Still Trying to Decode Obama

The paperwork would be no more formidable than it is when states have different insurance requirements, which they do. This is a strawman argument and an excuse to implement without thought, to decry other ideas, and to work to implement what can be, through unintended consequences, a mistake that will ever be patched, and as I said before, never sufficient. Whatever we finally implement on the Federal scale is going to be there forever, I'd prefer we do it wisely.

If every state is allowed to come up with their own medical plan it means they will be allowed to change it. Talk about a can of worms!

Politicians are always looking for something to change. Instead of two voices (Dems and Repubs) on the federal level you'd end up with 100 voices (one Dem and one Repub per state).

Fifty different policies subject to change. People with certain illnesses requiring continued medical supervision would move to the state covering that particular illness.

Furthermore, changes in the policy would be easier to make because of the limited number of people being affected. An illness that is rare in one state may not be covered even if that illness is common across the country.

IMO, that's just looking for a problem. And then there's the federal government's input if they are footing the bill. There would be constant battles between the individual states and the federal government. Why should one state get funding if it didn't cover a particular illness?

To have truly universal coverage there has to be one policy. If a person moves due to a job they will know the same medical coverage follows them. The whole idea is for medical coverage not to be a major concern/worry. Every US citizen is covered. Period.
 
If every state is allowed to come up with their own medical plan it means they will be allowed to change it. Talk about a can of worms!

Politicians are always looking for something to change. Instead of two voices (Dems and Repubs) on the federal level you'd end up with 100 voices (one Dem and one Repub per state).

Fifty different policies subject to change. People with certain illnesses requiring continued medical supervision would move to the state covering that particular illness.

Furthermore, changes in the policy would be easier to make because of the limited number of people being affected. An illness that is rare in one state may not be covered even if that illness is common across the country.

IMO, that's just looking for a problem. And then there's the federal government's input if they are footing the bill. There would be constant battles between the individual states and the federal government. Why should one state get funding if it didn't cover a particular illness?

To have truly universal coverage there has to be one policy. If a person moves due to a job they will know the same medical coverage follows them. The whole idea is for medical coverage not to be a major concern/worry. Every US citizen is covered. Period.

If only the world were as simplistic as your low level mind.

Under government monopoly all the proven benefits to the consumer of competition are lost. If you honestly believe monopoly leads to efficiency and higher value to the consumer, you're dumber than a post.
 
The author hit the nail right on the head. It would be funny, if it weren't so damn true and pathetic. The people who voted for this guy are nuts.

Peter Wehner - 06.17.2009 - 1:30 PM
I recently devoted a piece to trying to decode President Obama. In reading more of his comments, I’ve noticed a tendency that now almost qualifies as a reflex: the more strongly the president denies something — and especially, the more he mocks his critics and feigns amusement at what they say — the greater the odds are that he will do what he denies.
In an interview yesterday, the president said, “I think the irony … is that I actually would like to see a relatively light touch when it comes to the government.”
Of course; examples of his “light touch” abound during the first five months of his presidency.
During his press conference discussing his first 100 days in office, Obama said, “And that’s why I’m always amused when I hear these, you know, criticisms of, ‘Oh, you know, Obama wants to grow government.’ No. I would love a nice, lean portfolio to deal with, but that’s not the hand that’s been dealt us.”
Why would anyone think Obama wants to “grow government”? Isn’t it clear by now he wants to limit it?
While speaking at a town hall forum in New Mexico last month, Obama insisted that the “long-term deficit and debt that we have accumulated is unsustainable.”
They are, and they certainly seem to be a primary concern of the president, who is clearly doing everything humanly possible to reduce the deficit and the debt.
At a June 1 White House Press event, Obama asserted, “What I have no interest in doing is running GM.”
Why would he even need to say that? Why would anyone think he wants to run GM?
During a health care event in Green Bay, Obama said: “And the reason [he supports his so-called “public insurance option”] is not because we want a government takeover of health care — I’ve already said if you’ve got a private plan that works for you, that’s great.” And speaking to the AMA, Obama said, “Health-care reform is the single most important thing we can do for America’s long-term fiscal health.”
It is; and we all know Obama is doing everything he can to oppose a government takeover of health care.
During his presidential campaign, Obama ridiculed those who said he was interested in reading Miranda rights to terrorists. During a “60 Minutes” interview with Steve Kroft, Obama was emphatic: “Now, do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not.”
No-sir-ee; such a thing would never happen on his watch.
Here’s the thing, though: in every one of these instances Obama is not only doing something different than what he said, he’s doing very nearly the opposite of what he says. Obama’s “light touch” is turning out to be as intrusive a set of actions by the federal government as we have seen. He is “growing government” in record-shattering ways. Facing a staggering deficit and debt, Obama has decided to hit the accelerator rather than pump the brakes when it comes to federal spending. Facing a deficit and debt he calls unsustainable, Obama is adding trillions to them. He actually is running GM. He really is trying to engineer a government takeover of health care. His health-care plan may be the single worst thing he could do for America’s long-term fiscal health. And his Justice Department has acknowledged that FBI agents have read terrorist suspects their Miranda rights.
Let’s stipulate that most politicians use words in an elastic and imprecise manner, that often their account muddles rather than clarifies things, and that what they say doesn’t always correspond to what is. Even with all of that, President Obama seems to be carving out some fairly exclusive rhetorical real estate for himself.
No one doubts Obama speaks exceedingly well; he uses soothing words that come across as reassuring and reasonable. The problem comes when you examine what he says versus what he does. And by that standard, Mr. Obama is turning out to be almost promiscuously misleading. He is not yet Bill Clinton, who belongs in a category all his own — but Obama is taking up residence in the same zip code, which is troubling enough. And for those of us who thought Obama, whatever his political ideology, would bring intellectual integrity to his words and his tenure, it is disappointing. It is hardly the change we were promised. But I imagine that it will catch up with him sooner or later — and when it does, the man who promised to be the antidote to cynicism will only deepen it.
commentarymagazine.com

You have never had a good word to say about him since the time he was a presidential candidate.
 
