Health Care Reform, Then and Now
So what’s changed since then-President Bill Clinton gave his address to a joint session of Congress pushing for health care reform?
A lot of the health care problems he foretold came true.
The country’s annual health care costs have risen much more than the rate of inflation, from $912 billion a year in 1993 to a projected $2.5 trillion this year, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.
In 1993, the United States spent over a third more of its income on health care than any other nation on earth, Clinton said.
Now, Obama told the annual conference of the American Medical Association on June 15, 2009: “We spend almost 50 percent more per person on health care than the next most expensive nation — 50 percent more.”
In 1993, the Health Insurance Association of America estimated the cost of family insurance coverage under an average group insurance plan was $5,232.
Today that figure is $12,680, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Predictions Clinton made about the impact of these rising costs have largely come true.
“Small businesses will continue to face skyrocketing premiums,” Clinton said in 1993. “And a full third of small businesses now covering their employees say they will be forced to drop their insurance.”
Obama, 16 years later, said that is exactly what has happened.
“Across the country, over one-third of small businesses have reduced benefits in recent years and one-third have dropped their workers’ coverage altogether since the early ’90s,” he said.
The ranks of the uninsured has surged from an estimated 37 million Americans without insurance on any given day to nearly 46 million now.
Read more HERE.
-jpt
Email
Obama: 'Now Is the Time For Common Sense Action'
Romney Takes Aim at Conservatives
Jake, why not call Obama on his stretching the truth?
According to Fact Check, Obama said that the U.S. spends 50 percent more per capita on health care than the next most expensive country. False. We spend 20 percent more than the second most expensive country.
“If you repeat a lie often enough…”
Posted by: Independent voter | September 9, 2009, 6:41 pm 6:41 pm
Whoa. Big fact check. WHy should it be more at all considering infant mortality is still 37th and life expectancy is 31st. We are not healthier, yet we spend more than everyone else. Who cares if it’s 20, 30, or 50 percent?
Posted by: mikenj | September 9, 2009, 6:51 pm 6:51 pm
Too bad they didn’t remove restrictions on interstate sales of insurance, uncouple insurance from employment by treating individual policies the same as employer-provided ones under the tax code, and institute tort reform in 1993, Who can say how much lower premiums would be today.
Note that the first two of those three reforms simply involve the repeal of prior governmental inanities.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | September 9, 2009, 6:55 pm 6:55 pm
Cool news! You can now download the SAME voice the Democrats use for Obama’s teleprompter for your home computer or GPS. Now you can make your very own teachable moments, any time you like! Awesome!
Posted by: American Idiot | September 9, 2009, 7:06 pm 7:06 pm
“According to Fact Check, Obama said that the U.S. spends 50 percent more per capita on health care than the next most expensive country. False. We spend 20 percent more than the second most expensive country.”
Independent voter | Sep 9, 2009 6:41:47 PM
Absolutely, lets get the truth out there. Other than Luxembourg, a country with a population less than Albuquerque, the US spends 50% more than any other first world nation. We spent twice as much as the four nations with the highest life expectancies.
Does that make ANY difference to the point?
Posted by: jhw539 | September 9, 2009, 7:30 pm 7:30 pm
“Too bad they didn’t remove restrictions on interstate sales of insurance, uncouple insurance from employment by treating individual policies the same as employer-provided ones under the tax code, and institute tort reform in 1993, Who can say how much lower premiums would be today.”
Fascist Hyena | Sep 9, 2009 6:55:27 PM
Well, the CBO did a number of detailed analysis on exactly those questions in the early 2000′s. And of course many states implemented strict tort reform (Texas even put it into their state constitution), but you don’t care about reality, do you?
Posted by: jhw539 | September 9, 2009, 7:33 pm 7:33 pm
What proponents of interstate sales of insurance policies don’t seem to understand is that it would require a federal regulatory scheme for insurance that is much more comprehensive and intrusive than anything proposed in any of the bills currently being considered.
Posted by: Flash Override | September 9, 2009, 7:43 pm 7:43 pm
Hey,independent voter, dont’ try to confuse the crowd around here with facts like that! Next you’ll be explaining why our slightly lower life expectancy has nothing much to do with medical care and why our higher infant mortality rate is actually related to the fact that we have the best neonatal care in the world and thus can try to save tiny preemies who would not even count as live births anywhere else in the world.
