Collegiate Times

EPIC FAIL: "Obama Admits Rep. Wilson Was Right" http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147486738

To be clear, that FAIL is on your part, Patrick, to use actual facts. You might also note that PolitiFact admits that Obama wasn't entirely truthful. But then your article would have been objective and unbiased, and that wouldn't serve your liberal values. You might also have noted that there is a case being heard in court tomorrow about the "birthers" to determine if there is merit or not. But you're an expert and you just know because your liberal media told you these are kooks. This article is just as biased as everything you try to talk down about in the media. FAIL.

Mr Anonymous, if you are trying to be ironic, Bravo! The article specifically advises against using blogs and partisan websites as sources. And you respond with a blog post from the American Family Association, a a biased partisan group. Then you throw in a defense of the birthers. You have made a nice little mockery of the conservative mindset. However, in case I am mistaken and you are just an idiot, exactly what did PolitiFact claim Obama was lying about?

Both the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Research Service determined that the legislation, as written at the time President Obama made his speech, would have allowed illegal immigrants to sign up for government-run health care. So while Representative Wilson was, indeed rude and borke decorum, he was actually correct in his assessment.

Everyone knows that Obama is a liar, no shock here. I do commend Wilson for calling out Obama on his ridiculous push for government-run healthcare to get more money for his friends in that industry. Where, I ask, was Wilson when President Bush was pushing his lies? No where to be found. How can anyone in there right mind believe that more government control over an already over-regulated industry will prouduce good results for society. Canadian are waking up to the fact that their health care isn't what they thought when passed. Mexico has government-run health care, why then do so many immigrants come to America, when they leave guarunteed care? They want jobs. If Obama were to pass this requirement pushing mandatory coverage onto business to cover their employees, jobs will be in even more short supply.

Regarding death panels. Perhaps there won't be an actual government panel where life and death decisions are being made...perhaps. That being said, only a fool among us wouldn't be worried about what will be happening down the road. Government will have x dollars to spend on healthcare for the nation, and inevitably there will come a time where costs are running too high (basically right out of the starting gate). So as the dollars are stretched, decisions not to provide a specific treatment that could help an elderly person will be made. Government will be forced to make those decisions in order to provide care to younger people. Simple as that. There will be rationing. Someone will be denied treatment so that money "could be better spent on helping 10 young people rather than one elderly person."

Current laws require doctors to treat anyone who is in danger of dying. As far as I know this hasn't been changed, but I suspect this is the source of the spin that the Republicans have been attempting to use. Illegal immigrants will not have access to the public option, period. What benefits does anyone have to offering health care to people who have no voting rights and don't pay taxes? The answer is none, so there is no reason anyone wants to or would allow it.

The reason people get hysterical about politicians is because their long-term, strategic motives are often called into question. While death panels represent an overstatement of what will likely occur, it is not outlandish to assume that public options will lead to a different sort of rationing, which will potentially deny procedures if they are not deemed worthwhile. In my estimation, the problem is that under our current system, there is no mechanism that forces people to choose whether or not a procedure is worth it. People don't seem to connect a rise in premiums with an overuse of unnecessary health care, so it will continue to happen. HSAs provide a great example of how people can take direct control over their healthcare. People with HSAs have little incentive to seek procedures of minimal added value, since they will pay for them directly out of pocket.

The reason people get hysterical about politicians is because their long-term, strategic motives are often called into question. While death panels represent an overstatement of what will likely occur, it is not outlandish to assume that public options will lead to a different sort of rationing, which will potentially deny procedures if they are not deemed worthwhile. In my estimation, the problem is that under our current system, there is no mechanism that forces people to choose whether or not a procedure is worth it. People don't seem to connect a rise in premiums with an overuse of unnecessary health care, so it will continue to happen. HSAs provide a great example of how people can take direct control over their healthcare. People with HSAs have little incentive to seek procedures of minimal added value, since they will pay for them directly out of pocket.

Talking about rationing is just an attempt to cause misdirection. It happens in any system, even in a private system. The difference is that in a private system there is incentive to ration so as to put more money in the insurance company's pocket rather than a lack of resources. HSAs are just plain dumb, they are not an insurance plan and they do not solve the problems that insurance plans are intended to solve (such as high cost problems). Furthermore, they encourage people to skip preventative care which is one of the problems with our current system. If you are really concerned about rationing, HSAs would be the last thing that you would want. One could imagine the ghastly scenario where you chopped off all your fingers and could get each put back on for $10k a piece but only had $40k in your HSA... My advice to you is that you don't choose to ration the thumb.

