Obama doublespeak continues to abound. This week Congress and the Prez return to Washington to continue “addressing” our nation’s woes. Up next: the deficit.
You might be a little worried that the federal debt is in the trillions (that’s this many zeroooooooooooos), and since that number is growing rapidly the Senate must consider legislation to raise the federal debt limit beyond $12.1 trillion by mid-October. This is due to the President’s fat budget of more than $3.5 trillion, the largest in history, making this year’s $1.6 trillion deficit another record.
Sorry for all the big numbers. Basically, we need to raise the debt ceiling so that we don’t default on our debt. Obviously President Obama and his team are being vocal about the necessity of this so that the President can keep spending like a maniac. The administration and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner are pushing for the debt ceiling to be increased ASAP.
But what happened back when we had a Republican president and President Obama was Senator Obama? The Senate had to consider raising the debt ceiling in 2006 and Senator Obama took the opportunity to make a floor speech:
Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.
He obviously voted against raising the debt level.
But now that I’m President, I’m spending your money really quickly and I need you to raise the ceiling for me! I’m the President so this is not a failure of leadership. Pretty pretty please with hope, change, and a cherry on top!
Related posts:
- Once Again, Past Obama at Odds with Present Obama During appearances last week in Arizona and New Mexico, President...
- Present Obama Suffers Another Outlandish Attack from Past Obama During the neverending 2008 presidential campaign, Senator Barack Hussein Obama...
- Past Obama & Present Obama in CIA Clash As you may know, for some time now here at...
- Obama to lobbyists: Come, and sin no more Commentary might seem overwrought in this case. The facts speak...
- Once Again, Past Obama Attacks Present Obama Hey, remember about six months ago, when President Obama told...
Oh good grief. Just make it stop. When will this clue find a clue? And people thought Bush was dumb. Yeah, how is that hope and change working out now?
With the impending Health Care Deform, the idea of fining the non-insured at a clip of $3800 is on the table. This is something he opposed when campaigning.
Why couldn’t he have made some sort of campaign promise like “I’ll kill off So-So Security”? At least then I’d have HOPE that a good change would be coming…
The only hope I have is for this dangerously incompetent man’s presidency to end with as little damage to the country as possible.
“Basically, we need to raise the debt ceiling so that we don’t default on our debt.”
And who ran up this debt in the first place?
Funny, the credit card company LOWERS my credit limit when I get close to it.
Think I could convince my credit card company with that logic?
One thing is for sure – I will not be tuning in tonight to see this idiot speak again. I have better things to do. But inquiring minds want to know – will it be past, present or yet introduced future Obama talking?
I know, because I read the post.
“I know, because I read the post.”
?
Funny, I didn’t see anything in the post about taking a surplus and running it into the ground by funding two wars, that actually did destroy nations, and that coincidently were never put into the budget but were conveniently funded through supplemental votes.
And remember kids, be careful what you post on Facebook. Whatever you do, it will be pulled up again later somewhere in your life. Luckily, I don’t use social internet sites, I put all my egotistical rants, friend lists, and nekkid beer bong pics down in the depths of official Senate transcripts. Nobody but nobody will ever think to dredge through that crap in the future.
.
Drop in the bucket compared to the new guy’s spending. And he only wants more.
Obama did inherit debt, but he didn’t have to exponentially increase it. If you see the economy is bleeding, you put a band-aid on it instead of squeezing it even more. Obama could have been a national hero by helping end the debt but he chose to keep on funneling more money into the pit.
And I’ll take money spent on fighting terrorism over money spent paying off supporters any day. (ie, more stimulous money going to areas that support Obama, $$ given to ACORN and SEIU.)
I agree. Bush did have a huge debt, but Obama so far has outspent ANY president before him. ANY Presient. Got that? And he has only been in office since January. 7.5 more years of all of this hope and change.
CAtharine, yes mam! Anything to keep the murderers at bay is fine by me. That money has kept them from bringing the war to us over here. Many people tend to forget that. My husband killed many terrorists so that we would not have to live through another 9/11. I remember that day very well and I hope it never takes place again, but it will. Somehow.
I’m going to go ahead and do what Clinton supporters did about 10 minutes after GWB took office: ENOUGH WITH THE BLAMING OF THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION, ALREADY.
Obama has taken a bad situation and teased it into a hellacious beehive of suckitude, and he’s stamped his happy face all over it and called it good. He’s a hypocrite, he’s a liar, and he’s a giant asshat with feathers. Case closed.
I know “Bill” the manic depressive scroll didn’t exactly sing about this part while he was sittin’ there on Capitol Hill… but jeeze dude, you negate yourself in that one run-on sentence.
Because supplemental appropriations are BILLS not EXECUTIVE ORDERS or DECREES.
Kinda goes back to that whole Congress shall have their filthy mits on the purse-strings part of the constitution (for reference, note the Three Ring Circus song).
Oh, and by the by, our Whiner in Chief had a nice little record of approving supplementals during his short stay in the upper house…
“I know “Bill” the manic depressive scroll didn’t exactly sing about this part while he was sittin’ there on Capitol Hill… but jeeze dude, you negate yourself in that one run-on sentence.
Because supplemental appropriations are BILLS not EXECUTIVE ORDERS or DECREES.”
Yeah, I didn’t like that sentence either. It was a run-on, or even more likely a comma-splice.
But we all know that the Dems didn’t have control of anything for the first 6 years of Bush 2. (And frankly, they don’t control anything now because the Blue Dogs are just political opportunists that know what has to be done to be elected in their districts.) It was all about “we have to fund the troops.” By using the supplemental bills, that administration bypassed the system and people are now citing faulty statistics by comparing budgets. And by using the supplemental ploys, we also have things like the REAL ID act, that will eventually just make us have to carry “papers” to cross state lines, or to even walk into a federal office building.
Obama took a bad situation and only made it worse.
This seems to be a recurring theme.
Is running this country into bankruptcy a case for impeachment?
But then if this be the case & it oust the Jerk, would we then have Biden as Jerk number two? Craps! Sometimes one can never win, no matter.
“Obama did inherit debt, but he didn’t have to exponentially increase it. If you see the economy is bleeding, you put a band-aid on it instead of squeezing it even more. Obama could have been a national hero by helping end the debt but he chose to keep on funneling more money into the pit.”
Doubtful though. I’m pretty sure I’ve never heard anyone call Clinton a national hero when he balanced the budget.
Unfortunately, the band-aid is the spending. Most of the spending done upfront were actually loans to the banking industry. These loans will be paid back with interest.
I found this on wikianswers.
“It’s March 20,2009 and Obama has spent around $2,600,000,000,000 dollars so far. This is what he has spent it on:
1.2T on Bailout
.8T on TARP
.6T on Budget
Though he hasn’t actually spent that yet, considering the budget is a plan for what is going to be spent in the year to come, and the bailout and TARP are actually loans which are eventually supposed to be paid back. “
Hmm well I think that there are people out there just itching to call Obama a national hero and savior. Some of his fans are pretty zealous.
And while I agree that sometimes one has to spend to earn money (such as a start-up loan for a small business) that doesn’t appear to be happening here. I’ve seen way too much stimulous money being used as political bribes or rewards to think of it as being a sincere effort to help the nation at large. Too much of Washington is in bed with big business for me to trust money changing hands there.
