Page 89 of 143 FirstFirst ... 3979848586878889909192939499139 ... LastLast
Results 1,761 to 1,780 of 2855
  1. #1761  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Oh I know.....but since you are a doctor, and since you have such a strong conviction for your beliefs on the subject matter and, whether you want to admit or not, are not very flexible on your view points....it often seems as if all doctors think the same way as you. So, I'll be anxious to see what Dr. Boustany says. When you say "I just hope he doesn't make crap up", leads me to believe that anything he says you will likely disagree with. Of course, I will also likely disagree with about anything Obama has to say.....so.....not sure what tonight is all about....other than another Obama speech (yawn)....who knows....maybe he'll surprise me
    Well, that was easy. Boustany said absolutely nothing. He said we should stop and start over ( typical republican delaying tactics in hope nothing will happen) and he characterized Obama's plan as government takeover of your health insurance, when his speech said no such thing.

    And to say that nothing changes flies in the face of what you wrote. Obama came out in favor of tort reform, or at least demonstration projects to see it it did anything; he put forth proposals that were authored by republicans. He was willing to consider options to a classic public option. He guaranteed that he would not sign any plan that increased the deficit. Now you can just say he's lying, but do you really think that? Wouldn't that be political suicide?

    And to see an elected representative of the US shout "you lie" at the president of the US certainly gives you a perspective about how much the republicans are going to support anything that the White House favors. No congressman did that to Bush during a speech, as I recall, despite the anger and opposition to Iraq. The republicans have no options, have no vision, have no solutions, and will not participate by their own choice. And in the long run, they will be on the wrong side of history, just like those that opposed Medicare in 1965. In summary, Obama made a great speech that hopefully will inspire some bipartisanship on both sides.
  2. #1762  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Well....I have to be up at 4:45 to hit the pool @ 5:30, so can't respond to too much of the Prez....but.....having listened to both Obama and Boustany, doesn't seem like much has changed. [...]
    No, nothing will change. Obama presents vague guidelines and emotional appeals, and gets credited with a 'plan'. Others advance other ideas, and they're dismissed as vague guidelines or non-ideas or stalling tactics or whatever.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #1763  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Well, that was easy. Boustany said absolutely nothing. He said we should stop and start over ( typical republican delaying tactics in hope nothing will happen) and he characterized Obama's plan as government takeover of your health insurance, when his speech said no such thing.

    And to say that nothing changes flies in the face of what you wrote. Obama came out in favor of tort reform, or at least demonstration projects to see it it did anything; he put forth proposals that were authored by republicans. He was willing to consider options to a classic public option. He guaranteed that he would not sign any plan that increased the deficit. Now you can just say he's lying, but do you really think that? Wouldn't that be political suicide?

    And to see an elected representative of the US shout "you lie" at the president of the US certainly gives you a perspective about how much the republicans are going to support anything that the White House favors. No congressman did that to Bush during a speech, as I recall, despite the anger and opposition to Iraq. The republicans have no options, have no vision, have no solutions, and will not participate by their own choice. And in the long run, they will be on the wrong side of history, just like those that opposed Medicare in 1965. In summary, Obama made a great speech that hopefully will inspire some bipartisanship on both sides.
    Quite fairly and nicely stated. If only others will follow the example demonstrated by Obama tonight by removing the partisan divisiveness and focusing on the economic and security realities involved. As for Joe Wilson (R-SC) who shouted "You Lie" during a presidential address, he's now apologized (albeit too late to be of any concern). Sort of like apologizing for having screamed "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

    All parties involved have to take ownership of the economic realities involved in the inclusion of a public option (VS the cost of the public at-large picking up the tab for unnecessary ER visits and visits by those much more ill than they would be otherwise if covered by an insurance plan) and the overall reform of healthcare as such a significant segment of the US economy. Being prepared to bring hard, nonpartisan figures VS fear would make for a much more productive discussion, IMO, since virtually all concerned agree that an insurance/healthcare overhaul is required for our economic stability. Coming to the table with only poison pills is simply not dealing in good faith and is quite transparent.

    If the president legislates the details of his proposals, what's the function of congress?
  4. #1764  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    No, nothing will change. Obama presents vague guidelines and emotional appeals, and gets credited with a 'plan'. Others advance other ideas, and they're dismissed as vague guidelines or non-ideas or stalling tactics or whatever.
    I have to disagree. I believe President Obama was VERY specific. Including immediately enacting lawsuit limits in limited areas to determine their effectiveness.

    It will be a great day when this effort is complete. A turning point for our Country. I invite you to take an active part in it's outcome as opposed to obstructing it.

