Obama Administration refuses to release details of health care meetings

[alphatarget1]

Where did I defend Cheney?

If somebody gets elected on a platform of righting the wrongs of the previous administration, then blatantly violates that platform and does the exact opposite of what he said he would do, he can't be criticized because the last guy did it?

Obama got elected on a lot of key issues, and made a lot of key promises, that were seen as the beginning of a new age for those who voted for him. Since then, he's basically toed the line with the previous administration with respect to a lot of controversial policies, and you can't do anything but excuse it because that's what Bush did, and Bush was a lying piece of shit. You just need to make that next logical step and say Obama is a lying piece of shit.

Seriously, what was the Hope and Change bullshit all about? Can you answer that question for me?

QFT.

 

[Throckmorton]

Those meetings were confidential, just like the meetings at a business.

The congressional debates WERE televised, which is what Obama promised. Did you right wingers watch them? No, you were too busy organizing your V for Vendetta parties with your Teabagger buddies.

 

[theeedude]

Sorry, but I didn't have the 10 grand or more to pay. Of course the government could have given me the numbers so he could get the coverage he had, but rules are rules, right? I mean the people need to die when it conflicts with the bureaucracy according to you.

On the other hand you do make a good argument why anything you would have shouldn't be trusted. Promise them anything and when you get what you want party like it's February 1917!

Did you call the drug maker, see if they wanted to donate the medicine before you just let the poor sap die? Did you try to organize any private sector solution to his problem? Sounds like you had zero faith in anything other than a government solution coming through to save this guy. You would have a leg to stand on if government screwed up, and private sector came to the rescue and saved this guy, but what happened here only demonstrated that we better hope government pays for healthcare, because if left to the mercy of charity and private sector, we are as good as dead. This was just a preview of health care without government involvement, and all I can say is, no thanks.
It is amazing that you keep bringing it up thinking it somehow strengthens your argument, when it in fact does the opposite.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Let me ask you this, If it comes down to a "lesser of two evils" selection, will you vote or not?

It depends on the degree. Chances are I'll sit this one out rather than hold my nose. We'll see.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Did you call the drug maker, see if they wanted to donate the medicine before you just let the poor sap die? Did you try to organize any private sector solution to his problem?

That would be drug makers plural. No I didn't call them, but I did call his primary and he said he'd see if he could get samples or something. Apparently that didn't work out.

Sounds like you had zero faith in anything other than a government solution coming through to save this guy.

What seems to escape your attention is that I've never been against a social safety system that functions for those who have no other resource. The facts are that we aren't talking a hypothetical "well what if he didn't have insurance" because HE HAD IT. No one was able to access it though. If given the number I could have processed it and there would be no story.

You would have a leg to stand on if government screwed up, and private sector came to the rescue and saved this guy

Wait- why did the private sector have to pay because the government fucked up and wouldn't give me numbers? The private sector didn't pay the many thousands of dollars to cover regulatory bullshit? Oh, that's right. The government is all powerful, and we need to pay when it goes FUBAR. Er, no. The govt assumed the responsibility it did not meet.

what happened here only demonstrated that we better hope government pays for healthcare,

We all hoped the government would pay for this guys healthcare since they were providing it. Didn't work out so well for him.

because if left to the mercy of charity and private sector, we are as good as dead. This was just a preview of health care without government involvement, and all I can say is, no thanks.

So let's get the time line and facts straight.

1) Patient ALREADY ON MEDICAID has numbers changed before his card was mailed out due to bureaucratic incompetence.

2) This man needs thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of meds a month to live.

3) Bureaucrats won't give the number of HIS GOVERNMENT POLICY.

4) Calls to the state house and governors line- nothing in reply.

5) We're told by Medicaid that he's going to have to wait six weeks for his card and if he dies that's not their concern.

You?

This was just a preview of health care without government involvement, and all I can say is, no thanks.

WRONG. This was with government handling things by avoiding it's obligation to the patient that had ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED.

It is amazing that you keep bringing it up thinking it somehow strengthens your argument, when it in fact does the opposite.

It's amazing indeed, but not in the way you play it.

 

[her209]

Agreed, I also do not recall Bush / Cheney claiming that their admin is the most transparent administration ever.

Well, do you recall W claiming he wasn't going to be a nation building President if elected?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, do you recall W claiming he wasn't going to be a nation building President if elected?

BUT CLINTON!

Bob: How do you know when a politician is lying?
Alice: I don't know. How do you know?
Bob: His mouth is moving.

Bada Boom!

 

[theeedude]

That would be drug makers plural. No I didn't call them, but I did call his primary and he said he'd see if he could get samples or something. Apparently that didn't work out.

Sounds like private sector/charity medicine fail.