And aren’t you bothered by who is supposed to be paying back those loans? The obvious answer is the business, but someone’s got to go out and earn the money. What if the business folds and is not able to pay its workers or break even? It will have to shut down and then where will we be?
And you cited wikianswers as a legitimate source. WIKIANSWERS. That’s not exactly a reliable, academic souce even if it is handy to start off research.
Huh.
Imagine that. Voting the way your district wishes?
Well, we best stop that sort of thing right now! The future of our oligarchy is at stake.
You know………when you have a debt problem the best solution is to QUIT SPENDING MONEY. Raising the debt ceiling only increases your debt load in the long run because then you fall into the mindset that you now have a little wiggle room.
If you ain’t got enough in the bank to pay cash, don’t write the check.
I know that is overly simplistic considering the mess the country is now in, but O throwing more money around is NOT solving it like he thought it would.
I’m waiting for when all the cars bought on Cash For Clunkers start getting repo’d and the media starts it’s hue and cry over it. It is shades of the mortgage mess, no matter what you call it.
It says something that bush wasted so much money, the Dems would screaming in the street, gnashing teeth and all about him wasting our future, Obama gets into office, has far less military spending, and still manages to one-up him, and yet somehow it is all still Bush’s fault. I wonder if Bush died today how many decades they would still blame him for everything.
Democrats are in the congress, the house and the White House yet somehow all the roadblocks thrown in Obama’s way are the fault of the GOP? The man could not lead his party out of a wet paper bag.
Lets be realistic Ed, stimulus money will NOT help the economy. See, all that money that is supposed to ‘create jobs’ is really just creating ‘make work’.
A job is a long-lasting relationship with a private company that will conceivably continue to pay you for your services indefinitely. The government doesn’t make any products, so they can’t use money one time and then have a sustainable job, they would need to keep appropriating more money every year to keep that person in work. In reality, even the jobs that are being created (and there can’t be too many of those if you pay attention to unemployment numbers) are 6 months of work tops.
What happens when they finish building that overpass, or have ‘beautified’ that lake? The money has been spent, people have worked, but now they’re right back to where they started from and the only way to keep them working is for the government to spend MORE money. In the simplest economic terms I can come up with, we are quite literally SUBSIDIZING LABOR! Sure, they’re producing something of value, but no one is actually ‘buying’ it – therefore there is no profit, no expansion, and no sustainable jobs.
The analogy of a bandaid isn’t apt at all – this is more akin to pumping plasma into a patient who’s still hemorrhaging from multiple gunshot wounds. Sure, you’re ‘doing something’ but the end result is you’re right back where you started with nothing but a lot of wasted blood to show for it.
Bush’s mistake was signing the loan late last year to bail out everyone. Obama has taken that even further. Bush did not force him to sign in all of those other bailouts. OBama was in office when that happened. And the TARP did not stimulate the economy like we were promised. Instead it went to helping a field mouse out in San Francisco. Most jobs under that plan are temporary and not long lasting. Those same people will be without a job in a few weeks. And this healthcare fiasco? Who is going to pay for that? There will be nothing left of my paycheck to cover any more of his hope and change.
Scott F. Another reason why I love you. You said what I said, just more eloquently and influential
Where are our Scott F t-shirts
Ed-”Most of the spending done upfront were actually loans to the banking industry. These loans will be paid back with interest.”
Considering how many tarp bank have gone under, and the fact that the Dems are already pouncing on the money returning from the loans like hobos on a steak, I doubt that that money will ever see the insides of the government coffers again, so calling them loans is a bit disingenuous.
Obama reminds me of a person that when they have maxed out there credit cards on trinkets and knick-knacks simply applies for another card, the only difference is the government can’t declare bankruptcy and we the american people are all cosigners on the cards.
I just realized why the Dem’s don’t have a prob with spending like the world is about to end, they don’t pay their taxes so its not like they are going to have to pay it back.
The government is being run in exactly the way I’m teaching my kids NOT to live.
Run out of money? That’s okay–borrow and spend some more. It’s someone else’s fault you needed that money, anyway. Besides, you inherited that unmade bed. That you slept in last night, and the night before.
And be sure you do what everybody else is doing, because it’s “embarrassing” if you don’t. It would be like everyone except the US and Somalia ratifying a horrendous UN Convention on the “Rights of the Child”, that would screw up families for all time; sure, it’s a mess, and doesn’t even serve the purposes it’s supposed to, but hey! EVERYBODY ELSE has ratified it! You want to be just like everyone else, don’t you? You don’t want to be the only one who didn’t jump off the cliff, do you? Well, DO YOU?
$12.1T is enough that if you STACKED that many $1 bills you could have more than 3 stacks to the moon
Catharine: “And aren’t you bothered by who is supposed to be paying back those loans? The obvious answer is the business, but someone’s got to go out and earn the money. What if the business folds and is not able to pay its workers or break even? It will have to shut down and then where will we be?”
The bulk of the loans were to the financial sector. I really never was worried about them going under. Even Bush said they were too big to let fail.
“And you cited wikianswers as a legitimate source. WIKIANSWERS. That’s not exactly a reliable, academic souce even if it is handy to start off research.”
Actually, I kind of figured that everyone already knew that the bulk of the money spent was in the form of loans. Maybe I’m wrong about that. Anyway, it was not meant to be an academic source, but just as a quick and easy reality check to show that the money technically hasn’t just been just spent, but loaned.
Minnow: “Huh. Imagine that. Voting the way your district wishes? ”
They aren’t really Democrats is all I’m saying, they are professional politicians. Just like Arlen Spector isn’t really anything either. It really isn’t that hard to figure out that the Dems never really had that magic number 60.
Scott F: The analogy of the bandaid wasn’t mine to begin with. But even temporary jobs provide real value. The jobs buy food and clothes, which of course have to be bought from manufacturers and merchants that supply jobs to other people, and so on. Those people who have those jobs also need to spend money. Every little bit helps.
“What happens when they finish building that overpass, or have ‘beautified’ that lake? The money has been spent, people have worked, but now they’re right back to where they started from and the only way to keep them working is for the government to spend MORE money. ”
So what if the government spends money on infrastructure improvements? Isn’t that what government is supposed to do? Ensuring our safety is actually its number one priority. Or do we just wait for bridges to collapse?
Angry Army Wife: “And this healthcare fiasco? Who is going to pay for that? There will be nothing left of my paycheck to cover any more of his hope and change.”
So you’re an Army Wife who receives free government healthcare because your husband works for the government. Not everybody has that going for them. Some people have to pay for their own insurance, which cannot always be counted on because the insurance companies actually do ration services every day. My daughter got kidney stones when she was in 6th grade. She has been turned down for insurance because of preexisting conditions. She was 10 years old, and now she’s marked for life! That’s reality for many, many people.
They were confiscated by the federal government and redistributed to those demanding the right to free t-shirts.
See Ed, that’s how a federal stimulus works. No new shirts were created, the folks who eventually get the shirts don’t really want ones with “Scott F” printed on them, and now we’ve got a bunch of pissed off naked women in flyover country waving their fists and shouting racially motivated epithets at their congressmen.
