College Student Challenges Obama to Oxford-Style Debate

“Anytime that he would like to do a debate, I am open for a debate,” he said. “I have facts on my side.”
What facts??? There is no final bill yet for Congress to vote on so no one really has any or all the facts yet…

Lahn said he got the same old talking points from the President.
“The truthful answer is there is no way a private company can — when businesses start writing off their employees to save money by putting off a public plan, how can insurance companies survive at all? They are just being demonized in this whole situation.”
****
Here’s the problem with Lahn’s insinuation that he didn’t get a truthful answer: he did!
“Certainly they can’t compete if the taxpayer is standing behind the public option just shoveling more and more money at it,” Obama said. “That’s certainly not fair. And so I’ve already said I would not be in favor of a public option of that sort, because that would just mean more expenses out of our pockets and we wouldn’t be seeing much improvement in quality.”
The President said he thinks a system can be crafted in which the public option is operating independently, and not subsidized by taxpayers — and he mentioned how nonprofits like BlueCross BlueShield go on the market and get a market price for capital.”
That’s an interesting answer. I want more details, but it gives us a little insight as to how the President is viewing the public option and that he doesn’t want it to be unfair– if he doesn’t want it to be unfair he’s acknowledging it could be if structured incorrectly. He can’t provide more details because the House and Senate aren’t done yet.
Sigh. the kid sounds bright and engaged, but, fairplay, HE didn’t budge from tired talking points– and his question and talking points afterward weren’t anything that isn’t heard on Fox News ad nauseum

freelyb, we want the insurance companies to compete with the public option because I don’t want the government and their pencil-pushers controlling my health care. The government helped to cause this economic meltdown. I don’t want them in charge of my health care. I won’t trust my life to a government I can’t trust to be honest and fair.

Will somebody please slap me? Did I just hear Obama say in Colorado that the public option would not be taxpayer-supported???????
Or have I lost my mind? Wasn’t the House bill about taxpayers paying the bill for the public option?
I am not joking. I need a straight, serious answer — PLEASE.

So who’s funding the “public” option?
Doesn’t “public” mean us, boys and girls?
What ELSE could “public option” mean other than taxpayers are funding it?
Why is Obama saying the taxpayers WON’T fund it???
Can someone please answer me?

Freelyb wrote: “Why is it of utmost importance that insurance companies CAN compete?”
If the private sector is unable to compete then they are out of business. Most Democrats and President Obama have been saying that the public option is going to be just one more option. That they don’t want the public option to be the sole provider of healthcare. THAT is their rhetoric! But in reality they know that will be the result; and that IS their ultimate agenda. They just won’t be honest with the American people.
The elimination of private healthcare insurance companies will result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. And that will result in the loss of billions of dollars in revenue for the federal, state and local governments.

tanarg, which would you rather have, our taxes used to pay for an uninsured American in the I.C.U. with serious pneumonia or helping that poor citizen afford health care… so he sees his own doctor who will give him medicine so he never ends up in the I.C.U.
And if that American dies, and he was a single parent, you do realize his children may very well be raised on your tax dollar in the form of S.S. payments or foster care if no relative steps forward. It is all a spider web, how one person affects so many others.
Remember they aren’t talking about free health care but affordable health care. All but the poorest will be paying into the system.
The reason Obama is saying middle-class and lower won’t be paying additional taxes towards this is because it is true. With the health reforms in place the cost of health care will go down which will cover a lot of the expense of the public insurance. People will be paying into the system. The difference still needed will come from slightly higher taxes on the income of the very wealthy.

