition itself but because of insurance limitations, exclusions and pricing. For example, if you can’t get insurance as a self-employed person due to a pre-existing condition even though you’ve been healthy for years, you or your spouse may be forced to work for someone else instead just to get the insurance, even if you’d earn much less money. The current insurance system works for many people, and that’s great, but for those for whom it’s not working, it’s broken.
The claim: “It’s only that our expectations have changed.”
Maybe your expectations have changed, but for many other people, their expectations have not changed. They expected and continue to expect an inclusive system. What’s changed for them is that instead of ignoring this expectation and how the current insurance system falls short, it’s getting attention.
Terry, you missed the point I was trying to make, which is that the current “system” (if one could call it that) was never designed with the expectation that it was to cover everyone equally. It was designed to serve a great number of people adequately. It is a mistake to criticize the current system for failing to do something it was never designed to do.
It’s like saying the restaurant system is “broken” because some people don’t get enough to eat, or that the hotel system is “broken” because some people are homeless. Restaurants and hotels were never designed to give away services.
Now, if we want to put together a system in which poor people can be fed at restaurants and sleep in hotels, that is great, but don’t start by claiming that we are in a grave restaurant and hotel crisis.
Incidentally, modern hospitals were not meant to give away services, either, though they do “give away” a great deal of their services, and pay for it buy charging their paying customers more. *Someone* has to pay.
The new thing is the idea that the government needs to have more control over ALL of health care, in order to provide for those who lack.
In addition, though this particular bill may not eliminate private options or establish Euthanasia Committees and such like, this IS the thin end of the wedge. Once the camel’s nose is in the tent, I don’t see what is to stop these developments from occurring further up the road. In fact, I think you can count on it, eventually.
Tim J. wrote:
Once the camel’s nose is in the tent,
Hey, that reminds me – what about universal vet care? Animals are people, too.
The Chicken,
President, Chickens for Chickens Sake
Tim,
I normally agree with you, but I think you’re mistaken about our current insurance-based healthcare system. The fact is that the insurance system has led to artificially inflated health services prices.
It’s not a system where everyone pays a fair price for healthcare; it’s a system where insurance companies can negotiate whatever price they want, but have pushed through legislation that requires hospitals to charge the same rate to everyone, whether the payer be Blue Cross or Joe Schmoe.
Say Hospital A could reasonably charge $1000 for Procedure X. Joe Schmoe checks in in need of that procedure. The hospital charges him $1000 for the procedure, and Joe sends the bill to his insurance company. The insurance company responds with a counteroffer to the hospital of $400. The hospital can reject the counteroffer, at the risk of being taken off Blue Cross’ preferred provider list and losing lots of business, so they accept the offer, but adjust their prices upward so that next time they won’t take a loss. The next time Joe Schmoe walks in for that procedure, the new price tag is $2500. Not a problem for Joe if he keeps his insurance coverage, but a problem for everyone else. The hospital doesn’t really take in more money, but if an uninsured individual walks in for the procedure, he is charged the new price without the bargaining power of Blue Cross, and generally winds up paying the full price. If he wants to avoid the inflated prices, his only option is heath insurance. If his is a preexisting condition, he’s SOL.
Keep in mind also that insurance companies are for-profit enterprises, and so must take in more money every year than they pay out. This leads to many people who thought they were insured getting stuck with bills their insurance company has found a way to avoid paying. But most importantly, it means that, on average, the insured are paying more for health services than the hospitals are charging. This cost is worth it to those who purchase insurance (whether directly, or semi-indirectly through an employer) because of the previously-mentioned price inflation. The insurance companies effectively have the middle-class public over a barrel.
The system may not be broken. People do, after all, receive healthcare. But it is deeply flawed. If you are unlucky enough to be uninsured or uninsurable, you’d best stay healthy, since a serious medical condition will bankrupt you, and the only way you’ll be able to avoid paying it is by becoming destitute enough to qualify for medicare.
There was a time, not terribly long ago, when most people didn’t carry health insurance, because healthcare was affordable. Families saved money for emergencies, and dipped into their savings when necessary, but they were seldom bankrupted by illness. Insurance companies (with cooperation from their pet congressmen) have changed things.
Not that I think Obamacare is going to be any better. Just that I understand what people mean when they say the current system is broken. In many ways, it is.
It is a mistake to criticize the current system for failing to do something it was never designed to do.