Having had a premature child who lived and now is a thriving young person makes me particularly cognizant of the infant mortality/premature birth story. The American medical system has saved my child’s life, and my own life many times over, and I want reform that provides better access to that health care to others, not that makes that health care less accessible or less affordable.
Interesting post, Mr. Tapper. Thanks!
Posted by: moderate | September 9, 2009, 7:57 pm 7:57 pm
So $900 billion would be roughly 1.4 trillion if kept to inflation. What made the difference – 1.1 trillion?
Well, litigation and defensive medicine plays a part but I admit it can’t be the whole picture.
Last year of life costs have exploded over the past 30 years – $2500 in 1976, $23,000 in 1995, over $100,000 estimated today. This is $200 billion or so over 1993. This is a big chunk, but maybe combined with defensive medicine, malpractice we’re only a third of the way there (and it doesn’t explain much of the differential with the 1st world nations except maybe the rationing and acceleration of euthanasia known in European systems)
But did you know that $700 billion dollars are spent on elective surgeries a year? Some is covered in insurance, some is covered in medicare (angioplasties alone are $40 billion a year and only some are for acute intervention many are preventive), much is out of pocket but that’s still part of the same 2 trillion costs. Who had elective surgeries 20 years ago? Many procedures were unknown. (millions of knees, hips and backs) Many unaffordable and plastic surgery was seen only for the Hollywood crowd.
Medical costs increase for the same reasons anything else does – supply and demand.
Posted by: robertb | September 9, 2009, 8:00 pm 8:00 pm
“…it would require a federal regulatory scheme for insurance that is much more comprehensive and intrusive than anything proposed in any of the bills currently being considered.”
Of course it would require no such thing. Why would it? Don’t be silly.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | September 9, 2009, 8:13 pm 8:13 pm
“…the CBO did a number of detailed analysis on exactly those questions in the early 2000′s”
Really? The CBO studied interstate sales? Since there were no such sales, what was their methodology?
CBO studied individual insurance policies that were tax deductible? Again, since there were no such policies, what was their methodology? (I eagerly await, but do not expect, straightforward answers.)
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | September 9, 2009, 8:19 pm 8:19 pm
37 vs 46
taking into account that the population grew, this means nothing. the percentage of uninsured (according to these numbers), stayed the same.
Posted by: mathematician | September 9, 2009, 8:35 pm 8:35 pm
He’s speaking now. He’s exhausting. He repeats and repeats the same thing. He won’t get out of our faces with the incessant speeches. Oy, Fidel, Jr. Leave us alone for a minute, will you? By the way, President Brilliant, it’s mastectomy, not massectomy. Learn the terms before you use them in shameless vignettes to put another one over on the American people. I, for one, am not buying what you’re selling.
Posted by: liam | September 9, 2009, 8:44 pm 8:44 pm
Can we call the Clunker-in-Chief out on his misrepresentations?
Posted by: ceeLeelee | September 9, 2009, 8:56 pm 8:56 pm
Is Obama turning to Castro???
If this speech goes longer, I am going to call OCastro!!!
Posted by: frieda | September 9, 2009, 8:59 pm 8:59 pm
I think I changed my mind – that Kennedy thing really did it for me……NOT!
Posted by: Jenny | September 9, 2009, 9:02 pm 9:02 pm
What is up what that speech?! The President spent 45 minutes knocking down strawmen that no one is arguing and gave us no DETAILS of anything. Unless the President is going to tell us his plan is H.R. 3200, that he didn’t write, then he is lying when he says he has a plan…there’s no plan and no details for us to even formulate a plan.
Posted by: BH | September 9, 2009, 9:22 pm 9:22 pm
“He’s speaking now. He’s exhausting. He repeats and repeats the same thing.”
________________________________
Yeah, we get it. You don’t like President Obama. So what?
Posted by: julieterra | September 9, 2009, 9:24 pm 9:24 pm
Obama : you’re all going to die, business will fail.. if I don’t get my way..LMAO at Obama and the boogey man scare tactics…
Stand Up Chuck Biden : waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa……… Nancy Botox Pelosi WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA teddy is gone
LMAO this piece of crap will NOT pass…They do not have the votes with public option
Posted by: Obama plays possum | September 9, 2009, 9:28 pm 9:28 pm
“That speech was a terrible re-hash of his last 21 speeches on healthcare”
__________________________________
OH surely you’re not so bigoted you actually couldn’t hear him say he will be immediately instituting Bush’s idea to run medical malpractice case studies in several states.
