WWTBAM Bored

Barack Obama in 2003:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

President Obama in 2009:

"I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter, because, frankly, we historically have had a employer-based system in this country, with private insurers, and for us to transition to a system like that, I believe would be too disruptive."

In my worldview, this is a lie. Exactly like Bill Clinton's Monica Lewinski lie. These days I am not sure, because everyone said that Geaorge Bush lied all the time, but I cannot find any specific evidence like this to support it. I guess I don't really know what a lie is....

Here is a definition:
lie
1  /laɪ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly⋅ing.
–noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.


Perhaps it's a matter of semantics, I still haven't heard an explanation.

Flock, Flock, Flock, nowhere in the 2003 statement does he say he is a "supporter" of single payer. He says he is a "proponent".

He was a supporter of single payer, but he never said he was a supporter.

Mr. Obama is a Professor of Laws.

Flock, Flock, Flock, nowhere in the 2003 statement does he say he is a "supporter" of single payer. He says he is a "proponent".

He was a supporter of single payer, but he never said he was a supporter.

Mr. Obama is a Professor of Laws.

I knew I must have missed something. Proponent,supporter - a big difference. The word Proponent doesn't even have an S or U in it. That makes it different. How could I have missed that?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Flock, Flock, Flock, nowhere in the 2003 statement does he say he is a "supporter" of single payer. He says he is a "proponent".

He was a supporter of single payer, but he never said he was a supporter.

Mr. Obama is a Professor of Laws.

I knew I must have missed something. Proponent,supporter - a big difference. The word Proponent doesn't even have an S or U in it. That makes it different. How could I have missed that?

Now, that was funny!

I mean, to be fair, if he later amended his statement by saying he was at one time a supporter of single payer, but he has changed his mind, I would give him the benefit of the doubt. Anyone see anything like that?

But in truth, getting the government in the healthcare business is a real bad idea. Even as a 'competitor' to the private arena. I venture to guess that if we do this, none of the people running it will have ever run any kind of entity for profit. They will use the public coffers and run it in the red to make it tempting for people to get in, and make it hard or impossible to get out. Then after awhile the bills will come due for somebody. But we can always print some more money. Meanwhile the private sector, which won't be able to compete with an entity that has no responsibility to be efficient or profitable, and cannot be sued, will all go by the wayside.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Meanwhile the private sector, which won't be able to compete with an entity that has no responsibility to be efficient or profitable, and cannot be sued, will all go by the wayside.

Kind of like how FedEx and UPS find it impossible to compete with the Postal Service? --Bob

Re: What is a lie?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Meanwhile the private sector, which won't be able to compete with an entity that has no responsibility to be efficient or profitable, and cannot be sued, will all go by the wayside.


Kind of like how FedEx and UPS find it impossible to compete with the Postal Service? --Bob

1. How many billions has the postal service lost in just the past year?
2. How efficient, accurate and innovative is the postal service, especially compared to the companies you cite?
3. Would you submit to being operated on by the healthcare equivelent of the average postal worker?

Why don't we spend our time in fixing the system we have now to allow the private sector to thrive like Fed Ex and UPS, rather than imposing a system that hasn't worked well everywhere it has been tried?

I would venture to say that one reason that FedEx and UPS do as well as they do is that they have no obligation to cover areas or provide services which are, for the most part, unprofitable.

The USPS, however, has to deliver mail to everyone, even if some routes or services are unprofitable.

I would venture to say that one reason that FedEx and UPS do as well as they do is that they have no obligation to cover areas or provide services which are, for the most part, unprofitable.

The USPS, however, has to deliver mail to everyone, even if some routes or services are unprofitable.

If the current bill being proposed was reasonably discussed and addressed specifically the problem of providing catastrophic assistance to those who genuinely need it (and, I'm sorry, who are also valid citizens of this country), had demonstratable safeguards against fraud, wass accompanied by very much needed tort reform and was limited to a specific and reasonable budget, I might support it very reluctantly.
I do not think this proposal, which is being ramrodded down our throats by people, many of whom have not even read it, who are historically blind to unintended consequences, and is submitted by a person who has stated very clearly (see above) he is a proponent of complete state run healthcare implemented incrementally, is something I would trust.

The USPS does not deliver mail for free...

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

I would venture to say that one reason that FedEx and UPS do as well as they do is that they have no obligation to cover areas or provide services which are, for the most part, unprofitable.

The USPS, however, has to deliver mail to everyone, even if some routes or services are unprofitable.

If the current bill being proposed was reasonably discussed and addressed specifically the problem of providing catastrophic assistance to those who genuinely need it (and, I'm sorry, who are also valid citizens of this country), had demonstratable safeguards against fraud, wass accompanied by very much needed tort reform and was limited to a specific and reasonable budget, I might support it very reluctantly.
I do not think this proposal, which is being ramrodded down our throats by people, many of whom have not even read it, who are historically blind to unintended consequences, and is submitted by a person who has stated very clearly (see above) he is a proponent of complete state run healthcare implemented incrementally, is something I would trust.