What seems to escape your attention is that I've never been against a social safety system that functions for those who have no other resource. The facts are that we aren't talking a hypothetical "well what if he didn't have insurance" because HE HAD IT. No one was able to access it though. If given the number I could have processed it and there would be no story.

Yep, if the government paid for medicine, there would not have been a problem.

Wait- why did the private sector have to pay because the government fucked up and wouldn't give me numbers? The private sector didn't pay the many thousands of dollars to cover regulatory bullshit? Oh, that's right. The government is all powerful, and we need to pay when it goes FUBAR. Er, no. The govt assumed the responsibility it did not meet. We all hoped the government would pay for this guys healthcare since they were providing it. Didn't work out so well for him.

Agree, the government not paying for medicine does not work out for patients.

So let's get the time line and facts straight.

1) Patient ALREADY ON MEDICAID has numbers changed before his card was mailed out due to bureaucratic incompetence.

2) This man needs thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of meds a month to live.

3) Bureaucrats won't give the number of HIS GOVERNMENT POLICY.

4) Calls to the state house and governors line- nothing in reply.

5) We're told by Medicaid that he's going to have to wait six weeks for his card and if he dies that's not their concern.

You? WRONG. This was with government handling things by avoiding it's obligation to the patient that had ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED.
It's amazing indeed, but not in the way you play it.

I agree that the only hope for patients like him is that government pays the bill like it's supposed to. If the government does not pay, as it did not in this case, these patients are left to mercy of private sector, a.k.a. dead.

What this case is really saying is that we need a universal single payer system, so there is no question that the government is paying for the care, and no room for such snafus.

 

[werepossum]

It is not shocking, but still quite remarkable how most Democrats have mimicked the Bush supporters when he was in office. We all know Bush was elected as a "compassionate conservative," a small-government Republican with a "humble foreign policy." But every time Bush reversed himself, and as he became a disaster of a president, they stood by him. "Better than Gore," better than Kerry." I don't know how many times Obama has reversed himself, more than I can count, and most Democrats seem to have caught this "Party over Principle" disease, offering up the same kind of bullshit we heard from Republicans. Health care reform was a disaster. "Better than nothing." Tens of thousands of soldiers still in Iraq. "Well it's better than 150,000." I have no idea if they have any excuses for the failure that is Afghanistan, hell Obama campaigned on escalating that war out of fear of not looking like a coward (ironic, to say the least). Indefinite Detention, well at least Maddow smacked Obama around for that one. Patriot Act still going strong. The dollar is getting weaker, gas prices are heading back up, unemployment hasn't moved. "Well he's better than Bush," "better than McCain." It's their hatred of the other party that makes it so easy for them to do this, yet at the same time, so difficult for them to see it. Like the Bush loyalists, they've given themselves a false choice, and in their mind they can never be wrong. They think they're supporting their party, but in reality, they're only destroying it.

Well said indeed. Personally I'm conflicted about this. Most legislation on both sides is written in large part by lobbyists, and clearly that needs to stop. On the other hand, the White House clearly needs to be able to seek expert guidance without bringing in politics, which means privacy. In the end to me this is nothing more than business as usual, except for the scope of the bill in question, but since I never bought into the idea that a Chicago Democrat was going to be transparent in anything except partisanship, I'm neither surprised nor disgusted at the result. Different choir, same song.

 

[Genx87]

Heh. Then we'll get the transparency offered in Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force meetings, right?

I can't wait.

Two wrongs make a right in your world eh? I guess you dont really care about Cheney's secret dealings with energy companies then?

 

[rudeguy]

Those meetings were confidential, just like the meetings at a business.

The congressional debates WERE televised, which is what Obama promised. Did you right wingers watch them? No, you were too busy organizing your V for Vendetta parties with your Teabagger buddies.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/01/obama_finally_admits_he_broke.html

then why did he admit that he didn't fulfill his promise?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What this case is really saying is that we need a universal single payer system, so there is no question that the government is paying for the care, and no room for such snafus.

So the government is in charge of this guys health care, screws up and the solution is to let the government be in charge of his health care. It was the government that screwed this from top to bottom because politicians and bureaucrats designed it.

Government CAN have a role, but not if the health of the people it's supposed to serve takes priority over other considerations. Until that sinks in to the very thick craniums of politicians and authoritarians they have no business taking control.

No one really knows what the best options are for health care. No one seriously looked into it. "Oh but in France..." France is a different political and economic animal, and who's to say that any other nation has the best possible system?

Tossing someone the keys and then figuring out if they can drive based on if they crash isn't smart.

 

[Rockinacoustic]

What this case is really saying is that we need a universal single payer system, so there is no question that the government is paying for the care, and no room for such snafus.

The government couldn't even get its sh!t together for this one patient, so the answer it to expand their services? Brilliant.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The government couldn't even get its sh!t together for this one patient, so the answer it to expand their services? Brilliant.

