You read the transcript and tell me what was actually "important" what part just had to be said at that moment. I read through all 5 pages and most of the first page was dedicated to the shooting and Syria, 4+ pages were devoted to partisan politics of no importance whatsoever, you read through these 4+ pages and find something "important"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... ory_4.html

I honestly found NOTHING, there was much more nonsense than I had posted, the whole thing is fluff, trying to rally the public to his agenda and how well he is doing during a crisis that is still developing ...not the time! Please tell me what couldn't wait!

I have to say that Obama did nothing wrong here. He mentioned the tragedy at the beginning of the speech, and was the same as he always is.

That being said, he is a very partisan president. That he calls out and castigates the opposition should not surprise anyone.

even during a developing crisis, one that may be terrorist related?
No, I have to disagree, this was not the time for partisan nonsense and it could have waited until the situation was resolved and we knew more. This is akin to telling someone you are sorry their Mother just died and immediately after asking what they thought of last nights TV show ...just not the time for that!

GMTom wrote:even during a developing crisis, one that may be terrorist related?
No, I have to disagree, this was not the time for partisan nonsense and it could have waited until the situation was resolved and we knew more. This is akin to telling someone you are sorry their Mother just died and immediately after asking what they thought of last nights TV show ...just not the time for that!

I don't have a problem with when he said it. I have a problem with the VERY partisan attitude and verbage he has ALL the time. As for after the shooting, it is little if any interest to me. He said niceties about the victims at the beginning. Minor issue. He is a putz in a much bigger picture than this. I try to not pick little issues, but focus on the bigger ones like:

Benghazi
Constitution overreach
Economic malaise
Hypocrisy regarding the ACA
(I could go on...)

bbauska wrote:I have to say that Obama did nothing wrong here. He mentioned the tragedy at the beginning of the speech, and was the same as he always is.

That being said, he is a very partisan president. That he calls out and castigates the opposition should not surprise anyone.

The President is supposed to act like . . . well, a President. He's not the Political Hack-in-Chief. Well, at least, he shouldn't be.

That's the issue. There is a time to be partisan. That was not the time.

It doesn't look the roof is going to fall in when the exchanges open...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/2 ... d%3D381279
And http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1146 ... -consensus

and these prices are affordable to the poor? How are these poor people ("poor" per the article) supposed to come up with $100 every month? And please explain how this will be "good for the economy" when these people stop spending money in the market and instead are forced to spend less to afford the crappy "bronze" insurance plan? Remember this is a bronze plan, while this does not tell us the coverage we can certainly assume it has high deductibles and copayments that once again, the poor can not afford. So please explain how this helps us all so much?

and I'm going to wait and see how people accept it and not take the word of the government agency responsible for the rollout, this is kind of like telling us wonderful clam flavored potato chips will be based on the manufacturers claims isn't it? I also know a pretty big number of people THINK Obamacare is a one payer government provided free insurance, MANY people have no idea it's going to cost them money! Lets wait and see how well received it is when people are forced to start buying what they don't want! "New Coke" was a terrible product with great ads, it stil failed when people didn't want "new" coke, they wanted their regular Coke. Remember who is presenting us with this "buzz" about how wonderful things will be!
...Sounds like "New Coke" to me!

GMTom wrote: Remember this is a bronze plan, while this does not tell us the coverage we can certainly assume it has high deductibles and copayments that once again,

This is what I think is going to be the biggest shocker to people. They finally get insurance that they are paying $100 a month for and then have to get some procedure or test, like an x-ray, and they still have to pay hundreds of dollars for it.

Not sure where the $100 a month paid by the poor come from. In half the states if you are 133 percent of the poverty line you get covered by medicaid. The article gave examples of a family of four making 50K a year paying $26 a month in Dallas. As to what it covers, the least expensive plans must cover ER visits, hospital stays, prescription drugs, and they must cover 60 percent of a family's annual expenses. So if you're 25 making 25K you can get a plan for $300 a year--not exactly a huge deal. If you have a bronze plan you are going to pay significant out-of-pocket costs, but if you are not making much money you are paying little for the coverage.

For people who currently are uninsured and who qualify for financial assistance or enrollment in Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor, the average prices look to be low: 56 percent of uninsured will be able to get coverage for less than $100 a month per person

the VERY poor (Poverty level) will have better subsidies, but one can still be poor while not in poverty. This is also another incentive to do nothing and have Uncle Sam take care of everything you need. Sit home, collect food stamps, welfare, WICK, the electric company may pay your bills, free cell phone and now your healthcare can be taken care of as well....why work? Honestly, having a good job is better of course but if you are raised on this system and you are used to this "life style" then why get a crappy job and try to work your way out? America was not the place of dreams but was the place of dreams for those who worked hard for those dreams, the land of hard work is now filling with more and more slackers learning to work hard at milking the system! My rates go up (my employers rates that is ...and that will of course affect my bottom line) while the poor get things handed to them more and more.

must cover ER visits, Hospital stays and prescriptions?
ummm, let's not forget copayments and deductibles that the poor can not afford. These things most certainly are not free

and per the article:

Prices for some people who already buy their own insurance will rise above today's level

Obama promised prices would come down and it would not cost us more. These people paying more are going to be happy about this? Yet the spin here wants us to believe so!

Archduke Russell John wrote:

GMTom wrote: Remember this is a bronze plan, while this does not tell us the coverage we can certainly assume it has high deductibles and copayments that once again,

This is what I think is going to be the biggest shocker to people. They finally get insurance that they are paying $100 a month for and then have to get some procedure or test, like an x-ray, and they still have to pay hundreds of dollars for it.

I agree. I'm also concerned that with the cutoff for subsidized insurance being so low, that Obamacare might be akin to a regressive tax. It will take money from the younger (and generally poorer) to lower premiums for the older (generally not as poor) who have more health problems. Hope I'm wrong.

That's what this insurance is all about, men and women must have the same rates, age is not a major factor, pre-existing conditions are ignored, how CAN you be wrong?

You have to socialize the risk, George, for the system to work. Young people who don't use use as much health benefits and are thus attractive to insurers need to get into the pool to balance the pool for older people and people with chronic conditions who are not as attractive to insurers. Republicans want to concentrate on the unfairness to the young of the system because they know the system will not work without younger workers being in the system. Ultimately it is not unfair because the young eventually get old and they will be the beneficiaries of the system.
Up to now, insurers concentrated on excluding people like those with pre-existing conditions they don't want to insure. And of course we had a large number of uninsured. The only thing good in the prior system was employer insurance coverage which, you guessed it, socialized risk across a pool of workers. This blog article explains how employer health coverage works.http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... tems/?_r=0
Socialized risk allows for a system that is much better overall for everyone. Yes, some healthy people might do better if the system was based on pure actuarial risk, but even they would be at risk for getting a chronic condition.

freeman3 wrote:You have to socialize the risk, George, for the system to work. Young people who don't use use as much health benefits and are thus attractive to insurers need to get into the pool to balance the pool for older people and people with chronic conditions who are not as attractive to insurers. Republicans want to concentrate on the unfairness to the young of the system because they know the system will not work without younger workers being in the system. Ultimately it is not unfair because the young eventually get old and they will be the beneficiaries of the system.

Exactly - it's not as if everyone is not getting older all the time. Today's young people will be tomorrow's older people.

And per head, the 'subsidy' won't really be that great due to the scale - at least that's the idea. Of course, young people can also get health problems and being uninsured is a far worse position for them than not. The young like to think they are immune - even healthy lifestyles don't make you invincible.