jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (60 posts)

The health care debate

  1. tobey100 profile image60
    tobey100posted 7 years ago

    From December 2007 through January 2008, I've found 27 instances on the web alone where Obama pledged an open debate, full participation by all, and the process to be televised on C-span, specifically in reference to Health Care Reform.  Will he honor this pledge?  Per Nancy Pelosi, candidates say alot of things on the campaign trail.  Do we hold him to his word and let the American people know what's going on and who gets what bribe or....do we accept Pelosi's explanation?

    1. William R. Wilson profile image61
      William R. Wilsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Links to these instances would be nice.  I agree with the demand for openness but I've seen too many of Obama's words taken out of context for political ends.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You survived yesterday's fireworks I see.

        1. William R. Wilson profile image61
          William R. Wilsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Not sure how they missed me but here I am....  I'll try to be on my best behavior.

      2. Arthur Fontes profile image89
        Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        William I can promise you that there are tons of clips of his c-span quotes and transparancy quotes.  He has been caught in perhaps one of the most blatant broken promises I have ever seen.

    2. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I too am bothered by the Obama abministration having lobbyists in the White House almost daily and the staff coming from the big business backgrounds they do.  But I don't believe that Obama is or will be able to enact a true socialist government with the people he now has backing him up.  Big Business will drop him like a bad habit if he goes that direction and whether or not he is able to push socialist doctrine into law relies on the Supreme Court.

      The funny thing about the health care plan of requiring people to buy health insurance is that without a public option they will be treading on thin ice with its' constitutionality.  Requiring someone to buy something that will bankrupt them is not a good path to go down when you look at the constitution.

      I've quoted the comedian Lewis Black a few times but when he told the joke about how congress passes laws he said "The Democrats jump up on one side of the isle and say, we've got a really bad idea.  And the Rebublicans jump up on the other side and say, oh yeah, well we can make it s&*tier."  Just a thought.

    3. MikeNV profile image72
      MikeNVposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Clearly what is going on speaks for itself.

      Who votes on Christmas Eve?  Who hold votes in the wee hours of the morning.

      Who precludes his own party from open discussion among themselves?

  2. grousepup profile image80
    grousepupposted 7 years ago

    You are right on target. The proof is in the listening, and it's all there for all to hear. It's all about pushing through the agenda, to gain more and solidify power, despite what the majority of us oppose.

  3. tobey100 profile image60
    tobey100posted 7 years ago

    With this president its always been....it's not what I say, it's how I say it.

    1. AdsenseStrategies profile image70
      AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      This is a universal truism across the world. City mayors promise no tax hikes then raise taxes, people enter coalition governments after promising not to, people backpedal on promises of course (tobacco ads in sports were going to be banned in Britain until Bernie Eccleston (Formula One king) gave a million pounds to Tony Blair's party). Obama, sadly, is a leopard with predictable spots, ie., he's a politician.

      Having said this, in his case, I believe that he is partly so secretive because he would have to explain why he is kow-towing to all of the lobbyists (in this case health insurance companies), after promising to break the lobbying culture. THIS, to me, is the real broken promise.

      With Bush, the vice-president WAS a lobbyist (in effect).

      But I am not being partisan; the problem is lobbying in Washington, any way you cut it. Unless this problem is crushed, politics will always be about greasing palms, and no amount of "fighting terrorism", for example, will change this.

      1. profile image0
        Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Obama is a liar and a socialist. I really don`t understand why anyone is surprised, if you were listening during his campaign you would have clearly seen what kind of politician he would be. He`s like all the rest of the career politicians except he hates individual freedom and wants to transform America into some socialist society he read about in a book. He`s evil pure and simple.

  4. tobey100 profile image60
    tobey100posted 7 years ago

    Odd, I have yet to find one thing he's said taken out of context.  Seems any time he gets caught on his own words, they were taken out of context.  It's an easy claim due to the fact that most news agencies do shorten the clips they air but anyone wanting to hear the full clip can find it very easily if they really want to.  Obama can't stay off the air if he wanted to.  The classic is when literally millions of us heard him tell Joe the plumber "I just want to spread the wealth around" and everybody fell over backward trying to claim either that's not what he really said or that's not what he meant.  That is exactly what he said and now it looks like that's exactly what he meant.

