• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Poll: Obamacare

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

What is your position on Obamacare?

  • I am in favor of Obama's health care reform plan

    Votes: 94 38.1%
  • I am opposed to Obama's health care reform plan

    Votes: 123 49.8%
  • I have no idea what it is

    Votes: 30 12.1%

  • Total voters
    247

Maximus

BANNED
Moderator
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
20,027
Reaction score
49,800
Points
148
Discuss....


I think there needs to be reform. But this bill and the obscene price tag, when our economy is in such a fragile state, is an awful idea. It could have a catastrophic impact on our economy for decades..
 
Last edited:
Discuss....

My favorite thing in the last few hours is Ron Paul saying that health care is not a right. But he has vehemently stated over and over again the owning a gun is a right.

Strange what some republicans think is important.
 
Here's what the Rasmussen Poll said 10 days ago. It appears support is falling fast....I was curious what the vibe was here at RCF.


49% Oppose Health Care Reform Plan, 46% Favor It

Monday, July 13, 2009
Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters now at least somewhat oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats, while 46% at least somewhat favor it, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Just two weeks ago, 50% were for the reform plan, and 45% were opposed.

The “nays” also continue to have the edge in terms of intensity. While 22% strongly favor the Democrats’ health care reform plan, 38% strongly oppose it, up four points from the previous survey.
Among those voters who have health insurance, opposition is even higher: 43% favor the plan, but 52% oppose it. Those who strongly oppose it outnumber those who strongly favor it by two-to-one – 40% to 20%.
 
Last edited:


My favorite thing in the last few hours is Ron Paul saying that health care is not a right. But he has vehemently stated over and over again the owning a gun is a right.

Strange what some republicans think is important.

It's because Ron Paul only goes by the constitution. Health care is not a right in the constitution. It's too bad he's the only one on either side who respects the constitution. Lumping him in with other Republicans is outrageous. He is nothing like the rest of them. Look at his voting record.
 
I am opposed to Obama's health care reform plan
 
Senator: Democrats "baffled" by president's health care stance

July 21, 2009

Posted: 10:46 PM ET


From CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash

WASHINGTON (CNN) – As the prospects for passing health reform by the time Congress leaves for its August recess look bleaker, Democratic grumbling about President Obama is growing louder. One Democratic senator tells CNN congressional Democrats are “baffled,” and another senior Democratic source tells CNN members of the president’s own party are still “frustrated” that they’re not getting more specific direction from him on health care. “We appreciate the rhetoric and his willingness to ratchet up the pressure but what most Democrats on the Hill are looking for is for the president to weigh in and make decisions on outstanding issues. Instead of sending out his people and saying the president isn’t ruling anything out, members would like a little bit of clarity on what he would support – especially on how to pay for his health reform bill,” a senior Democratic congressional source tells CNN. The Democratic leadership had hoped the work going on behind closed doors for months could bear fruit in time for the president’s news conference Wednesday night. But multiple Democratic sources tell CNN that’s looking very unlikely, and one senior Democratic source tells CNN there is some frustration among Democratic leaders that Senate negotiators have, "repeatedly missed deadlines."
 
Dems Start To Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterloo'

A telling episode recounted by Senate Finance ranking member Charles Grassley reveals the Obama administration might be more worried than they are letting on that a Republican senator's comparison of the healthcare overhaul to Waterloo might be dangerously close to the truth.

Grassley said he spoke with a Democratic House member last week who shared Obama's bleak reaction during a private meeting to reports that some factions of House Democrats were lining up to stall or even take down the overhaul unless leaders made major changes.

"Let's just lay everything on the table," Grassley said. "A Democrat congressman last week told me after a conversation with the president that the president had trouble in the House of Representatives, and it wasn't going to pass if there weren't some changes made ... and the president says, 'You're going to destroy my presidency.' "

The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Grassley did not name the member but said he was not from the senator's home state of Iowa. He brought up the anecdote in response to a question about whether the president's rebuke of the Waterloo remark Monday was affecting Finance Committee negotiations on a bipartisan overhaul bill. Grassley said the imbroglio was not taking a toll on the bipartisan effort.