Same old rehash eh? You’re might be prejudiced beyond your own comprehension.
Posted by: julieterra | September 9, 2009, 9:29 pm 9:29 pm
I just wonder what Julieterra, or anybody else, sees in this guy. Hasn’t he harmed this country enough alrady?
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | September 9, 2009, 9:37 pm 9:37 pm
It’s a political speech about him not being political. Truth is elastic with Mr. Obama. It’s like telling people to go into a shoes store to look for food, but what you should tell them is to go there to get the shoes so you can walk to a food store 40 miles away.
Posted by: young_voter | September 9, 2009, 9:39 pm 9:39 pm
“Same old rehash eh? You’re might be prejudiced beyond your own comprehension.”
Said the pot to the kettle…
Very little new here. 45 minutes of the same ole’ same ole..all to thunderous Democratic applause. Was a prime time Health Care State of the Union necessary?
Worse, it was filled with lies. Increase our care without increasing the costs? That’s a complete and by far the worst lie. The “I won’t sign any bill that will increase the deficit by a dime” was by far the second worst lie.
Posted by: BH | September 9, 2009, 9:40 pm 9:40 pm
“I just wonder what Julieterra, or anybody else, sees in this guy. Hasn’t he harmed this country enough alrady?”
_________________________________
You’re kidding me. Bush left the country with a spiralling national debt, a trillion dollar defitit, embroiled in 2 wars, with the economy in economic collapse and 700,000 losing their jobs in a single month . .. . I think we know who already harmed this country enough.
Posted by: julieterra | September 9, 2009, 9:41 pm 9:41 pm
BH – it doesn’t matter what the President might have said, you’ve prejudged the whole matter. People like you are a lost cause, your blinkers are on so tight when the economy recovers you’ll say Obama had nothing to do with it, when a good health care system is in place, you’ll say Bush did it.
This close-minded doesn’t do you or anybody else any good. But wallow away in it. It’s your right.
Posted by: julieterra | September 9, 2009, 9:45 pm 9:45 pm
Yep. Biden and Pelosi both looked stunned when someone yelled out that Obama is a liar as though they have seen a ghost. I advise them to come and visit our forums and forums all over the world.
Posted by: Politicoli | September 9, 2009, 9:45 pm 9:45 pm
Actually, Bush left the country with a $456 billion deficit. Obama increased it to $1.56Trillion.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | September 9, 2009, 9:46 pm 9:46 pm
“So, Barack gets a trillion but his predecessor gets 3? Nice rationale.”
Should have been successor. Julie’s partisan, trutherism drives me nuts.
Posted by: BH | September 9, 2009, 9:46 pm 9:46 pm
The guy that called Obama “LIAR” only said what the rest of us were thinking.
Posted by: ceeLeelee | September 9, 2009, 9:47 pm 9:47 pm
Drudge:
“At least 44 more moderate Members of the Democrat Caucus have gone on the record in opposition to the current health care bill in the House, a Hill source claims. Likewise, at least 57 liberal Members of the Democrat Caucus have gone on the record saying they will vote against a health care bill without a strong public option.
“unless multiple Democrats flip on their stated position on health care, Speaker Pelosi lacks the votes to pass a bill through the House on the strength of Democrat votes alone.”
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | September 9, 2009, 9:48 pm 9:48 pm
“BH – it doesn’t matter what the President might have said, you’ve prejudged the whole matter. People like you are a lost cause…”
Julie, I’m an independent who was genuinely hopeful that Obama would be of the Bill Clinton ilk when it comes to governance. Besides as a rabid 911 truther, you’re not exactly in a credible position when it comes to lecturing about prejudging and partisan blinders.
Posted by: BH | September 9, 2009, 9:49 pm 9:49 pm
Did Oliver Stone direct that tearjerker?
The only thing missing was the Greek columns.
Why anyone still believes Obama I will never understand.
He’s full of it.