The reason the current bill is not being reasonably discussed is that the teabaggers are sabotaging anything resembling reasonable discussion. Proponents tried to hold a rally in support a couple weeks back and were shouted down by demonstrators. This is typical, not an aberration. Town hall meetings more nearly resemble riots than reasonable discussion.

Flock -- Why are you sorry that people who need catastrophic assistance are citizens of this country?

There is no ramrodding that I know of. Proponents are taking the proposal back to their constituents in a reasoned, thoughful manner. I would willingly give a label of ramrodding to the people who are shouting down speakers and yelling hateful epithets at town hall meetings, except it doesn't quite fit.

It would not be state run health care. It would be state run insurance administration. I have no trust in private insurance carriers, including third-party administrators. When I was in HR, I used to get calls asking me to authorize expensive treatments, which is not what the doctor or hospital wanted at all. What was really happening is that the "large case managers" at the insurance company were dodging the question for a couple of reasons. As for the hospital, the PTB didn't want treatment authorization, they wanted a promise to pay for it. I trust a nationally-run system such as Medicare, which, interestingly enough, no one is lobbying to eliminate, versus the private carrier system I've had extensive contact with from both employer and patient sides.

This is not to say that there wouldn't be problems with a single-payer national system, and a number of y'all have pointed them out. However, we have a working model demonstrating that it will work if we're willing to work through the growing pains. The way the teabaggers are squelching the national "debate," however, it seems likely that they will be successful, and reform is doomed yet again.

SportsFan68 wrote:The reason the current bill is not being reasonably discussed is that the teabaggers are sabotaging anything resembling reasonable discussion. Proponents tried to hold a rally in support a couple weeks back and were shouted down by demonstrators. This is typical, not an aberration. Town hall meetings more nearly resemble riots than reasonable discussion.

Flock -- Why are you sorry that people who need catastrophic assistance are citizens of this country?

There is no ramrodding that I know of. Proponents are taking the proposal back to their constituents in a reasoned, thoughful manner. I would willingly give a label of ramrodding to the people who are shouting down speakers and yelling hateful epithets at town hall meetings, except it doesn't quite fit.

It would not be state run health care. It would be state run insurance administration. I have no trust in private insurance carriers, including third-party administrators. When I was in HR, I used to get calls asking me to authorize expensive treatments, which is not what the doctor or hospital wanted at all. What was really happening is that the "large case managers" at the insurance company were dodging the question for a couple of reasons. As for the hospital, the PTB didn't want treatment authorization, they wanted a promise to pay for it. I trust a nationally-run system such as Medicare, which, interestingly enough, no one is lobbying to eliminate, versus the private carrier system I've had extensive contact with from both employer and patient sides.

This is not to say that there wouldn't be problems with a single-payer national system, and a number of y'all have pointed them out. However, we have a working model demonstrating that it will work if we're willing to work through the growing pains. The way the teabaggers are squelching the national "debate," however, it seems likely that they will be successful, and reform is doomed yet again.

How can you decry "hateful epithets," yet perpetuate the use of the term "teabaggers" that our foul-mouthed minister Fireball loves so much?

Obama is a master of the backtrack and the double talk. He has already backed down from a lot of positions he claimed to have held during the election campaign, not the lease of which was his famous "opposition" to the Iraq war.

I've never believed him to be a liberal or a socialist. He is a craven opportunist, saying what he needs to the audience at hand and counting on the press and his supporters to give him a pass.

Obama is not interested in universal healthcare. He is only interested in giving the appearance that he is in favor of universal healthcare. Once this bill gets hacked to bits by Congress, he will sign whatever little dribs and drabs are left and sadly proclaim that he tried his best but the Republicans and Blue Dogs wouldn't let him do any more. All the while he takes money from the pharmaceutical companies and insurers for maintaining the status quo while giving those who supported and believed in him the back of his hand.

We'd have gotten more meaningful healthcare reform out of John McCain than what we'll get out of Obama.

SportsFan68 wrote:The reason the current bill is not being reasonably discussed is that the teabaggers are sabotaging anything resembling reasonable discussion.

I am finding it difficult to express how disappointed I am that you have descended to using that disgusting term.

nitrah55 wrote:I would venture to say that one reason that FedEx and UPS do as well as they do is that they have no obligation to cover areas or provide services which are, for the most part, unprofitable.

The USPS, however, has to deliver mail to everyone, even if some routes or services are unprofitable.

According to wiki on UPS

Service Area: 200+ countries and territories; every address in North America and Europe

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:The reason the current bill is not being reasonably discussed is that the teabaggers are sabotaging anything resembling reasonable discussion.

I am finding it difficult to express how disappointed I am that you have descended to using that disgusting term.