  5. tobey100 profile image60
    tobey100posted 7 years ago

    I try not be too partisan as well.  I justlong for the day when we somehow manage to elect a real statesman instead of a politician (as if that can happen anymore).  It's really kind of funny, anytime one of these guys or gals gets caught they revert to that childhood argument of 'hey, everybody else does it'.

  6. livelonger profile image87
    livelongerposted 7 years ago

    The minute I have some skepticism about the health care plans being negotiated in Congress, I read the rantings of teabaggers. And I find myself solidly in the Democratic camp again.

    As bad as the Dems may be, the alternative is frighteningly worse.

    1. William R. Wilson profile image61
      William R. Wilsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed.

    2. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Rantings? The facts speak for them selves! Everything Obama campaigned on, transparency, bipartisanship, earmarks, and lobbyists, all lies! Change we can believe in? Yeah, BS! He swore to uphold and protect the constitution, well the health care bill is a violation of the constitution!

      His word means nothing! His actions prove he's a liar and a socialist there is simply no denying that! If you support him, them you are just like him!

      1. livelonger profile image87
        livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Well, as you might imagine, I don't think tarring me with the "scumbag politician" thing is going to mean anything to me. Nice try, though.

        Here's another perspective: He has been entirely *too* bipartisan, compromising too much with intransigent Republicans who just say "no" to everything he proposes. But, bipartisanship is something he promised in his campaign and he's certainly delivered that. (And no, I wouldn't expect a partisan Republican to agree with that, or even with the fact that the sky is blue if that came out of a Democrat's mouth).

        1. Jeffrey Neal profile image87
          Jeffrey Nealposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Nor should we expect a partisan, leftist wingnut to see or agree that their guy lied. And how is cutting the other party out of the discussion bipartisan? I'm sure there's a winning explanation for that one.  If this bill were worth the paper it's printed on, it would have been negotiated, passed, and covered on C-SPAN, and not shoved through on Christmas Eve.

      2. AdsenseStrategies profile image70
        AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I am in general at the opposite (generally) end of the spectrum from you politically, but I have to say most of what you write here above seems right to me. (except your comments on the health care thing, about which I am not in the loop, living in a country that has had socialized medicine for decades, and which most people love. But America is not us, so each place is different. And the comment about him being a socialist; if he was a socialist he wouldn't be bowing to the demands of corporations, ie., he would have broken the back of the lobbies as his first move in office. But the word socialist gets kicked around by all sorts of people, including those who like to pretend they are "socialists", so let's not get into that one)

        1. Arthur Fontes profile image89
          Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          He took over many publicly held companies.  He is running them through the government.  Socialism would not be the correct word.  Fascist seems to fit pretty snugly however.

          1. AdsenseStrategies profile image70
            AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            The fascists loved free enterprise. They did nationalize some stuff too, I suspect. But I really didn't want to get into this. My point was that he promised to break the backs of the lobbies and he hasn't. For those who believed him when he said he would do this, I'd like to see more action... because I think they are the worst threat America faces, and undermine rule by the people, by paying off congressmen of all stripes...

      3. Jeffrey Neal profile image87
        Jeffrey Nealposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Don't waste your breath, Poppa. These people just don't get it.  That and they keep sticking fingers in their ears to keep from having to hear the truth about their messiah.

        Anyone with half a brain who paid attention during the campaign to the associations Obama had been keeping knows he was talking out of both sides of his mouth. There's no talking sense to people who are in denial. They just want to keep blaming the other guys, as though they matter at this point. Typical.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Your comment seems appropriate for someone with half a brain.

          1. Jeffrey Neal profile image87
            Jeffrey Nealposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I wish I could say the same for yours.

