The Glade 4.0

I dount he would have near this much focus on the President's statements in the speech if Wilson had not called it out during the speech.

I guess it is best to let known lies be spoken when everyone is paying attention and call them out when no one is? So long as everyone is shaking hands and dressed in suits.

I think a massive silent walk out during the speech would have had the same reaction but organizing that and getting everyone to follow through would be hard.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I feel a massive partisan walk out would have been just given the party of no propaganda more material. Does anyone think that the Wilson comment was planned? And did he act alone or was it planned that he "took one for the team"?

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

The problem is if the whole republican party walks out then Obama the post partisan can accuse them of being partisan instead.

I don't think it was planned by him or anyone.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

No, the Republicans should have just not shown up.

The PotUS gets once a year to address Congress, then he leaves the legislative duties to the legislature.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

1) The current bill can alter any existing legislation it wants. Medicare itself is simply an alteration of the Social Security Act, as one example. As another, HR 3200 contains numerous provisions that affect other Acts.

2) This bill encompasses total reform for the health services and health insurance industry in the United States. Therefore, all existing law from the SSA to HIPAA are encompassed within it. That includes ERISA, which pre-empts a requirement on employers to pay for healthcare and thus must be modified for this bill to even move forward with an individual mandate, for example.

It is therefore wholly logical to assume that EMTALA is included within the scope of "healthcare reform" or "health insurance reform," whichever catch-phrase one may wish to use. As such, illegal immigrants are indeed fully provisioned for under this bill. Considering it is just that loophole that creates a "massive cost" (as an aggregate, measured in real dollars) for the healthcare industry, one would assume that any politician wishing to truly "fix" the system would close that loophole.

So, for Obama to say that his plan will not provide healthcare to illegals is false on the grounds that "his" plan doesn't change the current system; a system which provides healthcare to illegals.

Subsidization of the care provided is its own discussion and issue.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Your argument fails on two fronts.

First, in the president's speech, he wasn't talking about any particular bill currently in congress. That's key, because he was outlining what *he* wants to see in a bill that gets to his desk, and he was making it absolutely clear that undocumented workers would not be covered. Everyone needs to understand that key point about his speech - it was not about any one bill currently before congress. It was about what he wanted to see at the end of the day.

Second, the language of the house bill is clear. The lack of a mechanism *might* make a loophole, but that's a question of enforcement, and not a question of the factual accuracy of what the president said, or what the bill allows. In other words, if money *did* get paid to an undocumented worker, that worker would be in violation of this federal law, and would likely face deportation.

That's why your question seems a bit irrelevant. It actually assumes that what Joe Wilson screamed at the president was the truth, and it very much wasn't. Joe Wilson was *not* defending truth, he was perpetuating a falsehood.

In this country, our president is not only the President, but also Head of State. And that's why respect is required. That's why you stand when the President enters the room, even if you hate their guts. That's why when speaking to them you call them Mr. or Madame President.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Do you believe then Monty, if the bill that lands on his desk contains any of the elements he says don't exist in his, that he will not sign? Or will he sign it with some statement similiar to "its not perfect, but its a great start" like his last "no pork spending" bill, and thereby proving the critics correct?

And will you hold him accountable for "lying" at the speech?

I don't know, Ladas. But that's not relevant to the current conversation. Joe Wilson had no evidenciary grounds to scream "you lie" at the president, especially since he was clearly *not* lying.

Currently, the idea that he is going to somehow slip such language in or allow it to pass is pure conspiracy theory. There is no evidence what so ever to support such a claim.

I also find Joe Wilson's outburst to be entirely disingenuous, given his vote to expand medicare to pay hospitals that treat illegals under the Bush administration.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

He certainly wasn't telling the truth.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

What was he lying about?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Whatever he was talking about.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Oh, I forgot. This isn't a rational conclusion, just a bit of snark. Sorry.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Its only snarky because you choose to take it that way.

I'm being honest here. I believe this president to be as much of a liar as the previous one. He's a tool and a figurehead. Nothing more. I think he'll say whatever he needs to say to get people to buy into his wild claims and socialization of this country. Socialization we *cannot* afford in our current financial state.

Let me put it this way. You want something expensive. Is it rational or realistic to go out and get that something expensive knowing beforehand that you're already in deep deep debt, and the money coming in from your job can't currently pay your bills?

No. It is neither. But that's what our government is trying to do. Worse, its trying to take more money out of the hands of its citizens to buy stuff for those that don't have/want/need the stuff they want to buy for it. Sure, there are 30 million uninsured in the US. That's *less* than 10% of the population. So, in essence, the government wants to take 90% of the population's stuff away, as well as more of their money to pay for the 10% that are uninsured?

This makes sense to you?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

For someone that is usually so quick to throw around accusations of being "misleading" and "intellectually dishonest", I doubt it lost on many people here that you are silent on the same attributes in this speech. In my opinion, this speech is both of those, if for no other reason than the presentation of the speech and the choice of words does not make it clear that he speaking about reforms in a non-existent version of the bill. It gives every impression, until you sit down and read it (hence this debate) about to which he was speaking.

The average person is going to assume he is referring to the bills currently proposed, is offering support to those bills, and is outlining what is actually contained in those bills. It is entirely misleading.