President Obama and the Democratic National Committee pushed back hard this week against South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint's remark Friday that the healthcare overhaul could be Obama's Waterloo. Obama went directly after the comment in a speech Monday and Democratic leaders and organizations have fired off countless e-mails to call out Republicans for attempting to bring down the effort rather than offer constructive alternatives.

Most of the Blue Dog Coalition opposes the House overhaul bill and have managed to delay the Energy and Commerce Committee markup. (See related story, page 1.) Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., the Blue Dogs' Health Care Task Force chairman, said Tuesday he is not the member Grassley was referring to.

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., defended Obama even though he is also opposed to House Democrats' bill. "I can't see him saying that," Stupak said. "He's got too much self-confidence."

House Republicans Tuesday made hay of the issue, with Ways and Means minority staff sending out an e-mail asking, "Who's really blocking health care reform?"

"Do not be fooled by the president's repeated attempts to create a Republican straw man for his health care troubles," the e-mail reads. The GOP pointed to ads the Democratic National Committee is running to pressure Democratic lawmakers.

Meanwhile, the Finance Committee continues to negotiate its bipartisan bill. Seven negotiators have been at the table, but Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus referred Tuesday to "all six in the room." Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has not been noticed attending the meetings for some time.

Senators discussed offsets for the $1 trillion measure Tuesday afternoon with Thomas Barthold, chief of staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation. An offset offered by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., meant to be a compromise on taxing employer-based health benefits, is under discussion, Baucus said.

Kerry's idea is similar to a proposal pushed in 1994 by former Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., and approved by the Finance Committee that would tax the difference between the average health insurance premium in a region and insurers' higher-cost plans.

Unions have come out heavily against that proposal because of the potential for higher costs to be passed down to workers. Most big companies offer their own insurance plans to employees, meaning the pain could be spread beyond the insurance industry.

An industry source expressed concern that "self-insured" company plans would be victimized, noting a 2008 Kaiser Family Foundation survey that found 77 percent of firms with more than 200 employees fund their own workers' benefits, rather than contract with an outside insurer. That figure goes up for firms with 1,000 or more workers, where the vast majority are self-insured, said Marisa Milton, vice president for healthcare policy and government relations at the HR Policy Association.

Finance members are looking at the exclusion that protects employees from paying taxes on employer-based health benefits to try to reduce the growth of healthcare spending, but have run into pushback from Democratic leaders and Obama.

The bipartisan Finance group met earlier in the day with two actuaries to discuss potential penalties for individuals and businesses that do not acquire insurance.

Senate Majority Leader Reid insisted Tuesday that the Finance panel would produce a bill this week and begin a markup Saturday, but Finance members were skeptical. Baucus raised his hands and laughed when asked about Reid's comment and Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad went just with a good laugh.

I thought this wasn't about him...

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/hca_20090722_6620.php
 


My favorite thing in the last few hours is Ron Paul saying that health care is not a right. But he has vehemently stated over and over again the owning a gun is a right.

Strange what some republicans think is important.

Show me where healthcare is a right in the constitution. Because I can show you were owning a gun is.
 
Conservative Democrats at center of health reform debate

BILL THEOBALD • Gannett Washington Bureau • July 22, 2009

WASHINGTON — Fiscally conservative House Democrats have thrust themselves into the middle of the health care reform debate this week, blocking legislation drafted by their own party's leadership.

If the 52 members of the Blue Dog Coalition remain united against the bill, they could bar its passage in the House Energy and Commerce Committee and later in the full House.

On Tuesday, objections by Blue Dog members of the committee to the cost and other aspects of the health care bill prompted committee chairman Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to delay discussing and amending the legislation for at least a day. Also Tuesday, President Barack Obama met with all Democratic members of the committee.

Eight of those Democrats are Blue Dogs. Seven of the eight — Reps. John Barrow of Georgia, Bart Gordon of Tennessee, Baron Hill of Indiana, Jim Matheson of Utah, Charlie Melancon of Louisiana, Mike Ross of Arkansas and Zack Space of Ohio — said they have serious problems with the estimated $1 trillion the bill would add to the deficit over 10 years.