By that standard, it’s a mistake to criticize any idea (or one of your paintings) that wasn’t designed to be absolutely perfect equal to God, beyond criticism. And likewise, it’s a mistake to criticize the criticizers if they didn’t intend their criticism to be beyond criticism. Yet you do it anyway. There’s a word for that, but to use Jimmy Akin’s words, you “oppose free speech”.
Once the camel’s nose is in the tent, I don’t see what is to stop these developments from occurring further up the road.
That’s been the story since sin the fall of man. You act like it’s something new.
“You act like it’s something new.”
By that standard, it’s a mistake to oppose any program.
Besides, it’s another example of criticizing the criticizers.
“By that standard, it’s a mistake to criticize any idea (or one of your paintings)…”
Reductio ad absurdum. We are talking about the claim that the current health care system is in crisis or has failed in some catastrophic sense that requires immediate and dramatic intervention by the government.
Certainly it would be silly to criticize a small painting for not being a big painting? Or to criticize a drawing for not be a sculpture?
Do you assume that I am against universal health care? I’m not. I only want to be honest about where we are starting from. If we have now come to recognize universal health care as a right (which we, as a society, didn’t before), then obviously the current commercial insurance system may not be adequate for that purpose.
That does not mean that a government program will necessarily be, on the whole, better. As I said, someone has to pay. There is simply no such thing as free health care.
I find Sleeping Beastly’s criticisms more constructive, though I still think it is a mistake to insist that the health care system is falling apart, or something. That said, I’m no admirer of insurance companies. I think the price spiraling that Beastly referred to is one negative result of the idea that Capitalism is the answer to everything. The current system was cobbled together over time, and it may have simply taken us as far as it can.
To introduce another analogy; we have been driving the same 2-door ’93 Civic we had in college, but now we’ve had a couple of kids and we want something more like a minivan – with room for everyone. The Civic is not broken, but neither is it adequate for our new needs.
I think it is an important distinction, because the whole idea of a health care “crisis” seems intended to gin up hysteria in order to justify an ambitious and possibly overreaching government policy.
Let’s do universal health care, but avoid the “sky is falling” rhetoric.
By that standard, it’s a mistake to oppose any program.
Whose standard is that? The statement “You act like it’s something new” is not my standard. It’s my comment.
Besides, it’s another example of criticizing the criticizers.
Even compliments are criticism. Would you prefer examples of non sequiturs?
I only want to be honest about where we are starting from… If we have now come to recognize universal health care as a right… We are talking about the claim that the current health care system is in crisis or has failed in some catastrophic sense that requires immediate and dramatic intervention by the government.
Where we ARE starting from is the present, and at present, many people recognize universal health care as a right, and at present, many people suffer and die every day from lack of medical care, and that can rightfully be described as a crisis. And depending on which expert is talking, it may also be that the current health care system with respect to the people it currently covers and anticipates to cover under existing government entitlement programs is going down hill and needs prompt fixing. If that’s true, and with respect to the people face crisis, it doesn’t matter one iota what the current system was designed to support years ago when it was originally half-baked by people who weren’t focused on the 21st century.
Certainly it would be silly to criticize a small painting for not being a big painting? Or to criticize a drawing for not be a sculpture?
If your painting is too small for my wall, it’s too small. And if my need is for a sculpture and you offer me a drawing, you aren’t meeting my needs. As a private artist, you can claim you weren’t trying to meet my needs, but government doesn’t have the right to claim it’s not trying to meet my needs because the government is as much my servant as anyone else’s.
The Civic is not broken, but neither is it adequate for our new needs. I think it is an important distinction
According to my dictionary, meanings of the word “broken” are numerous and include “not functioning properly”, “incomplete”, “imperfect” (as in “broken English”), “not smooth; rough or irregular” and “bankrupt”. There are arguments made that the present health care system satisfies one or more of those definitions. As such, the distinction between “broken” and “inadequate” is a matter of opinion, and of course, politics.
Let’s do universal health care, but avoid the “sky is falling” rhetoric.
You mean like Sarah Palin’s “death panels”? And your rhetoric about the camel’s nose? If “universal” change involves people and institutions who don’t change without “sky is falling” rhetoric, then “universal” change necessarily requires “sky is falling” rhetoric. Perhaps that’s why politicians on all sides use it.
“If your painting is too small for my wall, it’s too small. And if my need is for a sculpture and you offer me a drawing, you aren’t meeting my needs”
If you approach me – a painter of small paintings, and a draftsman – and begin to run in circles, scream and shout that I am not filling your needs, I will happily allow you to leave and get your art somewhere else… and I might also recommend a therapist.