Or laid end to end, would reach Saturn & start a return trip back.
“See Ed, that’s how a federal stimulus works. No new shirts were created, the folks who eventually get the shirts don’t really want ones with “Scott F” printed on them, and now we’ve got a bunch of pissed off naked women in flyover country waving their fists and shouting racially motivated epithets at their congressmen.”
You say pissed off naked women like it’s a bad thing!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/business/economy/31taxpayer.html?_r=1
August 31, 2009
As Banks Repay Bailout Money, U.S. Sees a Profit
By ZACHERY KOUWE
[A link and a summary is sufficient. Please don't cut-and-past entire copyrighted newspaper articles. -- MGMT.]
“The analogy of the bandaid wasn’t mine to begin with. But even temporary jobs provide real value. The jobs buy food and clothes, which of course have to be bought from manufacturers and merchants that supply jobs to other people, and so on. Those people who have those jobs also need to spend money. Every little bit helps.”
You’re missing the point. But bluntly, what you’re describing is one big economic circle jerk that accomplishes nothing. Get this part through your head right now – the government produces NOTHING. Every dime it has and spends is either your tax money or loans based on the promise of future tax income. So the government hires 100 people to build a bridge, they work on it for 6 months. The government (read US) is paying their salary, so yes they can use their money to purchase goods and services from private companies – companies that pay taxes. Their employees pay taxes. And if the government has to pay for all this crap, then taxes will need to be raised to make up the difference, right?
So you have a monetary influx into the economy, that was taken OUT of the economy by the government in the first place in the form of taxes. Back to the medical analogy, you’re taking blood from the arm and injecting it into the leg, but only after skimming 40-50% of it off in the form of government waste. This is not an influx of new capital, this is the reallocation of resources in the most inefficient way possible. That’s the basis for the reasoning behind tax cuts stimulating the economy – the capital gets spent without the unnecessary intervention of government simply by letting people keep the money in the first place.
Let companies actually keep their money, and THEY can hire new employees. No tax money is necessary to stimulate jobs this way, and it’s a self-perpetuating cycle like you were describing before. More people with jobs, more people with money, more people buying goods and services that means other companies will hire more employees, ect ect. Inserting government into the equation is a useless and self-defeating step because we ARE the government.
Ed, your statement: “So you’re an Army Wife who receives free government healthcare because your husband works for the government. Not everybody has that going for them. Some people have to pay for their own insurance, which cannot always be counted on because the insurance companies actually do ration services every day. My daughter got kidney stones when she was in 6th grade. She has been turned down for insurance because of preexisting conditions. She was 10 years old, and now she’s marked for life! That’s reality for many, many people.” I understand your point, however, as a US Navy vet, your statement is a little off the mark. Yes, it is free while you’re active duty, but the price has the possibility of being VERY high. If you decide to make the military your career, upon retirement, your have an option for the “free” medical and dental that was promised when you raised your right hand. The free option puts you at the bottom of the priorty list. The most expensive option is called Tri-Care and cost $460.00 a year for you and your family. The only drawback is that in order to receive care without having to get referals you must live near a military base. Tri Care is like any other insurance company, they ration care and generally make it a pain to get services, and look to expand the profit margin whenever and wherever they can.
My point is this; Yes, AAW may get free medical, but the price would be for her to lose her husband due to enemy action. Would you like to have to pay that premium?
Swede0319,
I did five years in the Navy. My father was a CWO4 in the army (reserves retired), with a bronze star and fought in the Battle of the Bulge. My grandfather sported one star on his shoulder and was an engineer in Saipan.
I’m accutely aware of her husbands occupational hazards.
Dear Ed,
AAW, her family and all of the members of the armed forces deserve free healthcare and anything else they need. Why? Because they are on the front line daily protecting the basic rights we have taken for granted, like going on websites and ripping the president without fear of death or imprisonment. Please keep that in mind.
Sincerely,
Big Mama and the rest of America.
“You’re missing the point. ”
No I’m not. You complained that working on infrastructure issues was not “real” work. I assure you that it is. You complained that temporary jobs were bad, I assure you that gaining experience to get another job and feeding your children is not.
“Let companies actually keep their money, and THEY can hire new employees. No tax money is necessary to stimulate jobs this way”
Just so you know, tax relief is a major part of the recovery act. And “The Office of the Treasury estimates that $62.5 billion in tax relief will have been made available by the end of August 2009. This relief comes in various forms including the Making Work Pay tax credit, COBRA Continuation Coverage Assistance and tax incentives for businesses.”
http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/estimated-625b-tax-relief-recovery-act
“The Recovery Act specifies appropriations for a wide range of Federal programs and will increase or extend certain benefits payable under the Medicaid, unemployment compensation, and nutrition assistance programs. The legislation also reduces individual and corporate income tax collections and makes a variety of other changes to tax laws. The package provides funds that will:
Create a framework for clean, efficient, American energy;
Transform our economy with science and technology;
Modernize roads, bridges, transit and waterways;
Overhaul education for the 21st Century;
Dispense tax cuts to make work pay and create jobs;
Expand access to healthcare and lower costs;
Provide assistance to workers hurt by the economy;
Save public sector jobs and protect vital services;”
It isn’t just building bridges.
Thanks for your service Ed.
Re: the NYT article
I agree with the theory that the economy is only going up because so many workers have been laid off. Times get tough, business lets go of employees to stay afloat, they start making money again. I guess it saves the business but at a sad cost. It’s not a black and white, ‘more money means the country’s improving’ situation. If this wasn’t happening, why would so many people still be unemployed with more being laid off even now?
Oh and regarding “the government produces NOTHING,” you are wrong. They produce services that are necessary to the wellbeing and safety to you and your family. Ask Angry Army Wife if she thinks the government is producing NOTHING when her husband is “killing terrorists,” as she put it. Personally, I would rather take care of the terrorists that are shooting up urban areas in this country, but then that would be the government providing a service too.
But if you want to tell the fire department that it’s ok to let your house burn then that’s your right.
As necessary as that is, it’s not production. It protects those who produce wealth, but it does not produce that wealth for them.
“As necessary as that is, it’s not production. It protects those who produce wealth, but it does not produce that wealth for them.”
It produces jobs. And those job holders can then go and purchase the stuff that’s made in China.
That “made in China” thing is vital to this whole conversation. That is not “production” either. Essentially, Americans do not produce much in this country. Of course there are some vital industries left in this country, but so much has been shipped overseas that it’s kind of silly to think that tax relief for businesses will actually produce more jobs. Tax relief by itself will only make the guy who’s outsourcing his manufacturing capacity overseas even more wealthy. He’s not going to change his way of doing business just to hire an American. If that thought was in his head in the first place, then he wouldn’t have fired them anyway.
I want my Scott F t-shirt.
And, apparently, semantics.
And here’s some more of our tax money being spent–on yet another enemies list. A list that includes, well, anyone they say it does.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/09/red-alert-white-house-plans-massive.html
Why do people always bring up police, fire, and military when you say you don’t like government redistribution of wealth? Besides the fact that the government pays for both, what other connection do they have? We have a compact with the government that we will accept certain inconveniences in order to provide us with protection from criminals, fire, and foreign enemies – as far as I’m concerned, that’s where the Federal Government’s jurisdiction begins and ends. Infrastructure is debatable, as the only claim the gov. has to it is the fact it is supposed to regulate interstate commerce, but I would be just as happy with each state being responsible for it’s own upkeep.