Posted by: larry | September 9, 2009, 9:50 pm 9:50 pm
Direction of Country
RCP Average: -22.6%
Right Direction 35.8%
Wrong Track 58.4%
This says it all……take this country back from this Marxist regime
Posted by: The tax man cometh | September 9, 2009, 9:51 pm 9:51 pm
“Are you really so stunned you don’t know the Bush administration left the country in complete economic collapse with a double national debt and a trillion dollar deficit.”
That’s your excuse for Obama following HIS lead 3 times over.
We just HAD to make things three times worse because what Bush did!
Get real.
Posted by: BH | September 9, 2009, 9:52 pm 9:52 pm
“Besides as a rabid 911 truther, you’re not exactly in a credible position”
__________________________________
BH you undermine your credibility over and over with the lies you tell.
Posted by: julieterra | September 9, 2009, 9:52 pm 9:52 pm
I’m still torn.
I can’t decide if this was Obama’s best speech or the other 263 speeches.
They all sound the same.
Posted by: millie | September 9, 2009, 9:52 pm 9:52 pm
Yeah BH, Goldman Sachs really needed the money!
Posted by: Payout | September 9, 2009, 9:53 pm 9:53 pm
Obama chose that venue so he could get ovations, ridicule the Repubs, and not take any questions.
He wasn’t expecting any controversy.
But there was laughter and shouts of “liar”.
I loved it.
Almost like a townhall full of elderly mobsters.
Posted by: max | September 9, 2009, 9:56 pm 9:56 pm
The White House once again taps a Goldman, Sachs & Co. alumnus. After much speculation, President Bush nominated Tuesday Robert B. Zoellick as the new president of the World Bank — less than a year after Zoellick left his post as deputy secretary of state in the Bush administration to return to Goldman as a managing director. Other Goldman alum serving in the current administration include former head of investment banking, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson; Joshua B. Bolten, the White House chief of staff; and former Goldman co-chairman Stephen Friedman, who has served as President Bush’s director of the National Economic Council.
Posted by: julieterra | September 9, 2009, 9:56 pm 9:56 pm
Fortunately, according to the new AP poll out today, no more than 42% of Americans agree with Julie and no less than 52% agree with me.
Posted by: BH | September 9, 2009, 9:57 pm 9:57 pm
Associated Press Fact Check:
OBAMA: “Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.”
THE FACTS: That’s correct, as far as it goes. But neither can the plan guarantee that people can keep their current coverage. Employers sponsor coverage for most families, and they’d be free to change their health plans in ways that workers may not like, or drop insurance altogether. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the health care bill written by House Democrats and said that by 2016 some 3 million people who now have employer-based care would lose it because their employers would decide to stop offering it.
In the past Obama repeatedly said, “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.” Now he’s stopping short of that unconditional guarantee by saying nothing in the plan “requires” any change.
He’s dropped the “period.”
___
I have the distinct feeling that the left-wing goofballs are feeling very let down tonight. And that’s a very good thing for our country.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | September 9, 2009, 9:58 pm 9:58 pm
“Almost like a townhall full of elderly mobsters.”
_____________________________________
The Republicans looked such a dreary lot, all sad-looking white males in dark suits, who look like their mommy left them at a church function and they’re real glum.
Posted by: julieterra | September 9, 2009, 9:59 pm 9:59 pm
“Employers sponsor coverage for most families, and they’d be free to change their health plans in ways that workers may not like, or drop insurance altogether.”
_________________________________
Employers can already do that.
Posted by: julieterra | September 9, 2009, 10:01 pm 10:01 pm
“The Republicans looked such a dreary lot, all sad-looking white males in dark suits…”
Nice racial profile, Julie. That’s the way to strengthen your argument.
____________________________________
Its entirely accurate . .. perhaps the odd exception, but that’s what i saw . .. row after row of tired, glum looking white men in dark suits.
Posted by: julieterra | September 9, 2009, 10:03 pm 10:03 pm
Obama forgot one thing.
Fire up–Ready to Go!!!
Nancy would have started shaking her pom poms.
I noticed Biden and Nancy taking names when someone yelled out at BO.
Posted by: jack | September 9, 2009, 10:04 pm 10:04 pm
“Goldman Sachs employees gave just shy of a million dollars to the Obama campaign, ranking second in contributions. Citigroup and JPMorgan ranked sixth and seventh. Goldman Sachs gave Obama four times more than they gave McCain.”