  5. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1765  
    Hello Everyone,

    Who is delusional enough to believe that what is said in this speech (after the dozens of others) has ANY bearing on reality. The President can say anything he wants--it is his specialty. It's just more talk. Aspiring sycophants can fall over themselves, but the legislation is what matters, not well-rehearsed speeches.

    Political Suicide? That's interesting. I've heard that the proposal is for things to start in 2013--AFTER the next Presidential Election. There are two questions to ask. 1) If this is so urgent, then why wait for so long to implement it, and 2) if we've got to 2013, why the rush? The answer is that this is ALL about politics, specifically political timing.

    We should be asking why certain Democrats are attempting to foist a massive government expansion on the public instead of addressing the common-ground issues. That is holding up actual reform, and letting waste continue, because they'd rather play politics than find actual solutions. Real reform is being held hostage by ideologues seeking to expand government at all costs. Helping people is just the cover story.

    KAM
  6. #1766  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    ...As for Joe Wilson (R-SC) who shouted "You Lie" during a presidential address, he's now apologized (albeit too late to be of any concern). Sort of like apologizing for having screamed "Fire!" in a crowded theater....
    He should be censored. That was the most idiotic, disrespectful thing I have ever seen a congressman do. He's an absolute fool. Totally out of order. You can bet Glenn Beck will be praising him tomorrow.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  7. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1767  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    I have to disagree. I believe President Obama was VERY specific. Including immediately enacting lawsuit limits in limited areas to determine their effectiveness.

    It will be a great day when this effort is complete. A turning point for our Country. I invite you to take an active part in it's outcome as opposed to obstructing it.

    I wouldn't mind being a part of improving the health care system in this country. I also don't mind obstructing improvements that are, in my opinion, going to result in worse health care for a large segment of the country. Namely, middle class folks who make too much to benefit from a public option but not enough to opt out and working class folks who already get great care from their employers.
  8. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1768  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    I have to disagree. I believe President Obama was VERY specific. Including immediately enacting lawsuit limits in limited areas to determine their effectiveness.

    It will be a great day when this effort is complete. A turning point for our Country. I invite you to take an active part in it's outcome as opposed to obstructing it.

    Why do you think that President Obama failed to support Tort Reform until now?

    I'm not sure how you missed it--People are taking part in the outcome--voicing their views. They just don't agree with you. What you are really asking is that people just agree with you.

    When they don't agree with you, you say they are "obstructing" things. That's not an honest attempt to compromise or gain support, or convince others--its just a demand that they agree or you will label them obstructionists.

    You're attempting to create a false choice--if people don't agree with your desires, they are doing something wrong. Well, that's simply not true.

    I have a different Suggestion. Why don't you stop 'obstructing' real reforms, instead of insisting on massive expansion of government programs? How about you stop advocating massive unsustainable programs.

    You should just adopt my preferences or I'll accuse you of obstructing reform. Because what I advocate is real reform--yours isn't. See--its really easy to make friendly sounding, but totally unreasonable demands and proclamations.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 09/09/2009 at 11:29 PM. Reason: fixed error
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1769  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    He should be censored. That was the most idiotic, disrespectful thing I have ever seen a congressman do. He's an absolute fool. Totally out of order. You can bet Glenn Beck will be praising him tomorrow.
    You are totally right--that was a rude thing to do.

    However, when you say "censored" do you mean "censured"?

    I wonder how many people outraged at this, giggled when an Iraqi Reporter threw a shoe at President Bush. Please note--I'm not saying you approved of that.

    KAM
  10. #1770  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    You are totally right--that was a rude thing to do.

    However, when you say "censored" do you mean "censured"?

    I wonder how many people outraged at this, giggled when an Iraqi Reporter threw a shoe at President Bush. Please note--I'm not saying you approved of that.

    KAM
    You are correct, I meant censured. I think he's just as stupid as the ***** that threw the boot.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  11. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1771  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    You are correct, I meant censured. I think he's just as stupid as the ***** that threw the boot.
    I'm glad to hear the guy realized his outburst wasn't appropriate and apologized.
    If he was talking to a reporter and he said "I don't think what the President said about X was true" that is totally appropriate, but cat-calls are not.

    I have to admit however--the other day I was listening to someone speak--someone I am favorable towards, and he said something that I found outrageous, and I felt an urge to exclaim something, but I didn't.

    KAM
  12. #1772  
    Good one Toby! Haha.
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Crazy's debatable, but I'm not usually particularly wild. That being said, I'm not particularly icy either. Reserved and even, yes. Analytical, almost to a fault. Regardless, I thought I had posted this joke, but may have gone to do it after the other thread was deleted. It's an old joke that I've modernized a little with the amounts and terminology (CDs didn't exist when I first heard it).

    Little Johnny was sitting in cPplass and heard his teacher saying that they were going to discuss theory vs. reality in class the next day. Being a conscientious student, Little Johnny went ask his dad about it.