I always feel the need to point out that while our interstates are marvelous feats of human ingenuity, they were primarily constructed under President Eisenhower who was understandably impressed when he came into contact with the German autobahn. A lot of people commented in the 50’s and 60’s that the interstates were much larger than was necessary to facilitate the level of traffic on the roads, and this was because our interstates, just like the autobahn, were built as fallback runways for military aircraft if a Soviet first strike knocked out our airbases as well as being able to transport supplies for the war effort quickly to many fronts – the convenience for citizens and businesses was secondary.
Now, it’s primarily just a way for the Federal Government to beat State Governments into submission by threatening to withhold highway money. Don’t like the drinking age in a State? Threaten to withhold highway funds until they comply. What, you didn’t think they all came to a sudden epiphany and decided to change it? See, and that brings me back to my original point (see what I did there, Bush called it strategery) that when you let government into something, you give government power over something. We already pay the price for letting them get involved in things as innocuous as our national transportation, can you imagine the price we’ll be asked to pay for putting them in charge of banks, private businesses, and God forbid health care?
The best intentions, especially when they produce dubious results at best, do not justify the government stepping into private domains. Business has a way of repairing itself if just left alone, interfering with recessions and depressions tends to just make the problem that much more unbearable.
Ed, you have no clue what my husband does. Just so you know – my husband is a reservist and is getting ready to deploy for the 3rd time and is volunteering to do so. He asked to go back overseas with the Special Forces. Not all dedicated Army wives are full time. My husband has been in for 25 years so he SHOULD get free health care for life. Know what? The VA stinks.
I DO NOT get free health care. I work full time and get insurance through my work, a non-profit agency. I pay for it out of MY pocket, just like all the rest of the American families. I have a $2000 deductible. I also worked full time while getting my masters degree and never asked for someone to get me out of debt. My husband and I work hard to pay off our own loans, we do not expect someone else to do it for us.
I suggest before you open your mouth that you get a clue and never assume.
“And here’s some more of our tax money being spent–on yet another enemies list. A list that includes, well, anyone they say it does.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/09/red-alert-white-house-plans-massive.html”
Ahh, you almost had me with this one. A quick look at the first page or two of the actual RFQ at http://www.nlpc.org/sites/default/files/RFQ_WHOS090003.pdf states the purpose of this endeavor. It’s actually to follow the law!!! They already harvest these pages manually because the Presidental Records Act requires them to do this.
1. Purpose
The purpose of this Statement of Objectives (SOO) is to obtain the necessary services to ensure that content published by the Executive Office of the President (EOP) on publicly-accessible web sites is archived in accordance with the Presidential Records Act (PRA), that information posted on publicly-accessible web sites where the EOP maintains a presence is archived in accordance with the PRA, and that all archived information is securely stored and provided to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for historical preservation, in accordance with the PRA.
4. Background
In order to comply with the Presidential Records Act, the White House New Media team is looking for a non personal service contractor to crawl and archive PRA content on all third party sites where the EOP has a presence (i.e. Facebook.com/whitehouse, Twitter.com/whitehouse). Currently, the Government team is capturing the data and content both programmatically (via Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) from social networks) and manually (through daily screen shots). EOP requires a provider to ensure we automatically capture this content in a scalable, efficient and reliable manner.
And on the last page it says what sites the EOP is currently affiliated with:
2. Approximately how many sites are controlled by EOP?
Answer: The 7 networks where the EOP currently maintains a presence are:
http://www.facebook.com/whitehouse
http://www.twitter.com/whitehouse
http://www.myspace.com/whitehouse
http://www.flickr.com/whitehouse
http://www.youtube.com/whitehouse
http://www.vimeo.com/whitehouse
http://www.slideshare.com/whitehouse
the Presidential Records Act:
Defines and states public ownership of the records.
Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent Presidential records with the President.
Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once he has obtained the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal.
Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records.
Establishes a process for restriction and public access to these records. Specifically, the PRA allows for public access to Presidential records through the Freedom of Information Act (United States) (FOIA) beginning five years after the end of the Administration, but allows the President to invoke as many as six specific restrictions to public access for up to twelve years. The PRA also establishes procedures for Congress, courts, and subsequent administrations to obtain special access to records that remain closed to the public, following a thirty-day notice period to the former and current Presidents.
Requires that Vice-Presidential records are to be treated in the same way as Presidential records.
Intersting history here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13233 about this law. (I realize that this is wiki, and not an academic source. But those who are interested can review the references that are linked). George W. Bush attempted to limit the presidiential archives to be viewed by only former and current presidents.
“Executive Order 13233[1] limited access to the records of former United States Presidents. It was drafted by then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and issued by George W. Bush on November 1, 2001. Section 13 of Order 13233 revoked Executive Order 12667 which was issued by Ronald Reagan on January 18, 1989.
The Order was partially struck down in October 2007, and Barack Obama completely revoked it, by Executive Order 13489[2] on January 21, 2009, his first full day in office…” Additionally Obama added the bit about the Vice Presidents records being included in this too.
So it would seem that this current president is 100% more open about his communications than the prior one.
Okay, but see, now you have to mug a homeless guy too get a Scott F tshirt.
Also, Minnow, will you marry me?
“Ed, you have no clue what my husband does. Just so you know – my husband is a reservist and is getting ready to deploy for the 3rd time and is volunteering to do so. He asked to go back overseas with the Special Forces. Not all dedicated Army wives are full time. My husband has been in for 25 years so he SHOULD get free health care for life. Know what? The VA stinks.
I DO NOT get free health care. I work full time and get insurance through my work, a non-profit agency. I pay for it out of MY pocket, just like all the rest of the American families. I have a $2000 deductible. I also worked full time while getting my masters degree and never asked for someone to get me out of debt. My husband and I work hard to pay off our own loans, we do not expect someone else to do it for us.
I suggest before you open your mouth that you get a clue and never assume.”
You don’t get healthcare when your husband is away? That is criminal. I firmly believe that active duty military and their families should get medical care. And a reservist who is sent away on deployment should be considered as active duty. As I stated, I did my time too. The families suffer greatly when the soldier is away. I saw this many times when families were separated when their husbands were away on deployment.
As far as what your husband does or doesn’t do, it doesn’t matter to me. Even grunts who guard the gates are hard working service members.
But as far as paying off loans for education? Who’s asking for that?
AAW gets free hugs. From me.
No, Ed, I don’t get free health care. Any health care I would have gotten while he is active duty is subpar. There is a long waiting list to even see a doctor and my visits are limited. My husband gets his insurance through his private work as well.
And if I chose to accept his insurance, then I lose my private insurance and the options I have through them.
Many people are asking for free education ever since the Messiah promised them. We do not ask for handouts although I believe those who are serving our country should receive more than what they get. If you read some of the bills that Obama passed, it included student loan payoffs.
Maybe you can help me find something about paying off student loans. All I can find is that he wants to increase Pell Grants by a meager amount, create a tax credit for education, and create access to low interest college loans.