Julie, they got what they paid for! Hope and Change!
Posted by: Payout | September 9, 2009, 10:05 pm 10:05 pm
“Employers can already do that.”
Yes, they can but they’d lose good talent if they did, even in a lousy economy. Employers are not incentivized to drop their employees which is an environment Obama’s “plan” would create.
Posted by: BH | September 9, 2009, 10:06 pm 10:06 pm
Obama complains about all the money wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan and he has continued both wars.
This from a president that has spent more money than all presidents combined.
Posted by: kyle | September 9, 2009, 10:08 pm 10:08 pm
Who put the TARP funds in place and Goldman Sachs?
The White House once again taps a Goldman, Sachs & Co. alumnus. After much speculation, President Bush nominated Tuesday Robert B. Zoellick as the new president of the World Bank — less than a year after Zoellick left his post as deputy secretary of state in the Bush administration to return to Goldman as a managing director. Other Goldman alum serving in the current administration include former head of investment banking, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson; Joshua B. Bolten, the White House chief of staff; and former Goldman co-chairman Stephen Friedman, who has served as President Bush’s director of the National Economic Council.
Posted by: julieterra | September 9, 2009, 10:10 pm 10:10 pm
tax man,
Thanks for the advice, I think I’ll ignore it.
Posted by: BH | September 9, 2009, 10:10 pm 10:10 pm
“Who put the TARP funds in place and Goldman Sachs?”
Good point, Julie! You proved your point and then defeated your argument. TARP worked, a Bush plan and a Bush appointee.
Posted by: BH | September 9, 2009, 10:12 pm 10:12 pm
Employers are already free to change their health plans in ways that workers may not like, or drop insurance altogether.”
“Yes, they can but they’d lose good talent if they did, even in a lousy economy.”
Employers have been laying off their employees like flies since the economy crumbled under Bush and VERY EFFECTIVELY and radically changing their health care coverage.
That will be changed soon.
Posted by: julieterra | September 9, 2009, 10:13 pm 10:13 pm
Unfortunately, Obama is not respected or believed anymore by most Americans.
Shortest honeymoon evah…
Posted by: Glee | September 9, 2009, 10:14 pm 10:14 pm
” TARP worked, a Bush plan and a Bush appointee.”
___________________________________
Anti-Obama types on here always try to blame TARP funds on Obama. If you haven’t seen it BH, you’re blind.
TARP funds were brought forward by Bush’s economic advisors and backed all round and that includes by Obama.
To blame all the bad thing about the TARP funding on Obama is far from truthful . . . in fact . . . more anti-Obama lies.
There is no shortage.
Posted by: julieterra | September 9, 2009, 10:16 pm 10:16 pm
-Who put the TARP funds in place and Goldman Sachs?-
Barack Obama. Hear he’s POTUS now. Someone told me if I voted for McCain, we’d get a 3rd term of GWB. They were right!
Posted by: Payout | September 9, 2009, 10:18 pm 10:18 pm
“Unfortunately, Obama is not respected or believed anymore by most Americans.”
____________________________________
Another anti-Obama lie. His approval ratings remain above 50% in almost every poll, usually between 55% and 60% despite the hate being hurled from the fanatics.
Do you people have nothing but lies to spread and smear?
Posted by: julieterra | September 9, 2009, 10:18 pm 10:18 pm
“TARP funds were brought forward by Bush’s economic advisors and backed all round and that includes by Obama.”
So the difference between him and Bush is?
Posted by: Same Old | September 9, 2009, 10:19 pm 10:19 pm
“TARP funds were brought forward by Bush’s economic advisors and backed all round and that includes by Obama.”
So the difference between him and Bush is?”
___________________________________
The difference that points out is that Obama is smart enough to go along with good ideas from many parts of the political spectrum, unlike the blind ideologues who post on here.
Posted by: julieterra | September 9, 2009, 10:22 pm 10:22 pm
“TARP funds were brought forward by Bush’s economic advisors and backed all round and that includes by Obama.”
So the difference between him and Bush is?”
___________________________________
The difference that points out is that Obama is smart enough to go along with good ideas from many parts of the political spectrum, unlike the blind ideologues who post on here.
