Obama blowing smoke?

Maybe I missed it, but is President Obama still smoking cigarettes?

He seems to be very involved with wanting to invoke change in the country’s health care system, but if he hasn’t yet invoked a change in personal nicotine addiction, I urge members of Congress and the citizens of the U.S. to take another look at his pleas.

Dean D. Richards III, M.D.
Leawood

Comments

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Nope Jazz, I smoked because I made that choice. Addiction, no. I would never accept welfare, there is this thing called working.
Poor CITIZENS that are UNABLE, that is one thing. Why is it they do not randmonly drug test, run credit checks and ensure people that receive assistance are truly in need?
If people on welfare can afford getting their nails did, Jordans, bling, and touch screen phones, they ain't poor.
You wanna see poor, go check out Somalia or Ghana. Tired of people always making excuses for their choices then ignorantly blaming someone else for their bad choice.

[Moral City USA]

I wonder if this doctor thinks Obama's personal smoking habit is also responsible for the out-of--control cost of health care that started 20 years ago.

I would tend to think that his personal financial aspirations had more to do with it that Obama's smoking.

[Jazz-Man]

WTF? NOMO where did that come from, you smoked for 20 years and for 20 years you didn’t put down the Cig. Doesn’t matter if you tried to stop, what mattered was that you didn’t because you were addicted. Were you on Government assistance? Were you using my tax dollars at that point in your life? The majority of Americans don’t want to stop smoking and could give a crap about the government helping them.

Your focus on what you call dead beats on welfare going to casinos and eating steaks is what’s blinding you to who is really at fault. Fix the Gov programs and you fix the people abusing them. At least they will have to make an effort to help themselves. What we need is to stop is the handouts to the wrong people; how do you do that I don’t know but you have already damned the people that really need help. As far as you are concerned poor people are the cause of the problem.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Let m guess Jazz, we need social programs and monetary handouts for addicts.
Th physical addiction is undertsandable with hard narcotics and alcohol but still, who's fault is it someone allows themselves to become addicted? I would imagine Bush is to blame for this as well. Barack smoking makes him a hypocrite, typical of politicians from both gangs.

[Zeno]

"We start taxing for the health care asap and actual healthcare kicks in 3 years or so down the road? "

All this whining about "rushing" or "ramming through" reform, and now it's too slow for you?
Jim's cherry picking goes on. Gosh Jim I do not wnat to slow down the process I want it dead! But if you are going to implement it and figure out costs, let us at least have that level playing field. Which OF COURSE, you conviently forgot to address. If you start collecting today for something that will not be a benefit for 3 years or so, then the first 10 YEARS OF ACCOUNTING will look better. They WON'T BE BETTER but will look better. If in 10 years of collecting for 5-7 years of service we can balance the budget, then what happens WHEN THE 10 YEARS OF COLLECTING IS MATCHED TO THE 10 OF SERVICE. The budget explodes and you know it! Why would any thinking person not see this. Well the truth is they do see it and do not care. That is what is hard to understand.

[Jazz-Man]

Good for you NOMO my mother quit as well after 40 years but others struggle with it because its an addiction.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

NO it does not tak time, that is an excuse by weak liberals. I quit cold turkey 20 yars ago, no social programs, no excuss, no pills, no thrapy. It's called discipline.
Jim, hate to tell you this but you are either retarded or just plain stupid. So now insurance companies will be forced to cover anyone regardless of risk? YOu think that will not increase costs. Typical welfare monger.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Insurance should continue to be a risk based model. Maybe they also pass a law that guarantees you get your money back when you go to casinos? Again, more excuses for the deadbeat in charge. Rules appply t EVERYONE else. I would bet he even swings dodging tobacco taxes the deadbeat lawyer he is.

[Smarter Than You]

Now that Jim’s through telling it like it isn’t, let’s review a few facts his intellectual laziness might benefit from.

The Clunker for Cash (aka Obamacare) proposal is not UHC on face value. What the intended consequence IS would be a single payer government run entity. How’s that going to happen? The bills in place require insurance companies to cover anyone who applies and takes off caps on what must be paid out forcing them to operate at a deficit. Meanwhile, the government offers a competitive service, at a deficit of at least a Trillion Dollars (according to the CBO) but without the necessity of fiscal responsibility. Any guesses on which one survives? Jim knows this. Jim is counting on this. Jim is not honest enough to admit this.

It’s kind of like the President utilizing justification numbers that include illegal aliens in the total while Jim insists they wouldn’t be allowed. If they’re not allowed, Jim, why do you accept Obama’s blatant misrepresentation? Or maybe it’s that when documentation was provided for Jim on how the loopholes in the legislation for aliens would work, he huffed and he puffed that HE knew better than any documented sources.

Of course, good ol’ Jim couldn’t give a flip about the two year wait to get a disability hearing for social security. He’s all gung-ho that the government is the only way to go. He doesn’t want to address the financial shortfalls of our current entitlements. Or what Obamacare means to the deficit. Not Jim.

