North Texas vs. Obama

Firewa11 · Post by **Firewa11** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:35 pm

Okay, so I know everyone has their own ideas about Obama, but lately the media has been buzzing about how people thought Obama was going to be trying to brainwash their kids or lay out lesson plans on them... going so far as getting schools to not require or show them something their president, the man elected to lead this country, wanted to give a try.

Personally, I think it's epic that the president of this country gave enough of a damn to actually try to set up something in such a manner that he was speaking to kids in school, speaking directly to them. I think that's pretty damned cool. I don't recall any of the former presidents doing something like that when I was in school. Doesn't matter if he's democrat, republican, left wing, right wing, black or white, he's the president of the greatest nation on earth.

Here's his speech. Go read it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResource ... olRemarks/

I'm personally embarrassed to be in North Texas with the sort of crap that went on. Schools refusing to show a live broadcast of their own president because they are afraid he's going to brainwash your kids? I mean, that's a pretty paranoid, narrow-minded, illiterate viewpoint to have. And what sort of message does that send your kids? That it's completely ok to show that sort of lack of respect to the man elected to the most powerful country in the world. It doesn't matter if you like him or not, he's the fucking president. Let the man speak!

GRex · Post by **GRex** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:44 pm

For most of the US Presidents in the last 50 years, the First Lady has been the one that spoke out and worked directly with children's interests.

U-Turn · Post by **U-Turn** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:38 pm

My sister was giving gas about The Brainwashing Attempt.
I asked her Where was George at 9:00am on 09-11-01 ?
Then she really got wound up.

-

Firewa11 · Post by **Firewa11** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:50 pm

GRex wrote:For most of the US Presidents in the last 50 years, the First Lady has been the one that spoke out and worked directly with children's interests.

And you see where that got us!

Firewa11 · Post by **Firewa11** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:52 pm

KC817 wrote:My sister was giving gas about The Brainwashing Attempt.
I asked her Where was George at 9:00am on 09-11-01 ?
Then she really got wound up.
-

Sitting on his laurels talking to a small elementary class, brainwashing them with stories of how the evil democrats would destroy society

GRex · Post by **GRex** » Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:15 am

Firewa11 wrote:
GRex wrote:For most of the US Presidents in the last 50 years, the First Lady has been the one that spoke out and worked directly with children's interests.
And you see where that got us!

No I don't. The First Lady has no power. Congress got us here.

Firewa11 · Post by **Firewa11** » Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:28 am

No, what I meant is sending a woman to do a man's job. It was an attempt at being sexist

GRex · Post by **GRex** » Wed Sep 09, 2009 6:05 pm

ahhhhhh. IC

sarcasm seems to get lost on the internet.

Post by **dufremle** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:12 am

You have to use the /sarcasm tag.

NickS · Post by **NickS** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:23 pm

It is sadly HILARIOUS that Arlington ISD made the national news for refusing to allow students to see the President's speech, but is taking kids out of school in two week to go to the new Cowboy's Stadium to see Former President GW Bush.

Firewa11 · Post by **Firewa11** » Fri Sep 11, 2009 11:56 am

It's pretty sad, it really is. We met a Canadian couple while on vacation, and while they were naive and ignorant, their perception of anyone from Texas was a bunch of lawless gun-toting racist rednecks all waving a "Bush" flag. With antics like these, it's not suprising why.

angryscientist · Post by **angryscientist** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:41 am

Uh...most of America see's Texas this way. I have personally heard this on numerous occasions throughout the years, and especially recently.

I'm ashamed, and we should ALL be ashamed of what happened regarding this speech.

This is EMBARRASSING. Get it together.

Bush senior gave a speech to the kids, so did Reagan (whose speech WAS actually FULL of propaganda), and so did others.