Or those dull rows of tired, sad looking white males we saw on the Republican side of the house tonight.
Posted by: julieterra | September 9, 2009, 10:23 pm 10:23 pm
-The difference that points out is that Obama is smart enough to go along with good ideas from many parts of the political spectrum, unlike the blind ideologues who post on here.-
Goldman Sachs couldn’t agree more! Can they rely on your vote again in 2012? I bet they can hand out even bigger bonuses!
Posted by: Payout | September 9, 2009, 10:24 pm 10:24 pm
“Goldman Sachs couldn’t agree more! Can they rely on your vote again in 2012? I bet they can hand out even bigger bonuses!”
_________________________________
Any one wanting to ensure the fat cats get more should definitely vote Republican – they will almost guarantee it.
Posted by: julieterra | September 9, 2009, 10:27 pm 10:27 pm
Don’t forget Bush’s tax cuts which amounted to something like a loss of over a TRILLION dollars from the public budget.
Almost $988 Billion of those tax cuts being money going directly to the wealthiest 5%.
Vote Republican.
Posted by: julieterra | September 9, 2009, 10:31 pm 10:31 pm
-Any one wanting to ensure the fat cats get more should definitely vote Republican – they will almost guarantee it.-
Barack Obama: Closet Republican. Who knew? Seriously, why “almost” guarantee it? Vote for Obama and the Dems and you’ll guarantee it. No question! Obama in 2012!
Posted by: Payout | September 9, 2009, 10:32 pm 10:32 pm
julieterra,
Go easy, they had Tim Geithner helping with the tax thing. Rangel too. Mistakes were made…
Posted by: Same Old | September 9, 2009, 10:34 pm 10:34 pm
Don’t forget Bush’s tax cuts which amounted to something like a loss of over a TRILLION dollars from the public budget.
Almost $988 Billion of those tax cuts being money going directly to the wealthiest 5%.
Vote Republican.
Posted by: julieterra | September 9, 2009, 10:36 pm 10:36 pm
Gee, Julianita, Biden is a white male in a dark suit, too. Or do such folks not bother you when they are Democrats? I mean, you felt compelled to mention in two separate posts that the Republicans have a lot of white males in Congress. So?
Since only 60 of the members of the House are not white, and only six senators are of color, you’re looking at a lot of white folks, mostly male, on both sides of the aisle in both houses. So is there a particular reason that you feel its okay to disparage white males, who must of course all be cut from the same cloth? Keep working on that open-minded thing, okay?
Posted by: moderate | September 9, 2009, 10:38 pm 10:38 pm
“Do you, julieterra, have nothing better to do but defend Obama with blind faith and unwavering devotion?”
______________________________________
Not here to defend Obama, here to counteract the lies, the smear and fear tactics and the outright fear mongering and hate spams posted here. I’m here to take that down.
Posted by: julieterra | September 9, 2009, 10:38 pm 10:38 pm
“Gee, Julianita, Biden is a white male in a dark suit, too”
______________________________
Gee whiz, I’m not sorry.
I looked at the Republican side of the house and it was row after row of dreary looking, tired, sad while males in dark suits. Watch the tape again you’ll see exactly what I meant.
Posted by: julieterra | September 9, 2009, 10:41 pm 10:41 pm
Julieterra,how much revenue accrued to the federal government from the business expansion generated from the tax cuts?Take an economics course. Study JFK and Walter Heller’s tax cuts that fueled JFK’s economic recovery.Cutting capital gains tax rates generated more government revenue than the original tax receipts. These are elementary economic principles that you should be aware of-decreased tax receipts does not mean decreased government revenue.
Posted by: Nephron | September 9, 2009, 10:42 pm 10:42 pm
They were dreary,glum and tired looking because once again they had been summoned to listen to a bs speech given by Homie the Clown.
Posted by: ceeLeelee | September 9, 2009, 10:44 pm 10:44 pm
“Julieterra,how much revenue accrued to the federal government from the business expansion generated from the tax cuts?”
____________________________________
Apparently not nearly enough since Bush doubled the national debt while in office, passed along a trillion dollar deficit, and left the country in complete economic collapse with 700,000 people losing their jobs in a month ..