    His dad thought a bit and said, "This is probably better explained by a demonstration. Why don't you go ask your mom if she'd have sex with the neighbor for $100,000?" Little Johnny didn't quite understand but went ask his mom who replied, "Wow, that would pay off our house with money left over to take a vacation. I'd definitely have to consider it."

    Little Johnny told his dad, and his dad said, "Now go ask your sister the same question." Little Johnny ran and asked his sister who replied, "Wow, I could buy a new car, pay for college, and buy all kinds of CDs. Yeah, I'd do it."

    Again Little Johnny reported to his dad, but said "I don't get it Dad.. What's this have to do with theory and reality?" His dad said, "Simple, Johnny. In theory, we're sitting on a gold mine here. In reality, we're living with a couple of whores."
  13. #1773  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Hello Everyone,

    Who is delusional enough to believe that what is said in this speech (after the dozens of others) has ANY bearing on reality. The President can say anything he wants--it is his specialty. It's just more talk. Aspiring sycophants can fall over themselves, but the legislation is what matters, not well-rehearsed speeches.

    Political Suicide? That's interesting. I've heard that the proposal is for things to start in 2013--AFTER the next Presidential Election. There are two questions to ask. 1) If this is so urgent, then why wait for so long to implement it, and 2) if we've got to 2013, why the rush? The answer is that this is ALL about politics, specifically political timing.

    We should be asking why certain Democrats are attempting to foist a massive government expansion on the public instead of addressing the common-ground issues. That is holding up actual reform, and letting waste continue, because they'd rather play politics than find actual solutions. Real reform is being held hostage by ideologues seeking to expand government at all costs. Helping people is just the cover story.

    KAM
    So given the fact that you think he's lying...which is what you said...therefore there is nothing he could have said that you would have believed and supported. Nothing. That is the republican option, nothing. Even if he said he totally agreed with everything the republicans said, you would say you wouldn't believe him. And this "massive government expansion" is just as much a lie as death panels.

    The really funny thing is that you claim his position is all about politics. It's yours that is all about politics. The politics of making him fail, with no attention to people who need help, no matter how much he compromises. Why am I not surprised?
  14. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #1774  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I wouldn't mind being a part of improving the health care system in this country. I also don't mind obstructing improvements that are, in my opinion, going to result in worse health care for a large segment of the country. Namely, middle class folks who make too much to benefit from a public option but not enough to opt out and working class folks who already get great care from their employers.
    Where the problem lies is that your fear is unfounded as no nonpartisan interest has provided evidence to support the notion that "middle class folks who make too much to benefit from a public option but not enough to opt out and working class folks who already get great care from their employers". It just doesn't exist and is clearly not constructive to the overall interest of economic security and stability of our healthcare system. Our status quo is unsustainable and will break our backs.
  15. #1775  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I'm glad to hear the guy realized his outburst wasn't appropriate and apologized.
    If he was talking to a reporter and he said "I don't think what the President said about X was true" that is totally appropriate, but cat-calls are not.

    I have to admit however--the other day I was listening to someone speak--someone I am favorable towards, and he said something that I found outrageous, and I felt an urge to exclaim something, but I didn't.

    KAM
    Oops....another politician from SC. While I agree with most that it was clearly inappropriate....I think he may have been correct. It appears that while Section 246 does prevent illegals from getting "affordability credits", it does not prevent them from enrolling under the public plan. Hopefully they can work that out and do exactly as Obama said and NOT allow illegals to be on the plan.

    I still say the interesting part that is being over looked is the requirement to have EVERYONE enroll for healthcare. While I agree with this conceptually, I'm not on board with it on principle....I think that made sense. Anyway, Obama said it was irresponsible to allow some to not take coverage because it would raise all our costs as those people would still get treatment and their costs would be passed along to us. I agree with that outcome. Where I disagree is how the government can let people's "irresponsible" behavior come into play. If the government believes it is irresponsible to not take health coverage because it will increase our costs, then couldn't we reduce healthcare costs further by preventing people from smoking?....from eating junk food?....from sitting on their and not exercising?....from drinking alcohol (in excess)?.....from drinking too many soft drinks?.....aren't those irresponsible acts that increase our costs? These are activities which appear (correct me if I'm wrong doctor) to increase the likelyhood of health problems. Where do we stop on what the government deems as "irresponsible"?

    I'm stuck on this point because I think requiring everyone to have health coverage is conceptually good....but gets on that slippery slope of the government controlling our lives even further.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  16. #1776  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Where the problem lies is that your fear is unfounded as no nonpartisan interest has provided evidence to support the notion that "middle class folks who make too much to benefit from a public option but not enough to opt out and working class folks who already get great care from their employers". It just doesn't exist and is clearly not constructive to the overall interest of economic security and stability of our healthcare system. Our status quo is unsustainable and will break our backs.
    In fact, it's the status quo that will destroy the healthcare that these groups are receiving. They are already being damaged by increasing premiums that force them to not participate.