The government is regulation bound so common sense can't apply when there's a conflict with them and the patient. The patient loses. I've had a discussion with him and he believes that if a poorly written regulation forbids a physician from providing a service that would be medically ethical then the physician shouldn't save the patient since it would result in a violation. That's where he's coming from. The AIDS story is one I was involved in, and note that rather than having the rule violated of not giving out the information for coverage which existed he believes nstead others were supposed to kick out thousands of dollars from their own pockets and because we didn't it's our fault and that demonstrates that only government is the solution.

Pretty twisted eh? It's the best he could come up with because if he could divert my point about punishing people for helping others then he'd be spared the embarrassment and the exposing the weakness in a regulation based system. Note the lack of support for his reasoning.

In any system of health care the patient needs to come first and that means enabling the provider to have greater resources, not practicing by a script of poorly written regulations. Considering that politicians dictate and others obey that's bound to fail. I've suggested elsewhere that a full understanding of our system and it's needs (which goes far beyond mere coverage) is needed in advance of legislation, but that would remove to some degree the ability to claim direct credit and limit the selling out to various groups. At heart is a philosophical difference of opinion where some want a solution, while others have a deep seated need to be ruled and feel others should be compelled by those in power to obey. That's the basic need of authoritarians. The health care issue is merely a means to an end for them, and they might not even realize it themselves. "Government is the solution to the problem of government" isn't even a valid logical statement, much like saying that "Two is the solution to making two plus two equal 5". The solution is to figure out what is needed first then having a public debate and then the politicians serving the public. That is unlikely to happen.

 

[nobodyknows]

Two wrongs make a right in your world eh? I guess you dont really care about Cheney's secret dealings with energy companies then?

Ergo you must not care about the details of Obama's health care.

 

[nobodyknows]

Tossing someone the keys and then figuring out if they can drive based on if they crash isn't smart.

Yet we do it every 4 years.

 

[kage69]

Yet that has nothing to do with this issue, and that's the problem. Rant about Bush all you want, but when he's used as an reason to divert? That's BS. If the Dems put as much energy in making Obama toe the line as they complain about Bush then maybe they'd get the idea that supporting extraordinary extradition or bolstering an already atrocious warrantless wiretap law is unacceptable. It's not though, because the red herring of the past means that anything done which is less wrong is just dandy.

But then every party has it's hacks. When GWB came on it was BUT CLINTON. When the Reps get back in power then it will be BUT OBAMA.

That's why things don't get fixed. Parties are to be protected by their own over timely considerations.

Settle down Francis! Your complaint of diversion is without merit: the first thing I did was address the topic - with disapproval I might add, funny how my use of the term FAIL was somehow transformed by you into a insinuation that I considered this "dandy."
I didn't rant about Bush either, my comment was towards Cheney supporters irt to his meetings. Providing a few points of why two admins are different is hardly a rant. Probably the wrong use of the term 'red herring' too btw. That denotes rarity, and actions like this were not the exception in that admin, they were closer to the rule.

Whatever, I've already stated my position and don't feel the need to elaborate further simply because criticism wasn't worded in a way that pleased you.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Sorry, but PsJ is right, you are a fucking joke. So, your duh-version in this thread wasn't meant to be an idiotic knee jerk defense of Obama? Go ahead and lie if you must, we expect that from you.

But more to the point, where is your criticism "of the Obama Admin wrt this all?" Nowhere to be seen, of course.

No whats a joke is this knee jerk criticism.

Wheres the countervailing argument? Where are the details?

Where are the intelligent discussion points?

 

[Craig234]

Time and againd this is the argument:

Bush: I promise rain. Then spits in your face.

Right-wing poster: haha! he's great! suck it you Marxist.

Obama: I promise rainbows. Delivers curly light bulbs and says you can see colors if you squint.

Right-wing poster: OBAMA SUCKS HE LIED!!!! BRING BACK REPUBLICANS TO SPIT IN OUR FACE!!!

Liberal poster: energy-efficient light bulbs are a LOT better than wiping saliva, you idiot.

Right-wing poster: But Bush never PROMISED rainbows so him spitting in your face is better than nice light bulbs!

 

[rudeguy]

Time and againd this is the argument:

Bush: I promise rain. Then spits in your face.

Right-wing poster: haha! he's great! suck it you Marxist.

Obama: I promise rainbows. Delivers curly light bulbs and says you can see colors if you squint.

Right-wing poster: OBAMA SUCKS HE LIED!!!! BRING BACK REPUBLICANS TO SPIT IN OUR FACE!!!

Liberal poster: energy-efficient light bulbs are a LOT better than wiping saliva, you idiot.

Right-wing poster: But Bush never PROMISED rainbows so him spitting in your face is better than nice light bulbs!

wow....just wow

 

[werepossum]

wow....just wow

The voices in his head have the oddest arguments . . .