'The time for games has passed'
Obama: Reform health care now
Share this
Declaring that the "time for bickering is over," President Obama sought to revive the prospects for the passage of far-reaching health care reform by seizing ownership last night of an initiative he has largely left in lawmakers' hands.
In a televised address to a joint session of Congress, Obama prodded them to quickly enact comprehensive legislation that would impose strict new insurance protections, expand government health programs for the working poor and begin pilot projects aimed at reducing medical malpractice lawsuits.
"The time for games has passed," the president said of his signature domestic policy issue. "Now is the season for action."
Casting himself squarely in the political center with direct appeals to the middle class, Obama laid out his case for a 10-year, $900 billion plan that would build on the current employer-based health system with new requirements on individuals and businesses to contribute to the costs of coverage. And on the controversial issue of a new government-run insurance option, he maintained his flexibility.
"If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen," he said. "My door is always open."
After being urged by allies in recent weeks to be more assertive, Obama condemned what he called the "partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government."
Public support for comprehensive health care reform has dwindled over the past month as vocal opponents dominated the headlines with talk of socialized medicine and accusations that Obama was embarking on a "risky experiment" with the nation's medical care.
"Out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned," he said.
"I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it," he said. "I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now."
After months of leaving the bill-writing to Congress, Obama for the first time spoke of "my plan" to meet the twin goals of controlling medical costs and providing affordable care to every American.
At the same time, he declined to put an end to bitter intraparty divisions over the question of a public insurance option for individuals and small businesses that have difficulty buying coverage in the private market.
While repeating his belief that his approach provides needed competition for private companies, he pleaded with his "progressive friends" to remain open to other ideas that could accomplish the same goals. "Its impact shouldn't be exaggerated - by the left, the right, or the media," he said. "It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles."
But he pledged: "I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice."
With the nation in the midst of a recession and two wars, many had counseled Obama to delay the battle over health care, an issue that bedeviled so many of his predecessors and proved to be treacherous politics for fellow Democrat Bill Clinton. But he argued that revamping the nation's $2.3 trillion system is central to long-term economic solvency.
Obama used the broad reach of the prime-time address to fight back against what he called "bogus claims," calling the talk of "death panels" "laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple." He also rejected claims that his proposals would increase federal funding for abortion or provide coverage to illegal immigrants.
But the nastiness of August reached from the nation's town halls into the Capitol last night. (next page »)
Share this
Don't miss this
Corner Cupboard: Canon EOS Elan camera 2 lens zoom 35-105mm, case filters… (full ad)
Corner Cupboard: CORNER CUPBOARD Rules: l only 2 Ads per week, l 1 item… (full ad)
Hodges Companies - Central New Hampshire
UNDISCLOSED - Northern New Hampshire
Condos For Sale: Concord Heights, Parkview Place. Immaculate 1BR. $42,000… (full ad)
Apartments For Rent: Concord Apts. Studio, 1 BR, and 2 BR, Starting at $700… (full ad)
Connect with us
Most read content in the past 48 hours.
- Did the mustache cartoon go too far? (2,707)
- Ex-official indicted on sex counts (2,655)
- Senate kills issues House resurrected (2,416)
- About that cartoon . . . (1,384)
- Man posts cash bail, fights child support (1,345)
- Binnie aims for an empire (1,284)
- We are shocked and disgusted (1,052)
- Schools should care about all the Kelseys (872)
- Poet's work 'an act of discovery' (851)
- Man gets one year in shooting (794)
Most commented content in the past 48 hours.
- We are shocked and disgusted (44)
- Retract it, apologize (14)
- Sad and shameful (12)
- About that cartoon . . . (12)
- 'Sharp turn into the gutter' (8)
- The solution? Lower corporate taxes (8)
- Did the mustache cartoon go too far? (7)
- Character counts (4)
- Twenty years, and going strong (4)
- Senate kills issues House resurrected (2)
Most emailed content in the past week.