Firewa11 wrote:It's pretty sad, it really is. We met a Canadian couple while on vacation, and while they were naive and ignorant, their perception of anyone from Texas was a bunch of lawless gun-toting racist rednecks all waving a "Bush" flag. With antics like these, it's not suprising why.

armedandinsain · Post by **armedandinsain** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:37 am

Firewa11 wrote:

It's pretty sad, it really is. We met a Canadian couple while on vacation, and while they were naive and ignorant, their perception of anyone from Texas was a bunch of lawless gun-toting racist rednecks all waving a "Bush" flag. With antics like these, it's not suprising why.

that was my perception... hell that still is my perseption with alot of small towns. cases in point...

1. we drove out here from vegas first little town we stopped for gas here in texas was having there weekly clan meeting across the street from the gas station.

2. I did (thank god) my last two years of high school in alvarado, every guy in there had a knife on his belt in plain view (vegas you would be going to jail for that) then deer season came omfg... the 25% of kids and staff that showed up for school that first day of the season i must have counted 30 rifles sitting in the back windows of trucks in the student parking lot. when i asked the office about it they just asked me "what did i expect its deer season?" and "we are luck that the kids that showed up did a few years back we had to close, didnt have enough kids or teachers show up".

dshag · Post by **dshag** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 10:29 am

clinton was the only pres i liked out of that last few. obama is no better then bush hes only going to destroy this country further esp with the healthcare if it passes

angryscientist · Post by **angryscientist** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 10:31 am

Great post.

dshag wrote:clinton was the only pres i liked out of that last few. obama is no better then bush hes only going to destroy this country further esp with the healthcare if it passes

Firewa11 · Post by **Firewa11** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:02 pm

dshag wrote:clinton was the only pres i liked out of that last few. obama is no better then bush hes only going to destroy this country further esp with the healthcare if it passes

But why? Every single person I've talked to that opposes a government-sponsored insurance option is jumping up and down saying how it's going to destroy this country, blah blah blah. But nobody has come close to explaining their viewpoint on WHY they are concerned or have fears about his proposal.

What is Medicare? It is a federal health insurance program that covers most people age 65 or older. Has that destroyed the country? No. So why would a federal health insurance program covering people that can't afford $500/mo premiums with Aetna or Cigna going to destroy the country? Employers are still going to provide benefits through insurance carriers as they always have. Obama's plan is not to take over the health industry, it's not to put in place something like Canada has, nor is it to cause a reduction in the quality of care. It's quite simply just to give people that can't afford insurance a way to get it.

Have you ever known anyone that couldn't afford health insurance and had to take a trip to the emergency room? Do you have any idea how expensive that is? What about the self-employed folks that barely make enough to get by, much less try to pay outrageous amounts for health insurance?

Case and point, when Jill broke her thumb on the club camping trip, she did not have insurance. She's a self-employed hairdresser, and when she looked into health insurance the premiums are about $500/mo. That's outrageous isn't it? Go look it up yourself. You'll be hard pressed to find the sort of coverage those of us that get our health insurance through our employers take for granted. So she just went without. A few hours in the E.R. for a single MRI, 3 x-rays, a little plaster splint and an ace bandage, she was billed $3,400. That's a problem.

Most health insurance companies base their rates on an expectation that every person will have an average annual healthcare cost of $100,000 per year. So you (or if you're employed you and/or your employer) pays the premium for that, in the ballpark of $500/mo for the average person with coverage. So, lack of options, lack of competition, but most important, lack of any real oversight or control. And then good luck getting coverage. If Aetna doesn't believe you need surgery (even though you could have 50 doctors saying you do), well, you better get ready to file appeal after appeal until you basically annoy them enough to cover it. Isn't that what what most of you fear from a government-run program? But this already happens today. Anne had gastric-bypass a few years back. Took her several years of filing appeals and jumping through hoops, until after enough annoyance, they agreed to cover it.

But... if they knew have the option to take your business elsewhere, they might be more willing to give you the care you're paying for. Get rid of annual-only enrollments, and allow monthly enrollments (just like you can do for auto insurance). Provide more options, so you can go to other providers. Spur competition. Incentives. Rewards. Drive costs down.

