Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, he did say it. And I think he was being overly optimistic, not lying, not dumb. And as I recall, Hillary Clinton pointed out how optimistic that idea was. And how Congress would have to be "persuaded" to televise such negotiations.
Despite what you think, I'm not in some lock-step march with Democrats about this piece of legislation, or any other piece of legislation. I'm disappointed that Obama hasn't been able to engender a more transparent process, I'm disappointed with the health-care bill in many ways.
Obama was never my first choice, but I think there is some inherent dishonesty in the Obama-bashing that goes on. Or it may just be a misunderstanding. Because I always understood the limited scope of power that American Presidents enjoy. They are very powerful men. They should be masters of the political process, because winning such an election is a tremendous political feat. But they don't rule the country, they don't make laws, and I prefer a tense, vaguely adversarial relationship between the federal government branches, to any of the branches dominating.
See Eight Clips of Obama Promising Televised Healthcare Negotiations
Yes, he did say it. And I think he was being overly optimistic, not lying, not dumb. And as I recall, Hillary Clinton pointed out how optimistic that idea was. And how Congress would have to be "persuaded" to televise such negotiations.
Despite what you think, I'm not in some lock-step march with Democrats about this piece of legislation, or any other piece of legislation. I'm disappointed that Obama hasn't been able to engender a more transparent process, I'm disappointed with the health-care bill in many ways.
Obama was never my first choice, but I think there is some inherent dishonesty in the Obama-bashing that goes on. Or it may just be a misunderstanding. Because I always understood the limited scope of power that American Presidents enjoy. They are very powerful men. They should be masters of the political process, because winning such an election is a tremendous political feat. But they don't rule the country, they don't make laws, and I prefer a tense, vaguely adversarial relationship between the federal government branches, to any of the branches dominating.
I thought he was naive when he said both of them, and I never served a day in the Illinois or US senate. I thought this guy must be a real idiot if he thinks he has a prayer of forcing the congress to do either of them. Then again, I reserved the slight possibility that 0bama might actually know what he had said, and had enough experience, leadership and knowledge to believe he could really pull them off.
It turns out that 0bama was completely naive, and an empty suit.
Many times a politician makes promises they cannot keep, but at least they can be seen publicly fighting for what they believe in.
It is not that 0bama is simply going back on his promises, not only is he breaking them, he has done a complete reversal on them, and on a scale that dwarfs his predesessors.
He is not just allowing earmarks, he is allowing 25,000+ earmarks.
He is not just keeping out C-SPAN cameras he has all meetings behind closed doors.
He is not fogetting to keep the deficit in control and lower the debt, he is quadrupaling the deficit and raising the debt limit.
And he is not even trying to fight to keep any of his promises, he is rolling over like a submissive puppy.
You need to remember that 0bama came into office with more political clout then any president in the last 150 years, and his party had both houses and a super majority and yet he has not tried to enforce any of his broken promises, he has just appears to have slunk off in the corner, and allowed the lobbyists, special interest groups, PACs, Pelosi and Reid to run the whole show, while he apparently just pushes their agenda and reads and says what he is told to.
By proposing torte reform?
By looking for ways to allow people to be more responsible for obtaining their health insurance and reforming insurance law to allow shopping across state lines?
By trying to allow the self-insured to keep their current high deductible HSA plans?
By eliminating the coersion of compulsory enrollment in a government sponsored plan via fines and jail?
By fighting against sweetheart deals made in the form of bribery to obtain votes where some states are forced to pick up the burden of Medcaid for other states?
By fighting against the forced use of taxpayer dollars to fund elective abortion?
To point out that the U.S. cannot afford the bills that are proposed and that the debt by this rather HUGE entitlement is going to further sink our country economically?
By pointing out that this will dramatically ration currently available healthcare while failing to cover all citizens and simultaneously forcing many currently insured out of their existing health insurance plans?
Are these the attempts at derailment of which you speak?
All these are valid arguments. Arguments that were raised by Democrats as well as by Republicans. But there are people who raised these arguments not in an effort to be a part of the discussion, but in an effort to silence the discussion. Busing people to town meetings in places where they are not constituents isn't forwarding the discussion. Urging people to shout-down their elected representatives rather than to be a part of the conversation isn't furthering the debate.