If the accusations are so ridiculous and baseless, why even bother addressing them? Anyways, the government is just gonna contract it out like everything else. Not like they will actually be running health care, they'll just be paying for it and getting billed at crazy rates. Then we'll have some sort of Blackwater in the health industry and people will be all upset that such a thing can happen then we'll be back to reform. The circle of life continues

Apparently you don't know much about HSAs. They can only be opened if you have a high-deductible health plan. High-deductible, for an individual, means around $5K per year. It's true that rationing happens already, but it happens more because there are some people who have coverage and get whatever they want, and others who have nothing (and are intentionally kept out of the system due to existing illness). Rationing under universal systems means that everyone has equal entitlement to coverage, and if there's not enough to go around, you start cutting services. Naturally the people who are already covered would prefer not to have their coverage lessened by an influx of newly insured folks. By the way, I do have preventive health care, which consists of living a healthy lifestyle, having regular checkups, and going to the doctor if I notice anything abnormal, but questioning the value of a litany of tests. I also tend to decline the cautionary antibiotics that are often prescribed in advance of receiving lab results.

Jason T, you hit the nail on the head. The problem with any insurance, but especially with health insurance, is that the whole purpose of buying a policy is specifically to defray costs you anticipate later on down the line. Standard health insurance plans are pricey primarily because the end-user of the care (you, the patient) don't actually pay for the services you receive directly - consequently, there's no incentive for you to avoid unnecessary tests and procedures since in the end you will wind up paying your insurance company the same amount anyway.

Think about it this way - when you go grocery shopping, generally speaking you have a list of things you need to buy and, perhaps, a list of other stuff you'd like to buy if the items happen to be on sale. SO you shop, get the items you want, find a few of your favorites on sale, and proceed to the checkout line where you pay your money directly to the cashier. You have made a private transaction with the store. Now suppose I sell you food insurance, where you pay me a fixed amount per month and, after the first handful of dollars on your grocery bill, I promise to pay the rest of your grocery bill. What are the chances that you continue to shop as judiciously as you did before, bargain hunting and even refusing to buy products you thought to be overpriced? Probably a lot less - because you no longer have a private transaction with the store. At this point, you're only in for a few dollars anyway - and really, to get your money's worth from me, you need to make sure you spend more than you're paying me. The same principal holds true for health care.

Health care, incidentally, is what you receive from your doctor. You visit him, he checks you out, and fixes what's wrong. Health insurance is how individuals manage risks associated with the potential for catastrophic illness - I don't have $50k lying around for an organ transplant, so I buy health insurance in case I need one. Problem with that is that most people don't buy 'only catastrophic' coverage - and as a consequence, they treat the insurance company as an open source of free-flowing money to pay for any and all medical needs, perceived and real. That's why insurance premiums need to be so high - in order to offset the immense pull people who abuse their insurance put on the system. In my opinion, true reform would start with eliminating insurance and 3rd party payments in toto and going back to the old standard where I pay you for services you provide. At the end of the day, though, there's still no compelling argument as to why, exactly, the federal government needs to be involved, other than that people seem to want everything for 'free.'

Thanks for the busted reporting on your part, Patrick. The Obama administration only entertained last Friday in their weekly memo, a process to ensure that health plan subscribers were American citizens. Keep working hard in your classes.

It's unacceptable for a sitting congressman to call the president a liar when he misrepresents the substance of his policy. However, it's perfectly acceptable for a former president to call everyone who disagrees with the president on policy matters a racist.

It's totally respectful for us to boo in unison while President Bush was giving his state of the Union; but HOW DARE one man claim President Obama was lying during an impromtu address to Congress about controversial health care reform. Only democrats are allowed their first amendments rights now. Totally cool guys.

I think we've come a long way in this country when we can call somebody disagreeing with a president a racist. seems like only yesterday being racist meant hanging people from trees. what an improvement eh?

Who was lying was, in fact, NOT clear cut. What is conveniently left out of this analysis is what is 'in' the bill by omission of specific language. True, most bills circulating in Congress do state that benefits are not available to illegal aliens. But does that mean in actual practice this will be so? The truth is a little more difficult, and is 'worth verifying' from more than 2 websites - perhaps from a read of the actual bills? Nowhere in any of the bills were written provisions to allow for point-of-care identity verification when receiving health benefits. So, similar to the elections/voter registration issue, it's convenient for politicians to say they are against provision of benefits for illegals, when the lack of identity verification legislation provides just that in practice. If we can't verify someone's legal status in this country, how can they be denied access to the system? Interestingly enough, after Rep. Wilson's outburst, specific language providing for identify verification WAS, in fact, added to some pending bills.

Who would be in charge of verifying legal status? The cops can't even ask if somebody they arrest is illegal, can a doctor ask? Or do they provide the service and get stiffed on the bill once the government says they are not legal. Why don't they just say "Yeah, illegals will be covered too. But I think it is more likely that they will just get amnesty and become legal therefore illegals won't be getting health care.

Is a guy yelling out you lie any more rude than when our current vice president was booing the previous president?