- State fires National Guard site contractor (17)
- Binnie set to broaden his media reach (10)
- Pembroke man dies after bike accident (4)
- Ex-official indicted on sex counts (4)
- Embarrassed by the House (3)
- OSHA fines brought to federal court (3)
- Did the mustache cartoon go too far? (3)
- Merrimack Valley 4, Sanborn 3 (3)
- Tough, tenacious Tide (2)
- Soltani: 'I'd like to see it go 110 mph' (2)
Copyright 1997-2011
Concord Monitor and New Hampshire Patriot
P.O. Box 1177, Concord NH 03302
603-224-5301
Advertiser profiles
Concord Monitor and New Hampshire Patriot
P.O. Box 1177, Concord NH 03302
603-224-5301
Advertiser profiles
On June 29, the Concord Monitor reported on the Laconia State School
Reunion that was held on June 26th, sponsored by People First. I lived at the state school for 23 years and was at the reunion. I did not like it because it was nothing but repeating th
The People had a right to demonstrate in Washington, DC yester there with then their rights against Government run healthcare taking over out lives.
It is what the Country does not need. Americans deserver better then what Obama has plan to take control over our healthcare and doctors.
Medicaid/Medicare is about the go broke in 2019, Social Security is about the go broke in 2042.
President Obama Campaign on changes this is not the change that he planted to do this is government taking over healthcare and doctors.
I voted for Barrack Obama for President he is treated me as voter
In 2012 he will end being denied second term he will end up being one term president.
Jocelyn Gallant, Salem
to vote
Yep, that's about the level.
to vote
See what voting for Obama does to your brain?
This is your brain.
This is your brain on Obama.
'nuff said,
Mr. St. Cyr
to vote
I think we agree on the diagnosis but not on the etiology.
to vote
Congressman Wilson is a immigration attorney my trade. He tried to amend the bill so it would not provide coverage to ILLEGAL aliens. Those amendments were killed by the Democrat leadership. And yet during the Presidents speech, he said that the very amendments that Mr. Wilson tried to put in the bill were there. The same ones that were killed.
So is that a lie? Were the facts being miss represented by the President? I think Mr. Wilson would know, and I think everyone else should know.
I know Obama lies, when he was here campaigning I asked him a question, one about legislation he himself sponsored. He said to my face that he knew nothing about it, asked me to email my question to him and he would get back to me. I never heard from him again. So in my opinion, he lied to my face twice in under a minute. Who knows how many he can fit in a half hour speech.
to vote
On June 29, the Concord Monitor reported on the Laconia State School
Reunion that was held on June 26th, sponsored by People First. I lived at the state school for 23 years and was at the reunion. I did not like it because it was nothing but repeating th
Joe Wilson he has all ready apologized to the President Obama and Vice President Joe Bidden that include the Senate and Congress.
He had right to express his feelings because it will benefit legal aliens that comes cross the border to the United States Congressman Joe Wilson, R-SC.
Congressman Joe Wilson, R-SC should not have to step down from is positions Nancy Polise should be the one to step down as Speaker of the House.
Jocelyn Gallant
Salem, New Hampshire
to vote
SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
4
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments
5
for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are
6
not lawfully present in the United States.
to vote
about illegals getting covered.
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/LaconiaPDF/2009/9/12L.pdf
AP
"Private companies could offer health coverage through the exchange if they meet certain criteria and if Congress created a new government-run plan
that would be offered through the exchange, too. Illegal immigrants were to be allowed in the exchange and even in the public plan if they used their own money under legislation that passed three committees in the House and one in the Senate.
Before Friday, there was little indication that that would change, even in the crucial Senate Finance Committee, which is facing a deadline of early next
week to complete a comprehensive health bill."
So now, we have a "new" plan from team Obama
"Robert Gibbs sketched a new position....: Obama will oppose letting
illegal immigrants buy insurance through new
purchasing exchanges the government will set up even from private companies operating within the exchanges."
There you have it. Wilson was indeed correct. Team Obama was lying.
Again I say:
There you have it. Wilson was indeed correct. Team Obama was lying.
Mr. St. Cyr
to vote
Apparently there are still a few people out there thinking for themselves.
Will you stop it already?
Can't you see your making the President mad?
He's going to need counseling and an evaluation and caring and nurturing from compassionate bureaucrats to administer his recovery. He'll probably have to go on beta blockers or something like that.
All because of a few freethinkers!
Implantable microchips are good!
Free will is bad.
Get used to it.
to vote
To ask the president, who has an aunt living in the US illegally, who is paying for her health coverage?