It has to start somewhere. I'm 100% for a federal program that provides those options. Obama's plan isn't perfect. In fact, it's far from it. But at least he's doing something and trying to fix things that are broken. Leaving things status-quo isn't helping anything. For you die-hard Obama-haters or Republicans or whoever you are out there, other than tons of Obama-hate, where's your alternative? Where's a counter-proposal? What's your better idea, that is going to take some action in the next decade?

You don't have one.

angryscientist · Post by **angryscientist** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:12 pm

Same result on the last thread like this. Start asking WHY and the naysayers disappear.

Firewa11 wrote:
dshag wrote:clinton was the only pres i liked out of that last few. obama is no better then bush hes only going to destroy this country further esp with the healthcare if it passes
But why? Every single person I've talked to that opposes a government-sponsored insurance option is jumping up and down saying how it's going to destroy this country, blah blah blah. But nobody has come close to explaining their viewpoint on WHY they are concerned or have fears about his proposal.

What is Medicare? It is a federal health insurance program that covers most people age 65 or older. Has that destroyed the country? No. So why would a federal health insurance program covering people that can't afford $500/mo premiums with Aetna or Cigna going to destroy the country? Employers are still going to provide benefits through insurance carriers as they always have. Obama's plan is not to take over the health industry, it's not to put in place something like Canada has, nor is it to cause a reduction in the quality of care. It's quite simply just to give people that can't afford insurance a way to get it.

Have you ever known anyone that couldn't afford health insurance and had to take a trip to the emergency room? Do you have any idea how expensive that is? What about the self-employed folks that barely make enough to get by, much less try to pay outrageous amounts for health insurance?

Case and point, when Jill broke her thumb on the club camping trip, she did not have insurance. She's a self-employed hairdresser, and when she looked into health insurance the premiums are about $500/mo. That's outrageous isn't it? Go look it up yourself. You'll be hard pressed to find the sort of coverage those of us that get our health insurance through our employers take for granted. So she just went without. A few hours in the E.R. for a single MRI, 3 x-rays, a little plaster splint and an ace bandage, she was billed $3,400. That's a problem.

Most health insurance companies base their rates on an expectation that every person will have an average annual healthcare cost of $100,000 per year. So you (or if you're employed you and/or your employer) pays the premium for that, in the ballpark of $500/mo for the average person with coverage. So, lack of options, lack of competition, but most important, lack of any real oversight or control. And then good luck getting coverage. If Aetna doesn't believe you need surgery (even though you could have 50 doctors saying you do), well, you better get ready to file appeal after appeal until you basically annoy them enough to cover it. Isn't that what what most of you fear from a government-run program? But this already happens today. Anne had gastric-bypass a few years back. Took her several years of filing appeals and jumping through hoops, until after enough annoyance, they agreed to cover it.

But... if they knew have the option to take your business elsewhere, they might be more willing to give you the care you're paying for. Get rid of annual-only enrollments, and allow monthly enrollments (just like you can do for auto insurance). Provide more options, so you can go to other providers. Spur competition. Incentives. Rewards. Drive costs down.

It has to start somewhere. I'm 100% for a federal program that provides those options. Obama's plan isn't perfect. In fact, it's far from it. But at least he's doing something and trying to fix things that are broken. Leaving things status-quo isn't helping anything. For you die-hard Obama-haters or Republicans or whoever you are out there, other than tons of Obama-hate, where's your alternative? Where's a counter-proposal? What's your better idea, that is going to take some action in the next decade?

You don't have one.

U-Turn · Post by **U-Turn** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:25 pm

I see it more as a form of regulation.
The whole time I've been riding with the club I have been without insurance. Pretty stupid I agree but I place a high value in riding with you guys (and bliz). My surrogate family.
Anyway it is an attempt to fix something that is getting out of control.
Besides when The Thieves get back in power they'll change it so more money goes to their business-buddies.
-
As a moral issue, is it wrong?
As a business issue, I see it as competition to help regulate prices and costs.
-

WillK675 · Post by **WillK675** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:53 pm

I typically don't involve myself in political discussions but here are some answers/comments on some of your questions/points.