    3. tobey100 profile image60
      tobey100posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Those 'teabaggers' you're so afraid of are Americans exercising their right to protest.  To quote the beloved Hillary, "We have every right to protest.  We will not go away".  Never ceases to amaze me that when the left does it its fine, when the right does it, fear and trembling should be felt across the nation.

      1. livelonger profile image87
        livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        No one's arguing that they don't have a right to peaceful protest. I'm just saying their ideas are either bad or really, really hypocritical.

        1. tobey100 profile image60
          tobey100posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          That's the word I was waiting for, "hypocritical".  Webster's dictionary defines that word as "a person who pretends to be what he is not".  Anybody want to take a shot at defining Obama and his administration which brings us all the way back to holding open hearings on C-span doesn't it?

        2. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          The teabaggers remind me of the movie "Network" when the battle cry becomes "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore".  The aimlessness alone is self-defeating.

          1. livelonger profile image87
            livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            The hypocrisy is most galling. These same "fiscal conservatives/limited government" types were silent for 8 years when Bush and a Republican Congress ran the government, and ramped up an enormous budget deficit during an economic boom and expanded both the non-military and military government. To suddenly pretend they really care about the size of the government and the deficit now makes them utter hypocrites.

            1. Jeffrey Neal profile image87
              Jeffrey Nealposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              It is galling alright when the left won't speak up about the broken promises of their candidate, and wants to keep complaining about the previous admin. Two wrongs make right, is it?  The tea party people I've heard from mostly are unhappy with both parties, but are very vocal at the speed that this current Democratic majority is expanding government.

              And, uh, it was six years with a Republican Congress, and the Dems failed to check Bush like they were sent in to do.
              Yep, your party is full of hypocrites also.

              EDIT, but hey, on a bright note some of them have decided to jump ship rather than have their arms twisted up behind their backs by "progressives" in addition to facing a likely defeat this year.

              1. AdsenseStrategies profile image70
                AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                You're both right

              2. William R. Wilson profile image61
                William R. Wilsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I have yet to see any real evidence that Obama has broken any promise. Is this something he actually has power over?  What exactly did he promise in the first place?  Did the public debate already seen meet that promise? 

                I'm not saying I know if it did or not, just that you guys haven't presented me with any facts to back up your argument.

                1. Mitch Rapp profile image60
                  Mitch Rappposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  G O O G L E  Its not new!

                  1. William R. Wilson profile image61
                    William R. Wilsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Why would I bother?  I didn't elect him based on this "promise" alone.  In fact I never knew he had made this promise. 

                    So if you folks are going to accuse him of lying then you should be prepared to deliver some evidence, otherwise, why should I pay attention to what you have said?

            2. SparklingJewel profile image67
              SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Learning is not hypocritcal...it just took a hell of a lot to learn for some...there were many that have been up in arms about government non-constiutional actions for decades.
              I am just glad to be more awake and aware and that more people are becoming more so too.

              this can't go on...

      2. William R. Wilson profile image61
        William R. Wilsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The folks who elected Obama and support him are also Americans bro.

  7. Arthur Fontes profile image89
    Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago

    http://www.seattlepi.com/tvguide/413911_tvgif6.html  Even C-span is calling Obama on his campaign promises.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded to the reminder of Obama's campaign promise by simply saying: "There are a number of things he swore on the campaign trail."

    Can anyone say Marie Antoinnette??????

  8. tobey100 profile image60
    tobey100posted 7 years ago

    Instead of 'Let them eat cake' it's now become 'Let me have your cake so everyone else can have a piece'

  9. creepy profile image60
    creepyposted 7 years ago

    Obama broke a campaign promise nooooooooooooo cant be hes special

  10. creepy profile image60
    creepyposted 7 years ago

    he is an american socialist we are very innovative

    1. AdsenseStrategies profile image70
      AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It is a flexible word, I think we can at least say that much. Normally, however, the first thing a socialist (is supposed to) do(es) is line up all the mega-capitalists along the wall and shoot them. I don't see much of that up there on that there hill... (Quite the contrary)

      1. creepy profile image60
        creepyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        most of those capitalists are armed watch for gun control to pop up anyday

      2. Arthur Fontes profile image89
        Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        That is because he is a Social Democrat.