Auntie Zeituni...who pays for your health care?
Mr. St. Cyr
to vote
When I read this comment from Ken, I was strangely reminded of punks who threw spitballs from the back of the classroom, when I was in third grade.
to vote
"we" pay for her housing, and her medical care, she is one of the illegals sucking the system dry, and you think of punks and spitballs?
Have we ever had a sitting president who's aunt was in the US illegally?
Is there a reason it's not even being reported, like JFK's sexual appitite?
Mr. St. Cyr
to vote
When I read your posts, I feel like someone is shoving their hand deep into my pocket as thugs from ACORN and the SEIU stand by...just in case I decide to put up a fight.
to vote
You mean like SEIU thugs as seen in this picture? You're right, she could probably take you two falls out of three:
http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48748180_barack-obama-address-seiu-co...
to vote
Pastor Jeremiah Wright 04-13-03
Mr. St. Cyr
to vote
I would actually like to regulate the insurance industry as we do gas & electric. We all need what those people have to sell, so if they were unregulated, they could charge obscene amounts, and we would all go broke heating our homes and feeding our families. Access to quality health care is just as important as access to energy, but we have allowed the health care market to go on unregulated, and everyone can see where that has led us--we are paying double what other countries pay, and we are no healthier than they are. Many of us don't even get to have coverage at all.
We need to regulate the insurance industry. Not take it over. Regulate it. That's the idea.
to vote
The insurance industry is highly regulated by each state's insurance department. Every policy must be approved, and there are requirements about the font size and language (no such thing as fine print) and they must meet a readability test to be readable to someone with a 6th grade reading level. All rates must be approved and each company must prove they have millions in reserve to cover catastrophic events. The insurance dept audits companies regularly and has tons of strict rules. Check with the insurance dept or just access the NH RSA online. It is the medical industry that is not regulated. Hospitals have no one to answer to for efficiency and rates. We need to start regulating hospitals and increase competition there, for example, Concord Hospital can charge what ever they want because they are buying every practice in town and have no competition.
to vote
It is irresponsible and dangerous for people like Michael57 to spout off such inaccurate comments that only fuels the public's misunderstanding of how our current system actually works. How can one know what is appropriate reform when one does not even understand the current system?!!
Insurance is a heavily regulated industry by state insurance departments in each state. These state government agencies set standards and controls for how policies are written and sold and standards for financial solvency so that your company remains financially stable to pay your claims. They are there as a consumer resource for questions about obtaining health insurance as well as any complaints against your insurance company. Just try to get that local service and understanding with a federal government agency!
All insurers must seek approval from the state insurance department for premium rates. Insurance companies are not free to charge whatever they want.
Got a gripe about the cost of your insurance, then maybe you need to speak to your state legislator. Year after year the NH legislature passes new state mandates about what your insurance company MUST cover and you get to pay the increased premiums. The most recent state mandate is that you now must cover bariatric surgery for obesity...you have no choice in this thanks to your state legislature. Insurance companies did not choose to add this coverage just so they could pass the cost on to you; it was mandated to them.
Got a gripe about the cost of your insurance, then maybe you need to speak to your doctor or hospital about how much they charge and all the unnecessary tests, drugs and procedures they prescribe. Go ahead and ask your doctor at your next visit how much the charge is for the visit. Likely he can't even give you an answer. What else to we purchase that we have NO IDEA what the cost is when we purchase it and no way to price compare to get the best deal??
Michael, like many others, also confuses health insurance with health and with medical treatment.
Health insurance is something one purchases from an insurance company to share their risk of catastrophic medical care costs. It is here where one of the problems exists. Many don't have access to health insurance through an employer at preferential rates and even then many health insurance premiums are beyond the reach of many. We need to look at why the costs are so high and we need to see blame beyond insurance companies to doctor/hospital charges and to state mandates, among other things.
Health is an individual state of the absence of illness or injury. It is the one thing in this whole picture that most of us have the greatest control over. It is individual lifestyle choices of being smoke-free, eating healthy and exercising daily to maintain a healthy state of being. It is only the individual that can provide care to his/her health. Everyone has access to health care by the choices they make.