Perhaps I missed something somewhere, but I don't understand why the term is disgusting. After all, there was an organized movement early in the Obama Administration to use teabags as an instrument of political protest. "Teabaggers" appears an appropriate description of the participants and organizers.

There is very little doubt (at least in my mind) that there is a concerted and deliberate effort to obstruct debate about health insurance reform with deliberate falsehoods and disruptive conduct at public meetings. Hell, Lisa Murkowski just called out her own party on the "death panels" lie. And at least some of the organizational effort is clearly backed by neoconservative activists like Armey. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:The reason the current bill is not being reasonably discussed is that the teabaggers are sabotaging anything resembling reasonable discussion.

I am finding it difficult to express how disappointed I am that you have descended to using that disgusting term.

Perhaps I missed something somewhere, but I don't understand why the term is disgusting. After all, there was an organized movement early in the Obama Administration to use teabags as an instrument of political protest. "Teabaggers" appears an appropriate description of the participants and organizers. --Bob

Are you being serious here?

Kiki might be able to enlighten you....

Lackadaisical Stumblebum wrote:Are you being serious here?

Kiki might be able to enlighten you....

Yes. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Lackadaisical Stumblebum wrote:Are you being serious here?

Kiki might be able to enlighten you....

Yes. --Bob

I'll spoil for the delicate of constitution.

Spoiler

Teabagging refers to the act (generally used in a homosexual sense) of a male squatting over another person and putting their testicles in and out of the other person's mouth. It's called teabagging because the up and down motion is like when you're steeping a cup of tea.

I will also agree with Estonut and Calvinator (!) that I am disappointed to see Sprots using that term. I expect that sort of thing from Nelly, but not from her.

Estonut wrote:How can you decry "hateful epithets," yet perpetuate the use of the term "teabaggers" that our foul-mouthed minister Fireball loves so much?

She can't, but like Obama, they say the sky is purple and act as if they say nothing is wrong.

I've seen nor heard of any hateful epithets by any of the conservative attendees at the town halls. The only bad behavior I've seen is the union thugs requested by Obama assaulting citizens trying to exercise their rights to assemble, access to their elected representatives, and to free speech.

Bob78164 wrote:Perhaps I missed something somewhere, but I don't understand why the term is disgusting. After all, there was an organized movement early in the Obama Administration to use teabags as an instrument of political protest. "Teabaggers" appears an appropriate description of the participants and organizers.

Why don't you knock off the lawyerly doubletalk and Google it, then?

Lackadaisical Stumblebum wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Lackadaisical Stumblebum wrote:Are you being serious here?

Kiki might be able to enlighten you....

Yes. --Bob

I'll spoil for the delicate of constitution.

Spoiler

Teabagging refers to the act (generally used in a homosexual sense) of a male squatting over another person and putting their testicles in and out of the other person's mouth. It's called teabagging because the up and down motion is like when you're steeping a cup of tea.

Thanks. I now recall seeing that term in this context (probably here on the Bored), but I never made the connection. --Bob

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Perhaps I missed something somewhere, but I don't understand why the term is disgusting. After all, there was an organized movement early in the Obama Administration to use teabags as an instrument of political protest. "Teabaggers" appears an appropriate description of the participants and organizers.

Why don't you knock off the lawyerly doubletalk and Google it, then?

Because I expected, and got, a quicker and more trustworthy answer from the Bored.

And if by "lawyerly doubletalk" you mean a clear statement of my position, I don't see anything wrong with that either. --Bob

I heard one of the wingnut protestors refer to himself as a "teabagger" at Arlens meeting.
My yap was agape.
He was 138 years old, so I reckon he wasnt aware of alternate meanings.
He was also against government medical insurance.
I intuit he refused Medicare coverage.

Bob78164 wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:The reason the current bill is not being reasonably discussed is that the teabaggers are sabotaging anything resembling reasonable discussion.

I am finding it difficult to express how disappointed I am that you have descended to using that disgusting term.

Perhaps I missed something somewhere, but I don't understand why the term is disgusting. After all, there was an organized movement early in the Obama Administration to use teabags as an instrument of political protest. "Teabaggers" appears an appropriate description of the participants and organizers.

Nevermind, it looks as if Bob didn't know the derogatory meaning.

Bob78164 wrote: There is very little doubt (at least in my mind) that there is a concerted and deliberate effort to obstruct debate about health insurance reform with deliberate falsehoods and disruptive conduct at public meetings. Hell, Lisa Murkowski just called out her own party on the "death panels" lie. And at least some of the organizational effort is clearly backed by neoconservative activists like Armey. --Bob

So busing in a bunch of union thugs, filing the front rows of a town hall meeting with union sympathizers who were escorted in through the side door and put in the front rows, while Joe Constiuent has to wait outside until the preferreds are seating is being backed by neoconservative activists like Armey? Wow, I thought the Dem Senators who set up the town halls were behind that. Thanks for enlightening me.