OR – you *might* just come to me and describe your needs and allow me to take a crack at sculpture and big paintings, without the senseless criticism of my previous work.
Like I said, “As a private artist, you can claim you weren’t trying to meet my needs, but government doesn’t have the right to claim it’s not trying to meet my needs because the government is as much my servant as anyone else’s.”
The government has a perfect right to claim it’s not trying to meet your needs, and for two reasons:
1. The government is not there to meet all your needs. It is supposed to perform certain functions. It is not God. It is not even your mommy.
2. The government has to meet other people’s needs, too, and they are not the same as you. What they want is not necessarily what you want, and even if everyone wants the same thing, there may be no humanly possible way to produce enough of it to go around.
These two things are, or ought to be, self-evident. It is a troubling sign of the times that so many people can indulge in rhetoric founded upon a basic failure to recognize either of them.
Whether the government has or has not the right to claim it’s not trying to meet my needs depends upon the view or interpretation of the government’s objectives and even what the words “my”, “need”, “government”, “trying”, “meet”, etc. mean. There are many views. I enjoy them all.
As written in the Constitution, the government’s objectives include to “promote the general welfare” which includes the health of the people, and that includes me, everyone. One interpretation is that as it may be ideally possible that the government could meet everyone’s every need, it is bound to do so by the Constitution. In this ideal, no one’s needs would be in conflict with the general welfare. In fact, perhaps their needs are an expression of the needs for the general welfare. Thus, in desiring the ideal, the government is bound to TRY to meet my needs, everyone’s needs. You can call the ideal God or mommy or whatever if you want. I don’t care what you call the ideal. That the government has not attained the ideal while trying does not eliminate or diminish the ideal to which the government is bound to try to attain.
Of course, one might insist that it’s not ideally possible that the government (or God acting through the government) could meet everyone’s every need. But who is to say what’s ideally possible? Can it be known what’s ideally possible without trying? If you try for 200 years but don’t succeed, do you just stop trying? In one extreme, maybe aliens will come and deliver it to the government. As extreme as that may be, we haven’t stopped trying to contact them. People pray all the time for miracles. Why couldn’t a miracle be delivered through the government? Congress prays every session. As Jesus said, “Everything is possible to one who has faith.”
Likewise, as to the interpretation that “The government has to meet other people’s needs, too, and they are not the same as you,” that’s one interpretation. Another interpretation is that as I love my neighbor as myself, other people’s needs are my needs too.
Similarly, what does the word “meet” mean? It has an amazing range of meanings. For example, it might mean handouts for some needs and “to oppose” or “to cope or deal effectively with” other needs.
Call it “rhetoric” if you wish. I like that word. It has many meanings, including “skill in the effective use of speech” and “the art of prose.” As the Church teaches, “Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it.” What an ideal that is.
Time to stop feeding it, I think.
“One interpretation is that as it may be ideally possible that the government could meet everyone’s every need, it is bound to do so by the Constitution.”
Thanks for posting that. It gives me that much greater confidence that I have taken the right side in the debate.
“Time to stop feeding it, I think.”
Quite. It has posted here many times under a seemingly endless list of aliases, and seems always to take a contrary position. There’s a word for that.
Sorry to “three-fer” on this thread, but this quote from Thomas Jefferson is, I think, on point;
“A government big enough to give everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”
Thanks for posting that. It gives me that much greater confidence that I have taken the right side in the debate.
Thank yourself. “It” is your reflection, your own interpretation. All the sides you’ve seen are of yourself.
seems always to take a contrary position. There’s a word for that.
Your reflection.
“A government big enough to give everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”
What a mighty government that would be that could provide everything that its people “want”, when the struggling U.S. government cannot even muster to provide all that its people “need”.
Also, for your reference, according to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation and the staff of the Thomas Jefferson library, “We have never found such a statement in Jefferson’s writings. As far as we know, this statement actually originates with Gerald R. Ford.”
Thanks for your diligence in hunting that down, Terry. I found it second hand and posted it without verifying the source.
My bad!
You know, that Gerald Ford was sharper than he gets credit for, wasn’t he?
You know, that Gerald Ford was sharper than he gets credit for, wasn’t he?
You know he was pro-choice, pro-gay and a Freemason, wasn’t he?
I believe the qoute originated with Congressman Davy Crockett.
In any case, it is clear the current system…let us say, has flaws?
