Obama Speech on Health Care, 9/9/09

[BigSqwert]

probably because there is no bill to even go off of.

Wilson might also lose when part of the bill stipulates that every American gets a brand new Prius for free.

[BigSqwert]

probably because there is no bill to even go off of and the Democrats like to have loopholes in this kind of stuff. like no checking ID's, ever, for anything (except town halls of course)

 

 

for the record, I believe Obama and don't think he's lying.

I guess ID is better for a town hall than pledging a loyalty oath to the Executive Branch.

[mr_genius]

I guess ID is better for a town hall than pledging a loyalty oath to the Executive Branch.

 

Oh, well, if Dick Cheney did it than it must be right and good. Glad he is the new Democrat role model.

[BigSqwert]

Oh, well, if Dick Cheney did it than it must be right and good. Glad he is the new Democrat role model.

That doesn't even make sense to me.

[mr_genius]

That doesn't even make sense to me.

 

that sounds like something George W Bush would say. Shameful.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

probably because there is no bill to even go off of and the Democrats like to have loopholes in this kind of stuff. like no checking ID's, ever, for anything (except town halls of course)

 

 

for the record, I believe Obama and don't think he's lying.

The latest bill I have seen has a specific clause exempting illegals from coverage. Why do people keep ignoring this?

 

Now, if that disappears and the bill does indeed cover illegals, then I'm with you on the concern. But nothing, other than fear-mongerers yelling unfounded B.S., indicates that would be the case.

 

[BigSqwert]

No sir, YOU Lie!

 

In fact, over his entire congressional career, health professionals represent Wilson's top industry contributors, donating a total of $244,196 to his campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics OpenSecrets.org database. He received another $86,150 from pharmaceutical companies, $73,050 from insurance companies and $68,000 from hospitals and nursing homes.

 

LINK

[NorthSideSox72]

No sir, YOU Lie!

 

 

 

LINK

That means he is likely in the health industry's pocket, but it doesn't mean he lied about anything.

 

[BigSqwert]

That means he is likely in the health industry's pocket, but it doesn't mean he lied about anything.

Oh I know. I just like how dramatic that sounded.

[mr_genius]

The latest bill I have seen has a specific clause exempting illegals from coverage. Why do people keep ignoring this?

 

Now, if that disappears and the bill does indeed cover illegals, then I'm with you on the concern. But nothing, other than fear-mongerers yelling unfounded B.S., indicates that would be the case.

 

here we go with the 'fear mongering' slogan. if they merely add a clause that there will be legitimate checks to make sure only US citizens are using the program it would end the controversy. why not add it?

[BigSqwert]

here we go with the 'fear mongering' slogan. if they merely add a clause that there will be legitimate checks to make sure only US citizens are using the program it would end the controversy. why not add it?

THERE IS A SPECIFIC CLAUSE EXEMPTING ILLEGALS. WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED?

[mr_genius]

THERE IS A SPECIFIC CLAUSE EXEMPTING ILLEGALS. WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED?

 

that means nothing if they don't ever check to see if the person is legal. why is this so hard for you to understand? if it was an oversight, then just make an update to the proposal, then that clears everything up. so calm down.

Edited September 10, 2009 by mr_genius

[EvilMonkey]

So, on one hand it's no big deal what number Obama throws out for the uninsured, 20 mil, 50 mil, 100 mil, whatever. it is the general point that counts, the exact words don't matter. Yet, when palin comes out and metions 'death squads' in a speech, which was pure political hyperbole as can be, you all take those EXACT words and run as if it were gospel. The general point she was trying to get across was about the end of life counseling and rationing of care, but you guys seem to have blinderrs to that, the hyperbole makes a better headline for you all to scream. So, for Democrats, it is the true underlying meaning of what you intended to say, not the exact words that matter. With Republicans, if the word is in print, you can't acquit. GMAFB.

 

As a side note, why is Obama so concerned with Palin? He seems to like referencing her alot.

[NorthSideSox72]

that means nothing if they don't ever check to see if the person is legal. why is this so hard for you to understand? if it was an oversight, then just make an update to the proposal, then that clears everything up. so calm down.

What are you talking about? There is a clause leaving them out. That makes it law. That means they have to check. You are asking for something that is already there. Your request is akin to saying the law regarding murder should also have a clause stating "oh, and, if someone DOES murder someone else, make sure you arrest them".

 

[NorthSideSox72]

So, on one hand it's no big deal what number Obama throws out for the uninsured, 20 mil, 50 mil, 100 mil, whatever. it is the general point that counts, the exact words don't matter. Yet, when palin comes out and metions 'death squads' in a speech, which was pure political hyperbole as can be, you all take those EXACT words and run as if it were gospel. The general point she was trying to get across was about the end of life counseling and rationing of care, but you guys seem to have blinderrs to that, the hyperbole makes a better headline for you all to scream. So, for Democrats, it is the true underlying meaning of what you intended to say, not the exact words that matter. With Republicans, if the word is in print, you can't acquit. GMAFB.

 

As a side note, why is Obama so concerned with Palin? He seems to like referencing her alot.