The author hit the nail right on the head. It would be funny, if it weren't so damn true and pathetic. The people who voted for this guy are nuts.

Peter Wehner - 06.17.2009 - 1:30 PM
I recently devoted a piece to trying to decode President Obama. In reading more of his comments, I’ve noticed a tendency that now almost qualifies as a reflex: the more strongly the president denies something — and especially, the more he mocks his critics and feigns amusement at what they say — the greater the odds are that he will do what he denies.

In an interview yesterday, the president said, “I think the irony … is that I actually would like to see a relatively light touch when it comes to the government.”

Of course; examples of his “light touch” abound during the first five months of his presidency.

During his press conference discussing his first 100 days in office, Obama said, “And that’s why I’m always amused when I hear these, you know, criticisms of, ‘Oh, you know, Obama wants to grow government.’ No. I would love a nice, lean portfolio to deal with, but that’s not the hand that’s been dealt us.”

Why would anyone think Obama wants to “grow government”? Isn’t it clear by now he wants to limit it?

While speaking at a town hall forum in New Mexico last month, Obama insisted that the “long-term deficit and debt that we have accumulated is unsustainable.”

They are, and they certainly seem to be a primary concern of the president, who is clearly doing everything humanly possible to reduce the deficit and the debt.

At a June 1 White House Press event, Obama asserted, “What I have no interest in doing is running GM.”

Why would he even need to say that? Why would anyone think he wants to run GM?

During a health care event in Green Bay, Obama said: “And the reason [he supports his so-called “public insurance option”] is not because we want a government takeover of health care — I’ve already said if you’ve got a private plan that works for you, that’s great.” And speaking to the AMA, Obama said, “Health-care reform is the single most important thing we can do for America’s long-term fiscal health.”

It is; and we all know Obama is doing everything he can to oppose a government takeover of health care.

During his presidential campaign, Obama ridiculed those who said he was interested in reading Miranda rights to terrorists. During a “60 Minutes” interview with Steve Kroft, Obama was emphatic: “Now, do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not.”

No-sir-ee; such a thing would never happen on his watch.

Here’s the thing, though: in every one of these instances Obama is not only doing something different than what he said, he’s doing very nearly the opposite of what he says. Obama’s “light touch” is turning out to be as intrusive a set of actions by the federal government as we have seen. He is “growing government” in record-shattering ways. Facing a staggering deficit and debt, Obama has decided to hit the accelerator rather than pump the brakes when it comes to federal spending. Facing a deficit and debt he calls unsustainable, Obama is adding trillions to them. He actually is running GM. He really is trying to engineer a government takeover of health care. His health-care plan may be the single worst thing he could do for America’s long-term fiscal health. And his Justice Department has acknowledged that FBI agents have read terrorist suspects their Miranda rights.

Let’s stipulate that most politicians use words in an elastic and imprecise manner, that often their account muddles rather than clarifies things, and that what they say doesn’t always correspond to what is. Even with all of that, President Obama seems to be carving out some fairly exclusive rhetorical real estate for himself.

No one doubts Obama speaks exceedingly well; he uses soothing words that come across as reassuring and reasonable. The problem comes when you examine what he says versus what he does. And by that standard, Mr. Obama is turning out to be almost promiscuously misleading. He is not yet Bill Clinton, who belongs in a category all his own — but Obama is taking up residence in the same zip code, which is troubling enough. And for those of us who thought Obama, whatever his political ideology, would bring intellectual integrity to his words and his tenure, it is disappointing. It is hardly the change we were promised. But I imagine that it will catch up with him sooner or later — and when it does, the man who promised to be the antidote to cynicism will only deepen it.
commentarymagazine.com

For the paragraph impaired. :)
 
If only the world were as simplistic as your low level mind.

Under government monopoly all the proven benefits to the consumer of competition are lost. If you honestly believe monopoly leads to efficiency and higher value to the consumer, you're dumber than a post.

Talking about a low level mind the problem is you can't get the word "consumer" out of your lexicon when discussing medical care. There is no consumer, in the conventional sense, when it comes to universal, medical care. Just as there is no consumer when it comes to the Armed Services.

Just as people can send their children to public schools or pay for a private school the same idea can apply to medical care. If you don't like public schools then pay for what you like. If you don't like government medical then pay for what you like.

It's low level minds who find it complicated. It really isn't.
 
I definately knew that and I've been chasing her from one site to another. There's just something about that gal !!! :D

Tom is just jealous because I think you are a cutie, despite your liberal ways. He, on the other hand, is just a stuffy, old humorless Brit.
 
Last edited:
Talking about a low level mind the problem is you can't get the word "consumer" out of your lexicon when discussing medical care. There is no consumer, in the conventional sense, when it comes to universal, medical care. Just as there is no consumer when it comes to the Armed Services.

Just as people can send their children to public schools or pay for a private school the same idea can apply to medical care. If you don't like public schools then pay for what you like. If you don't like government medical then pay for what you like.

It's low level minds who find it complicated. It really isn't.

Reducing my lexicon to your substandard intellect will never be a goal of mine.
 
Government healthcare will eventually crowd out all other plans. the bureacrats will see to that. Then I will only have the option of accepting what I'm given.
 
Government healthcare will eventually crowd out all other plans. the bureacrats will see to that. Then I will only have the option of accepting what I'm given.

No, the people will dump all the other plans when they see what government health care offers.

But not to worry. There will always be a doctor available to take your money.
 
Back
Top