1. As noted if you do not have insurance you do not simply pay your own way but you pay a large non-insured penalty.
2. With insurance we do not “shop” for medicine (sort of a scary thought there, shopping for the cheapest doc). Because we do not shop there is no pressure (in the system) to cut prices. When’s the last time you clipped a 10% off MRI coupon?
(and yes, shopping for medicine is a much more daunting prospect than for a new car mechanic).
3. There is no pressure in the system to seek and use inexpensive alternatives. Mamagrams on women under 50 are a waste of money, go tell that to your wife and sleep on the cot for a week. Prostate antigen tests are likely a waste under the age of 65 and, maybe, altogether.
4. Medicine has changed. When your grandfather was sick he went to the doctor that everyone in town saw. Now you go to the primary care doc who sends you to the Internal Medicine doc, who sends you to the cardiologist. Each one running a pile of tests. It’s a great way to get very good medicine, but very expensive.
5. Go back and look at Jimmy’s post on his root canal. There are new machines that do great things being invented every day. And they cost money.
I really don’t know what the answer is. “Terry” I think deserves some basic medical care in a first world country regardless of his financial status. But, yes, this is the nose under the tent. Where does basic medical care end and what you should pay for start?
It’s all that Adam’s fault, you know
The earliest I’ve seen attributed in print is for Gerald Ford in a book published in 1960. He repeated it multiple times over the years, including in a presidential address, but without attribution to anyone else. Since then, I’ve heard it attributed to at least half a dozen people (Ford, Goldwater, Lincoln, Jefferson, Crockett, Reagan). Personally, I don’t believe it originated with any of them. Why not some barber, waitress, backroom political hack, comedian, goofball, anyone, someone the public never heard of.
With insurance we do not “shop” for medicine (sort of a scary thought there, shopping for the cheapest doc).
Scary in a lot of ways. With or without insurance, have you tried price shopping when you’re sick? It becomes “I don’t care how much it costs. I can’t think. I’m in pain. I have a fever. I’m scared. Just make me better now.” Even when you’re healthy, trying to price shop your way through the medical care maze can be an incredible challenge. The system is not designed for it. The doctor has patients waiting and the gal in the office is irritable and can’t talk for 15 seconds without interruption. And that’s just one office. Try pricing something that involves a whole lineup of doctors working on you, with all the charges for this and that going on for 57 pages from six different offices you never knew existed who haven’t yet written you up because you haven’t yet had your procedure. And that’s just if you go that route. Then you must go next door and price the whole thing over again and again for comparison.
Along the way you get lectures from the frazzled and/or arrogant doctors about why you’re doing this and how he doesn’t have time for your idiotic questions and ignorant second guessing of alternatives. Every cost cut from the tried and true risks malpractice for him. The doctor really puts you in your place when you say something like, “But Dr. SoandSo charges less. Why is yours more, what is the difference? Why do you do that but he doesn’t?”
Then there are the umpteen different uncoordinated government and charitable programs that you “might” qualify for that you don’t know about. If you get a divorce and live separately, maybe you can lower your income to get under the wire. Or maybe if you drive 300 miles to some town where for some reason there’s funding at that clinic for the time being.
It’s a real adventure.
Can Catholics really condone what is going on at these meetings? Remember the nuns that trained you… and live up to that training! I am convinced that if health insurers are that much against a public plan that they have to organize chaos to confuse the discussion, if the argument against public option is so weak it would succumb to serious debate, maybe we should have that public option. After viewing this incivility, I’m even thinking single payer is the way to go. These companies must be stopped. Close them down and let’s just start over.
“…they have to organize chaos to confuse the discussion…”
And you know this how? You think the people at these meetings must be working for the insurance companies because…? If you have any evidence, I’m all ears.
“After viewing this incivility, I’m even thinking single payer is the way to go”
That makes no sense. One does not follow at all from the other.
“Can Catholics really condone what is going on at these meetings?”
Yes. Catholics are allowed to voice their opinions and exercise their freedoms.
“…organize chaos to confuse the discussion…”
Maybe he’s referring to the gentleman in St. Louis who was beaten by the SEIU union thugs.
“These companies must be stopped. Close them down and let’s just start over.”
Have you seen the new Che Guevara movie yet?
The Muslims are rejoicing with Obama as our president. He will bankrupt the country and remove America from super-power status. Yet a large number of our Catholic brothers and sisters voted for him. The Vatican in its upper echelons has supported his administration. Are we close to Armageddon yet?
Unfortunately, some of these comments border on parody.
“The Vatican in its upper echelons has supported his administration.”
