Well I guess it's a good thing that Obama isn't proposing that we move to a single-payer system, huh? Or weren't you aware of that, Donald?
If it helps, here's a Health Reform for Beginners post that Ezra Klein wrote back in June. Yes, he's a liberal, but this is just basic stuff that even you can't disagree with. This way, you won't look so stupid when you try to scare people about Socialized Medicine or Single-Payer Systems which aren't under serious discussion.
The link is here.
Dr. Ahmadinejad Chavez not-a-real-doctor-who-posts-cowardly-under-a-pseudonym Biobrain likes calling me a "liar" as well as "stupid." But as I noted last night:
Dr. Biobrain has yet to prevail in debating me, although he's a glutton for punishment. I've been trying to ignore him lately, though, disgusted as I am with his recent outburst of unspeakable anti-Semitism. It really crosses a line.That's why I was going to ignore his little slur this evening. But since AOSHQ's got a post up on it, I thought I'd show once again how dumb and dishonest Dr. Biobrain is. See, "Smokin' Video on Obama's Trojan Horse":
The compelling part of this, to me, isn't Obama's or Jan Shakowsky's statements that public option will lead to single payer. We've heard that. The compelling part is that Jacob Hacker, the man who "shopped" this plan to Congress (according to NPR), states unambiguously that his plan -- and he should know -- is expressly designed to displace private insurance.Yes, "we've heard that." And I know that, or I wouldn't have made such a big deal out of the public's huge repudiation of singler payer. No, some things are self-evident, simply because THAT'S HOW THE DEMOCRATS WORK. They hate choice, individualism, and personal autonomy. That's why Americans are so genuinely mad. They don't like the Democratic oligarchs slamming a top down regime of "Sandmen" technocrats down their throats. This is not a bunch of hippies protesting a war and doing the flower-power bit before finishing college and joining a commodities trading firm. Nope, by now we've seen millions of people, over the course of this year, getting involved in grassroots activism to turn back the the shift to an authoritarian socialist model in the United States.
Ace links to Michael Barone's piece for good measure. See, "Video Proof: Obama Wants a Single-Payer System". Barone discusses Professor Hacker:
Speaking of the government option in 2008, he says, “Someone told me this was a Trojan horse for single-payer. Well, it’s not a Trojan horse, right? It’s just right there. I’m telling you. We’re going to get there, over time, slowly, but we’ll move away from reliance on employer-based health insurance as we should, but we’ll do it in a way that we’re not going to frighten people into thinking they’re going to lose their private insurance. We’re going to give them a choice of public and private insurance when they’re in the pool, and we’re going to let them keep their private employer-based insurance if their employer continues to provide it.”There you have.
Of course there’s no guarantee employers will. Many employers, single-payer advocates hope, will be happy to let their employees go onto the government plan. The Lewin Group, cited often by various analysts, estimates that a government-option plan, depending on how the law is written, could move as many as 100 million households off private insurance and onto the government plan in a few years.
Obama has never made his ultimate goal a secret; it’s the same as Schakowsky’s and Hacker’s. The video shows him saying in October 2003, when he was running for the U.S. Senate, “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program.” He adds, “We may not get there immediately,” noting the Democrats must “take back” the White House and both houses of Congress — a condition fulfilled last Jan. 20.
Campaigning for president in May 2007, he says, “But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately.” That seems to imply that his goal remains the same as it was in 2003. “There’s going to be potentially some transition process — I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out, where we’ve got a much more portable system.” Which of course government health insurance would be. You couldn’t get away from it. The president’s defenders depict this video and others like it as a patchwork of irrelevant and misleading statements. They also cite Obama’s oft-repeated pledges that any health care bill he would sign would let you keep the insurance you have. They don’t address the point, raised by Hacker, that you can’t keep it if your employer stops offering it.
Barone crystalizes what's been floating around all year. And so, back to Dr. Ahmadinejad Chavez Biobrain.
The guy's an accountant by occupation, but he's also a Democratic Party hack and was an alternate delegate during last year's primaries (for "The One," if I'm not mistaken). In other words, like the Dear Leader, Biobrain's ideological and political program is to lie, intimidate, and spread disinformation. That's what leftists do. They'll call you stupid, then bail out from the scene of the crime. Dr. Biobrain will go to work tomorrow, scamming his clients with bogus actuarial expertise, then come back here tomorrow and start up another mini-flamewar.