This is down-and-out FRAUD against me and every other American.
Posted by: tanarg | Aug 16, 2009 2:30:18 AM
***
Say what?
Tanarg, you can watch the clip of the exchange between Lahn and the President online if you missed it. There was no fraud, for pete’s sake. As Lydia points out, people who choose the public option will be paying into the system. The poor may have to have their health insurance subsidized, but those subsidies could go to both the public plan and private insurance plans, or, in the absence of a public option, they would go to the private sector, no? Perhaps SChip will be expanded to include parents of children covered or Medicaid will be expanded to cover more uninsureds– we don’t know yet. I’m speculating on that, but clearly we’re going to do something to get the uninsured insured. That’s a huge part of the point in all this. Incidentally, the President has also said that a public plan would have to be required to break even financially. I haven’t read anything that suggests Congress has figured out how that would work yet. When Congress reconvenes they still have some work to do, right? That was my understanding. They finished the bill but still had some work to do on amendments and such (if I’m wrong on that, I humbly apologize ahead of time.)
In addition, we’re all waiting on what comes out of the Senate. My understanding is that in that bill, the public option is off the table, no? While the President supports a public option, he’s not adamant that it MUST be in there. He’s said that several times and again in today’s town hall. I support the public option, but, frankly, I’m not adamant either. I go back and forth. Heck, I’d still love an honest, nonpartisan appraisal of single payer just so I could really hone in on the pros and cons without all the spin. But, whatever. From what I’ve read and heard, other non-profit co-ops are also being discussed.

Alyson, have you read HR 3200 Sec. 313–Employer Contributions In Lieu of Coverage?
James, I have to look at the bill again. I’ve tried reading huge sections of the bill and I’ve gotten through a lot of it but I have to say it can get very boring and I don’t recall a lot of it in detail unless I’ve discussed a section with someone.
Now, I know you won’t like my response to this, because we feel differently about the Prez and I haven’t reread teh part of the bill you’re talking about, but Obama has said that the public plan will be required to break even financially without tons of revenue from taxpayers who aren’t in the plan. If that’s true and Congress doesn’t grant the public option the power to negotiate amazing, competition-squashing deals with providers and suppliers, then there is no reason the private sector wouldn’t be able to compete. Moreover, we still have to see what comes out of the Senate. My guess is that it won’t be in there– unless it’s used with the aforementioned limitations as a bargaining chip for medical malpractice and tort reform and/or vice versa (an idea I read somewhere; can’t recall where at the moment)

The U. S. Government can’t compete with the insurance industry. Home, medical, life or auto, the result will always be the same on an otherwise “level” playing field. Insurers determine risk and can make both minor and major adjustments overnight to reduce their exposure. When was the last time our government did anything overnight that worked out well for the taxpayer?

No one would argue that they would want to be denied healthcare because of a pre-existing condition. It’s a strong emotional argument, but advocating that insurance companies be compelled to insure those that have them is not rational.
Should an insurance company give fire insurance to someone whose house has burned down? Of course not! You can’t insure against something that’s happened.
You demonize the insurance companies because they dare to operate in a way that allows them to be profitable.
Health insurance and healthcare coverage should not be the same, yet they are. That’s part of the problem.
You should have insurance which will cover you in case you develop illnesses and healthcare coverage to reduce the costs of regular care.
This would be just like having homeowner’s insurance and a home warranty.
And for all those people who take the President at their word that all the things people worry about won’t come to pass. Although you may trust Obama, you would in fact have to be extending that trust to the House and the Senate. They will shape the laws. The President will only sign it. At this point, the President is highly unlikely to veto anything that is presented to him, no matter what the bill contains.

Alyson, in a nutshell, HR 3200, Sec. 313 says that if an employer has the following annual payroll your applicable percentage would be:
Under $250,000–ZERO (Employers can switch their employees to the public option for free.)
Between $250,000 and $300,000–2%
Between $300,000 and $350,000–4%
Between $350,000 and $400,000–6%
$400,000 and above–8%
According to information on the National Coalition on Health Care website, the annual premium for an employee health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,700. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,700. NOTE: And those figures will rise drastically when private health insurance companies have to figure in having to insure those with existing conditions; and they can no longer have caps for annual or lifetime coverage.
So if a company has 100 employees with a payroll of $1,000,000, the current cost for providing healthcare coverage for their employees would range from approximately $470,000 (if all have single coverage) to $1,270,000 (if all have family of four coverage). Under HR 3200, the same employer will only have to pay $80,000 to switch his employees to the public option.