        1. AdsenseStrategies profile image70
          AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Good Lord, someone using political nomenclature correctly. Got my vote there, Arthur. And there is a difference between a socialist and a social democrat. Though, of course a social democrat is further to the left than a conservative, and so automatically closer to a socialist than a conservative. If people ditched this whole Obama is a Marxist stuff, and Obama is a Socialist, but stuck to Obama is a Social Democrat and I don't Like That Crowd, the whole debate would be much saner.

          Because as far as I know Americans have never known what truly nationalized industries look like. The British car industry was nationalized, and it was a shambles... and I mean, REALLY nationalized. (Of course, the auto industry may not be the best example for the free market crowd to be using either......)

          1. William R. Wilson profile image61
            William R. Wilsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, let's not forget there was a reason why Obama took those companies over.  The Free Market didn't help GM make good business decisions, no sir.

            1. AdsenseStrategies profile image70
              AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Actually, if GM had really been interested in market forces it wouldn't have allowed the Japanese to dominate the niche. It is exactly because that corporation was so BAD at capitalism and enterprise that they failed so miserably. An attitude of "global warming is not real" for example, fails to account for the likelihood of the green trend catching on among car-buyers IRRESPECTIVE of whether it was real or not.

              But has Washington really taken over GM? I mean, as I say, I know a lot about socialist govts. I was in Britain under the old Labour Party... what's going on in the US bears almost no resemblance to those days...

            2. Arthur Fontes profile image89
              Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              The unions might have something to do with the demise of GM.

              1. AdsenseStrategies profile image70
                AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I think we can say it was a joint effort

          2. Arthur Fontes profile image89
            Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I had to look up nomenclature. you taught me something today.

  11. Ron Montgomery profile image61
    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

    Please stop referring to Obama and I as Socialists.  As of today we are both officially Communists.

    1. creepy profile image60
      creepyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      ok nikita

    2. Arthur Fontes profile image89
      Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY3spl48_0Y  The new national anthem??

      1. tobey100 profile image60
        tobey100posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry, my mistake.  Should I laugh or take you serious here?
        Doesn't matter to me, I just don't want to offend by laughing.  It's not every day you here "don't call me a socialist, I'm a communists"

  12. William R. Wilson profile image61
    William R. Wilsonposted 7 years ago

    From the Seattle PI article posted earlier in this thread: 

    "Republicans say Democrats are backing away from Obama's pledge of transparency.

    But Democrats' efforts to work out a compromise behind closed doors may be about avoiding Republican interference, not cameras. Holding the debate in the congressional chambers would not only open it up to cameras, but expose the legislation to a filibuster by the minority party."

    also this:

    "C-SPAN had already covered hundreds of hours of debate on health care"

    So it looks like 1) it's the democrats in Congress, not Obama, who are not happy about having the final negotiations televised

    2) the Democrats have a genuine tactical concern of losing the bill if they allow the debate to be televised

    and

    3)  There has already been a great deal of transparency surrounding this (although I would add that I think more transparency, not less, is better).

  13. Arthur Fontes profile image89
    Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago

    Ford is turning a profit how could they without the annointed one's guidance and input.

  14. SparklingJewel profile image67
    SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago

    if there is any doubt about Obama saying healthcare debate will be on CSpan....here ya go...




    http://www.voteronpaul.com/newsDetail.p … -Care-2982

  15. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago

    Yes, he made this promise on the campaign trail, and yes, he wasn't able to keep it.  It just isn't possible to televise every conversation, every meeting, every session revolving around the health care bill.  Plus, as someone pointed out, he doesn't actually have control over that anyway.

    He certainly isn't the first President to not fulfill a promise and he won't be the last.

    However, he has made some progress in the area of government transparency, including a full accounting online of where the stimulus money is being spent.

 
working