Good thing AOSHQ wrote on this. Saved me some time that I otherwise wouldn't have invested debunking Dr. BioDenialist one more time.
15 comments:
Since you're getting personal and discussing my bio, let me get one thing straight: I'm self-employed and work from home. So I don't have a "work" to go to, beyond the office in my house; though I do travel to my clients' offices, when needed. And you can insult my political beliefs all you want, but my clients like me and know that I do good work for them. I've never lost a client due to poor service. They're all small businesses who need my assistance, so I'm proud of the work I do. I guess you don't know much about accounting, as I don't do any "actuarial" work, but I am a Certified Public Accountant and damn proud of it. America needs accountants and I love my profession.
And that's the funny thing: While you're an ivory tower professor living in Calipornia, I'm a small businessman in Texas who helps other small businessmen run their business; and the irony of that has me smiling. After all, I know how to run a small business, while you know how to teach Poly-sci to people who'd rather be doing something else. I kid, but it's true.
BTW, it's "Doctor Biobrain," not "Dr. Biobrain." I do that partly because I like the way it looks and partly because I don't want people thinking I'm an actual doctor. It's meant to be a first name, not an honorary title, so it shouldn't be abbreviated (though everyone always does).
And trust me, I'm not a coward. I'm pseudonymous because I just like fake names. Real names are boring. I blog for fun. I'm telling you, I'm much more fun for you to debate than if you knew my boring name. It makes me bigger than life. If you knew my real name, you'd be let down. I'm an exciting guy in real life, but online, the best I can do is jazz things up with a fake name. I wish everyone else did the same.
Anyway, this is long enough, so I'll put my argument in another comment.
As for the actual argument, Obama ISN'T proposing a single-payer system, no matter what you believe. Yes, he's said he wanted one and I believe that he meant it (though some liberals think he was lying), but he's clearly realized that it wasn't politically feasible. So he's giving us a public-option instead, which is almost as good as single-payer, IMHO. And it doesn't matter who you quote saying that this might lead to single-payer, because that has nothing to do with the actual plan being discussed. You're talking about predictions of the future, while I'm talking about the actual legislation.
And look, there's nothing nefarious in what Hacker's saying. He's not saying that there's some secret plan to put insurers out of business. He's saying that it will happen naturally because we won't need private insurers anymore because people will prefer the public plan. I don't know if that's true, but that's his prediction: People will just prefer the public option.
Now, you can imagine some evil conspiracy here, but that's just in your imagination. And if the public plan turns out to be a disaster, with long wait lists and lots of dead people; nobody will want it. But if it turns out to be just as good as Medicare is, then EVERYONE will want it. And that's what Hacker's predicting. But in no case is this a single-payer system. It's a single-payer program within a hybrid system and no insult of me will change that.
And if you're going to quote Obama on the "eliminate employer coverage" line, you should at least get the full quote. He was referring to people who WANTED to get away from employer coverage, in order to have more portable health care. Here's the rest of his statement, which they cut-off in mid-sentence, because it would show that they're tricking you.
I quote:
I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out where we've got a much more portable system. Employers still have the option of providing coverage, but many people may find that they get better coverage, or at least coverage that gives them more for health care dollars than they spend outside of their employer. And I think we've got to facilitate that and let individuals make that choice to transition out of employer coverage.
See, now that's something different entirely. He was talking about transitioning to a more portable system, but one which still had private insurance. And just so you understand, "portable" refers to people still being able to keep their coverage even when they change employers; something our current system lacks.
For example, my wife's mother wanted to move to Texas to be closer to us, but couldn't because she had breast cancer and if her husband quit his job, she couldn't get insurance because of her pre-existing condition (ie, cancer). Yet, she needed insurance because she had cancer. She eventually died of cancer and didn't get to spend her remaining years with us because she couldn't move here. A public option would have solved that, as they'd give her insurance even with her condition.
And that's what Obama was talking about. And so while Professor Hacker predicted that the public-option would eventually replace our current system, that quote of Obama's was something different entirely. And that’s the thing, disagree with the plan all you want, but you at least need to understand what you’re talking about. You haven’t shown much of that so far. I mean, quoting that Obama line without even finishing the sentence was a joke.
I’m telling you, Donald, you’re being lied to. And I keep proving it to you. And once I’ve done so and you keep repeating the lie, that makes YOU a liar. Take offense at that all you want, but at least I’m being honest.