Personally, I do not care if the insurance companies cannot compete. Since when did we start caring about the big insurance companies over Americans in need of care?
Why is it that Americans sat quietly through the first Gulf war, 9/11, the second Gulf war and the war in Afghanistan but suddenly, over Washington suggesting we help provide Health Care to ALL Americans, people are outraged and showing up at town halls? This is the thing that makes them mad??
Our armed forces will die to make sure that “no man is left behind” yet here at home we are content to leave sick or dying Americans lying where we find them (as long as we get our Medicare and Social Security).
I can understand fighting to save lives or fighting to save our country; but fighting to make sure that other Americans cannot receive Health Care, even when they need it? I have to admit I am somewhat ashamed of what we have become.
The time has come to do make a stand and to do the right thing. Support Health Care Reform for ALL Americans!

Magnus–so it sounds like you’re not into the idea of your taxes going to help anyone except you?
And as a relatively healthy person, my health care premiums already do go to pay for other people’s care.

War vs. Health Care…Hmmmm that’s a stretch..but whatever supports your ideology no matter how mis-guided..BTW, do the right thing for whom???

You people bringing up Bush are ignorant. You’re in an “us against them” mentality. Listen, look at the facts. Why let Obama rape you because Bush stole your dinner jacket?? You’re brilliant. They’re both on the same team. Duh. They work for the same multinational corporatists and banksters who control DC. You just don’t get it.
At least stick to the facts of THIS ISSUE instead of saying, “What about Bush??” and getting into your whole big trap of self-defeating nonsense.

No question, our health care has problems.However, Obama would do the same thing for the health care system as he would if he had a flat tire on his car.Instead fixing the flat he would scrap it.

1. Do all of you who are so concerned with the uninsured know that there is nothing to prevent you from paying the insurance premiums for someone else? Its easy.
But do you?
Posted by: Magnus | Aug 16, 2009 11:23:55 AM
As a self-employed person with an assistant and a husband who owns a small business, I DO pay the insurance premiums for other people– and I want it to be more affordable!!I want a good way to buy into the advantages large employers have. I can’t afford to pay for all the uninsureds on my own. Would be nice if I had that kind of money.
***
2. Under HR 3200, the same employer will only have to pay $80,000 to switch his employees to the public option.
Posted by: James Danley | Aug 16, 2009 10:34:07 AM
James, I want to be able to have that choice, or some better choice than I currently have. I’m pro small business. I want small businesses to have some of the advantages large businesses have when it comes to buying insurance. This goes back to a conversation we had about income tax to me– for small businesses, what percentage of their revenues has to go to buying insurance for their employees. I want that percentage to be more equitable. Maybe the private sector will innovate and figure out a way to make that happen if they have some competition with the restrictions I previously mentioned. Or, as I said, we may be looking at co-ops. I’m pro middle class small business owner. I’m pro self-employed.BUT I will look at that section more closely and think on it more. Right now I’m just giving you my first gut reaction.

You people bringing up Bush are ignorant
Posted by: laura
not really, what it shows is that when Republicans put the country in debt and fiscal crisis, republicans don’t say a word, or ‘take to the streets’.. as this really is not about fiscal policy to them.. if it were you would have seen and heard their vociferous ‘indignation’ for the last 8 years..
everything nowadays is ‘politics’.. but republicans claiming the role of being worried about deficits and debt after the last administration strains credulity…

“The problem with your argument for me is that (1) a majority of economists explained why a stimulus package was necessary to prevent a depressions.”
Posted by: Alyson | Aug 16, 2009 12:55:35 PM
Was a poll taken of major economists? How do you know that a majority were in support of the stimulus package? Do you believe everything Obama tells you?

republicans claiming the role of being worried about deficits and debt after the last administration strains credulity…
Posted by: Rapture Boy | Aug 16, 2009 1:02:37 PM
***
I agree. In fact, I love a quote by Bruce Bartlett, a veteran of the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations,now a political independent, about the Republican Party pretending it did nothing wrong over the last eight years. The quote is available at the Political Animal blog by Washington Monthly under the heading “the penance has not been paid” and there’s a very on point part 2 about the deterioration of the media. I encourage everyone to check it out. Here’s a portion of the quote by Bruce Bartlett:
“I believe that political parties should do penance for their mistakes and just losing power is not enough. Part of that involves understanding why those mistakes were made and how to prevent them from happening again. Republicans, however, have done no penance. They just pretend that they did nothing wrong. But until they do penance they don’t deserve any credibility and should be ignored until they do. . . I want Republicans to admit they were wrong about him, accept blame for his mistakes, and take some meaningful action to keep them from happening again.”
Good stuff.