He’s still trying to play the old “what Obama said he wants is not what Obama wants” card! Who here believes him? Show of hands!

[Jim]

"The one thing that would encourage competition has been blocked by the liberals writing this bill, that would be enabling insurance companies to sell across state lines. "

Talk about undereducated and ignorant. You don't even exhibit a basic understanding of your own solution and its ramifications.

The reason we don’t allow insurance to cross state lines is because we allow states to regulate their own insurance markets. Some states have chosen to have strict regulations, like community rating and guaranteed issue. It’s what allows Massachusetts to try it’s own plan. This way, some states have implemented reforms so that people can’t be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.

In general, these plans do make insurance more expensive for the young and healthy, but more equitable across the board. If we allowed insurance companies to cross state lines, then companies in states with less regulation could cherry pick healthy patients from previously regulated states (because the insurers are only subject to the regulations of the states they're based out of). This would destroy the risk pools in the regulated states and lead to a breakdown of the systems they have in place.

So, your solution might result in more options for healthy people, but that's not really who insurance is for, is it? What do you do about the cost of insurance for the people who need it?

[hajkar]

LOL

[chalveyob]

Jim: Typical of undereducated overbearing liberals you seem to think you speak for others, my example you use of "we". Describing your logic as moronic was not namecalling, it was an accurate description of the sillyness you blather on about. The fact you think adding a government run healthcare plan is some how competition, is a joke, no private entity can compete with the government, they have unlimited resources, and don't have to make a profit. The one thing that would encourage competition has been blocked by the liberals writing this bill, that would be enabling insurance companies to sell across state lines. If you are so ignorant to not see this is a step towards a singlepayer system, then no one can help you. Ignore all the people who wrote this bill saying their goal was single payer, just trust they threw out that idea, and will be happy with this. I know the first page in the dishonest liberal playbook is marginalize anyone who disagrees, thus your conspiracy comment. I will rely on history and facts, you keep up with the hope and change!

[Jim]

Calvey,

The fact that you resort to name-calling tells us all we need to know about your argument. You'll notice that I said, "in all likelihood" in my earlier comment. That's because 0+0 does not equal 100. In other words, if you take something that isn't in any of the bills and think it'll magically appear after being fear-mongered about for months, you're most likely wrong. None of the existing bills has a single-payer system. None of them has "socialized medicine" (which is different, not that you are aware of that). They're just not there, despite the screaming that people like you are doing that it is there.

Could it physically be added to the final bill? Yeah, sure it could. Will it? I'm goign out on a limb and saying no. How do I reach that conclusion? I'm going off the fact that it hasn't been included in any of the bills or amendments thus far. Also, the fact that the one bill that was proposed to take us to single-payer health care, HR 676, has gone nowhere. Meanwhile, other bills that want to introduce market competition, like HR 3200, have been completed and passed.

If you really thing that, after all this, they're just going to junk everything they've spend months negotiating and getting the votes for in order to insert something that hasn't even been able to get two dozen sponsors, you really don't understand how these things work.

Your entitled to your conspiracy theories. Just don't tout them as facts.

[chalveyob]

Jim: I guess then by your moron logic, everything you said that is not going to happen is totally false as well. You realize any first grader knows the bills in the house and senate have to be voted on amendments added, then go to conference where they will change once again. The final bill then has to pass both houses, so anything you say isn't going to happen with the current legislation is just wishful thinking on your part. Just a little FYI, government run insurance already decides certain treatments are too expensive, that would qualif as a death panel, there was a very well publicized case in Oregon where their Medicaid decided a cancer medicine was not worth the cost to a patient, they refused to pay for it making her death a sure thing. Luckily the evil drug companies ended up footing the bill. This will be only the begining when the government can no longer cost shift 25-30% of their cost on Medicare to the privately insured. If you want sociaized medicine, move to Canada, iam sure they would love another freeloader to live off the government teet!

[Jim]

"We start taxing for the health care asap and actual healthcare kicks in 3 years or so down the road? "

All this whining about "rushing" or "ramming through" reform, and now it's too slow for you?

There are three House bills that are very similar, but the final House bill will most likely look a lot like HR 3200. Not that you care, but here is the implementation timeline for that bill:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090826/hr3200_timeline.pdf

I'd like certain provisions like the public option to get going a lot sooner, too. But if it were implemented immediately, you'd be back on your "ramming" and "rushing" talking points, anyway. For you, doing anything at all is "rushing" things.

"When a insurance company makes that decision they are evil. When the gov. does it they will be compassionate. "

So you still don't have any evidence that this is in the actual legislation. I'm not talking about names and semantics, but honest-to-goodness language from one of the bills that authorizes anything remotely resembling a "death panel." I have been asking for this for months and you have never, ever provided any sliver of info that could justify your claim. All you've got is something you heard that Obama once said. That's funny to me, because you take something that you say is my standard and use it for yourself ("says you, so they must be"). Meanwhile, I feel the need to point out for the umpteenth time that euthanasia is already illegal in this country. None of the bills change that. If you want to be taken seriously on this, you could just shut us all up by showing us the proof.