As for the actual argument, Obama ISN'T proposing a single-payer system, no matter what you believe. Yes, he's said he wanted one and I believe that he meant it (though some liberals think he was lying), but he's clearly realized that it wasn't politically feasible. So he's giving us a public-option instead, which is almost as good as single-payer, IMHO.
At least we can agree that Obama wants a single-payer system.
The difference of opinion isn't on whether or not there's currently an option of private insurance in the bill. It's on whether the intent of the bill and the result of the health care overhaul will result in the loss of private health care and move us all to a government program.
Donald is trying to quite clearly show that the intent and desire is to move us to a single payer system. And you seem to agree with this.
And if the public plan turns out to be a disaster, with long wait lists and lots of dead people; nobody will want it.
You seemed to have missed the point. Donald, as well as many others, are arguing there won't be an option to get rid of the plan. Once it's there, it's permanent. They will simply infuse more money, tax at higher rates, and cut benefits to keep it going.
This is why people keep bringing up Social Security, Medicare, Cash For Clunkers, and TARP. The government has repeatedly shown they are inefficient, mismanage, and fraught with criminal activity.
If your desire is for a more portable system, then there's something that could be discussed. But I can't understand your seemingly unwavering faith in Obama.
I've lived in Chicago for 14 years and know the extent to which the Chicago system is corrupt. Amazingly enough, politicians lie.
But DFS... Is "intent" or wants the issue, or what actually is in the bill?
If the government builds a better mousetrap, people will choose it over private insurance. If, on the other hand, it's all the baggers say it will be, people won't leave what they have.
Early auto makers "killed" the cart and buggy business by making a product folks wanted more. But, with apologies due the cart & buggy folks, their product was no longer the best one out there. I'm not sure why it would matter whether it was Henry Ford or President Ford that did it. A better product is a better product.
If the public option isn't the best deal for you (now or in future), opt out and purchase your own private insurance. You're not mandated to stay in the plan if it sucks. But for folks who can't afford private plans or who like the public option, I see no reason why we'd want to "get rid of it." Even if it turns out to be the crappy plan you folks believe it will be, it's still better than having no insurance at all. And if it works as well as the proponents seem to think it will, so much the better.
The benefits and liabilities of passing/not passing legislation are seldom as good/bad as the folks claiming them say they will be. Rhetoric is seldom reality based. While I think this plan will be a net good, I don't expect it to solve all our health care problems or even be as good as some folks say it will be. On the other hand, private insurance and good medical care will not become a memory, either.
The difference of opinion isn't on whether or not there's currently an option of private insurance in the bill.
DFS - You really need to step back and realize that you're not in agreement with much of what Donald's saying. He thinks Obama is evil and is purposefully trying to destroy America. You seem infinitely more reasonable than that. At what point will you start pushing back against his crazy talk, the way that moderate-libs like me pushed back against the hard-left conspiracy mongers who insisted that Bush was evil and was going to take over our country? I knew that these people hurt liberalism, just as you should realize that people like Donald hurt conservativism.
I understand conservative ideology and was once a conservative myself (a long time ago). But I don't understand the absolutely nutso stuff they're saying about Obama wanting to kill elderly voters and the disabled. That's so counter-intuitive that it's a complete joke. We spent decades fighting to provide government benefits to help these people, now you're imagining that we'd start letting them die? That just doesn't make sense. We'd increase tax rates to absurd levels before we cut healthcare benefits to elderly voters. We LOVE Medicare.
And yes, Obama wanted single-payer. But he's settling for a public-option instead, which some people think will eventually make private health insurance irrelevant. But if it's a failure and they cut benefits, nobody will want it and it will go away. This legislation will be killed before any elderly voters die from it. That's just political common sense. I"m sure you'd agree with that.
BTW, the only problem with Cash for Clunkers is that it was so popular that the money was spent too fast and the paperwork was more than they had expected. Other than that, it was such a huge success that Dems tripled the size of the program and were firm enough to stop anyone from changing it. Why you guys are trying to paint that as a failure is beyond me.
Similarly, Social Security and Medicare are HUGELY POPULAR. Republicans in Congress were savaged even for talking about reforming it in 2005, while Medicare is so popular that the Republican Congress EXPANDED it to cover more drugs. And while Medicare is at risk because healthcare is so expensive, Social Security is actually quite safe. It still brings in more money than it pays out and is expected to continue for decades without any problem.