Was a poll taken of major economists? How do you know that a majority were in support of the stimulus package? Do you believe everything Obama tells you?
Posted by: Forgotten Liberty | Aug 16, 2009 1:11:13 PM
No, I don’t, and there were polls, btw. But I’ll rephrase– the six economists I trust MOST based on their history of getting things right all thought we needed a bigger stimulus.

Alyson,
The economists I trust most based on their experience and history opposed a large stimulus paid for totally by borrowing. We can trade opinion statements all day, it doesn’t accomplish anything. Just Google ‘economists who opposed stimulus’ and you will find many well educated and respected economists, including 3 Nobel prize winners, who opposed it. BTW, which polls are you referring too?

So the lightworker cuts his interview and debate baby teeth on 11 year old boys and girls this week, now works up to a college student and finds himself out of his league. Meanwhile, the adults are taking apart Congressmen and women with facts, passion and conviction. One wonders when the handlers of the Obama puppet are going to have him ready for prime time. It appears that the on-the-job training program they’ve got him working on has him a wee bit behind both the times, and the polls.

You can only blame the Republicans and Bush for his first six years in office. In 2006 the Democrats won both houses and after that Bush couldn’t spend one single penny without Democratic approval.

I have no alegance to either party. They are both crooks and out of touch with reality. They both kiss the hind quarters of their own. That makes everyone minions or pawns at best. The root problem is insuring ilegal immigrants. Their free ride has broken the system. Our worst president is responsible for this, Jimmy Carter. HE STARTED THIS BY GIVING SOCIAL SECURITY TO PEOPLE WHO NEVER PAID INTO THE SYSTEM.[ 65 yr old boat people.] The other problem is people who dont work are alowed to vote. If you dont work please dont try to spend tax money you dont pay.

pdc…Freedom of Expression..Freedom of Speech…Freedom of Assembly…Right to hold our elected officials accountable.. I’M JUST SAYIN’……..

“Nevermind that he challenged the leader of the free world to a debate. Does this kid really want to go head-to-head with a guy who graduated from Columbia and Harvard Universities (and served as President of the Harvard Law Review)?
- Not to belittle the University of Colorado. I’m sure the institution is capable of providing its students a fine education. But, according to U.S. News and World Report, Harvard is currently ranked #1 in the world, and Columbia is ranked #10 in the world. In contrast, the University of Colorado at Boulder is ranked #180 in the world.
I’m just sayin’…”
If you believe that the criteria used to stratify educational institutions can actually be applied at the individual level, as you have done, and perform a compare/contrast between the president and this young man is beyond ridiculous. If this logic were to hold water, then the president would have to debate none other than other Harvard/Columbia nincompoops. Buying into the fallacious thinking that your pedigree really matters is the same thinking that allows those institutions to charge outlandish tuition for substandard education. Example number one: Barack Obama.
I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.–Ben Franklin.

You can only blame the Republicans and Bush for his first six years in office. In 2006 the Democrats won both houses and after that Bush couldn’t spend one single penny without Democratic approval. Posted by: Dave Jones
so what?… we ignore the destruction of 6 years where Bush and Co. ruined America…
doesn’t count? pathetic
they get a free pass? you guys… will overlook anything to make a political point

.Freedom of Expression..Freedom of Speech…Freedom of Assembly…Right to hold our elected officials accountable.. I’M JUST SAYIN’……..Posted by: Parallex View
so when the guy was arrested in NOLa for given’ Cheney the one finger salute, his rights were violated right?
when the Bushies pretended to be secret service agents to get rid of liberals with anti-bush t-shirts on them and prevented them from getting into rallyies, violated rights , yes?
I must have missed the liberals showing up at McCain rallies with guns..
when republicans outright lie about death panels they need to held accountable.. right?
funny, I don’t remember anyone here being outraged back then…. I’m just sayin’…