Medical care is treatment provided by a health professional...it is not health care...it is medical care. It is available to EVERYONE in this country regardless of ability to pay and regardless of citizenship. No one is turned away at a hospital. Again this is a problem area with the high cost of medical treatment burdening insurance companies and individuals. Medical costs must be made available to consumers so that we as savvy consumers can do what we do so well and that is to shop around and get ourselves the best deal for our dollar.
The only thing with which I can agree with Michael57 is that we certainly don't need a wholesale takeover but rather some substantial reforms.
to vote
And the PUC regulates the telecommunications industries. How well is that working out?
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090910/FRONTP...
There's a difference between laissez faire regulation and meaningful regulation.
to vote
industry by state insurance departments in each state."
Right - and that works so well - just look at the CM article about Concord Hospital swallowing up all the practices in the area - establishing a monopoly - and no one from the state says boo about that......
to vote
Insurance companies are among the most regulated businesses in the country. Hospitals can do whatever they want - no requirements to be efficient, effective, or competative. Let's stop looking at health care FINANCING, and start looking at health care.
to vote
Mr. 1oldviking I should inform you that Concord Hospital is NOT an insurance company therefore it is not regulated by the state insurance department.
I agree with you that it is very troubling that Concord Hospital is swallowing up all the practices in the area and establishing a monopoly, but it is not regulated like insurance companies are. We all should find it troubling that there will be only one medical care provider in town with no competition. Concord Hospital will then be in an even stronger position to charge whatever they want because patients will have no where else to go. Patients and their insurance companies will be stuck with the bill with no other options. You are right...this is bad news.
to vote
check out LRGH in Laconia.
http://granitegrok.com/blog/2007/05/about_those_healthcare_costs.html
'LRGHealthcare, as the local "non profit" health-delivery institution is, for all intents and purposes, a monopoly. Through the years, they have worked all the machinations of government regulations to stifle any and all competition that has attempted to make its mark in the area. They have now either driven from business or purchased any effectively competing health-care delivery service that would bring any alternative choices to the area. With no market forces working against the costs, they rise exponentially.
.
And yet, Sgambati, Clinton, and yes, the CEO of the monoply himself, will undoubtedly decry the ever-rising costs of health care, especially for the poor, during tomorrow's event. As they gather round wringing their hands (and licking their chops over the thought of seizing 1/7th of the US economy), one wonders how much inward reflection will take place. Will LRGHeathcare CEO Tom Clairmont look in the mirror and ask why health care in Central NH costs so much? Will the answer be, at least in part, the reflection staring back at him from the mirror? Does he care?
As they lament rising costs that hurt "little people, do you suppose anyone will ask why the LRGHealthcare CEO's salary rose nearly $134,000 in the span of just three years? Hillary is always bagging on the unfair money made by corporate CEOs in the private sector. What about those in the "non profit" world? As health insurance costs go through the roof for me and my employees, outpacing the rate of pay increases, it is apparent that those who are health care bureaucrats aren't suffering in the least.
The following salary information for the CEO of LRGHealthcare, Tom Clairmont, was obtained from IRS Form #990, public documents filed with the IRS, for the reporting years as noted. The first figure following the year is the salary paid and the second is the retirement contribution made on his behalf.
2002- $209,320--$16,705
2003- $326,620-- $23,094
2004- $342,870-- $24,124
Not bad, eh? Throw in the CFO, a handful of VPs, and a chief of staff, all well paid, and you're talking some serious money here. Of course, if you ask any of these handsomely remunerated people why health care costs so much, they'll blame the poor, the uninsured, insurance companies, the lack of reimbursement of medicare from the Feds, etc. Overpaid administrative overhead? No way!"
Mr. St. Cyr
to vote
Nice to hear from the insurance industry in these pages. Sorry to hear about all the regulations that burden you. I guess banks and manufacturing companies don't have federal regs to deal with--they singled you guys out, huh?
To get serious again, you're suggesting that the reason our health care costs twice as much as it does in other countries is because of everybody BUT the insurance companies? Perhaps it's the hospital's fault, or the doctor's? Look, we all know that half of a doctor's staff (at least) consists of people trying to satisfy the requirements of insurance companies. Give me a break. No one would argue that the companies are not regulated. But what has not been regulated is the ability of monopolistic corporations selling essential services to make obscene profits, and that's where I suggest we look to find one of the major culprits in rising health care costs.