Not even remotely comparable. Palin is saying something that is just clearly false. The number of uninsured Americans seems to vary, depending on what source and what definition you use, from 20M to 50M or even higher. Both Obama's numbers are within that realm. Palin's comments are not within the realm of reality, since no such thing exists. Its not that she uses the phrase "death panels", its that she is perpetuating the myth that some bureaucrat will now have the power to decide your death.

 

 

[CanOfCorn]

There's a lot of back and forth in the forum and I've read a few pages, but here's my .02:

 

Overall, this was an impassioned speech, not sure what it did for Health Care, but I like the fact that Obama challenged EVERYONE to come with solutions, not just complaints.

 

Applauding and/or booing during a Presidential speech should be immediately banned on the floor of Congress. I hated it with Bush and I hate it with Obama.

 

Mr. Wilson's act was disrespectful to the OFFICE of the President. I honestly don't care who the President is...you don't do that during a speech.

 

Congressional Republicans have solidified themselves as petty, vitriolic good ol' boys. "You did this to my guy, so I'm going to do it to yours!"

 

The Republican answer was ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE. It made no sense and didn't explain anything. And I take umbrage with insurance across state lines. People may say they want that, but when it comes down to it, people want ease of use and proximity. Why do you think convenience stores are successful? They are called convenience stores for a reason.

 

Again, my .02.

[EvilMonkey]

Not even remotely comparable. Palin is saying something that is just clearly false. The number of uninsured Americans seems to vary, depending on what source and what definition you use, from 20M to 50M or even higher. Both Obama's numbers are within that realm. Palin's comments are not within the realm of reality, since no such thing exists. Its not that she uses the phrase "death panels", its that she is perpetuating the myth that some bureaucrat will now have the power to decide your death.

If they have the power to determine whether or not you get a specific treatment or drug, do they not have that power, in a round about way? hence the hyperbole.

hy⋅per⋅bo⋅le  /haɪˈpɜrbəli/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hahy-pur-buh-lee]

–noun Rhetoric. 1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.

2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

 

[NorthSideSox72]

If they have the power to determine whether or not you get a specific treatment or drug, do they not have that power, in a round about way? hence the hyperbole.

hy⋅per⋅bo⋅le  /haɪˈpɜrbəli/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hahy-pur-buh-lee]

–noun Rhetoric. 1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.

2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

If they did, then you could at least make the hyperbolic leap. But as they don't - they are counseling sessions - her statements are fully detached from reality.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

The Republican answer was ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE. It made no sense and didn't explain anything. And I take umbrage with insurance across state lines. People may say they want that, but when it comes down to it, people want ease of use and proximity. Why do you think convenience stores are successful? They are called convenience stores for a reason.

 

Again, my .02.

Are you saying you don't like the idea of companies being able to go across state lines? Not sure what anyone's beef with that could be. At the very least it helps improve competition, and therefore, should lower costs. it also allows for better coverage for people who travel or who move for their jobs, or work remotely.

 

[CanOfCorn]

If they have the power to determine whether or not you get a specific treatment or drug, do they not have that power, in a round about way? hence the hyperbole.

hy⋅per⋅bo⋅le  /haɪˈpɜrbəli/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hahy-pur-buh-lee]

–noun Rhetoric. 1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.

2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

 

Alpha...hyperbole is very dangerous for a politician. I will quote 41..."Read my lips, no new taxes." That absolutely killed him in 1992. And using the term "death squad" is even more dangerous.

 

I see what you are saying, but at the same time, changing numbers is much different than getting close to calling your President (and sorry Mrs. Palin, Obama IS YOUR President) and the Democrats, a death squadron. What it is is irresponsible.

[EvilMonkey]

If they did, then you could at least make the hyperbolic leap. But as they don't - they are counseling sessions - her statements are fully detached from reality.

The end of life counselling sessions are just that, as you say. but there will still be a panel of bureaucrats somewhere deciding just what kind of care and how much of it you get. And if they deny you something that could have saved your life, you have a defacto death panel. Again, you are not focusing on the overall picture, and her true meaning and intent. Must be that R in her party affiliation that prevents that.

[EvilMonkey]

Alpha...hyperbole is very dangerous for a politician. I will quote 41..."Read my lips, no new taxes." That absolutely killed him in 1992. And using the term "death squad" is even more dangerous.

 

I see what you are saying, but at the same time, changing numbers is much different than getting close to calling your President (and sorry Mrs. Palin, Obama IS YOUR President) and the Democrats, a death squadron. What it is is irresponsible.

I didn't say it was good hyperbole, but the soundbyte sure stuck around, so I guess it did it's job.

[StrangeSox]

States can't determine regulations for themselves that way.

 

But yeah, the republican response was pretty bad. They really did a poor job of anticipating what he was going to say.

 

Also, humorously, Karl Rove's editorial about the speech was posted before the speech finished.

[StrangeSox]

I didn't say it was good hyperbole, but the soundbyte sure stuck around, so I guess it did it's job.

 

Of distorting and obfuscating the issues, sure.

[mreye]

The latest bill I have seen has a specific clause exempting illegals from coverage. Why do people keep ignoring this?

 

Now, if that disappears and the bill does indeed cover illegals, then I'm with you on the concern. But nothing, other than fear-mongerers yelling unfounded B.S., indicates that would be the case.

 

I'm alive!

 

I think the concern is that there are not enough checks in the bill to stop illegals from accessing healthcare. They won't have it officially, but will easily gain access.