Only Rep. Jane Harman of California spoke in favor of the legislation.

In a show of solidarity, the seven read the same opening statement last week when the Energy and Commerce Committee began discussing the bill.

"Our current system is riddled with inefficiencies and waste," the statement said. "We cannot fix these problems by simply pouring more money into a broken system."


Members of the Blue Dog Coalition also say the House bill:

•Wouldn't reduce the growth in health care costs.

•Would punish small businesses by raising taxes on families making more than $350,000 per year as a way to pay for health care reform.

"Why would we want new taxes in the middle of a recession?" said Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., a Blue Dog who also is an expert on health care.

•Would not insure all of the approximately 46 million people without health insurance. The bill would leave about 9 million people uninsured, the Congressional Budget office estimates.

Pelosi downplayed any conflict within her party on Tuesday, as did Obama.

The president has said he wants health reform legislation to pass before Congress leaves for its August recess.

Two House panels, the Ways and Means Committee and the Education and Labor Committee, have approved the House health care reform bill.

A similar bill has won approval in the Senate health committee, but that bill doesn't address how to finance the health care reform effort. The Senate Finance Committee is struggling to reach bipartisan agreement on that issue.

Some are suggesting Congress will have to work through its normal monthlong August break to reach consensus on health care reform.

Rep. Mike Arcuri of New York, a Blue Dog Democrat, said slowing down will ease Americans' fears that Congress is "shoving probably the most important piece of legislation that we've passed in many years down their throat."

"It will be very helpful for me to have a bill to go home with during the recess to talk to people in my district." Arcuri said.
 
For all of you who want the government to handle your health care, I'd like you to sit back and thing about this for a moment. Forget about all the other issues involved and forget about the costs... higher or lower, and forget about ALL other things with this bill now being considered by Congress, except for this ONE single thing:

How will this affect YOUR health and YOUR care? Minus all the other issues; will you get better care? If so, explain the ways you believe you will be getting better health care if it's ran by the Government.

Remember; this government has been running quite a few things right now in this country. Lots of it is just fine. Others, not so good. Medicare/medicaid, the post office, the IRS, the FTC, poverty, etc. Off the top, those are the ones I can think of, but there are many more.

When Gov runs anything they don't strive to make any profit at all as they don't have to. They just keep adding to the red tape and print more money when they need more money. How can the Government run something so vitally important to YOU, when they can't run other things successfully as history clearly shows us?

Do you really believe the gov can give you better health than a bunch of private insurance companies can? Consider this, if government succeeds at this takeover, we have the same numbers of Doctors who now have to schedule appointments for 40 million more Americans and those who are in our country illegally. How do you propose this is done exactly?

That's just touching on a couple of problems coming down the road if Obama gets his way. If you just focus on YOUR health only, will you receive better care from the Government?
 
Interesting thoughts from Mitt...

Romney on Obama's Push For Health Reform: Slow Down

Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 4:19 PM
Katie Connolly

In the last two weeks, political commentators have expressed doubts over President Obama's time frame for healthcare reform. Meanwhile, even some Democrat lawmakers appear to be getting cold feet. In response, Obama is relentlessly pitching his plan. He has spoken about healthcare on eight out of the last nine days, and he's scheduled to hold a town hall meeting on the topic this Thursday. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is one of the few politicians in the country with first hand experience of steering major health care reform through the legislative process. The reforms he enacted in Massachusetts have been critizied for being costly, but they've also managed to extend coverage to a significant number of uninsured people. By 2007, the proportion of uninsured people in Massachusetts was the lowest in the country.

I spoke to Romney about his experience with healthcare reform this morning. His cautionary words for Obama? Slow down. Here are some excerpts from our conversation:


What do you think needs to happen over the next couple of weeks if President Obama's deadline for healthcare reform is to be met?

I think the President ought to hit the reset button. I think it is critical that he have the participation, involvement, and support of people on both sides of the aisle, as well as people in various sectors of the health economy. If we are going to have a dramatic shift in the nature of so large a part of our economy then it needs to be something that has been thoroughly vetted and has received great support. Out of a desire to move very quickly, while his support is highest, he has skipped the critical steps of educating, involving, and evolving his own plans to meet the perspectives of the great majority of our citizens.

