There has been a lot of talk about what Pres. Obama promised on health care- here are the facts

[NJmaverick]

here is a factual and unbiased look on what President Obama promised and what he has or is working on accomplishing.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/health-care/


Looks to me like the man was pretty true to his word.

[NJmaverick]

1. lol! Unrecced already guess the haters are not to happy to talk facts

Guess they hate facts as much as other things and people and institutions.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. you earned an unrec for that comment

people who disagree with you are not 'haters'.

Keep it up - you could become an autounrec all on your own.

[NJmaverick]

13. Good choice of screen names

[Warren Stupidity]

14. oh that hurts

[HughMoran]

22. Don't worry

I get the same all the time, though in this case it applies to you :P

[NJmaverick]

24. That might have been a cheap shot. still the idea that you or anyone else

would try to bury the FACTS in unreccs seems rather unseemly. I figured hatred was a better choice of motives over someo of the other reasons people would want to hide the truth.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. I didn't unrec until I read your stupid haters comment

until then it was just your usual finger jabbing.

You post to piss people off and then whine because people don't like your posts.

Waaaaaa

[Maraya1969]

40. The hater comment had ZERO to do with the substance of this thread

And yet you un'rec'd it just to be spiteful.

[niceypoo]

44. Substance?

Look at the first reply to the thread. Drama or substance? You decide!

[Maraya1969]

48. What matters is the link in the OP. Check it out.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. Well AFAIC that might have mattered until the first comment in the thread,

and then the OP became yet another eye-poking event by the OP. The OP destroyed his own OP by tossing in the gratuitous haters comment. But I already noted this, and you just seem to not get it.

[Warren Stupidity]

55. No I unrecced it in reaction to the spitefulness expressed by the OP.

I'm guessing you can't figure out the difference.

[Donnachaidh]

46. then perhaps yours should be changed to corporate shill

it's far more appropriate than *maverick*

[Maraya1969]

39. He posted to an objective site that compared what Obama said to what he did.

And people un'rec'ed it and now you un'rec'ed it because they were called out as Obama haters.

So you un'rec'd a good thing Obama did. Who's side are you on anyway?

[Warren Stupidity]

47. I unrecced the use of the phrase 'haters' given the long history

of the OP's chronic eye-jabbing here. Plus I unrec all unrec whining as a matter of principle. Speaking of which....

[Maraya1969]

49. You have no idea what the Un'rec feature is all about. It's not about childish pranks.

[Warren Stupidity]

53. Oh please explain the wisdom of the unrec

I obviously mistook it for my vote on the merits of an OP.

[Aramchek]

33. they don't play well with the truth

[ClarkUSA]

57. Fuck 'em. Thanks for poking holes in the latest Obama Outrage meme.

:kick:

[Tansy_Gold]

2. It might be interesting to add up the numbers of

Accomplished
"In the works"
Compromised
Stalled.

"In the Works" could mean anything and there sure were a lot of green starts (I don't want to say "green shoots), but the real results to be measured are in Accomplished, Stalled, and Compromised columns.


Add 'em up and see what happens.



TG

[jaxx]

3. Most terms last 4 years.

It's now required of this president to have done it all in one?

[Tansy_Gold]

5. No, it's not a requirement that it all be done in one year.

But it's also not kosher to count as "accomplished" something that's only been started.

Obama didn't just promise to "start" things. I can say I started a novel, too, but having one page or one chapter done doesn't qualify me to say I've written a book. (I've written 14, just for the record, so I know the difference.)

If that were the case, he could take credit for just about anything he's even mentioned doing, since that could qualify as "in process."

All I'm saying is that if this site is going to be cited as a non-partisan measure of accomplishment, then what should be counted are the "accomplishments," not the starts (which may end up never being accomplished even at the end of eight years).


Don't jump all over me. . . .at least not yet.


TG

[NJmaverick]

7. The site does add up every promise and tallies the numbers

but they don't do a break down by topic.

[hughee99]

4. No. 518: Create a public option health plan for a new National Health Insurance Exchange.

"The exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and meet the same standards for quality and efficiency."

This is "in the works" according to the website, which must be true because I recall hearing him say he wouldn't sign any bill that didn't have a public option.

[freddie mertz]

15. HA! I saw that too. "In the works" indeed!

Based on that, you'd have to be an idiot to believe anything that stupid list claims.

Next.

[uponit7771]

6. We don't need no damn facts!!!!

[newtothegame]

8. Wow, pages 4-5 and are telling...

"Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN" What a joke, thanks for nothing.


No. 519: Reproductive health care will be "at the heart" of health care reform.

"In my mind, reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care, so it is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose. Essentially what we're doing is, we’re going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services, as well as mental health services and disease management services, because part of our interest is to make sure that we’re putting more money into preventive care." STALLED

No. 520: If you don't have insurance, or don't like the insurance you have, you'll be able to choose a new plan on a health insurance exchange.

