Barack Obama on Health Care - Hidden Agenda

A rare look inside Barack Obama's actual specific ideas to change the country's health care system.

***Visit http://capitalistobserver.blogspot.com***

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Barack
• Obama
• Hillary
• Democrat
• speech
• caucus
• primary
• Republican
• Socialist
• Politics
• Health
• Rudy
• Giuliani
• debate
• change
• Care

[sheltondk43]

I do agree we needed to leave in a "public option" with consumers being able to buy in to a government program. Competition across state lines has been approved in the plan that passed. I think employers should be completely removed from having to provide healthcare to their employees. Give the money back to the employee and let us buy our own so that a job loss doesn't equal the loss of our health insurance. That may have been an okay plan before large American companies began outsourcing.

[stick1to2the3issue]

@sheltondk43 I agree with most of what you say here except for public option. The same argument could be used to have a public option for car insurance.

[prowlie]

wow.. rudy went 30 seconds without saying 9-11... good job.. granted thats probably not the whole speech and i'm sure he snuck it in at least 5-10 times

oh and... conservative leadership... what an oxymoron.. almost like mission accomplished with bush's face in the picture

[stick1to2the3issue]

@prowlie yawn

[shadowsofnineveh]

Barack Hussein Obama Osama is a piece of shit right out of Karl Marx's Ass.

[jbs4life1]

I think he has a peanut in his head

[Taito1979ISU]

Price fixing, and making health insurance companies spend at least 85% of the premiums they collect on health insurance are two dramatically different things. Competition hasn't brought down costs or increased benefits on health insurance, because all of the companies have banded together in the same malicious practices. There is collusion and waste.

[stick1to2the3issue]

Then tell me...if I am sooo irrational...what conclusion do you draw from the fact that democrats are constantly preaching competetition but ONLY if it is through a public option...they refuse to consdier opening up competition across state lines.

if that is sooo irrational, then please...give me your oh so rational conclusion.

[ShrimpyLegs]

Well, you've lost credibility.

You can't say that all Democrats want power the way you describe, we all know that a population is variant. There is not one absolute way to solve any problem, just differences of risk and rewards.

I was wanting to send you messages to have a rational debate, but your last phrase is irrational. Pulling a strawman, it is like saying all black people are thieves. Just substitute 'black' with 'Democrat'.

I'm out of here. But I wish you good times and a happy life.

[stick1to2the3issue]

It is clear that the reason that democrats want a "public option" is not to ensure there is competition (as they claim). If they truely wanted to implement all measures to ensure an increased amount of competition, then why wouldn't they be for allowing insurance to be sold across state lines?

This is a rhetorical question because the answer is obvious. They don't care about comepetition or even the cost of health care. They care about power and getting more and more of it for themselves.

[stick1to2the3issue]

The fallacy of your opening statement is that you ignore that in a free market if a company "cuts corners" consumers can simply buy elsewhere (which is why health care needs to operate on the free market).

Of course companies want profit, just like Sony wants profit they have to keep prices low and quality high because there is a direct relationship between buyer and seller (unlike health care in America).

To your last point (cont.)

[ShrimpyLegs]

That's assuming that all companies are responsible and would never cut corners for profit.

But, that is, sadly, one of the different views of Republicans and Democrats; what is the lesser evil, companies that could be corrupt or the mass population being irresponsible? It makes sense from both sides with an open mind.

Could you elaborate, please, on how you are sure that Democrats want people dependent on a government plan when the public option has no government run features, but funding?