Firewa11 wrote: But why? Every single person I've talked to that opposes a government-sponsored insurance option is jumping up and down saying how it's going to destroy this country, blah blah blah. But nobody has come close to explaining their viewpoint on WHY they are concerned or have fears about his proposal.
...
Employers are still going to provide benefits through insurance carriers as they always have.

Under the current plan it is likely that most companies will stop providing insurance benefits for it's employees. The reason being that it will be more cost effective to pay the government fines and not provide insurance benefits. Thus pushing more of the general public onto the government healthcare plan, potentially leading to 100% government controlled insurance/heathcare.

Firewa11 wrote:
Most health insurance companies base their rates on an expectation that every person will have an average annual healthcare cost of $100,000 per year. So you (or if you're employed you and/or your employer) pays the premium for that, in the ballpark of $500/mo for the average person with coverage. So, lack of options, lack of competition, but most important, lack of any real oversight or control.

But... if they knew have the option to take your business elsewhere, they might be more willing to give you the care you're paying for. Get rid of annual-only enrollments, and allow monthly enrollments (just like you can do for auto insurance). Provide more options, so you can go to other providers. Spur competition. Incentives. Rewards. Drive costs down.

A lot of employers are only covering a minimal amount of that cost. I haven't looked in a while, but if I remember correctly, I pay close to 50% of my premium. It is actually costing me more monthly for my works coverage, then it did for the private, temporary, coverage I had between jobs.

As far as the expected annual healthcare cost, that the companies use. This is actually at such a high rate do to the current laws (government oversite or control). The laws require every policy to cover a slew items, that on average a person will never need coverage for. You would have more competition in the market and lower prices if you were able to purchase health insurance like you are able to purchase car/home insurance. For example when you get home owners insurance you can pick your insurance values, fire, flood, personal injury, and others; thus increasing or decreasing your premium. With health insurance there are things that by law have to be covered, and you have no choice in the matter.

Firewa11 wrote: For you die-hard Obama-haters or Republicans or whoever you are out there, other than tons of Obama-hate, where's your alternative? Where's a counter-proposal? What's your better idea, that is going to take some action in the next decade?

You don't have one.

I wouldn't classify myself in any of those categories. But when it comes to the topic of insurance/ healthcare. Remove the current government control, don't add more, and let the industry return to the free market. Healthcare has never been cheap (relatively speaking) but true free market competition, has always produced lower costs.

And I'm not saying don't regulate the healthcare being provided. Malpractice laws and regulations do need to stay in tact to keep from further harm coming from the care provided.

Thats my $0.02, and I'm done here. I'm not going to get into a political discussion/argument, because they never end.

Post by **DarcShadow** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:13 pm

Maine or Maryland, can't remember which have a state health care system simulare to what is being proposed nationally. It hasn't ruined the state but it hasn't helped either. The problem is they didn't fix/improve the system, just provided insurance and the state suffered a noticable expense.

Like I said, it hasn't killed the state, but it didn't really do it any good either. A national plan needs to address the health care system as a whole and not just provide insurance for people.

Also, another thing I recall hearing from several years ago. Some family doctor some place didn't accept any insurance and because he didn't have to jump through all the paper work hoops was able to charge people less then what a typical co-pay would be. Something to think about.

Firewa11 · Post by **Firewa11** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:36 pm

Ah, finally Will provided a decent response. While I do disagree with some of the things you said, I don't think just taking away some of the rules and getting the goverment out of it will help. Free market doesn't really apply in most situations, because in an emergency situation you typically don't have a choice where you go for care. You don't really get to decide what hospital you go to when you're incapacitated or otherwise injured in a way you can't make a choice. And then, the paramedics usually only give you one or two options anyways.