"If you don't have insurance, or don't like your insurance, you'll be able to choose from the same type of quality private plans as every federal employee - from a postal worker here in Colorado to a congressman in Washington. All of these plans will cover essential medical services including prevention, maternity, disease management and mental health care. No one will be turned away because of a pre-existing condition or illness." STALLED

No. 521: Cut the cost of a typical family's health insurance premium by up to $2,500 a year

"I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year." STALLED


So basically anything that increases accountability or decreases costs is stalled; nice. And thanks for that promise not to sign a bill that didn't contain a public option; I've got all the confidence in the world in you on that one.

[NJmaverick]

11. there were a lot of promises made during a campaign that lasted over a year

and was quite intense.

[freddie mertz]

17. And a lot of promises BROKEN and/or not given in true faith.

It's a shameful record.

[graywarrior]

9. Thanks, NJmaverick!

[Blue Idaho]

10. Interesting - thanks!

[Armstead]

16. What Obama said he wanted depended on the day -- and political situation at the moment

He has basically taken almost every position there is at one time or another, which is the whole damn problem with him.

[uponit7771]

19. ...but your hate is consistant and frequent

[Armstead]

25. yawn Sean. You love that Hannity word don't you?

[niceypoo]

43. Word has it that Hannity said, 'Korndog' the other day

No more Korndogs for you!!

:)

[HughMoran]

23. White picket fence

[Armstead]

26. No it's Pink Fluffy Bunnies

[NJmaverick]

28. While you can try to hide the facts with unreccs

I have to wonder what the motive is behind wanting to keep the truth hidden.

[niceypoo]

41. From what I see..

People are unrec-ing your thread because you attack them with insults. If you have a solid position, sell it on its merits. Crudely shouting people down better suits Bill OReiley.

Just my observation.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[asdjrocky]

20. Pony people, wow.

You know, giving a group of people a derogatory or inflammatory name makes it easier to hate that group. And once you can hate a person, you can see them as less than human. Once you see someone as less than human, it's easier to kill that person.

Here's some help for you-
Hutu power radio
The radio station that broad-casted Hutu-supremacy propaganda in the movie "Hotel Rwanda" and also during the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda. The radio station focused on persuading people of the Hutu tribe to attack the Tutsi tribe. The genocide was fairly pointless as the Hutu and the Tutsi were rough groups made by the Belgian occupying forces in Rwanda, based on physical appearence. When the Belgians left, the two tribes essentially lost their real purpose but still many uneducated Rwandans continued to discriminate against others based on tribes and this led to the 1994 Genocide. Nothing was done by other countries around the world to stop this tradgedy, apart from a small UN force which was not nearly big enough to save many people at all.

"We must kill the Tutsi cockroaches" - Hutu Power Radio.

No explanation is given as to why they must kill the "Tutsi cockroaches".

[ima_sinnic]

21. and the insulters are already insulting

yes, unrecced for the insults at the very outset of the OP. If the OP can post something without insulting everybody, it might actually get rec'd. but we're all "haters," so nothing you whiny-babies ever post will ever get a good recommendation.

oh, WAH!!! those nasty haters! why does everybody hate us, all we did was try to extort their vote by browbeating them about Palin, tell them "they're mad cause they didn't get a pony," and copy and paste row upon row of rofl icons in response to simple questions like "why did Obama lie about reinstating habeas corpus?"

boo hoo :cry:

[NJmaverick]

27. that is a pretty weak excuse for unreccing a factual post

So if it isn't hate, what is your reason for wanting to hide the truth with unreccs

[ima_sinnic]

29. why is "hate" the only reason for criticizing Obama, or "unreccing a thread"

the reason was explained to you, yet you persist with the "hate" thing.

deep down, do you sincerely think I or anybody else on here "hates" Obama, and, in addition, "wants him to fail"? I'll admit, I'm not too keen on liars, and that's what I'm starting to feel about Obama. But other than mild disdain, I'm not that emotionally invested. Hatred takes too much energy. He shut the progressives out of health care talks, he turns a deaf ear to anything but war as the answer to anything, he laughs at the idea of legalizing marijuana, he lied about being a "fierce advocate" of gay rights, he lied about making reinstatement of habeas corpus "a priority" (in fact actively working to thwart habeas corpus), etc. etc. Excuse me for being less than enthusiastic, but to simply write it off as "hate" and think I or anybody else has some "ulterior motive" and just criticizes out of "hatred"--well, that's asinine. These reasons, based in fact, are given daily, over and over, by me and many others, yet it always comes down to "hate"--and we're the ones accused of "dichotomous thinking"--go figure.

[NJmaverick]

30. I said "hiding the truth". This is a factual reference of promises

So if hate isn't the motive for buring it under Unrecs, I would like to know why people have a problem with the truth.

Is it that you and your fellow anti-obama people want to use your own set of "facts" and "truths". Sorry but you are entitled to only you own opinion not your own facts.

[ima_sinnic]

31. most he (or his admin) is "working on"--not sure what that means.

BUT #517, "Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN":

"I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."

See, when he came up with that, I thought he was fantastic. That was like the crux of the entire matter--let the doctors, nurses, and hospital administrators, the ones who actually give the care and get paid for it, give their input, as well as consumer advocates and advocates for the elderly, disabled, impoverished, chronically ill, and working people.