Everyone has access to health care, but just being able to check into the hospital or go to the ER is not real health care. We need universal coverage for everyone so that people can afford to take care of themselves before they have something catastrophic happen. And we need to make sure they can't have their coverage cancelled at the whim of these companies you like so much, because they change their jobs, or forgot to disclose they had gallstones ten years ago.
Your mockery of doctors was pretty revealing. Doctors would certainly have an idea of what their procedures would cost if we as patients were able to work directly with our doctors, instead of having to involve middle-men at every stage. Perhaps what you're advocating, then, is a single-payer plan. Works for me.
Since you were being a jerk about all this, I won't point out that we probably have a point of agreement concerning reforming the system so it becomes outcome-based, instead of paying for redundant or unnecessary procedures as we do at present.
to vote
Read it. Single payer plans or univeral coverage won't work. Forbes has the only common sense plan. I replied about the insurance companies, and I don't work for them. I just don't want my mommy gov't telling me I have to wear a sweater. I believe most people to be smart enough to make their own choices, and I believe in free will that lets people live with the results of their choices, whether smart or stupid.
to vote
...yes, people are never to be denied treatment at a hospital despite ability to pay, but that only applies for an emergency situation.
for instance, a patient comes into the ER as a result of a car crash, a heart attack, stroke, perferated wound such as gunshot or stab, etc, they are stabilized and treated for their illness. Once released, these patients need follow-up care. Now, if you don't have a pcp, well, you are out of luck and are going back to the ER. An ER physician does not prescribe long term drugs.
Now, a person comes in for head pain, such as a headache or a migraine, then the most a physician can do is treat the pain temporarily until the person gets to see their PCP. Maybe this treatment is with a shot of heavy pain meds, or in the form of a one time prescription of a few pain killers, but the patient is told that they need to see their PCP for follow ups and more tests.
An emergency room is an EMERGENCY room. Doctors work quickly to save an EMERGENCY patient's life. So many people across the country abuse these facilities and not just those without insurance. There are some abusers out there who are on state run programs who use these ERs 10, 20, 30 times a year. This is not an exaggeration. This has been an ongoing problem at all hospitals. Some people also are drug seekers and go from hospital to hospital around the state. Some like the attention. In the end, these people know they cannot be denied treatment, and the hospitals have to follow their protocol so that they don't get their butts sued, and nine out of ten times, they'll get that shot of demerol or that script of percs or vicodan.
It's also been found that some patients go from hospital to hospital hoping for scripts, get them for say ten vicodan, SELL THEM, and then find another hospital to get more. Not all hospital systems talk to each other so this can go undetected for a long time. Sometimes medical records are not that easy to obtain.
Food for thought. Call a PCP. Ask what they charge for their services. Ask for something simple like a regular physical. I bet the first question will be what kind of insurance do you have? My first question has been, what difference does it make? Go from there. I'd love to hear the results.
to vote
belmont66 you raise good points and good questions.
The Congress/Obama plan is not a health care reform plan, it is a health insurance reform plan. By creating a tax-payer subsidized health insurance plan, insurance companies will be undercut and the result will be that they further cut benefits, raise premiums or go out of business. Obama is not being forthright when he says you can keep your insurance plan if you like it, because he knows darn well a federal plan will put the health insurance industry out of business. (Does that create more unemployment? Oh boy, when the government starts to meddle).
You are right that there is a shortage of PCPs. Because the Congress/Obama plan is not a health care plan but a health insurance plan, it does nothing to provide for the thousands of additional PCPs that will be necessary. So while folks may have some type of health insurance plan for which they have paid dearly through taxes or premiums or both, they will be shocked when they find that all that insurance coverage can't even get them a doctor because of the shortage.
And the shortage will get worse under the Congress/Obama plan because of a federal plan cutting payments to doctors. Already many doctors refuse Medicare and Medicaid patients (or require them to pay up front) because of the low level of reimbursement from these federal programs. That will only get worse. And the less doctors are compensated the less our best and brightest will choose to go into medicine, further exacerbating a PCP shortage.