“…just because he went to Harvard doesn’t mean he made good grades. we don’t even know if he really went to harvard because everything is locked down.”
I apologize in advance if I appear to be lecturing.
President Obama served as Editor-in-Chief/President of the Harvard Law Review, one of the most respected and most cited law reviews in the US. On his blogsite, Rob Webb brilliantly summarizes the qualifications required to become “Editor in Chief” of the Harvard Law Review. Here’s an excerpt for your consideration:
“…around 40 of the best students are appointed to Harvard Law Review based on their first year grades and writing. Law Reviews are highly competitive student run scholarly journals… For the 7% that make it on to Law Review, 2L year is more legal theory plus highly detailed editing of emerging legal scholarship pending publication in the journal. At the end of 2L year, one member of Law Review is elected to be the next year’s Editor-in-Chief by the existing members…Since 1887, 121 people have been appointed Editor-in-Chief of Harvard Law Review. There were more than 7,000 Rhodes Scholarships granted during the same period.”

“I won’t hold my breath. BO is good at “talking” but debating? Nah…”
“obama is only as good as his teleprompter and handlers.”
President Obama taught Constitutional Law for 12 years at the University of Chicago Law School (one of the top law schools in the country – ranked #8 in the US – sorry tc). I think he can manage without handlers or teleprompters. Maybe you have him confused with that politician from Alaska. What was her name? :-)
Oh, and for you doubters, I found this statement issued by the University of Chicago on FactCheck.org.
“UC Law School statement: …” From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”

-> “+ or -”
“We Posted by: Mblack
by ‘we’ I’m assuming you mean ‘real americans’”
That is correct the same “WE” That after 9/11 donated billions out of our pockets to the American Red Cross & others, the same WE that donated & sent our best & brightest to help victims of the Tsunami, the same WE that the WON goes out of his way to slander & apologize for on the world stage.
AMERICA HAS BEEN THE BEACON OF HOPE FOR THE FREE WORLD SINCE ITS INCEPTION. WE ARE FAR FROM PERFECT BUT REAL AMERICANS HELP THEIR NEIGHBOR WHEN THEY CAN, NOT WHEN THEY ARE FORCED.
VOTE THESE BUMS OUT ACROSS THE BOARD IN 2010 WE DESERVE BETTER, WE HAVE JUST BEEN ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL, WHILE THE CONGRESS IS MAKING US SUBSERVIENT TO POWERS THAT WISH US ILL.

@pdc – I have heard Obama w/o teleprompters and he makes Bush sound like Laurence Olivier. Read American thinker that has made a point of tracking his written material and speeches and we find a man that barely is above a Jr High Student in Grammar, Vocabulary, and articulation. What the left and Obama’s fanatical followers are not mentioning is not ONE article from Harvard Law Review or ONE paper at the University of Chicago has been release to the public. Interestingly there were weekly scholarly round-tables while Obama was teaching at Chicago and he never attended. I suspect because he is the type of man that can sound smart, but once you engage him, he is merely a charlatan. Listening to him speak, he is the master of cliche and platitudes. Unfortunately for all of you Palin does seem smarter. What is that sound, his falling approval ratings and his negative approval index (which is higher than Bushes. I realize this is “blasphemy”, but when you get right down to it, Obama has never run anything and his first attempt – the US, is turning into an abject disaster. His followers though will remain in denial and simply point at Bush, Palin, Cheney, the Right Wing, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck. It is really quite pathetic.

Comparing UPS and FedEx to the USPS? Let’s get real. The reason UPS and FedEx succeed is they are providing services the USPS can not provide! Hell, the USPS can’t do what they are supposed to do since both UPS and FedEx are handling the movement of some of the US Mail so efficiently that it is cheaper for the USPS to pay them to do it! Obama does not want debate (neither does Congress). A real option would be to open health care providers across state lines and tailor-made plans that would limit liability to the insurance companies and limit cost to the customers.

Joel, per your recommendation (thank you), I just logged on to the American Thinker. Wow! No wonder Conservatives are panicked. American Thinker raises the fear factor (in an already scary world)at least one full order of magnitude, maybe two.
Here’s a blurb from a reprint of an article written in 1990(?). Obama’s Harvard peers and professors give their impression of him as a student and HLR Editor-and-Chief.
“”He’s very unusual, in the sense that other students who might have something approximating his degree of insight are very intimidating to other students or inconsiderate and thoughtless,” said Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor. “He’s able to build upon what other students say and see what’s valuable in their comments without belittling them.”
But what truly distinguishes Obama from other bright students at Harvard Law, Tribe said, is his ability to make sense of complex legal arguments and translate them into current social concerns. For example, Tribe said, Obama wrote an insightful research article showing how contrasting views in the abortion debate are a direct result of cultural and sociological differences.”