Posted by: julieterra | September 9, 2009, 10:46 pm 10:46 pm
THE BIGGER THE GOVERNMENT GROWS – THE SMALLER THE INDIVIDUAL BECOMES. SPOT ON AND HISTORICALLY ACCURATE.
FIX MEDICARE. DO TORT REFORM. ALLOW FOR PREEXISTING CONDITIONS. ALLOW FOR PURCHASING POLICIES ACROSS STATE LINES WHICH WILL LOWER MEDICAL COSTS BY FORCING COMPETITION.
BUT…… FORGET THIS INSANE IDEA OF UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. PLAN IN GB IS A DISASTER. CANADA NOT FAR BEHIND – AND IT WON’T WORK HERE EITHER.
Posted by: Temagami | September 9, 2009, 10:56 pm 10:56 pm
(Well, one of them does, but never mind…)
Lights are on, but nobody home…Cut and paste work from julie.
Posted by: Rerun | September 9, 2009, 10:59 pm 10:59 pm
NOT FIT TO BE PRESIDENT.
Posted by: Temagami | September 9, 2009, 11:01 pm 11:01 pm
The White House press office could not have written a more effective piece to defend their argument than that which is found here in this classic piece of mainstream media “journalism.”
Of course, the advancements in treatments for a wide array of health conditions, in that same time period, have been tremendous, and though ABC and Obama would like us to think otherwise, they haven’t come about without a price. Would have been fascinating if you had found a way to include such a counterpoint to your puff piece on behalf of Barack Obama!
And, didn’t the president just tonight say that the number of Americans without insurance is 30 million? And, how many of those people choose not to have it even if they can afford it?
Posted by: Thank God for Karma | September 9, 2009, 11:43 pm 11:43 pm
Obama has a chip on his shoulder because he had to let Van Jones go.
Obama surrounds himself with radicals that don’t like America very much.
What good is health care if we are dependent on the government for everything and lose our freedom?
Posted by: max | September 9, 2009, 11:53 pm 11:53 pm
-And, how many of those people choose not to have it even if they can afford it?-
Are you counting illegal aliens?
Posted by: Loco | September 9, 2009, 11:53 pm 11:53 pm
Posted by: Temagami |
YEAH… DO WHAT THE RIGHT INSANE DEATH PANEL SAYS >>>>>>>> FORGET ABOUT THE ELECTION>>> THE DEMS AND THERE “LIBERAL” AGENDA WON>>>>>>
DEMS DECIDE REPUBLICANS HIDE
Posted by: get serious | September 10, 2009, 1:00 am 1:00 am
I have the distinct feeling that the left-wing goofballs are feeling very let down tonight. And that’s a very good thing for our country.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Sep 9, 2009 9:58:58 PM
***
You’re distinct feeling is WRONG!!! The President did everything he needed to do: He laid out what he strongly believes in with clarity and conviction; he made a powerful argument for why health care reform is imperative; he called out the fearmongerers and their phony scare tactics; and he provided momentum to the people around the country who voted for him and want to get this done, giving them a reason to keep working hard to make it happen. For his base, he made it crystal clear that he is for a public option, though he did leave his options open. He also reached out to Republicans who are serious about working in a bipartisan manner.
Be sure to check out the results of instant polls and focus groups. So far they look great :>)
Posted by: Alyson | September 10, 2009, 1:54 am 1:54 am
The difference between Clinton and Obama’s address? Clinton didn’t have a Pelosi half wit speakeress of the House slouched behind him like a 9 year old on a school White House field trip.
Posted by: AmeriKa | September 10, 2009, 2:19 am 2:19 am
I am highly critical of Mr Obama’s Healthcare policy, simply because it does not include the Tort reform.
Posted by: Jessica@Safe Payday Loans` | September 10, 2009, 6:58 am 6:58 am
We can all thank Nixon for this mess in the first place. He’s the one that cut the deal with private entrepreneurs to create the private health care industry we have today.
The health care insurance lobbyists are already backpedaling and showing their lack of willingness to give Obama their support.
To get Obama to agree to certain particulars (not TOTAL ‘socialized medicine’), they promised 1.5% spending cuts in health care spending YEARLY for the next ten years (two trillion dollar savings).
After getting assurances from Obama that health care would still largely remain a private industry; they then CHANGED their promise from 1.5% each year for ten years to 1.5 percentage points LOWER over the next ten years. Lobbyist Karen Ignagni (President of America’s Health Insurance Plan) said the savings would;
“Ramp up gradually as the growth of health care spending slowed.”