The reason your PCP can't give you the price of their services without knowing who your insurance company is that years ago there was some ill thought out idea that insurance companies could control medical costs better than patients themselves. Instead of creating incentives for healthy lifestyles and consumer cost controls, HMOs were created and dictated care. That was a failed experiment, but it was the step that took patients/consumers out of the payment structure. Bad idea. The way it works now is that different insurance companies negotiate different discounts from different providers. That's why no one can tell you the ultimate cost without knowing your insurance company. But certainly they do know what their initial, undiscounted charge is.
Republicans want to change this by allowing all insurance premiums to be fully tax deductable whether paid by an employer or by an individual. That, and allowing consumers to form their own co-ops is a start to leveling the playing field for insurance premium costs. And with individuals purchasing health insurance they won't be in danger of losing it when they change jobs or move. The Democrats won't hear of this.
Republicans want to expand health savings accounts, tax-advantaged accounts that allow consumers to control the first dollars of their medical treatment to bring costs down. Democrats won't hear of it.
And we need meaningful tort reform so doctors can stop practicing defensive medicine. While Republicans are proposing some tort reform, Demorats won't hear of it at all...too much campaign dollars at stake from the trial lawyers lobby.
And it continues to amaze me that there are people out there that would give up control of their medical care costs and treatment to a far-away federal bureaucrat.
to vote
Mr. Michael57 I am not the insurance industry but I do believe it's important to be an informed citizen so one can be aware when one is being sold a bill of goods. The proposed changes in Congress and supported by the President would forever change our health insurance and medical treatment system. It is important that we all fully understand what we've got and how it works before we toss out that which is good for something we had no idea would be so bad, no matter how impassioned the promises are.
I still find it troubling when people continue to share misinformation that will hurt themselves and others in the end. It is clear that you are angry and riled up, but if you step back a moment instead of attacking and name calling you will realize I was trying to share information and correct some of your misunderstandings.
You mentioned federal regs. Wrong. Insurance companies are regulated at the state level. These regulators live in our communities in NH and have a clear understanding of our needs here in this state and what our economy will support. They do what they can to encourage more insurance companies to do business here so consumers will have more choices. The state insurance department is also your local consumer advocacy agency. They are there to help if you have insurance questions, complaints or a disputed claim. Obama no longer wants you to have that local control or service. The plan in Congress would move all that to a far-away federal agency who couldn't give a hoot about you in New Hampshire or having any companies to choose from other than a federal option.
Certainly health insurance costs are high but it is false to place all the blame on insurance companies. Sure, perhaps their profit margin is more than we'd want them to have. The only way to bring that down is to have more insurance companies compete for your dollars. The Congress/Obama plan will kill competition and profits so that insurance companies will go out of business and you will only have one option...whatever federal plan the government decides to toss your way. I can't imagine anyone wanting to have only one choice.
I was not making a mockery of doctors. I was making a mockery of the system where the consumer/patient has been tossed from the process of controlling costs. I agree with you that patients and doctors should know what the charges are. This will allow patients more control over their medical care dollars and I'm sure consumers/patients will do a much better job of it than insurance companies, we just need to be put back in the game. And part of that plan would be to expand the health savings accounts. These are tax-advantaged accounts that consumers can set up to manage the first dollars of medical treatment to help control costs. Money they don't spend they get to keep tax-free. You should be aware that the Congress/Obama plan would take away these health savings account so as to put further financial burden on the patient/consumer till he has no choice but to join the federal option.
You talked about doctors and their staff performing procedures to satisfy the insurance companies. You are partly right. Indeed they do more procedures than often necessary. This is a defensive practice often necessary to ward off malpractice litigation. So it is their malpractice insurance company they are working for at that point. Your health insurance company has no desire for them to perform additional, unnecessary procedures. These two companies are entirely different. Unfortunately the Congress/Obama plan does not take strong measures towards tort reform that would help control these unnecessary procedures and costs. Why not? Trial lawyers that make millions from medical malpractice litigation are one of the largest groups contributing to campaign funds. It is time for real tort reform.
We probably all want the same thing but we should be wary of the bill of goods now before us.
to vote
He's been President for a few months and he is tackling a problem that everyone agrees is one of the most serious facing the country today. He didn't create it, but he wants to solve it. You can argue over the details, fine, but if you are just against the whole attempt then you are speaking out foolishly against your own self-interest.