    Let's be honest here. The truly poor have Medicaid. The well off have private insurance. The elderly have Medicare. Who are the uninsured? They're not poor or elderly; they have insurance. It's those that are largely working whose employers can't or won't provide insurance for them. Eight out of ten uninsured are working people, which is the message that everybody opposed to significant reform seems to forget about. And probably about 2 million of those with insurance will lose it this year. But we don't really care about the working people, do we, because they work in lower paying jobs that don't provide insurance, or they don't own their own businesses like we do.
    Last edited by davidra; 09/10/2009 at 08:16 AM.
  17. #1777  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Oops....another politician from SC. While I agree with most that it was clearly inappropriate....I think he may have been correct. It appears that while Section 246 does prevent illegals from getting "affordability credits", it does not prevent them from enrolling under the public plan. Hopefully they can work that out and do exactly as Obama said and NOT allow illegals to be on the plan.

    I still say the interesting part that is being over looked is the requirement to have EVERYONE enroll for healthcare. While I agree with this conceptually, I'm not on board with it on principle....I think that made sense. Anyway, Obama said it was irresponsible to allow some to not take coverage because it would raise all our costs as those people would still get treatment and their costs would be passed along to us. I agree with that outcome. Where I disagree is how the government can let people's "irresponsible" behavior come into play. If the government believes it is irresponsible to not take health coverage because it will increase our costs, then couldn't we reduce healthcare costs further by preventing people from smoking?....from eating junk food?....from sitting on their and not exercising?....from drinking alcohol (in excess)?.....from drinking too many soft drinks?.....aren't those irresponsible acts that increase our costs? These are activities which appear (correct me if I'm wrong doctor) to increase the likelyhood of health problems. Where do we stop on what the government deems as "irresponsible"?

    I'm stuck on this point because I think requiring everyone to have health coverage is conceptually good....but gets on that slippery slope of the government controlling our lives even further.
    ]

    If you're saying that your concern is that the government shouldn't legislate behavior that may be harmful to one's self, I totally agree with you. Instead, programs that emphasize the importance of preventive medicine should be financed and made available, and physicians should be encouraged to discuss participation in these programs with their patients....as they are now. We have some pulmonary docs who will refuse to see any patients who continue to smoke. Is that best for the patient, the patient's family, society? I'm not saying whether I think this is right or not, but it's an example of the situations that we are placed in at times. Since none of the proposed plans involve doctors working for the government, I don't see any of this changing. It will still be up to the patient and the physician, which is the way it should be. But providing financial support for smoking cessation programs, weight loss efforts, and exercise programs should pay off in the long run, right? Of course, your pool will be more crowded.
    Last edited by davidra; 09/10/2009 at 08:18 AM.
  18. #1778  
    Don't forget the irresponsible advertising that promotes irresponsible behavior. I remember McDonald ads showing Olympics athletes eating at and promoting McDonald's during the Olympics. The list goes on and on.





    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  19. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1779  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    So given the fact that you think he's lying...which is what you said...
    I'll just stop you right there, because you are once again lying, because I didn't say that, and since you apparently create your own little reality in your head, I can't address your fantasy situations where you imagine someone says something, so you can argue against it.

    I'm not going to bother to address you, because you have demonstrated again and again that you either have an inability to deal with what someone says in an honest fashion, or you are literally living in a fantasy world where you are imagining that people say and do things they do not. I don't know which, and I'm past caring.

    For anyone who reads your incoherent nonsense, let me restate what I actually said. I said that this Speech has no bearing on reality. SAYING something doesn't make it reality. The President can SAY he is for anything he wants, but if CONGRESS who is writing the legislation doesn't agree, then it really doesn't matter.

    Currently there are several different versions of the bill floating around in various states, so the President really can't say for certain what the end result will be, hence, what he talks about (even if I assume he is 100% sincere) is really irrelevant. I'd think that anyone with basic reading comprehension skills could discern that.

    I can talk to anyone here--even those who I disagree with on almost every point, but I really can't tolerate this blatant lying.

    KAM
  20. #1780  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Hello Everyone,

    Who is delusional enough to believe that what is said in this speech (after the dozens of others) has ANY bearing on reality. The President can say anything he wants--it is his specialty. It's just more talk.
    KAM
    Gee. Sounds to me like you said he was lying. When he said he wouldn't sign any bill that increased the deficit, when he said the bill didn't support care for illegals...if that has no "bearing on reality", that sure sound like lying to me. Like I said. There was nothing he could have said that you would have believed. End of story.

Posting Permissions