But just the opposite happened. I waited to hear him say, hey, wait a minute, I said EVERYBODY would be heard--but he didn't. He checked out of the entire matter. The "discussion" occurred behind closed doors, exactly what he said was NOT going to happen. The lobbyists and big money interests were the only ones "heard"--and that didn't seem to bother him either. It was as if he had no interest whatsoever in having his "promise" kept, as though he'd never even made it.

No. 518, "Create a public option health plan for a new National Health Insurance Exchange"--well, it says "in the works," but that is out of date. Since "single payer" was never even considered, the "public option" was also crucially important. If he really wanted it, he should have written something out--an outline, some guidance, even bullet points, to give Congress the bare minimum he wanted, but he didn't. To me, that makes him look noncommittal, weak and wishy washy. He did exactly what Hillary advised him not to do: turned it over to Congress so they ran the entire discussion. He was basically out of the loop--so now conveniently his apologists can say it was not his fault the public option was not in the final bill.

To me, a lot of the rest of it is details of insurance reform. He lied about wanting our input. He got what he wanted, an insurance co. bailout bill with a few minor strings attached with plenty of loopholes for insurance company abuse. And the horror stories of abuse will begin shortly after the bill is implemented. Will he care?

[Bobbie Jo]

32. Recommended for factual content.

[ClarkUSA]

58. Refreshing, isn't it?

:kick:

[closeupready]

34. You just don't know when to quit, do you?

:eyes:

[harun]

36. I want him to do what is best for the citizens of this country, not to do as little

as possible in terms of not breaking promises while channeling as much money as possible to the Health Insurers.

[Top Cat]

37. Looks like he is keeping his word... great information

[branders seine]

38. as with all politicians, it all depends on how you interpret his

carefully ambiguously crafted language, and when you draw the line on a given promise.

For example, at one point he advocated single payer, then no mandates, then mandates, then public option, then no public option...



Cherry picking all his various positions and promises, I'm sure you could come up with a scenario in which he exceeded his promises.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

42. Now here's what I don't get....

During the campaign, Obama really and truly did say that he would like to expand Medicare as part of his health care reform plan, to go along with creating an expanded system of subsidized private insurance. He wanted both. Where the private sector couldn't (or wouldn't) do the job, the government would step in.

Fair enough.

Now the Senate didn't give him the bill that he wanted. We got the subsidized private insurance, but not the Medicare buy-in. But Obama has looked at it and said, "Close enough for now. I'll sign it."

What puzzles me is why Obama is being blamed for not getting the bill he wanted. I've read my Constitution forwards and backwards, and there's nothing in there that says the President has any authority to alter legislation passed by Congress. He can only sign it or veto it. So why is it that Obama is catching the haet for the Senate's failure to do what was expected of them? They've placed Obama in a position to either accept something that he really didn't want, or to tell 30 million Americans without insurance, "Tough luck, and I hope that not too many of you die between now and when we get another health care reform bill through Congress."

[Armstead]

51. If he had tried hard but failed, people would feel differently

You may be absolutely correct that it would have been impossible to have gotten a PO or Medicare expansion...Or you may be mistaken, and that he could have done somne arm twisting and bargaining to get them in.

The point for me, and many others, is that he really didn't seem to try, and at some points seemed to be working for it more than against it.

he is not a dictator. But he is the most powerful man in Washington, and his job is to lead.

He could have set a much different tone and framework if he had proposed something clear about what he wanted Congress to do. And to go out and sell the public on it and explain the actual practical benefits of a government role in healthcare.

Instead he zigged and zagged and passed the buck and let the right wing take the offense so that all we got was a refutation of "death panel" nonsense AND a promise that government would not "take over" healthcare -- Instead of a clear and consistent and relentless message that the government can make your health care better, (even if private insurance remains part of the system).

Perhaps -- perhaps -- that might have not succeeded. Maybe it would have made the difference and gotten something real.

But many of us kept hoping he would lead, and instead heard a lot of waffling and even backsteps from Obama.

[ipaint]

45. That's funny the fact he campaigned on a public option isn't on that list. n/t

[freddie mertz]

50. NJ's stupid list has the public option as "in the works."

Which could not be more ridiculous.

If by some last-minute miracle the option IS revived, it will be thanks to some Hosue liberals, NOT the president, who now claims he never even HEARD of a public option.

:puke: :crazy: :dunce: :shrug:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

56. And so what does that indicate to you?

Put on your thinking cap. A well-respected, unbiased website that tracks political statements doesn't show any such promise having been made by Obama during the campaign.

Think real hard about that one for a minute.

It's because he never campaigned on a promise of a pure single-payer program. The option to buy Medicare coverage was one part of this plan -- I'm pretty sure he spent more time talking about electronic health records than he did the Medicare option.

Did Obama WANT to have the option to buy into Medicare? Yes. Did the Senate deliver that for him? No.

So the one and only question for Obama is, "Does this legislation give me enough of what I want to warrant my signing it?"

It's not about any alleged lies. It's about how many votes we have in the Senate.

[ShortnFiery]

52. BUNK! eom