Finally, yes, we ARE talking about a more portable system. That's a big reason for the public-option, according to Obama in the quote that your side has repeatedly taken out of context by clipping out the part of his sentence when he said "more portable system." Frankly, I can't see why you have any faith in the people who keep lying to you on your side. Sure, maybe Obama's lying. But we KNOW that people on your side are completely inventing stuff. I've demonstrated that repeatedly. These aren't claims of them lying. I've proven it. Yet you have no proof that Obama is lying about anything.
Yes, maybe he is lying, but I don't see why he would. It's in his best interests to make healthcare better, so I fail to see why he'd lie about any of this. He's not going to cut benefits to elderly voters, establish death panels, or force private insurers out of business. Any attempt at this would be political suicide. I suspect you're reasonable enough to agree with that. And if that's the case, what exactly is your problem with him, beyond that he MIGHT be lying to us? Sure, everyone MIGHT be lying, but at a certain point, we're stuck trusting politicians to write legislation that we need. And until we have reason to start doubting Obama, I won't.
Again, it's in Obama's best interests to make this system as good as he can. And so if he's a selfish man, he'd still try his best to make this work. Healthcare reform is going to be a big part of his legacy, so he's going to want it to be seen as a success. I doubt he wants his legacy to be dead voters.
"Dr. Ahmadinejad Chavez"
ROTFLMAO!
Doc Biobrain,
Yes. Obama absolutely wants to destroy America!
ANYONE, be it a Democrat, Republican, or whatever ... who doesn't respect the original intent of the Constitution (the law of the land), DOES want to destroy America. Obama himself says he want to "re-make" America, which is a fancy way of saying destroy what it is, to make it something else.
To top it all off, nationalized health care is theft!
theCL - You really should know that the middle name "Ahmadinejad Chavez" comes from my blog, as that's what I call myself in my intro. I thought it was a bit odd for Donald to use it, as it was my own joke; but whatever. He's really into silly name-calling and I guess he couldn't come up with anything better on such short notice.
And you guys sure do have a funny way of respecting the Constitution, seeing as how you had no problem with Bush's warrantless wiretaps. Or were we supposed to pretend that that didn't happen? But perhaps I missed your posts about Bush wanting to destroy America. Obama, on the other hand, hasn't done anything like that.
I honestly don't know what you mean by "nationalized health care," and I don't think you do either. Of course, you guys think democracy is theft. The elections are over and you lost. Deal with it. We won. We get to write the laws and enforce them. That's the way it works. When you guys win, you cut taxes and wage war. When we win, we raise taxes and solve problems. And if you don't like it, too bad. There are other countries you can move to.
Speaking of which, weren't you guys all supposed to go "Galt" by now? What are you still doing here? I was really looking forward to that.
Of course, you guys think democracy is theft. The elections are over and you lost. Deal with it. We won. We get to write the laws and enforce them. That's the way it works.
Wow. Just when I was beginning to believe you were rational. Oh well.
Wow. Just when I was beginning to believe you were rational. Oh well.
DFS - I don't see how else to call it. Seriously. When Obama ran for president last year, he promised that he would reform healthcare and push for legislation that provided healthcare to everyone. Now he's fulfilling that promise. And that's great, as that's why we voted for him. Democracy is working.
Yet now, we have Republicans calling his plan "theft" because they don't like it. Well, too bad. If this is "theft" then Bush using my tax dollars to wage war in Iraq was "theft," because I was completely against that war for many different reasons.
But I never said such a silly thing, as I understand that this is how our system works. Bush and the Republicans won, so they got to decide how my money is spent; not me. And now Obama and the Dems are in charge, so they get to decide how to spend my money. And anyone who suggests that the winner's use of that money is "theft" clearly thinks that our democracy is "theft," because that's how our democracy works.
By working within our system of government, we implicitly agree to follow whatever rules that system develops; and that includes wars and healthcare. And while some people may choose to defy rules that they don't agree with, they are working outside of our democracy.
And so that's why I wrote what I wrote. And hey, if you're willing to give me a chance, I strongly recommend that you read my blog and comment there, as this really isn't a good forum to explain things in. I assure you that I'm most definitely rational and encourage people to disagree with me, as I find it helps me hone my arguments. Hell, I turned my "democracy is theft" line into an entire opus on the subject of democracy. Needless to say, I enjoy explaining myself.
I was always hoping that Donald would be a decent debate foe for me, but he really couldn't offer a rebuttal beyond "You're an evil nihilist, Dr. Bioevilnihilistbrain" and that gets a bit boring after awhile. Perhaps you might be more fun.