Tort reform is a good idea, but it's a drop in the bucket, and has little effect on the economic problems that concern me.
I don't believe this health care reform package works against people making responsible choices about their insurance carriers, and I believe it does work to allow shopping across state lines.
While health care reform will impact the self-insured, I think the goal IS expanded choices, not taking away choices.
I believe the fines and jail time are scare tactics. The health care plan provisions I've read employ coercion via taxes. If you fail to properly file and pay your taxes, then fines and jail time are appropriate penalties.
I utterly oppose the sweetheart deals. Seems that you do, too.
There are already laws on the books that prohibit federal funding for elective abortions. The heart of the discussion as regards health care reform isn't about federal funding of abortion, it's about dictating to insurance companies whether or not they will cover abortions. Funnily enough, I always thought Republicans supported private companies making these decisions for themselves. Evidently, Republicans support private companies only so far.
The HUGE bills are more scare tactic. What you should be really afraid of is the continued consumption of the general economy by the private health sector. That is what we cannot afford. Health care costs will cripple the American economy if we cannot find ways to control those costs. Doing nothing is not an option.
Rationing is another scare tactic. We already ration healthcare. People who cannot afford healthcare do without. People who have insurance get their health care rationed by their insurance companies. The only people in any society who do not have rationed health care are the wealthiest people who can afford to pay outright for whatever health care they wish to purchase. Frankly, it's not a case of will we have rationing or not. We've accepted rationing a long, long time ago.
1-Have you not seen how much money democrats and Obama have givin to big business
Yes. And I see how much money Big Business is giving the Democrats. That's why I have posted repeatedly that not only do the Dems have no balls to stand up to the Republican spin machine, they are sell outs.
WASHINGTON — With an 82-13 vote, the Senate Thursday completed the override of President Bush's veto of a comprehensive farm bill, shrugging off Republican concerns about an embarrassing legislative glitch and making the $290 billion bill the law of the land.
All these are valid arguments. Arguments that were raised by Democrats as well as by Republicans. But there are people who raised these arguments not in an effort to be a part of the discussion, but in an effort to silence the discussion. Busing people to town meetings in places where they are not constituents isn't forwarding the discussion. Urging people to shout-down their elected representatives rather than to be a part of the conversation isn't furthering the debate.
Tort reform is a good idea, but it's a drop in the bucket, and has little effect on the economic problems that concern me.
I don't believe this health care reform package works against people making responsible choices about their insurance carriers, and I believe it does work to allow shopping across state lines.
While health care reform will impact the self-insured, I think the goal IS expanded choices, not taking away choices.
I believe the fines and jail time are scare tactics. The health care plan provisions I've read employ coercion via taxes. If you fail to properly file and pay your taxes, then fines and jail time are appropriate penalties.
I utterly oppose the sweetheart deals. Seems that you do, too.
There are already laws on the books that prohibit federal funding for elective abortions. The heart of the discussion as regards health care reform isn't about federal funding of abortion, it's about dictating to insurance companies whether or not they will cover abortions. Funnily enough, I always thought Republicans supported private companies making these decisions for themselves. Evidently, Republicans support private companies only so far.
The HUGE bills are more scare tactic. What you should be really afraid of is the continued consumption of the general economy by the private health sector. That is what we cannot afford. Health care costs will cripple the American economy if we cannot find ways to control those costs. Doing nothing is not an option.
Rationing is another scare tactic. We already ration healthcare. People who cannot afford healthcare do without. People who have insurance get their health care rationed by their insurance companies. The only people in any society who do not have rationed health care are the wealthiest people who can afford to pay outright for whatever health care they wish to purchase. Frankly, it's not a case of will we have rationing or not. We've accepted rationing a long, long time ago.
A good number of these propasals I listed were included as ammendments to the Senate bill. Each proposed Republican ammendment was tossed out by the majority party. I maintain that it is the majority party doing the shutting out and the closing down, not the minority.