Congress and the President all need to go back to square one. Take advantage of an old maintanace term.K.I.S.S.
Keep it simple stupid! They are over reaching, they don’t really know what they want to fix, and have no idea how they will fix it. They just want to pass a big bill and claim they have fixed health care.

“Your view is that the degree makes the man – when the truth is that the degree is only as good as the man.”
Well, I was trying to say that President Obama’s credentials suggest that he’s obviously not the idiot puppet the conservative media are attempting to portray.
Do I understand correctly that your viewpoints are (and I’m not trying be a jerk, here) that those credentials are false, and even if they aren’t false they don’t matter?

Jacksmith, you can blame the Republicans all you want. But the simple truth of the matter is the Democrats have a 78-seat majority in the House–where it requires a simple majority to pass a bill. The Democrats have a 60-40 voting majority (2 Independents voting with the Democrats) in the Senate–where 60 votes are required to end a filibuster. Since the Republicans are unable to block any legislation that the Democrats what to pass, if a bill doesn’t get passed it’s because the Democrats could not get enough in their party to vote for the legislation.

The most hiliarious part of this, is to imagine the White House staff standing on its head to fill Obama with enough detailed info (Not talking points or campaign rhetoric) to debate this kid and NOT get embarassed!
the President “thinks” a system can be crafted. I sure feel better that even now well past HIS OWN DEADLINE that he “thinks” this “could” be done! He still doesn’t he get it!!!!
This is why the American People are saying no in greater numbers every day! No one trusts what “thinks” and they are not willing to risk what they have on what he “thinks”.
If Obama had he way, This tihng would already be LAW, and we would have to see how bad he misread this one!

Don’t hold your breath Zach, that debate will not be forthcoming.

Obama finally told the TRUTH when he said ” nobody is talking about government takeover of health care.”
They’re not TALKING about their real end game, because they now see it ain’t sellin. How a socialized healthcare pushing politician can look an American with a straight face, without acknowledging Government controlled semi-private bureaucracies like the Post Office, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or full Government ones like Medicare, Medicaid, the VA “Healthcare” system, Social Security. Thes all have either failed and been bailed, are on the verge of failure, or in the case of Social Security and the Post Office just keep getting money thrown at them, either from higher taxes (regular postal increases are a tax too!), or Congress dumping money on their doorstep to keep them afloat decade after decade. Politicians are the worst CEOs, and CFOs there are. They don’t know how to run a business, only how to tax citizens and companies and spend their money.
As for the so-called public “debate”, WHAT DEBATE? The pushers are just trying to SELL people on THEIR plan for Americans, like some cheap Snake Oil Salesmen. They’re NOT listening to what the PEOPLE want.
Some politicians seem to have lost their memory. Clintons tried this in THEIR first term and the Republicans SWEPT the MID TERMS!
Can’t wait until Constitution loving Americans SWEEP in 2010, and then ONE TERM Barry-’O in 2012!
If it took a Carter to get a Reagan. What can we get with out of THISd train wreck?

The headline should read “Republican Congressman Staffer Challenger’s Obama to Oxford Style Debate”
This kid is a staffer from a Republican congressman from Colorado.

“The President again gave the example of UPS and FedEx thriving more than the U.S. Post Office.” Great example, Mr. President. The Postal Service is in trouble, continually raising rates for questionable service. Is that how you want our health care handled, too?