Evidence?
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
I don’t understand why Jimmy is making such a big deal about the Orwellian Obama Administration. Numerous Protestants have wanted him to answer their questions, however in Orwellian style he has deleted their comments. Seems to me an case of the pot calling the kettle black.
The above would be your basic LIE.
Single payer is NOT the answer.
Before WWII, you could go see a doctor or go to the hospital and not go bankrupt. Five weeks in the hospital, $105. Birth, with complications, plus 5 days in the hospital: $53.
Try pricing those same procedures today. Bankruptcy level charges.
The problem is that third party payers (BOTH PRIVATE AND PUBLIC) have causes the health care costs to go up in a crazy rate.
Someone said to get rid of the insurance companies. I agree. ALSO GET RID OF THE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS TOO. The third party payers are the problems. Get rid of ALL of them.
“What about health care for the poor?” someone will ask. How did they make do before? That’s right, the Catholic Church had religious orders who ran hospitals and gave free medical care to the indigent. That worked great for centuries until the secularists got all egotistical and thought they could do better.
At another forum, a woman with MS shared her fears about Obamacare. Currently she takes Interferon (self-administered) which cosst $1,400 a month. It is covered by her private health insurance. She has a friend in Sweden who also has MS. This friend is now in a wheelchair, because Sweden’s severely rationed socialized health-care system refuses to pay for anything as expensive as interferon treatments.
Is this what we want for America? MS sufferers in wheelchairs, even though treatments are available to prevent that?
Socialism makes everyone equally destitute and miserable (except the oligarchy running it). What’s worse — giving most people access to adequate health care OR giving no one such access (except the CongressCritters, of course)?
The current system is far from perfect, but it is a holy hayell better than Obamacare. NOOOOO comparison.
How did they make do before? That’s right, the Catholic Church had religious orders who ran hospitals and gave free medical care to the indigent.
That was back in Medieval times, when they could do little for people. To provide that kind of medical care today would cost very little. Nevertheless, even back then, hospital “revenues were often increased by special taxes” in order to pay the bills, despite the fact that the Church endowed the hospitals with “lands, sometimes of whole villages, farms, vineyards, and forests”, and the laity gave liberally, and income from the churches under its control were poured into it.
“There’s a word for that, but to use Jimmy Akin’s words, you “oppose free speech”.”
Absolutely not!
Opposing free speech would be if one demanded that a certain view, criticism etc. should be banned by law.
To tell somebody that he is talking rubbish is not opposing free speech.
“Can Catholics really condone what is going on at these meetings? Remember the nuns that trained you..”
I wasn’t trained by no nuns! Why do you assume that all Catholics are?
“With insurance we do not “shop” for medicine (sort of a scary thought there, shopping for the cheapest doc).”
Actually, as already stated, just having insurance is an automatic coupon. But the savings don’t go to me, they go to the insurance company. The costs go to my adult uninsured daugther who has a chronic condition requiring several medications and to whom this whole thing is very scarey. (me, too.
Opposing free speech would be if one demanded that a certain view, criticism etc. should be banned by law.
That’s just one form of opposing free speech. There are many forms of opposition. Not all of them requires banning by law. I have many means of free speech by which I can oppose the speech of others which do not necessitate banning by law.
To tell somebody that he is talking rubbish is not opposing free speech.
That’s simply your opinion. Thank you for sharing it. Here are a few others. From the dictionary… “oppose” can also mean “to be hostile or adverse to, as in opinion” (as in telling them they’re talking rubbish), or “to stand in the way of; hinder; obstruct”, or “to act against or provide resistance to; combat”. Most all political speech is “free”, and if one uses any of the methods of opposition against it, it can constitute “opposing free speech”.
Actually, as already stated, just having insurance is an automatic coupon.
It’s a coupon of sorts alright, but the value of that coupon varies from doctor to doctor, hospital to hospital, according to the deal that particular doctor, hospital, etc. has struck with the insurance company. Sometimes it’s an all expenses paid coupon and sometimes it’s not. It can vary depending on where you go to redeem it.
“…if one uses any of the methods of opposition against it, it can constitute ‘opposing free speech’.”
So, why are you opposing free speech?
So, why are you opposing free speech?
If it’s your interpretation that I oppose free speech, ask yourself. As for me, I’d no more believe I’m/you’re “opposing free speech” than I’d believe I’m/you’re furthering it. Is there a difference to you? I rejoice nonetheless. As St. Catherine of Siena said, “Even if all the gossiping tongues were to set us in a bad light we would not worry; we rejoice and are delighted by all things because we live in God, our rest, and we taste the milk of his love.”