I wish that he had incorporated more ideas from the left, but he is in office, not me--he is trying to steer a middle course in order to get things done. I say give him a chance and give him our support where we find areas of agreement.
to vote
his problem is that he has a check list of the things he wants to be historically remembered for, and he's quickly shoving them all through, whether they are good or bad. He is no where near the middle on anything. He is only worried about how he looks and his own agenda for greatness. These things are too important to "give him a chance" - we have to live with his mistakes. Let's hope the next election puts experience back up at the top of the list.
to vote
Obe is steering a middle course.....what planet you from?
to vote
Single payer on the left, no change on the right--straight down the middle.
to vote
Obama is the most radical leftist liberal and he only drives far to the left and when he cant get a single Republican to support this he will ram it down your throat
to vote
There is no evidence for any of these assertions, to say the least.
to vote
The economy is the most serious problem facing this country. I believe most problems in this country can be traced back to politicians. Here's an example; why is there a limited amount of health insurance companies allowed to do business in NH? If there was more competition, there would be lower costs. Right?
to vote
Most markets in this country are controlled by one or two insurance giants. It's anti-competitive. Obama wants that to end. Are you not on Obama's side on that issue?
As a business owner, let me tell you from first-hand experience that ridiculous annual increases in insurance costs are what is holding back a lot of businesses in this country, thereby hurting the economy.
to vote
I wonder what this blocked comment was? Can anyone give me a hint?
to vote
Could it be that LIAMD2 is about to go on probation as did LIAMD the original? Stay tuned boys and girls!
to vote
The post violates the Discussion Guidelines.
President Obama delivered an excellent speech!
He confirmed he is still a liar.
to vote
What were the lies? Or is this just drive-by slander?
to vote
The speech: "The plan will not add to our deficit."
The truth: "According to that assessment,enacting legislation that embodied those specifications would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of $1,042 billion over the 2010
to vote
Did you even read the document ya linked to. Did you notice the date on it (July 14)
Here's one dated July 20 claiming it is in fact deficit neutral (that means it will not add to the national debt, BTW):
http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl...
Next.
to vote
You are using a link to Henry Waxman's website as a source with no supporting documentation?
How about a link to the actual CBO report. The latest I could find is today's date.
Link: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10553/09-10-EnziResponse.pdf
Here's a summary. Of particular interest is the expansion of medicare.
Link: http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=352
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts From a Fallen World
01.20.13 - Hope for Change
Don't like what I'm saying, turn me in: flag@whitehouse.gov
to vote
Actually, we're both full of crap as the funding for said legislation has yet to be determined, but hey, whatever....
Keep in mind that we are debating (I think) not what it costs, but whether it will be paid for (by savings and tax increases on whomever, I assume) or add to the national debt.
If the CBO determines that it is "deficit neutral" then the argument that we will be burdening our grandchildren with overwhelming debt because of it goes out the window.
I'll defer, however, to your Sept 10 date.
to vote
Again, you're referring to the House plan as originally introduced some months ago, which is NOT the same thing as the plan that Obama wants to see cross his desk. If Obama keeps to his word and makes the eventual plan "not add to the Federal deficit," then you are correct, these CBO observations will necessitate some changes in the details.
One interesting item I hadn't noticed before: the CBO is saying that the House plan would add 2-5% to overall national spending on health. But wouldn't the House plan also cover tens of millions of people who are not covered now? If you put those two things together, that sounds to me like they are saying cost per capita will go way down under the House plan. Anyone care to weigh in on that?
to vote
Obama's plan DOES NOT EQUAL the House plan.
Come on, Wayne, you're looking for simplistic talking points and you're not succeeding.
to vote
What is Obama's plan then? There is none. This is the problem with the guy, he talks out of both sides of his mouth. This is why a majority of Americans don't support the bill. All his speech provided was red meat for the left. His speech was the definition of irony as Obama argued for a sense of bipartisanship, and then followed up with a partisan tone, accusing his opponents of lying and then demanding an end to
to vote
SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
4
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments
5
for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are
6
not lawfully present in the United States.
to vote
at least 3 or 4 times in response to av's repeated lies concerning the same topic.
But obviously, since you're a rube caller, ya got no credibility here and therefore this fact can be not just ignored, but discounted.
You are hereby branded with a scarlet R.
to vote