He starts by discussing his activities related to the economic crisis and misstates (lies) about the facts to paint a better picture.
He then alludes to the town hall meetings and the disruptions, directly accusing some groups of spreading lies about the reform bills on the table, with the comment about those people trying to "score short term political points" or some such.
He then goes on to refute that "misinformation" by outlining not what is in those bills on the table, but what he envisions to be the proper path.

How is that intellectually honest?

That aside, he also directly lied about the circumstances of one of his examples... which is already being blamed on his otherwise stellar vetting process /rolleye.

But back to my question... If or when the bill he signs is in contrast to what he stated was acceptable, are you going to hold him accountable? Are you going to become one of us 'racists" that see the disparity in actions and words in politicians?

I watched the speech and did not get that impression at all. He said very clearly that he was outlining the plan he hoped to see.



I don't think you can make that assumption without something to back it up.




How was it a lie? Which facts? Where is your information coming from?




Which they did.



Which they were.



He did both.



He talked about the proposals on the table. And the lies told about those proposals. Then he outlined his plans. None of that was dishonest.



Specifically?



I don't understand what your question has to do with the debate at hand? Why is this relevant?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

From the transcript of his speech, he states, "The plan I'm announcing tonight would meet three basic goals.", after which he continues to describe it as "the plan". All find and good until immediately after he called it "our plan", then refers to it as "the plan" again and immediately says "as soon as I sign this bill". /boggle

Which bill is he signing? His imaginary plan that he can't submit as the President, and which doesn't match was has been proposed?

Of course, he goes on to comment about various aspects of his plan such as what it would accomplish and makes the note that people have been spreading misinformation about his plan, which is just "announcing tonight". But, I believe all the criticism (misinformation if you like) has been directed as the actual bills in as passed in committees, not his nebulous and undefined, much less submitted, plan.
It sounds like he is attempting to shift the criticism of the actual bills to his undefined plan so he can dismiss them out of hand, which would be "intellectually dishonest".


Sure I can. Look no further than the tendency of people to use soundbites, generally out of context, to support or refute positions.


It was linked for you earlier in this thread and nice laid out.



No, see, in his speech, he claimed those lies were about his plan, not the plans submitted and voted in committees. You can't have it both ways.

Or perhaps, look at his direct statement:



Is her talking about his plan, or the proposed plans at the time of the speech, but not a one of them allowed for HDHP insurance, which is what i have, what I like and what I want to keep, but won't be able to under those proposed plans.

Or this statement:


As a direct rebuttal to the valid criticism of how this bill will impact the deficit as proposed in the actual bills, not his imaginary one. Again, he attempting to deflect valid criticism of what has been proposed with what he wants to see.

Sounds pretty misleading and intellectually dishonest to refute a valid criticism of an existing proposal by claiming the criticism is untrue because it doesn't apply to his plan.


Politicians from both sides have been using whatever means available, including the President in this very speech, to score short-term political points.


No, he said those criticisms weren't valid for his plan. Should I point out to you that you keep confusing his plan he announced and the committee bills as proof of my point?

There is not a single proposed bill yet

Obama said:



Wall Street Journal says



Is it a nit pick? Potentially, but I would expect his speech writers to get things correct, especially in light of the fact they should have known this speech would be dissected by everyone, and a vetting gaff like this, compounded by his administrations piss poor vetting process, won't look good.

If you can't pay attention to the details on something this important, what else is being missed?


Irrelevent. Answer or don't answer, it is just a question.

It depends how it all plays out. If we manage to get a single payer health care system, then the President will have to explain why he either changed his mind, or why he lied. I will be ecstatic if we go with single payer, and through the roof happy if we go with an NHS style program.

My guess is that we will do a public insurance option that will become very popular. It will not do quite enough to reduce costs, so we might see something stronger as time goes on. I think that like with Medicare, all these hoots and hollers about socialism and the end of freedom and the world as we know it will be forgotten and left to rot. Until the next time our society sees a public need like Health Care reform, and then the signs will come out, and the process will repeat itself.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Monte:

Except, government interference is already the reason healthcare "costs" so much in the United States. Why do you think more government will reduce "costs" when government is already the problem?

_________________

Khross - could you please prove that without government involvement in health care (regulations on drug testing, hospital cleanness standards, required coverage, etc) is *the* reason health care costs so much in the US?

Because in countries where the government has *total* control over the health care industry, it costs half as much as our system, which has *less* control of the industry. I just don't think it's a terribly compelling argument to say that government control equals higher prices, given that reality.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

In a word: Innovation. Most of the new drugs, equipment, etc come from companies in the US where they can charge for the costs of R&D.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

People often argue the innovation angle, but Canada is not without it's own medical innovations. And a good deal of medical innovation in America is at some point and to some degree subsidized by government spending. In other words, we already involved the government in our innovation, and it is not entirely privitized. Not to mention that our government protects innovation via a patent program.

Canada has a long history of medical innovation, and an NHS style health system. Again, not a compelling argument. They spend less on their health care and deliver better results. They also innovate in the field.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Which you haven't demonstrated.



Which is incorrect.


Since you've demonstrated neither of the above items, the following is a ridiculous statement, considering it could just as easily be leveled at you:





Yes, they spend less. "Better results" is subjective and hasn't been demonstrated. "[Innovation] in the field" hasn't been demonstrated either.




Basically, the latter paragraph of your post is vaporware.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

_________________
Once, I was a ranger
Then, I was a warlock
And a mage
And a paladin
Now, I seek to be myself

Bingo.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Yup. Obama is a liar.