For anyone interested, here's a better version of the comment I left before:
Democracy is Theft
DFS - I don't see how else to call it. Seriously.
Well, I'll try to help calm the rhetoric. I'll be cutting and pasting different quotes from your posts, not necessarily in order, because just responding to the latest one misses some of the important issues. Not because I'm trying to make you say something you haven't (cue Linda Douglass).
The elections are over and you lost. Deal with it. We won. We get to write the laws and enforce them. That's the way it works.
No, it's not. We don't live in a strict democracy, but in a Constitutional Republic (or I should say that was the original intent, it's changed since then.) Simply because one particular party has more representatives in the Legislative branch the another party (again, FYI, I'm neither a Democrat or Republican) doesn't mean they get to "write the laws and enforce them." That's why we have different branches of government. The police didn't get replaced with all Democrats simply because Obama won. All the judges didn't get replaced with Democrats. The structure of the current government system was put into place to avoid just this kind of majority rule attitude. I'm sure you already know this, but the characterization you make is so false it undercuts the point of having rule of law.
I pick on this because this type of thinking is what leads to these shouting matches at townhalls. In Durham, NC, someone got punched in the face due to a shouting match. This attitude of "We won" is stupid. It enforces and encourages the us vs them mentality. It encourages discrimination (IMO) based on party affiliation. And it is true that the Democrats were hailing "Freedom of Speech" for the exact same (actually more extreme) tactics during the war.
We'd increase tax rates to absurd levels before we cut healthcare benefits to elderly voters.
This is, to me, complete irrationality. Increasing tax rates to "absurd levels" cannot result in keeping healthcare benefits for the elderly. Unless we have different definitions of the subjective term "absurd". There comes a point where increasing taxes puts too much of a burden on the taxpayer. You have to be careful to not stall the economic machine. And it would be even more irrational not to look at the system itself and say, "If it takes increasing taxes to absurd levels, perhaps there's something else wrong with the system that needs fixing."
But my real concern is the seeming implication that there is no other way to deal with healthcare. There are other options to look at, especially before we try to pass a massive bill, that will overhaul the entire health care industry, within a matter of months. And most legislators hadn't even read it before the break. Surely you have to admit that is completely irrational.
Yet you have no proof that Obama is lying about anything.
Are you kidding? Or perhaps you meant to imply lying about the narrow topic of whether his wants a single payer option or not.
We've already established he said he wanted a single payer option in 2003. He said in 2009 "I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter...".
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-...Town-Hall-on-Health-Insurance-Reform-in-Portsmouth-New-Hampshire/
That's a lie. He indeed did say it.
But more importantly, to me at least, was his lie that he would be transparent. He hasn't been. His promise to put up bills so the public could look at them before they were voted on was a lie. His claim not to hire former lobbyists was a lie. His repeated characterizations of doctors and current health care providers as motivated by money are lies.
http://www.facs.org/news/obama081209.html
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/newsletters-journals/health-system-reform-bulletin/hsr-12aug2009.shtml
His claim that he'd have C-SPAn televise the health care debates and bring everyone around a table was a lie.
He is, like all politicians (R or D or anything else), out for himself and his own power. It's why I like the townhalls. I believe it's real people bringing real concerns.
And hey, if you're willing to give me a chance, I strongly recommend that you read my blog and comment there, as this really isn't a good forum to explain things in.
I was always hoping that Donald would be a decent debate foe for me, but he really couldn't offer a rebuttal beyond "You're an evil nihilist, Dr. Bioevilnihilistbrain" and that gets a bit boring after awhile. Perhaps you might be more fun.
No thanks. I don't debate for the fun of it. I was always beaten in debates by my brother growing up and found no love in it. I'm simply someone who actually is concerned about the direction of this country (even when Bush was in office) and voiced concern.
Are you kidding? Or perhaps you meant to imply lying about the narrow topic of whether his wants a single payer option or not.
DFS - First off, what does it matter what Obama originally wanted? The question is what is in the legislation. There is nothing in the legislation suggesting that this is a single-payer system. Look, he compromised, alright? Many liberals are upset about that, but I'm not. While I too would have preferred a single-payer system, I'm willing to accept the compromise. Obama clearly accepts it too. What's the problem here?
As for his "lies," I can't possibly respond back to any of that, as you only provided me with one side of the "lies" and it requires me to do lots of research in order to verify your claim. I'm not going to do that.