I disagree that most companies will stop paying for healthcare. There is a reason they call them benefits. If your company suddenly stops offering healthcare that's a reduction in the total compensation package. That will piss off a lot of employees, and I just don't see it happening with companies that care about the caliber of people they have working for them.

I do agree beyond the shadow of all doubt that the healthcare issue in our country is a serious problem, and like I said I don't think Obama has the best solution. It's far from perfect, but it is a step in taking action. But I certainly don't think it's going to destroy the country, or anything significant like that. I think it's merely a step to fixing the issue.

The problem in government it seems these days, everyone wants a perfect solution before they submit it. And with so much doubt on all sides, nobody has a clue if Obama's plan is going to help or if it's going to hurt. That's how government works though. You try things, and if they don't work, you try something else. Trying to design a perfect solution every time does absolutely nothing but bog everything down in a committee of inaction.

But instead of offering solutions and ideas, the politicians are playing the typical game of, it's better politics to go against it, rather than help fix it.

It doesn't matter which side of the fence you are. It's pretty pathetic to see an address in congress and see how polarized everything is. Get rid of the political factions and our country would be so much better off. Then you'd actually have candidates running for offices based on their own merits, not under which banner they fly...

Firewa11 · Post by **Firewa11** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:53 pm

On a side note, I think I was happier as an individual before I started actually caring about was going on in our government and did something like actually cast my vote at the polls. Ignorance really is bliss

U-Turn · Post by **U-Turn** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:01 pm

WillK675 wrote: Under the current plan it is likely that most companies will stop providing insurance benefits for it's employees. The reason being that it will be more cost effective to pay the government fines and not provide insurance benefits. Thus pushing more of the general public onto the government healthcare plan, potentially leading to 100% government controlled insurance/heathcare.

Then all companies would eventually pay 100% for your healthcare, weather you worked for them or not? Be less expensive for you then huh? More money for beer.

WillK675 wrote: A lot of employers are only covering a minimal amount of that cost. I haven't looked in a while, but if I remember correctly, I pay close to 50% of my premium. It is actually costing me more monthly for my works coverage, then it did for the private, temporary, coverage I had between jobs.

If this is true, then why have the work coverage? You can opt out of it. More money for beer.

WillK675 wrote: As far as the expected annual healthcare cost, that the companies use. This is actually at such a high rate do to the current laws (government oversite or control). The laws require every policy to cover a slew items, that on average a person will never need coverage for. You would have more competition in the market and lower prices if you were able to purchase health insurance like you are able to purchase car/home insurance. For example when you get home owners insurance you can pick your insurance values, fire, flood, personal injury, and others; thus increasing or decreasing your premium. With health insurance there are things that by law have to be covered, and you have no choice in the matter.

So say I didn't opt for the Spleen insurance, and I wiped out on my bike, spleen split, i'm gonna die?
"Sir, you don't have coverage for cosmetic surgery so your nose is going to remain on the side of your face."
Sorry, you opted out of the Transfusion Option - yadda - yadda - yadda ?
I wanted more money for beer.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The situation as I see it, A-everybody will need it at some point in their lifetime, and some percentage is going to need a lot more "doctoring" than others will. What my dad would say, Everybody's over a barrell.
B-it's a for profit business, and I have everybody over a barrell, they will pay whatever I say.
Same with Oil, everybody needs it and must pay whatever it's going for.
-
And there is nothing wrong with a for profit business, but when everyone depends on the product where do we go from there?

Post by **DarcShadow** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:32 pm

Firewa11 wrote:I disagree that most companies will stop paying for healthcare. There is a reason they call them benefits. If your company suddenly stops offering healthcare that's a reduction in the total compensation package. That will piss off a lot of employees, and I just don't see it happening with companies that care about the caliber of people they have working for them.

I'm not so sure on this one. Companies could drop their health benefit and offer larger saleries. While older emplies probably wouldn't be happy about it, the 20 something coming out of collage is not typically going to be thinking far enough down the road to worry about that and will be happy to take the higher pay.