That would be ok by me because my son will probably be starting his master’s program next year. He pays his own way and tax credits would really help him.
My daughter pays her own way too, she’s a junior.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/30192808
Okay, everyone, take a deep breath. Then go look at something we can all agree on:
http://www.someecards.com/card/i-hope-melanie-oudin-doesnt-disappoint-america-as-much-as-obama-has
This may be hard to believe by some people – read Ed, but I have had a “pre-existing condition” for 30 years and have never had a problem getting private health insurance. In fact, my current insurance provider recently paid $200k on my pre-existing conditions without any questions.
AAW…you rock.
Nice, Eve! How about this one to go along with yours? http://bit.ly/Tdafg
Jimmy, it’s not all about you. But I’m curious, how many times have you had to get private health insurance in 30 years?
And Jimmy, WHO is your insurance company. Really, my same daughter recently got hit by a car and $40K later that 23 year old girl is going to have to file for bankruptcy. (she’s ok). Maybe you can help her the next time there’s an issue she couldn’t control.
Jimmy, one more thing:
Who is your insurance company? My daughter recently got hit by a car (she’s ok), but since she has been denied insurance for so many years, the $40K hospital bill is forcing that 23 year old into bankruptcy. Maybe you can give us some info that can help us out for next time.
I want an Angry Army Wife T-shirt! We are grateful to your husband and the insight you bring to the discussion
Thanks Jenn and everyone. People need to remember that the VA is government run and is not that great of a place to get treatment. Some facilities are better than others. The most important people who should be treated with dignity and respect are our service members. If the government cannot run their own facilities correctly then why should we trust them with the rest of our care? I was laid off during the 2nd deployment twice. TRicare was expensive for me to pick up and I would only have it for the year he was gone and then they would drop me again. I was able to find a great job with great benefits, better than what Tricare had to offer. The large military installation by my house has cut office hours for patients and it is very hard to get in to see anyone. Not to mention a specialist.
Oh, and if anything happened to my husband while defending this great country? I would gladly pass up the measly life insurance policy just to have him back home. Many people forget just what they do for us overseas.
And Ed, he did discuss paying off people’s student loans if they defaulted. Since we would never consider defaulting on student loans then I am not one that he is bothered with. See, I signed up knowing I would owe, not expecting someone else to step in and cover for me. Just look at the crazy people who said after he was elected that they would not have to worry about their mortgage or gas because he is now in the White House. They expect handouts because that is what Democrats do – they handout other hardworking Americans money to others. Unfortunately, they are also the same ones who rack up their credit card bills and are getting a break while the rest of us who pay them off monthly are now charged higher fees. See, the ones who follow the rules get punished while the rest get to slide right by.
Something you forgot to note, Ed:
The phrase “abundance of caution” makes me snicker, because it makes it seem as though this isn’t an administration given to hasty blundering, legislative fumbling, and attempts to chill free speech.
The left is attempting to equate this with the Patriot Act and wiretapping of private phone calls, but here’s the thing: The Patriot Act authorized wiretapping of phone calls between non-US phone numbers (belonging to suspected or confirmed terrorists) and US numbers. Not phone numbers of US citizens discussing, with one another, how much they didn’t like the administration.
Jimmy, it’s not all about you. But I’m curious, how many times have you had to get private health insurance in 30 years?
And Ed it’s not all about you either. Just because your daughter can’t get insurance to cover her pre-existing condition does not mean no one with a pre-existing condition can’t get insurance. If the program works for 85% of the population do you think the entire system should be changed to a complete unknown for the minority group?
I have had about 6 different private health insurance providers since having my pre-existing condition, which, by the way was partially determined to be work related. I have had both HMO’s and PPO’s during this time. My current insurance is an Aetna PPO. They have never questioned a cost, including the $100k fifteen day hospital stay for a procedure that should have only called for a four to five day stay. Seems my pre-existing condition required a longer stay.
AAW: may I call you that? Thanks for your response. I still haven’t found any links about actual plans or laws regarding forgiveness of student loans after they’ve defaulted. I’ll keep looking, but if you could find me one I would apprecidate it.
Beige: “The phrase “abundance of caution” makes me snicker,” That is kind of funny. But it remains that the PRA is there to allow the citizens the opportunity to read how our leaders communicated and dealt with everyday issues. Since the information is already freely available to read in the comments sections of these web sites, it’s no big deal if they save it for 12 years before releasing it again.
Jimmy: I have Aetna HMO through work. Group insurance from employers are required by law to cover preexisting conditions. As long as I stay employed the cost is good. But once I had to go on COBRA and the cost tripled. But what are ya gonna do. But my daughter aside, many people are not as lucky as you or I. They don’t have insurance through their employer and many are routinely turned down for personal plans because of pre-existing conditions. 85% of the people being covered is simply not good enough. We’re the freekin USA and we take care of our own. 15% who are told by insurance companines that they are expendable is horrendous. And with all the layoffs still happening, that 15% grows larger everyday. I visibly cringed when I heard insurance CEO’s confirm the cases they denied for treatment when they were being interviewed by congress. It would have been comical that they themselves couldn’t figure out the paperwork required to get a policy, but yet they admitted to denying treatment to a woman who made a mistake on a date. She died.
Can we all just have a moment of glee for the Mental Health Parity Bill? The ONLY good government related healthcare ANYTHING?
Ed, a couple items.
1. The lady who died – it is sad. I would be pissed if I were her husband or in her family. And I would have legal recourse to slap down the insurance company. When the gub’mint is running things, look for that legal recourse to disappear. Can’t have people suing the gub’mint when they screw up your healthcare. Ask those poor vets who the VA misdiagnosed with cancer.
2. Illegal alien coverage by the plan. The CRS just put out a study on HR3200 that describes exactly how they will get care under the new plan. Willam Jacobson has some additional info on this, as well as the report. Visit this: http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/09/house-bill-does-cover-illegals.html
It amazes me that people think a politician from Chicago is going to stop waste, fraud, and abuse of government resources. No Chicago politician has *ever* succeeded at doing that.
I’ll have to admit that I’m up in the air about covering illegal aliens. It’s not that I support giving taxpayer services to people who are wrongfully in this country, but it’s unrealistic to just ignore that they are here anyway.
They wash dishes and prepare food in restaurants. They pick the fruits and vegetables we eat. They sit next to us out in public. It might just be for the greater good if they are healthy enough that they don’t spread an easily correctable illness. But also, I just don’t think many will seek this out because they generally don’t want to be put on a government list of any kind.
So after reading this document, it appears that unauthorized resident aliens would be required to buy and carry insurance for themselves and their children. I don’t see that requiring someone to buy insurance is a problem. But unauthorized resident aliens are specifically excluded from receiving tax credits. HR3200 does not contain a mechanism for verifying immigration status, but it is part of the bill that the Health Choices Commissioner administers the eliibility process for the tax credits.
So basically, there’s no change.
Unauthorized residents can buy insurance now from whomever they want anyway. Nobody at Aetna, Blue Cross, et al asks about your immigration status when they are selling you insurance anyway. I even just downloaded an application from Kaiser Permanente, and there is no mention of a legal residency requirement.