Current rationing does not eliminate care for those who may choose to pay out of pocket by any means they are able to find. The future rationing will.
Yes, I do believe torte reform would greatly reduce costs to the recipient of the healthcare as it substanially decreases the costs to the costs of the providers.
In states where torte reform has been passed there are more doctors available to provide care (OB-GYN is a great example). In states without the torte reform, significant numbers of physicians have actually left the state to practice elsewhere. Lack of availability and competition increases cost.
However....the topic is C-Span and calling out Obama on his failure to be transparent or to encourage transparency. They were right to do so but should not have waited so very long, IMO.
I thought he was naive when he said both of them, and I never served a day in the Illinois or US senate. I thought this guy must be a real idiot if he thinks he has a prayer of forcing the congress to do either of them. Then again, I reserved the slight possibility that 0bama might actually know what he had said, and had enough experience, leadership and knowledge to believe he could really pull them off.
It turns out that 0bama was completely naive, and an empty suit.
Many times a politician makes promises they cannot keep, but at least they can be seen publicly fighting for what they believe in.
It is not that 0bama is simply going back on his promises, not only is he breaking them, he has done a complete reversal on them, and on a scale that dwarfs his predesessors.
He is not just allowing earmarks, he is allowing 25,000+ earmarks.
He is not just keeping out C-SPAN cameras he has all meetings behind closed doors.
He is not fogetting to keep the deficit in control and lower the debt, he is quadrupaling the deficit and raising the debt limit.
And he is not even trying to fight to keep any of his promises, he is rolling over like a submissive puppy.
You need to remember that 0bama came into office with more political clout then any president in the last 150 years, and his party had both houses and a super majority and yet he has not tried to enforce any of his broken promises, he has just appears to have slunk off in the corner, and allowed the lobbyists, special interest groups, PACs, Pelosi and Reid to run the whole show, while he apparently just pushes their agenda and reads and says what he is told to.
He didn't come into office with more political clout than any President in the last 150 years. He came into office after winning a close Presidential contest. The electoral college results, because of the winner-take-all system, made that win seem broader than it actually was.
His party may control both legislative houses, but that does not mean that he controls the legislature. He doesn't.
I agree with you that he hasn't lived up to the lofty visions he described on the campaign trail. I don't recall any President actually living up to them, because on the campaign trail, the candidates and the voters want to believe that the President can effect all sorts of changes. But in reality, the President doesn't have unlimited power, he functions in a system where his power is closely limited and checked by a system designed to do so. I noted Hillary's comments when Obama first brought up the C-Span televising of negotiations, and gave her debate points for those comments.
But it's interesting, isn't it, that people who had zero expectations for Obama from the git-go, to the point that they didn't vote for him, now suggest that their expectations were so high, and they are so disappointed. My expectations were relatively mild. I treat Obama's campaign proposals the same way I would a builder's estimates for a new house. With trepidation. It will take longer, it will cost more, and some things just won't get done the way they were originally planned.
Life isn't just black or white, yes or no, true or false. And any adult should know that hardly anything is "one or the other." Especially when it comes to politics. Embrace the complexity.
0bama had the world in his hands!! He had off the charts political clout/capital!! We supposedly had an an economic emergrency, "the worst economy since the Great Depression"!! If 0bama had balls or conviction behind his "We will ban all earmarks" statement in January '09, he would have demanded all earmarks stripped out of the Omnibus and stimulus bill. but he just rolled over and said there were no earmarks or they were Bush's earmarks and he had no choice but to sign the bills.
He could have used his famous "Now is not the time for profits" speech, he could have strode the the cameras and stated:
"As we all know, America is in dire financial straights. Let me be clear, now was not the time for politicians to try and use the Recovery Act as of means of continuing the status quo in Washington of backroom deals and pork barrel projects. Now is not the time for political earmarks, now is the time to heal our country during its time of need."
I have no doubt that 0bama could have rallied the entire country behind him with a statement like that. Instead we got a defeated man mumbling about earmarks in the Omnibus bill being last year's business and "Gee golly, those aren't really stimulus bill earmarks either, uhhh, where do I sign? Pathetic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