"I thought earlier you were screaming at repubs because they had not read they bill, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO BILL."

I really don't get why you're so worked up about this. At the time, way back in August, the only bills that were finished and available to read were HR 3200 and the Senate HELP bill. HR 3200 is the bill all those claims were based on. So, once again, it's clear you never read that bill (nor any of the other ones that are now available). Because there is NO "government takeover" of health care in it. You're not only wrong about that, but you were wrong then and now about the existence of a bill.

"Which bill has no goverment takeover and how have you become all knowing - all seeing to know what is going to pass. "

None of them do. That's how I know that there won't be one that will pass. When you take five bills that have nothing even approaching a "government takeover" and put them all together, there in all likelyhood won't be a "government takeover". To you, 0+0 suddenly equals 100. Again, you could prove me wrong by simply citing the "government takeover" language from any of the bills. It's probably on the same page as the euthanasia language.

"It is done with you because there has been no argument for you. You would have to listen to the other side and actually argue their points. "

What points? You haven't made any! You're making "points" about a bill that doesn't exist. The bill you are arguing about has death panels and single-payer takeovers and forced abortions and all sorts of awful stuff. But in the real world, where we actually have bills we can read and see with our own two eyes, none of those things are included. I hate to break it to you, but the bill that will become law is in the real world. Your fictitious bill that has all those terrible red herrings, will not. It won't even come up for a vote.

Again, this is really simple. I'm inviting you to totally discredit me by posting actual language from any of the bills that clearly states what you say it does. I put this invitation out months ago. So where's your proof?

[Jim]

Jeanette,

I don't know that anyone's established that Obama is still smoking. I know he was quitting back at the beginning of the campaign, and heard rumors that he started up again earlier this year, but it's never been established whether he is or isn't (at least to my knowledge). I'd prefer he not smoke, too, but the letter writer seems to be asking about it, then proceeding with an attack that just assumes it's true.

[jeanette]

Although I'm not a big fan of this President, his smoking is the least of my concerns. Of course he should quit, but with the pressure a President is under everyday, I'm surprised he doesn't drink, too.

[chalveyob]

There is no anti-healthcare reform side! That is one of the many lies used by desparate parasites looking for free healthcare. People are aginst government run healthcare. Save the Medicare B.S. Medicare is underfunded by over 30 trillion dollars, and cost shifts a huge amount of money to the private sector, Medicare for all would bankrupt the country within years. Save the idea that Medicare doesn't ration healthcare either, Medicare refuses around 35% of the submitted procedures, compared with private insurance which refuses around 14%. You can attack ans lie all you wish, it doesn't change the fact this healthcare proposal is a fraud, a lie, and will reduce mediacl services and quality for everyone except the rich and congress. Great idea!

[Zeno]

Lost the argument?
We start taxing for the health care asap and actual healthcare kicks in 3 years or so down the road? So with 10 years of collecting we get 7 years of goods. HMMM. I am going to try that with my mortgage lender. It will certainly make my budget look better until they forclose on me.

Death panels are fictional says you, so they must be. But your are right nothing called a death panel is in the language. But Obama himself said there will need to be decision made about end of life care. When the money runs out, as it will, choices will need to be made. When a insurance company makes that decision they are evil. When the gov. does it they will be compassionate.

No "goverment takeover" HUH. I thought earlier you were screaming at repubs because they had not read they bill, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO BILL. How is that different today for you. Which bill has no goverment takeover and how have you become all knowing - all seeing to know what is going to pass. BTW that well known conservative ED from the ED show on MSNBC says repeatly that the public option is the first step to single payer. And he has had many guests on to agree with him.

No friend the argument is not lost because it is not over. At least not with the part of the world that thinks anyway. It is done with you because there has been no argument for you. You would have to listen to the other side and actually argue their points. Not take what MD Richards said and try to make that the argument. But alas that is what you all are reduced to because you cannot get the votes in your own party to pass this nightmare.
But just know I am pulling for you guys to get this done against the wishes of the American people. And then will be waiting for your nightmares in 2010 and 2012!

[Jim]

Sad that this is what the anti-health reform side is left with as an argument. Their screaming about a "government takeover" didn't stick because it has no basis in fact. Neither did the fictional "death panels" or the "trillion dollars added to the deficit" stuff (now they've upped it to 2 trillion, just to see if that would work). So now, after all that screaming and ranting and trampling on other citizens' free speech, this is all they've got.

They've lost the argument and they know it.

[viet-vet1970]

That's what you got Dean? A cheap shot about smoking, when you don't even know if it's true? You don't bring a lot to the discussion here Dean. But thanks for revealing your personal tweak. That's always entertaining.

[Jazz-Man]

Get over it, it takes time to quit and if he is still smoking and you really care then you need a life.