If anything, I think the bill would make it easier to deport someone who is not carrying the required insurance policy.
Can I just take a moment to thank AAW, Ed, Pearce, Beige and everyone on this thread for debating so cogently and rationally, with so much awesome supporting documentation that I’ll never have time to read?
On any other site this would’ve devolved into name-calling and insults at about comment #18.
OK, backslapping’s over, back to the argument…
Nor anywhere else on Earth.
But should we really choose the most inefficient and costly manner of taking care of our own?
We do. By enabling life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I don’t know anyone on my side of the aisle who thinks the current system is perfect. Mistakes are made, others are blamed, etc. The thing is, nothing devised by or administered by human beings is EVER going to be perfect. It just isn’t. And that problem gets exponentially worse when you place matters in the hands of government, whether it’s our government or China’s or France’s. The degree of suckitude may vary, but suck it will, and audibly.
Whatever the solution may be, it sure as hell is NOT to give the government any more say than they already have. In fact, if the feds would step off and allow interstate insurance purchases, things would suck quite a bit less than they do now–and we wouldn’t be having this big nasty friendship-ending debate. Government is, by definition, a necessary evil. Why would anyone think that handing them the keys to the whole house is going to make anything better, when they’ve already crapped on the couch, barfed on the floor, and shot the dog?
Hmmmm…sounds like Beige is still a little tiffed that Barack von Munchausen purged her from his Facebook Friends.
As Beige said, government control is just not the answer. Does the current system have flaws? Yes. It has many flaws.
But let us take a page from our Business 101 class and consider the case of the US Postal Service vs. Fed-Ex and UPS. Most people at some point in time will need to mail or ship something. When given the option, the overwhelming majority of people would much prefer NOT to use the US Postal Service. And Fed-Ex and UPS have all kinds of neat mailing and shipping options that the US Postal Service doesn’t because hey, they’re businesses, and they need to meet their customers’ needs. I mean, for crying out loud, UPS will SHOW UP AT MY OFFICE DOOR to cheerfully pick up a package if I’m too lazy to bring it to them. The two businesses which actually work in the market in an attempt to glean profit are motivated to make things more efficient and ridiculously easy for consumers. The US Postal Service…let’s just say “does not” and leave it at that.
I would very much appreciate it if people would stop trying to paint seeking profit as THE MOST EVIL THING EVER and stop painting those who seek profit as WORSE THAN GENGHIS KHAN.
Unfortunately, I will never get my wish, no matter how many times I Fed-Ex priority overnight letters to Santa Claus.
I really do enjoy all the comments as well as the amount of respect that Ed is giving and receiving, kudo’s to all!
Couple of points though…
Ed …”many people are not as lucky as you or I. They don’t have insurance through their employer and many are routinely turned down for personal plans because of pre-existing conditions.”
I don’t call this luck, Ed, I call this making good choices. I have a daughter that is severly mentally and physically disabled. Has been since birth but for years had no diagnosis (until recently…another story for another time). Which means without a name for her condition the wonderful state of California and the federal government would not approve her for Medi-cal or Social Security. You see the one thing I have learned about our wonderful legislators is they like to be the “hero” and in order to be eligible for any assistance you need a name for your condition. Without one, no cookie for you. Two of her symptoms were an 8mm hole in her tiny heart and very low platlette’s. To keep this short, I needed to find a job that offered good benefits; except I had 2 recent felonies, was on probation and had very little marketable skills. But as a parent and an American we do what we have to, I busted my ass, found a good company with solid benefits and made sure from that day forward she always had health insurance. That is my Personal Responsiblity
“85% of the people being covered is simply not good enough. We’re the freekin USA and we take care of our own.”
I disagree somewhat here; we are Americans but I think the concept of taking care of our own gets twisted into we must take care of ALL Americans. We as Americans are supposed to take care of ourselves, be self reliant and not expect others to pick up the tab (even if the others are our neighbors and friends)
“15% who are told by insurance companines that they are expendable is horrendous. And with all the layoffs still happening, that 15% grows larger everyday”
….but wait I thought all those loans that the government was giving out was going to save jobs? What about the great stimulus package?
“Create a framework for clean, efficient, American energy;
Transform our economy with science and technology;
Modernize roads, bridges, transit and waterways;
Overhaul education for the 21st Century;
Dispense tax cuts to make work pay and create jobs;
Expand access to healthcare and lower costs;
Provide assistance to workers hurt by the economy;
Save public sector jobs and protect vital services;”
Wasn’t the $700+billion supposed to save jobs which means less layoffs and more job sponsored insurance programs?
And if you all enjoyed this last round of bailouts wait until the commercial real estate gets rolling down hill…http://www.newsweek.com/id/214840
Ohhhh Pearce, do I have a link for you then.
http://reason.tv/video/show/neuroeconomist-paul-zak
Damn, I love a good geek.
The big draw–make that “draw”–of the USPS these days is that flat-rate shipping deal they offer. They then turn around and contract with UPS/FedEx to ship those packages. So, we’re essentially paying little Susie a squazillion bucks to run a failing lemonade stand, while she buys MinuteMaid at Publix, the little bitch.
No, I’ve actually had to drop some people, because believe it or not, it’s actually bad form to post “I hate you. @#$$ conservatives, I hope you all die and rot in hell” on someone else’s FB wall.
Seriously, Grandma. That was awful.
We’re the freekin USA and we take care of our own.
Ed, there are homeless people and starving people in the US. Should we also provide housing and food for these people as well? No one is denied health care because they don’t have insurance.
I am sorry to hear about your daughter but can I ask who’s fault the accident was? If it was the other driver didn’t they have auto insurance? Of course not everyone can get auto insurance, at least not affordable auto insurance. Should we also revamp the auto insurance industry as well?
As far as Cobra coverage is concerned the gov’t has changed that program requiring your former employer to continue to supplement the insurance so that your rates do not go up. So even if your employer lays you off you still only pay about 1/3 of the actual cost of the insurance.
We may need health insurance/care reform but why does it have to be this plan? Why can’t Obama reach across the aisle to try to get a compromise plan through? Oh that’s right, it is because he “won”
I reiterate my marriage proposal to Minnow.
I dunno Pearce, rumor is that I’m high maintenance
“Should we also provide housing and food for these people as well?”
Only the ones that we’re responsible for making homeless. We should do for Iraq what we did for Japan and Germany. Afterall, history shows us that in less than 30 years those two mortal enemies became lifelong allies.
“I am sorry to hear about your daughter but can I ask who’s fault the accident was? If it was the other driver didn’t they have auto insurance? Of course not everyone can get auto insurance, at least not affordable auto insurance. Should we also revamp the auto insurance industry as well? ”
It was declared mutual fault. No auto insurance payouts. But yes, even though this is an unrealted issue, the CA auto insurance industry should be revamped. They should make it no-fault insurance. They tried about 8 years ago, but the trial lawyers effectively scared most people into believing that paying lawyers to get rich from settlements was better.
“As far as Cobra coverage is concerned the gov’t has changed that program requiring your former employer to continue to supplement the insurance so that your rates do not go up. So even if your employer lays you off you still only pay about 1/3 of the actual cost of the insurance.”
