Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Obama Deception of Mixed Messages on Health Care Reform
NOW- The White House, meaning Obama, is open to Congressional Democrats suggestion to limit the existing tax break for employer-provided benefits.
THEN- During the campaign Obama was extremely critical of McCain for saying that he wanted to end tax breaks for employer provided health benefits, and said that he wouldn't do that.
Limiting that tax break enough to raise serious funds would amount to the LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN 16 YEARS- and largest middle-class tax increase since even before then.
FIRST- On June 19th, an anonymous White House Aide said that the President's promise that people who like their coverage could keep it shouldn't be taken literally.
SECOND- On June 23rd, Obama said "The Government is not going to make you change plans under health reform."
According to Newsmax magazine, The "Public-Option" is to take the country toward a government health insurance monopoly.
The House Democrats Plan allows the "Public-Option" to tell doctors who participate in Obama's plan that they cannot participate in private plans.
Obama in ABC Broadcast: Obama suggested that doctors and hospitals be given incentives not to provide allegedly unnecessary care.
Obama is the mixed messages President, where he says one thing at one point in time, then at another point in time, he or a member of his administration gives the exact opposite message. So how can we possibly trust a President that doesn't know the very Health Care Bill that he is trying to sell to the American people? I think that this is a continuation of the Obama deception Presidency. He wants to keep the American people in the dark as to what is exactly in this bill. Obama hasn't committed himelf and his family to this government run health care. If its not good enough for him and his family, then its not good enough for the American people. We need to continue fighting against Obamacare for the simple fact that it will not help the American people, but in fact HURT the American people and their accessibility to health care.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I'd rather have McDonald's or Costco running healthcare than the Feds.
I agree. The Feds are incompetent bunch of boobs.
What exactly makes the Feds an "incompetent bunch of boobs"?
Kyle,
The Feds have sucked in the managing of social programs. Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid are ALL on the verge of bankruptcy.
Assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct in your assessment here, why have the Feds "sucked in the managing of social programs?"
Kyle, are you aware just how annoying you are being?
No, Kevin, I did not realize that my engaging Teresa's ideas and challenging her statements with questions was causing annoyance. As I disagree with most of what Teresa writes, my comments have tended to be on the critical side. However, since it is clear to me now that my asking Teresa challenging and pertinent questions is not welcome, I shall, forthwith, depart and comment no more.
Kyle, I don't quite understand what your problem is. When we were at Franciscan University in the Masters program in Philosophy together and shared an apartment, I remember that we were close. That's how it seemed to me. I am quite fond of you. I do not remember you being socially retarded then, so I find it difficult to imagine that you are oblivious to the overall atmosphere of what you are calling engagements and challenges. This has been building for some time now. I have been asking Teresa to cut you some slack and give you the benefit of the doubt, assuming that you just didn't know how you were coming off and weren't trying to be a troll. You are going through a very challenging time right now, and that excuses much. But at some point enough has to be enough. We all suffer in this life, and some of us don't have the blessings you have been given to comfort us.
It has not escaped my notice that your first comment on my blog was also your last, but Teresa gets comments from you all the time - nearly all negative. If either Teresa or I ever say anything you agree with, we sure wouldn't know it. Given the importance of the issues involved, your exclusive focus on our differences really gets to be a drag. Getting an encouraging word (let alone any affirmation of even the slightest agreeement and simpatico) from you is like pulling teeth. The negativity accumulates and gets to be a bit much. Coming from someone you consider a friend, with all bitter and no sweet, all hard liquor and no ice, makes it all the more upsetting. There are ways to challenge and criticize without coming off either like a heedless irritant or like you have forgotten that you are Teresa's peer, not her professor. If bringing this to your attention means that you feel you have no choice but to disengage entirely and cut us off as friends, then I suppose that your inability to see your way clear to doing anything else means that I have to support your decision and wish you well.
Kyle,
Consistently on my blog you have not treated with the respect I deserve. YOU HAVE NOT TREATED ME LIKE A FRIEND!!! You pretty much go after me like I'm the enemy. In fact, you treat me like your the sinister know-it-all professor and not a peer simply having a disagreement regarding issues on my blog. I would gladly love to have a "real" discussion on a topic with you but that is not what you are after, in the way you troll on my blog. Maybe you don't see this because you have been corrupted by the liberalism within your community, as well as certain professors at Franciscan that have a distorted sense of reality. I have never had a friend that has pummeled me consistently with negativity, time after time. I would love it, be impressed to see you actually act like a civil human being to me and have an authentic discussion and for you to stop being a troll.
Kevin and Teresa,
First, let me say that was not my intention to indicate that I wished to cut you off as friends. I am fond of you both and wish to remain friends with you both.
Second, I am not socially retarded, but I was unaware that my comments and questions collectively were so upsetting. 1) I don't see your reactions to what I write. Nor can I know exactly how what I write comes across. Writing on the Internet has its limits and difficulties. 2) Given our friendship and that you know me, I had incorrectly assumed that you wouldn't take my comments personally or as overly-negative, but as good friendly debate. 3) The overall tone of Teresa's blog is very critical and antagonistic of those with whom she disagrees, so I figured she wouldn't be troubled by my criticisms even if my comments were mostly critical. I haven't called her names or insulted her. I've tried to respond to her ideas. That I disagree with her ideas has meant that my responses have been more negative.
Third, my comments in this post, which Kevin called annoying, we're not exactly negative. I asked Teresa to explain a provocative and insulting comment she made, and, after her answer, I inquired further into her thinking. It seemed to me that you were opposed to my simply asking such questions; hence my move to cease commenting. I don't comment on a lot of blogs because I don't have the time, but, as I consider Teresa a friend, find her posts provocative (in a positive way), and especially because I know she really likes talking politics, I have taken the time to comment.
Fourth, I do see Teresa as a peer. Indeed, I have no doubt she knows a lot more than I do about a lot of political issues. She could, I am sure, tell me much more about Obamacare than I could tell her.
Fifth, my interest in blogging and commenting on blogs is engaging ideas. I'm particularly interested in how people arrive at the positions they hold. I tend to be challenging, critical, and inquisitive, especially toward those with whom I disagree. I've had this style since I started blogging, long before having to deal with personal tragedy, so please don't use my personal life to excuse the way I blog and interact with bloggers.
Sixth, I've had many heated arguments and debates with friends over the Internet and in person in which much "pummeling" took place. I don't see that "pummeling" as an affront to friendship.
Kyle, your posting deserves much more attention than I can give it today, as does your very welcome and thoughtful comment on my latest blog post in The Naked Ontologist. I am writing this because if I do not, and wait until I have the time to acknowledge the truth in all you have said more fully, you will have every right to assume that I am ignoring you. Certainly not. I at least have the time to say two much needed words, on which I will elaborate when time allows (tomorrow, or the next day at the lastest): I APOLOGIZE.
I just keep getting madder !
Post a Comment