For example, the page for FACS provided no quotes of Obama and no link to the truth. So I would not only need to research what his actual claim was, but also research the truth. And finally, I'd need to establish that he knew the truth and was lying, rather than just being wrong. I didn't do that and I know you didn't either. You're merely accepting their claim that Obama is wrong (and no, they didn't accuse him of lying). But what if that website is wrong?
But just so you know what a swell guy I am, I did the research for you and discovered (Hello!), that link misrepresented Obama's statement. He DIDN'T say that surgeons are paid $50k for amputation and WASN'T suggesting that they preferred amputations because it paid them better. He was comparing the cost of leg amputations (which he said cost up to $50k) versus diabetes prevention programs. He wasn't saying all the money went to them.
I had planned to provide more proof of this, but it got too long, so I'll just write it as a blogpost and provide the link later. So without a doubt, the only "lie" I researched turned out to be simply wrong. Sorry dude, but you were seriously misled. Looks like many conservatives were equally misled. Big surprise.
And again, it's far more difficult to prove that he lied, rather than being wrong. For example, you might believe that Bush was wrong about WMD's in Iraq, but I doubt you'd agree with me that this was a "lie." It's hard to know what a politician really knows. Even broken campaign pledges are difficult to label as outright lies, as it's possible he pledged something that he thought he could provide, but was unable to.
I, on the other hand, have been accusing Donald of lying in times when I've provided him the proof debunking a particular claim of his, yet he continues to make it anyway. The first time might be a mistake, but after that, it's clearly a lie. Like his bogus claims of Obama's plan promoting euthanasia are most definitely lies, as I've definitely debunked that bogus stuff.
BTW, I also support town halls and so do most Democrats. What we DON'T support is people shouting and chasing my Congressman to his car and preventing him from leaving the parking lot. No one is stopping them from asking questions. But the shouting only stifles debate. And too often, when they are provided with the truth, they don't believe the answer; so what's the point of asking a question if you will only reject the answer?
And while I'm sure these are real people, it's quite obvious these concerns are wrong; even if they believe them to be real. As I said before, I prefer to read the legislation to determine what it says. I suggest that if you have concerns, you do the same. Trying to mind-read Obama's true motives will prove to be much more futile.
Simply because one particular party has more representatives in the Legislative branch the another party (again, FYI, I'm neither a Democrat or Republican) doesn't mean they get to "write the laws and enforce them." That's why we have different branches of government.
DFS - Congress writes the laws. We now control Congress. Therefore, we write the laws. The Whitehouse enforces the laws. We now control the Whitehouse. Therefore, we enforce the laws. Ergo, my claim that "We get to write the laws and enforce them" is absolutely correct. I made no claims about the judicial branch, which doesn't write or enforce laws. I was very careful when I wrote that statement and fail to see what was wrong with it.
As for my suggestion that we would raise taxes to "absurd" levels to provide for the elderly, I was speaking facetiously and hypothetically. I wasn't suggesting a real scenerio. I don't think we'll ever need to raise the top rate back to 70%, as it was before 1981. As it is, Obama allowed the rates to go back to their pre-Bush levels and got slammed as a horrible socialist. I doubt we'll ever go much higher than this.
As for us not considering other policies, well, duh! The people who control Congress and the Whitehouse don't believe these other methods will work. And when Republicans controlled Congress and the Whitehouse, they did nothing about this. And they're not making any serious propositions now either. Besides, Obama promised to give us these reforms and now he's fulfilling his promise. I consider that to be a GOOD thing. We had this debate last year and if people preferred McCain's plan over Obama's, they had their chance to say so. They didn't. Or have you forgotten that McCain had a health care plan?
As for the idea that we wanted it done before the break, well, that didn't happen, did it? Obama wanted that to happen, but it didn't. Instead, they're still working out the details and anyone who wants to know about them can certainly do so. I fail to see the problem with that, even though I also wanted the bill finished before the break.
And how are they overhauling the entire industry? Look, if you have private insurance, you're unlikely to notice the difference. I suspect you still have misconceptions about what's in the legislation. Have you read it yet? Not that there's just one plan or that it's finalized, but you can still get a good idea of what's going on.
Honestly, if you don't know what this plan will look like, that's your fault for not looking; not Obama's. He's selling a plan. Are you listening? Or are you just assuming he's lying, based upon what other people claim is in the bill?
DFS - Here's the link for the post I wrote debunking the surgeon group's "correction" of Obama's claim.
Obama Hates Greedy Surgeons
Post a Comment