It sounds like you are encouraging the President to slow down. Aren't there risks in delaying?

He's in a very difficult position. We faced a very similar question [in Massachusetts] as we began our process. We spent over two years putting together a health care plan and then building support for it on both sides of the aisle - working with hospitals, providers, doctors, business groups, labor groups, advocates for the poor. We involved all of these parties, and it took a long time, but what we ended up with was a bill that passed the legislature - if you combine the House and the Senate - 198 to 2.

What lessons can be gleaned from your experience in Massachusetts?

After we crafted the architecture of our plan, the first person I went to was Ted Kennedy. He and I met numerous times and what we fashioned was not perfect in either one of our eyes, but we worked together, because only together could we know that we would have the support of all the parties necessary to make it work.

The states are laboratories of democracy. Well, our state passed a bill. It's been in place now for several years. Have they studied it? Have they spoken with the Republicans and Democrats in Masssachusetts? Have they spoken with hospitals? Doctors? Have they sent the GAO there to take it apart to see what is working well and what is not? Nobody has given me a call, except Republicans. I’ve received no calls from Democrats saying what do you think about it? What would you do differently if you were to do it today? There’s a whole series of things I’d do differently. And yet, there seems to be such a rush to act. I understand that President Obama wants to get this done in his first term, but more important than getting it done in the first year is getting it done right, before he is out of office. There is time here to get it done right.

In terms of the reform proposals before Congress, what do you see that you like and dislike so far?

I'm not happy that the President wants to provide a so-called public option. There is no need for the government to become an insurance company. I'm convinced, as many before me have said, that this is a step towards a single payer system; that it will result in billions, if not hundreds of billions, of subsidies down the road and a new entitlement, which is one of the last things America needs right now. On the other hand I am happy that he is actually working to reform healthcare. It's important for us to get everyone insured. It's important that there be an effort made to reduce the excessive inflation in the healthcare sector.

How well do the current proposals deal with reducing costs?

The legislation has almost nothing to do with cost reduction. Nothing I have seen in the bills that are being discussed by the Democratic leadership suggests that there will be a significant change in health inflation.

This is an extraordinarily important topic and one for which there is a great deal of information around the world. Normally, if this were private enterprise, you would spend a great deal of time with brilliant analysts, looking at alternatives, evaluating lessons from foreign places, and perhaps even experimenting with some alternatives before unleashing them on the entire US economy. Healthcare reform is a matter that should be focused on allowing our citizens to have better health at more reasonable cost, as opposed to being thought of as a political success or failure. We really can't afford a lot of trillion dollar mistakes.


What do you think the President's message to the American people should be when he speaks on Wednesday night?

I don't presume to give the President advice. I can say that the campaign promise that President Obama made to work on a bipartisan basis and to change the atmosphere in Washington is something which I think America is still hoping to see, particularly in health care. It is just not consistent with his original vision to anticipate jamming through a piece of legislation which has numerous flaws, and which can only receive the support of his own party if members of that party have had their arms twisted into knots. That is not going to be the right kind of answer to America's health care needs.
 


My favorite thing in the last few hours is Ron Paul saying that health care is not a right. But he has vehemently stated over and over again the owning a gun is a right.

Strange what some republicans think is important.

It’s strange how some people like yourself will try and muddy the waters. The right to owning a gun and self defense is one of the core values of the Constitution for a reason. It is saying that as Americans we have the right to protect ourselves, meaning we do not have to wait for the government to step up to protect us. Just like we shouldn't be taking care of our own health care and not expecting our government to do it. When we lose the right to carry our own protection be very afraid of what is coming next. I suggest you do a little research to understand why that right to bear arms was included. It had everything to do with a government wanting complete control over its people, so they had zero means to fight back. Its is quite comical that the issue has been twisted over the years to a crime issue, the fact is the more gun owners with the right to carry and conceal the less the crime rate is. So why do they really want to control the guns again?

Lets face the facts, there was no insurance when the Constitution was written, however our frame makers, would not have written it into the constitution either way. This country is founded on a republic where the core value is self sustaining like minded people come together. To mandate government care would have led our frame makers to draw up a socialistic government. Clearly that is not what they wanted.