David Nexon (Senior Executive Vice President of the Advanced Medical Technology Association)
Said; “There was no specific understanding of when lower growth rate would be achieved. It’s a target over a ten year period.”
In other words; MAYBE they’ll be doing cuts in ten years. Which means – they aren’t going to do anything.
They didn’t even wait a couple of weeks or a month, this was a week after the initial statement after they’d reaped the benefits of the PR with Obama when they stated-
ie; “We were obviously lying! Cut costs, please! What you call costs, we call PROFIT!”
So I’m not going to hold my breath on any expectations of true health care reform any time soon. There’s too much money at stake for private companies who have only their own interests in mind and NOT the welfare of the American people.
Posted by: batterie | September 10, 2009, 7:30 am 7:30 am
“Not here to defend Obama, here to counteract the lies, the smear and fear tactics and the outright fear mongering and hate spams posted here. I’m here to take that down.”
Sorry, but your posts do the opposite.
Posted by: Independent voter | September 10, 2009, 9:10 am 9:10 am
For the sake of the following people, health care reform needs to be defeated. Stephen J. Hensley-CEO-United Health. He had to take a pay cut from his $13.2 million in 07 to $3.2 million in 08. Michael McCallister-Humana CEO-dropped from $10.3 million in 07 to $1,017,308 in 08. Ronald A. Williams-CEO Aetna-$23 million in 07 to $24,300,112.00(an increase)in 08, but his stock options dropped to $194,496,797.00. The list goes on of health care CEO’s who are suffering. Can’t you people see how bad these folks are hurting and they need your help. Their lifestyle is being severely threatened. They have had to increase payments to lobbying firms and donations to political campaigns over 300% this year in order to field an all out attempt in preserving the status quo. They need our help desperately.
Posted by: Blazerdad | September 10, 2009, 9:45 am 9:45 am
Joe Wilson just represented the frustration for 190,000,000 of American who have extreamly opposed the Death Pannel.
GO JOE WILSON/2012
Posted by: Jamie-NY | September 10, 2009, 9:52 am 9:52 am
Here’s a novel idea that no one is talking about. Suppose we take some of that ObamaCare money and subsidize the education of a hundred thousand new medical doctors with the stipulation that the recipients have to work for peanuts (relatively speaking) for, say, seven years. Will that not lower healthcare costs? Do this on a rolling basis and a big chunk of the annual healthcare inflation will disappear. That, my socialist friends, is a good old supply and demand solution.
Posted by: jcarob | September 10, 2009, 10:04 am 10:04 am
First of all there was no death panel and like most republicans Johnny Isackson who insisted the part about talking to a doctor in the end was put in at his request. Has he come out to say “I suggested it?” NO he has let the president take the heat for something that was his idea. All I can say over and over to people who have any doubts about the bill FactCheck.org which is a non partisan organization has addressed these issues and this one in particular. There is no reason for people to be clinging to the mis-information…just check it out yourself. You don’t have to believe a friend or cohort or politician for tht matter. Check it out.. What Mr. Wilson did last night was inexcusable however, it is no different from the disrespect our president was shown when he tried to talk to children to advise them to get a good education and stay in school. The fact that he had to have his speech reviewed is insane..he is our president and deserves better than that. This shows how deep the hate goes in some peoples hearts. No one puts limitations on the rhetoric of Limbaugh or Hannity or Beck but the president of the United States has to have his speech to children approved. What have we become? I am ashamed of our country as what kind of impression are we giving to other countries? We are only fostering “racism” to our children when we do something like this. Please don’t insult my or any other person’s intelligence by saying it was not racism.
Posted by: talmag | September 10, 2009, 10:14 am 10:14 am
I get the feeling that the Clinton machine is oiling its gears and getting ready to roll again. Anyone else think something is up with Hillary?
Posted by: Mike M | September 10, 2009, 11:19 am 11:19 am
Any plan that does not reign in drug companies from pushing their poisons and does not address Tort Reform is only going to shift costs from policy holders to taxpayers. There will be no savings.
Posted by: World Vitamins Online | September 10, 2009, 5:07 pm 5:07 pm