It is very doubtful that Obama will be able to pass his health care legislation. Hillary Clinton tried to do the same when her husband was president and failed. The Medical, Pharmaceutical, and Insurance lobbies are so strong in Washington that they will do anything to protect their profits, by fighting such legislation.
It is a well established fact that many Americans are going oversees for scheduled medical care and this trend will only accelerate as health care costs increase out of control.
So instead of worrying about Obama, the people on this blog should be going after the real culprits.
“Hey, that reminds me – what about universal vet care? Animals are people, too”
Good lord, NO! Vet care is still affordable for just about everyone because the government has stayed out of it.
Actually, the AMA and many of the drug and insurance companies are in favor of this legislation.
“It is a well established fact that many Americans are going overseas for scheduled medical care…”
I’d ask to see some evidence, but I’m still waiting for evidence to support “The Vatican in its upper echelons has suupported his administration.”
“Actually, the AMA and many of the drug and insurance companies are in favor of this legislation.”
Don’t confuse him with facts, bill.
Bill912,
I know you think you are intelligent with your snide comments. Let me rain on your parade a little bit. You are a glorified cheerleader for Jimmy and Tim and have yet to expound on one original thought. Probably years of donuts and coffee have clouded your mind.
So prove to me that the AMA ones Universal Health Care!
I didn’t expect him to provide any evidence.
BTW, Oneil, you exhibit the manners of a barbarian.
Bill912,
I have my evidence, but will only post it after you give your competing argument. So put your pompom down and show me how and why the AMA wants Universal Health Care!
Why? So you can engage in more name-calling?
I would rather be a barbarian than a coffee drinking and donut munching whiner suffering from an inferiority complex.
Bill912,
There is nothing worse than a person who dishes it out, but can’t take it.
Bill912,
Basically your saying that you are not smart enough to explain why the AMA is pro Universal Health Care, so your punting the ball back to me to avoid a further humiliation. Bill912, you appear wisest when you do not speak. I
Actually, the AMA and many of the drug and insurance companies are in favor of this legislation.
I noticed this as well. My suspicion is that we won’t wind up with a private insurance system or truly socialized healthcare, but a kind of amalgamation of the two.
As a matter of fact I’m not opposed, in principle, to socialized medicine. If handled properly, it might even be a good way to make sure everyone gets appropriate medical care.
What I’m afraid of is the government using tax money to subsidize care through insurance companies, which is more or less what I expect to happen when the crooks in Congress actually pass a comprehensive healthcare bill. Then we’ll wind up with all the simplicity and efficiency of a government program, and all the generosity and humanity of a private enterprise.
Now I remember why Jimmy deleted your comments in the first place… Greg.
Oneil,
If you want evidence that the AMA supports the bill, here you are. If you want to know why they support it, their letter is printed in full if you scroll down the link provided above.
I noted with interest two of the reasons the AMA gave for supporting the bill:
-Requires individuals to have health insurance, and provides premium assistance to those who cannot afford it
…in case anyone was still wondering why the insurance companies are behind the bill. It requires individuals to subscribe to an insurance policy. This ought to get interesting.
-Includes prevention and wellness initiatives designed to keep Americans healthy
I wonder if this means that certain lifestyle choices will be taxed or penalized somehow. No doubt fornicators have nothing to fear, but I’ll bet smokers and overweight people get hosed.
BTW, Oneil, you might try thanking Bill for taking a job where he puts his life in jeopardy so that you can sleep safely at night and do business comfortably in the daytime.
FWIW, Bill, you have my thanks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11health.html
Thanks, SB.
Oneil,
The link is outdated, but interesting because it shows that the AMA has performed an about-face on the bill. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that they now know more about the specifics of the bill (requiring individuals to purchase insurance policies, for instance) than they did back in June.
The Military is an organization filled with drunkards, fornicators, high school dropouts, trigger happy, lazy good for nothings that joined one of the largest government welfare programs( i.e. the Armed Forces). In the guise of defending the country they go around wasting taxpayers money on wars and peace initiatives that they can’t win( Vietnam, Iraq, Korean, Afghanistan, etc). These flunkies later join police forces after they retire.
So who will protect me from them? BTW the majority of the Arsons in my childhood hometown were caused by the fire department.
Someone’s behavior is an insult to the already bad name of trolls…
As it is written, “The insults of those who insult you fall upon me.”