Originally Posted By: Jaybird
Understandably you get the loudest screams from the rich. They are paying the most attention because they are also paying the most tax.

and that's why many rich people work so hard to defeat this administration, they've already looked at those charts, W gave tax breaks to the people who needed them the least, and at a time when we went to war, no less, and to pay for that, he had to borrow the money that we didn't have from China. So again, the money has to come from somewhere, some sort of sliding scale is needed, when the difference between the rich and the poor reaches an imbalance, as it has, we get just the kind of economic breakdown that we are trying to climb out from now

Originally Posted By: Jaybird
I think this would be the case for a small portion of those that are not under the care of a physician. I also can't help but think that if they previously never subjected themselves for routine exams, many wouldn't be inclined to start. I might be completely wrong. Also, if they treated their bodies like crap before, that may well continue. Old habits die hard. Also, access to health care or a health care plan does not beget good health. There is free will. A doctor cannot control for an individual their diet, their exercise, their stress levels, etc. All a doctor can do is attempt to diagnose a malady and attempt to treat it using the tools within their toolbox. The patient and their body has to do the rest.

the best rebuttal to that is what we learned from the recent free health care clinics that have been taking place in several states:

Arkansans Line Up For Free Health Care Clinics

New Orleans free health care clinic

these and other events like them demonstrate that people DO want the health care, they will use the services if they are available, they just can't afford them

Originally Posted By: Jaybird
I'm kind of split on these “sin” taxes. At one level I'd like to see junk food (including soda pop) taxed to discourage consumption since there is a detrimental effect on society, but on the other if the consumer wants to eat or drink those foodstuffs in question, it is their freewill. I mean, such a tax basically amounts to the government dictating what you should/should not consume. Should they tax such items, I'd like to see the amount in tax listed alongside the price on the grocery store shelf as opposed to burying/hiding it on a receipt after the item has been purchased.

good idea. And you used the word "discourage" rather than outlaw, since the taxes would be meant to do exactly that, if someone still wants to smoke, eat Twinkies, and drink soda pop, let 'em, and we should demand that the tax revenues from such purchases be only used for health care purposes

Originally Posted By: Jaybird
It's nice to know that Obama wants to root out some of undesirable influence. However, it occurs to me as disingenuous.

Okay, time should reveal that

Originally Posted By: Jaybird
Lobbyists As Cabinet Members

India Daily

that story is from India, in Jan. 30, 2009 Tom Daschle was booted a few days later for the income tax scandal mentioned

Originally Posted By: Jaybird

(many of those are just promises that haven't been fulfilled yet, doesn't seem fair to cast a verdict this early)

but Number 3 on that list is:

3.PROMISE BROKEN. Mr Obama solemnly pledged that "no political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years". In practice, Mr Obama has granted several waivers to this rule, allowing lobbyists to serve in the top reaches of his administration.

Okay, both of those links make the same fair point, he promised no lobbyists in the White House, but there are in fact some that have been granted waivers and concede that is kind of like dressing up a cow and calling it a pony

I've searched for the specific number of current waivers, it looks like the number is currently between 3 (as the White House claims) and 10, depending on how strictly a lobbyist is defined

Originally Posted By: Jaybird
(Lack of) Transparency In Government


that story you linked is from June, here is the update from September:

Obama yields on White House visits

Still not perfect, it shows that he resisted doing so, but they are now releasing the visitor's list. A far far cry from the previous administration, in which the policy was to not release any records at all

Originally Posted By: Jaybird
Visitors (Lobbyists) To White House

The Reporter (AP Service)

So now you see why he didn't want to release that visitor's list! smile

But I think that is good, now we can see exactly who is visiting, and we do see that he is in fact meeting with the lobbyists from the HC industry. If after those meetings, Obama suddenly changes his tune, announces something like "I was thinking about this over the weekend, and decided that maybe this whole health care reform thing is a bad idea after all, instead I'm just going to take the week off with my brand-new Maserati, (thanks!) and play some golf..."

Earlier you gave a link that showed Obama got significant contributions from the HC industry, which gave support to getting to elected. I know he would have preferred to have done it all without that money, but sadly, it just isn't possible in this day and age, he got very far with grass root support, ten and twenty dollar contributions, but in the end of the campaign he needed the big bucks to compete with the well-funded opposition

So of course, because he got that money, he has to at least meet and discuss this with them, next is to see the results of those meetings...