To JackSmith: I need to get you caught up; your side won the last two elections. There are not enough Republicans left in Washington to even force a debate, if the health bill you want isn’t getting passed; it is your Democratic Representatives and Senators that are holding it up, not the Republicans. The Right might be mad as hell about the bill that is getting pushed through, but we can’t stop it. Also I’d like to point out the Bush and Cheney left office earlier this year, it is a bit of a stretch even for the Liberals to blame then for the Health Care debate. Have a Nice Day

“The President again gave the example of UPS and FedEx thriving more than the U.S. Post Office.”
Bad example. Post Office is pay as you go. Is the public plan only going to tax those that use it? Highly doubtful.
–Posted by KR
The post office is also $7 billion in the hole this year, and projected to be down another $7 billion next year. It provides lower-quality service, and can’t turn a profit. That’s our model for health care reform?

Actually, no. All I’m trying to say is -with President Obama’s credentials it’s obvious he’s not the idiot puppet the conservative media are trying to portray.
Posted by: pdc | Aug 16, 2009 9:12:25 PM
–
You’re just baiting the birthers. Obama’s credentials? What are those? He went to an Ivy League school, but we don’t know what his undergrad grades were. We know he was magna cum laude at Harvard Law, which means he’s got some legal chops. But post-graduation, what great things has he done? His pedigree is no better than Jim Webb’s, or any of a number of other young Senators.

““Anytime that he would like to do a debate, I am open for a debate,” he said. “I have facts on my side.””
Not if he’s relying on the right wing media.
ROFLMAO!

Why does it matter if this “kid” is a republican staffer? Does he not have valid points?
Instead of making valid arguments, all I’ve seen is the BO lovers making personal attacks at the messengers. All it does is show that they can’t argue the facts.
If BO welcomes a debate, then why isn’t he?

“”"”"Finally a right winger who is comfortable with astroturf. “”"”"”
Thanks for proving my point.

This kid is a staffer from a Republican congressman from Colorado”
Anyone surprised?
—————————————
Wow,
That a 23 yr old disagrees with the president? Or that he managed to get into the meeting?
By the way, why would anyone who agrees with him want to debate him? DUH!
At least he asked his own question as opposed to the 11-yr plant…LOL

Zach Lahn is the typical silver spooner republican wearing penny loafers without socks. Ask Zach who his favorite CEO is. My guess is Carly Fiorina or Robert Nardelli. I don’t give a crap if a public option runs the insurance companies out of business. Zach does not understand fundamental economic logic because he was too busy attentding frat keg parties. Without competition and or regulation, the monopolist can charge whatever they want, thus prices increase, thus we pay more. Capitalism has failed the american people and the government must step in and regulate the economy through legislation. A perfect example is the deregulation of the Credit Default Swap market and the financial disaster it has caused. Government invtervention is in the best interest of the country because american businesses are out of control increasing the gap between rich and poor exponentially, while executive performance has not matched their pay. The underlying problem is that Zach is a racist and is boiling at the fact that an intelligent black man is the leader of the free world.

“The headline should read “Republican Congressman Staffer Challenger’s Obama to Oxford Style Debate”
Fine, I’m for true transparency, unlike Obama.
The only issue worth noting is that Obama couldn’t answer the question or he refuses because it would be politically damaging.
Which is worthy of respect, Mr. Lahn, of course.

Jeff,
You scare me! I would love to debate you! How can you call Mr. Lahn racist? You don’t know him. The problem with you and many liberals is that you say whatever you want before discovering the facts. Factual information means nothing to you. I’ll go toe to toe with you. Bring factual information though and bring it on!

The “kid” is absolutely right. The “public option” will squeeze out private insurance companys except for the very rich. It will be an incremental single payer system. If you support a single payer system with rationing then the public option will get you there (eventually). However, it would be more efficient to have government just hire all of the workers from insurance companies and just make a single payer system in one shot (in other words bring Hillary-care back to life.)
If you don’t want govt to take over health care, then support the opposition. But I only ask one thing from this debate, be honest. He knows this will destroy most private insurance. This increment crap will just cost trillons of dollars and cause unneeded pain, suffering, and money while their insurers are going out of business.

It’s a sad state of American politics on both sides of the aisle when we learn more from a politician’s lack of an answer to a question than from a straightforward response.

Sorry, one more thing. For anyone who thinks that Zach has some sort of agenda for McCain or other republicans: If you have watched his interview with CNN, you would have known that he is a political science major and that he was only interning for the senator. Internships are something all college students want. And the fact that Zach interned for the senator shows that he is no small-fry college student just trying to graduate.