Well it does NOW, because it’s part of the stimulus plan that folks are griping about. But it only applies to companies with more than 20 employees. http://www.kiplinger.com/columns/ask/archive/2009/q0223.htm
“Why can’t Obama reach across the aisle to try to get a compromise plan through?”
Actually, that’s what he tried to do by leaving the details to the separate houses and committees. All Obama did was paint some broad strokes about what healthcare reform should contain. Unlike Clinton, who came in stepping on toes with a detailed plan, he gave absolutely no details at all. Every plan that’s been presented has come from committees.
Ed Said: ” The analogy of the bandaid wasn’t mine to begin with. But even temporary jobs provide real value. The jobs buy food and clothes, which of course have to be bought from manufacturers and merchants that supply jobs to other people, and so on. Those people who have those jobs also need to spend money. Every little bit helps.”
Trickle up economics?
PS – Annonymous
2 Felonies? GFTO of Cali then!!! a baseball reference is coming to me…
“Trickle up economics?”
That’s pretty funny.
It makes me angry when Obama supporters imply that the reason healthcare isn’t popular is because Americans are selfish. Statistically Americans are some of the most giving people on earth, we just like to do it through churches, non-profits, etc. I think it’s smart rather than selfish to not want to throw money at the government to help strangers.
Forgive the crude analogy, but that’s essentially the same kind of mind that considers a rape victim’s resistance to be “proof” of her frigidity. If you don’t want something that’s yours to be taken away from you without your consent and by force, well, something must be wrong with you.
Only the ones that we’re responsible for making homeless. We should do for Iraq what we did for Japan and Germany.
I was refering to US homeless and hungry, but since you opened the door. Why should we offer health insurance to all Americans if we (the US gov’t) weren’t responsible? Based on this logic I guess we should only offer health insurance to Iraqi citizens.
It was declared mutual fault. No auto insurance payouts.
You should check your policy again. Her insurance should have paid for her injuries. The question becomes one of how much can her insurance collect from the other driver’s insurance. Let’s say the are both 50% at fault and her damages are $40k, her insurance would cover $20k as her fault and go after the other drivers insurance for the the other $20k. Mutual fault does not mean no one gets paid, unless she didn’t opt for full coverage, and that would only apply to her car. California is a Pure Comparative Fault state.
Well it does NOW, because it’s part of the stimulus plan that folks are griping about. But it only applies to companies with more than 20 employees.
You will find that most employment related laws and/or benefits exempt employers with few than 20 employees. Does it seem fair that a former employer still has to pay for a former employee’s health insurance? If a former employer provided an auto allowance should they continue to provide that to a former employee as well?
Actually, that’s what he tried to do by leaving the details to the separate houses and committees. All Obama did was paint some broad strokes about what healthcare reform should contain.
Then why is he pushing “his” plan as he calls it, when there are no details? That has been some of the biggest complaints about the plan. No one knows what it will do, cost or anything else but we need to pass it now. Anyone who is against this “plan” is ill-informed or lying or just a racist. Tell me, do you know how the plan will be financed? Will it be through a payroll tax like social security or Medicare? Just tax the rich? No one knows, but let’s pass it anyway.
That’s okay, Minnow. So am I.
And Ed, I have either been without coverage or paying for private insurance for all but 6 months of my life.
I want people to stop waving the “you’ve never had to see what it’s really like” wahhhmbulance flag. Because plenty of us have. And we still don’t agree with you.
Jimmy: “You should check your policy again. Her insurance should have paid for her injuries. The question becomes one of how much can her insurance collect from the other driver’s insurance. ”
She doesn’t have insurance. She doesn’t have a car. She was on a bicycle. She made a mistake, and so did the driver that hit her. Both were at fault. No payouts.
“You will find that most employment related laws and/or benefits exempt employers with few than 20 employees. Does it seem fair that a former employer still has to pay for a former employee’s health insurance? If a former employer provided an auto allowance should they continue to provide that to a former employee as well?”
I never said this was a good idea at all. You’re the one who told me that COBRA was changed and that it was a good thing for the employee because they’re rates wouldn’t change. You’re the one who didn’t realize that it was part of the stimulus plan before you said it was a good thing.
“Then why is he pushing “his” plan as he calls it, when there are no details? That has been some of the biggest complaints about the plan. No one knows what it will do, cost or anything else but we need to pass it now. Anyone who is against this “plan” is ill-informed or lying or just a racist. Tell me, do you know how the plan will be financed? Will it be through a payroll tax like social security or Medicare? Just tax the rich? No one knows, but let’s pass it anyway.”
What can I tell you? The details were left to the lawmakers. You asked why doesn’t he reach across the ailse for a compromise, and all I said was that’s all he’s done by leaving the details to both sides of the ailse.
Everybody who wants to know, does know what the plan would do.
It really isn’t that hard to find out what he wants to accomplish http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care/
The broad strokes he painted were just these:
•Reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government
•Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs
•Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans
•Invest in prevention and wellness
•Improve patient safety and quality of care
•Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans
•Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job
•End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions
I don’t see anything wrong with any of these goals. How can anybody be against these goals?
Can anyone put the words “I’m against” in front of any of these? Those would be some pretty cold people who would say “I’m against improving patient safety and quality of care,” or “I’m against investing in prevention and wellness,” etc.
And how will it be financed? Sheesh, nobody is getting something for nothing. According to the HR bill, every resident in the USA will have to carry medical insurance for themselves and their children. Just like drivers carry auto insurance, residents will have to carry medical insurance. Supposedly, businesses will have to supply benefits or you will have to buy your own (just like it’s done now). But if you don’t have insurance, then you will pay a hefty fine on your income tax that would have been about the same price as buying the insurance to begin with.
Really, nobody is even telling the insurance companies what they can or what they can’t charge. If they must carry someone with a pre-existing condition, absolutely nobody is telling them what to charge that person. Only that they must SELL them insurance and provide the coverage that was paid for in good faith.
It’s not like auto insurance. I have a choice whether or not to purchase a car, and I also have a choice as to which car I purchase, which will affect the premium.
last I checked, since I’m currently breathing, my innate self-preservation instinct means that I have no choice to be alive, and a random combination of genes means that I do not get free choice in what sort of body I get.
It’s only like auto insurance if I have no problem committing suicide and perhaps am some sort of miracle geneticist from the future. Or am good friends with one.
Also, if all parties are supposed to be able to work together, why is it that those who disagree with His Great Plan are treated as inhuman?
From HOW HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM WILL BENEFIT LOUISIANA
- Strengthening Small Businesses: 61,621 employers in Louisiana are small businesses.6 With tax credits and a health insurance exchange where they can shop for health plans, insurance coverage will become more affordable for them.
That strengthens my business? Really? Putting more pressure on me to spend the company’s money when we’re already a bare-bones operation largely due to the bureaucratic hoops the government has set up for us?
-Ending the Hidden Tax – Saving You Money: Right now, providers in Louisiana lose over $1.3 billion in bad debt which often gets passed along to families in the form of a hidden premium “tax”.
Followed by
-Eliminating Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions, Health Status or Gender: 11% of people in Louisiana have diabetes9, and 32% have high blood pressure10 – two conditions that insurance companies could use as a reason to deny you health insurance.