Case in point, Lockheed cut their retirement benefits a few years ago and increased your hire on vaccation time because their research showed that's what collage grads wanted. Now it didn't piss off old emploies because our retirement plan didn't change but if we ever leave the company and come back we come back to the crappy plan rather then the one we had before we left.

WillK675 · Post by **WillK675** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:19 pm

Firewa11 wrote:Ah, finally Will provided a decent response. While I do disagree with some of the things you said, I don't think just taking away some of the rules and getting the goverment out of it will help. Free market doesn't really apply in most situations, because in an emergency situation you typically don't have a choice where you go for care. You don't really get to decide what hospital you go to when you're incapacitated or otherwise injured in a way you can't make a choice. And then, the paramedics usually only give you one or two options anyways.

For taking government out of it, and letting it be free market, I'm talking insurance. As I said there does need to be regulation within the care given, so that good care is always given. But there is no reason insurance needs to be so regulated, with so many required things covered. I mean why should every person in the country be required to carry coverage for being mentally hospitalized when only a small fraction will use it?

DarcShadow wrote:
Firewa11 wrote:I disagree that most companies will stop paying for healthcare. There is a reason they call them benefits. If your company suddenly stops offering healthcare that's a reduction in the total compensation package. That will piss off a lot of employees, and I just don't see it happening with companies that care about the caliber of people they have working for them.
I'm not so sure on this one. Companies could drop their health benefit and offer larger saleries. While older emplies probably wouldn't be happy about it, the 20 something coming out of collage is not typically going to be thinking far enough down the road to worry about that and will be happy to take the higher pay.

Case in point, Lockheed cut their retirement benefits a few years ago and increased your hire on vaccation time because their research showed that's what collage grads wanted. Now it didn't piss off old emploies because our retirement plan didn't change but if we ever leave the company and come back we come back to the crappy plan rather then the one we had before we left.

I can't say whether it's the majority or the minority of people in the work place. But a lot of people don't look at their benefits as part of their compensation. They look at it as just that, an added benefit. That's why you will see people jump from one job to the next for that bigger pay check with less vacation/health insurance/etc. People these days don't look at the overall package, they just look at that $$$$ figure.

Like Darc said, you leave the company and come back, and you lose that "benefit." So I can see companies dropping health insurance and not offering higher salaries.

KC817 wrote: Then all companies would eventually pay 100% for your healthcare, weather you worked for them or not? Be less expensive for you then huh? More money for beer.

Actually, I'd be paying for it. The increase in the defect and decrease in the national budget would most likely prompt a tax increase. And you see this in Canada and Europe where they have government healthcare systems. Taxes are higher but your prescriptions are next to nothing.
More taxes out of my check = less money for beer.

KC817 wrote:If this is true, then why have the work coverage? You can opt out of it. More money for beer.

Key word there was 'temporary.' I couldn't carry the coverage for more than 6 months. And I do have the option to opt-out with my company. They will even give me $$ if I opt-out. But to get that $$ I have to carry my own coverage, and prove it to the company. Personally my company doesn't offer much of a retirement, but they do offer matching on an HSA so I've got that as my retirement, since an HSA gets to go with me. I don't get the HSA matching if I get private insurance. So financially I'm getting more in the long run with the companies insurance. But it costs me more monthly than private insurance. So more money for beer when I'm old.

KC817 wrote: So say I didn't opt for the Spleen insurance, and I wiped out on my bike, spleen split, i'm gonna die?
"Sir, you don't have coverage for cosmetic surgery so your nose is going to remain on the side of your face."
Sorry, you opted out of the Transfusion Option - yadda - yadda - yadda ?
I wanted more money for beer.

No your not gonna die, no your nose isn't going to stay on the side of your face. Your just going to have to pay for that out of your own pocket. Same thing as carrying liability insurance on your bike. You wreck into someone, your insurance will pay for them, and now your stuck with paying out of your pocket for a new bike, or fixing yours. a.k.a. no beer money for a while.