Times change and we must change with the times, however if there is one thing that every American clings to it is there "Freedom", if we allow our government to keep dictating more and more control until our government has out grown the people it represents, then you might as well tear up the Constitution and start over again.

How much longer will we be able to claim we are a democracy of free people if we have everything handed down by our government? If you believe in the Constitution then you should be insulted in how out of control our government has become, and be fighting all the new legislation that is trying to be past.

If your not upset, then stand up and claim you are a member of the socialist party and lets move on.

Ask yourself what is next, after government mandated health-care is it the next step where you can live and what size home your allowed to own?

I know I rambled, so short and sweet I am against any government controlled/ provided health care system.

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man. " -JFK
 
For all of you who want the government to handle your health care, I'd like you to sit back and thing about this for a moment. Forget about all the other issues involved and forget about the costs... higher or lower, and forget about ALL other things with this bill now being considered by Congress, except for this ONE single thing:

How will this affect YOUR health and YOUR care? Minus all the other issues; will you get better care? If so, explain the ways you believe you will be getting better health care if it's ran by the Government.

Remember; this government has been running quite a few things right now in this country. Lots of it is just fine. Others, not so good. Medicare/medicaid, the post office, the IRS, the FTC, poverty, etc. Off the top, those are the ones I can think of, but there are many more.

When Gov runs anything they don't strive to make any profit at all as they don't have to. They just keep adding to the red tape and print more money when they need more money. How can the Government run something so vitally important to YOU, when they can't run other things successfully as history clearly shows us?

Do you really believe the gov can give you better health than a bunch of private insurance companies can? Consider this, if government succeeds at this takeover, we have the same numbers of Doctors who now have to schedule appointments for 40 million more Americans and those who are in our country illegally. How do you propose this is done exactly?

That's just touching on a couple of problems coming down the road if Obama gets his way. If you just focus on YOUR health only, will you receive better care from the Government?

You want us to forget about costs? How is this even a worthwhile argument if we're not concerned about costs?

Look what does quality even mean? Do you mean your experience with one individual physician during one visit? That's not going to change. Physicians get paid, whether they get paid by Medicare or Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield, it doesn't matter. They get paid. The quality of care is dependent on your experience with any one physician.

Now are you worried about a potential influx of new patients? Legitimate concern. Why do you think medical schools have expanded enrollment each year for the last 10 years? Because it was only inevitable that with time there would be an influx of patients into the system. Illegal immigrants? Not so much. No bill will support their health.

Honestly, I don't think care will change much at all if the government sponsors a healthplan that is made to compete with private insurers. What will happen is doctors will refuse to accept the public health plan, much like they continue to refuse to accept Medicare/Medicaid payments since reimbursement rates are less. The only way private insurance can stay in business is to FINALLY cut overhead and keep use more than 85% of premiums collected to reimburse physicians/provide benefits for their members instead of using it to support bloated executive pay. The current bill in house imposes new regulations on the insurance industry.

We're not going to turn into Canada.

Universal coverage in itself should not be much of a controversy. How we pay for it is more relevant.
 
Personally, I know we need reform, but the biggest issue to me is the costs. I do believe that everyone should have health care available to them. My biggest concern though is the presidents plan doesnt address the costs of our system. People for the plan often compare our country to others who have socialized health care without showing all the limmits those countries have on costs. We currently have enough money going into the health care system to pay for health care for everyone if, and this is a big if, if the money was properly manages and the health care costs were properly managed. Also, those without health care coverage dont pay for health care coverage. That needs to change too. Ofcourse as a family of 4 we should pay more than a single guy, but why should I pay 1k a month and a single guy get away with zero.

Healthcare is a difficult issue. Also, strong lobyist exist in the healthcare field that dont want the reform to go through. Drug companies, doctors, hospitols, insurance companies, etc...are all making tons of money off of our current system and dont want their income reduced. These companies pay millions of dolllars to politicians to ensure it doesnt change. It will be an interesting battle. One that everyone one of the last several presidents (remember the clintons) tried to take on and they failed miserably.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top