Yes, since the insurance companies are already operating at a loss, let’s encourage them to get more involved in the state by setting them up to take a larger loss! Because profit is bad.
-Choice of health insurance is limited in Louisiana. Blue Cross Blue Shield LA alone constitutes 61 percent of the health insurance market share in Louisiana, with the top two insurance providers accounting for 74 percent.11
Market share is also VERY BAD.
I never said this was a good idea at all. You’re the one who told me that COBRA was changed and that it was a good thing for the employee because they’re rates wouldn’t change. You’re the one who didn’t realize that it was part of the stimulus plan before you said it was a good thing.
I never said it was a good thing. I merely pointed out that it changed to counter your whining about how much it costs. Where did I say it wasn’t part of the stimulus plan?
Health insurance is not cheap, it’s just that in most cases the employer pays 2/3 or more of employee’s insurance. Why should they have to continue that even after you are no longer an employee? So if you are an employee you might pay $500 a month for insurance that actually costs $1,500 a month.
Passing a bill that has no plan is like signing a blank legal document. Would you finance a car without knowing the terms? Seems rather stupid to me. Why not work out all the details of the plan before voting on it?
Those ‘broad strokes’ about what national healthcare will do are just platitudes. Frankly I don’t think they mean anything. Until we start seeing numbers or data, I choose not to pay much attention to Obama’s cutesy little phrases. Any national issue could be spun as a positive force with the right phrasing.
And why is my employee, the person I am financing with my paycheck and job (aka senator, congressman) telling me I NEED insurance?? I don’t have to do anything like carry insurance. Laws should be meant to keep us from harming others, and nothing else.
Jimmy,
“Why not work out all the details of the plan before voting on it?”
Thats Exactly what’s going on. Just like every other bill to ever go through congress, the details are being worked out by at least 3 committees in each house before they come up for a vote. There hasn’t been a vote yet. They ARE working out the details. Then after the House and Senate vote on their bills, the two houses will have to come up with a joint bill that will satisfy both houses so that it can be sent to the Prez for signing. (just like any other bill).
Catharine,
If you drive a car, you are already being told to carry insurance. This is the same thing. Why is this concept so foreign?
You’re senator/congressman isn’t Just working for you. He works for all the lobbies that gives him money.
But what if you did hurt somebody? What if you hit someone with a car? What if you got sick from someone breathing on you, and in turn pass that to someone else? Are you saying that you would either, A) refuse treatment and die for your beliefs or B) Man up and pay the entire medical bills and the bills for that person and their family you just hurt?
These really are the results of unexpected medical bills.
Because, Ed, if you drive a car, you chose to buy a car, as previously stated. Unless one commits suicide, one does not have the choice not to live.
I can truely applaud everybody here for debating this issue in a civil and respectful manner… I just feel like everybody forgot that back in 2006 or even in previous years of this decade, none of this was an issue. The big banks were fine, the economy “looked” great and there werent many people talking about healthcare reform because the problems seemed to go unnoticed. I just wish people would take responsibility for their actions and the problems they make. Everybody is bashing obama (which is cool because everybody is entitled to their own opinions) but like i said before the financial system collapsed people werent worried about healthcare. I feel this way because we’ve been at war for 7 years for NOTHING! wasting billions of dollars on fighting an “ism” How is that possible? TO fight terrorism? looking for people who are hiding in mountains? Why was OUR tax dollars being wasted on that. A big question to ask is why is the gub’mint (lol i like that) fighting a pointless war with an “ism” and blowing billions of dollars and not monitoring healthcare or the infrastructure or the housing market before it all went to crap? (Mind u we stil havnt found the guy we’re looking for because hes hiding in some damn mountains) Give up already!!! THE PROBLEM WITH THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT IS THAT THEYRE TOO WORIIED ABOUT OTHER NATIONS AND POLICING THE WORLD INSTEAD OF HANDLING HOMELAND ISSUES. Everybody wants to point a finger and place blame on a guy in his first year of office but how i see it, the problem started with the failing ass banks. Once they fell everything started failing, jobs were lost, the housing market fell, and now we have a record deficit… SO how can u restore order in the economy except pump money into the failing banks and regulate the reckless spending that caused everything to go to s#it in the first place. Give the man a chance… 9 months into this and people looking for the golden age it seems… Honestly i can say that i dont know what to think about this whole healthcare thing excpet to say that it sucks so far. If anything the insurance industry needs to be regulated because theyre the ones robbing us. No one should be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, but what can we do about that? not a damn thing. I feel like once this country starts to put more focus on the COUNTRY and its problems, this country will continue to suck.
sorry, last line had a mistake…
I feel like until this country starts to put more focus on the COUNTRY and its problems, this country will continue to suck.
“Unless one commits suicide, one does not have the choice not to live.”
Except for the millions of times that insurance companies have denied or canceled coverage? That’s kind of being told you don’t have the right TO live. And that is the very reason something needs to be done.
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/7591.pdf
Most people here have said to me, “Ed, the heck with you, I don’t have insurance because I choose to not have insurance. Or I pay for my insurance so there!”
And that’s fine, you either made the choice to pay up or decided you don’t need to.
The problem is with the people who want insurance and can’t get it do not get to make their own choice.
The problem is that people who have paid their premiums faithfully, only to be denied coverage or dropped altogether, don’t get to make their own choice.
They do not get their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They’re told to die by faceless insurance companies.
So…you’d rather it were the faceless Feds telling us to die, then.
“The problem is with the people who want insurance and can’t get it do not get to make their own choice.
The problem is that people who have paid their premiums faithfully, only to be denied coverage or dropped altogether, don’t get to make their own choice.”
Yes, and the way to fix the minorities’ problem is to FORCE the majority of us to change how we do things. Ed, take a step back, take a deep breath, and try to understand what you’re really asking of us. You’re pissed that a minority doesn’t have a choice right? But the ’solution’ is to take away EVERYONE’S choice.
Understand that, and you know why we’re pissed. Your daughter had a bad situation and you’re taking it out on the rest us. You’re ushering in an era where we can be fined or possibly even imprisoned for the simple crime of not having health insurance – but you’re seemingly fine with that. What part of what’s being proposed is even LEGAL under the Constitution? Where does is say the Federal Government has the right to force us, at the point of a bayonet no less, to pay for other people’s health problems?
We’re already forced to pay for other people’s education, their food, their unemployment, their social security, their protection, ect. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and we’re choosing this spot right freaking here. Not a step farther down the line to government control of our entire lives.
The Democrats bitched for 8 years that Bush was using the government to control our lives, but Obama has stolen more of our liberty and freedom in 9 months than Bush could have dreamed of.
The faceless company isn’t telling you to die. You can still choose to find a way to pay your bills. Trust me on this – hospitals and other medical providers are actually very nice when it comes to negotiating payment plans and such with those who either don’t have insurance or who have insurance that sucks.
we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Insurance companies do not dictate on what kind of life you lead, you do.
So the debt limit is kinda like a diet with a written plan saying I can have 2 chocolate bars. If I want to eat three I just have to cross out “2″ and write “3″. How long before they have to cut the government out of it’s house so it can go on Gerry Springer?
Speaking of Springer….chair-throwing. That is what Congress needs.