College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students Jobs and internships for students -

Right Again

Obama’s disaster health care summit

Published: Monday, March 1, 2010

Updated: Monday, March 1, 2010

03-01-Images 9

The Signpost

The President recently held a health care ‘summit’ to try to come to a bipartisan consensus on his tanking health care reform. At least, that is what he said. In reality, this pseudo-summit was just a glorified PR stunt. This comes hot on the heels of Obama’s new plan for Obamacare, a nasty little proposal that just came out of the White House. The plan now is to cram this new breed of Obamacare into law through the reconciliation process.
Obama started the conference saying that the important issues are “figuring out how can we control the huge expansion of entitlements” and “the exploding costs of Medicare.”
How do these words come out of his mouth? Control expansion? This is one of the largest expansions of government ever. How is that control?
Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus even said, “The main point is: we basically agree.”
To this I can only say: No. No, we don’t.
Obamacare is irresponsible, incredibly expensive, socialist and divisive to the American people. Obama may claim that it is Republican obstructionism that is to blame for all the delays and obstructions that faced the bill, but we all know that is crap. For a long time the Democrats had a super-majority in the Senate and large majority in the House. They didn’t need the Republicans at all. The thing is, Obamacare is such a stepping-stone to socialism that they couldn’t even get all the Democrats to toe the party line. It was something so absolutely mad that the only thing that has ever been bipartisan about it is the opposition. What is so surprising, though, is that even after public opinion has turned very much against Obamacare (Scott Brown, anyone?), Obama is still trying to push this. People do not want the higher premiums, reduced choice, higher taxes and incredible cost that Obamacare will bring down on them.
So what does Obama go and do? He issues a proposal that takes the worst aspects of both the House and Senate versions of Obamacare and smashes them together.
Obama’s new proposal increases the very aspects of the bill that the American people object to. Taxes, lack of choice, spending and subsidies all go up. Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t care at all about unity or bipartisanism despite what he says. Obama is going to take this proposal and try to use the reconciliation process —  which is only meant to implement fiscal policy changes and not major changes in the structure of our country — to pass a bill and bypass the American legislative process.
The take-away message here is that the President has finally made it clear that he has absolutely no intention of making any sort of compromise. There will be no meaningful discussion or debate. Obama has made his choice about what he thinks should happen and he couldn’t care less what the rest of us think about it.
Obama will do whatever he can to force this through Congress on a narrow, completely partisan vote using a cheap technicality (the reconciliation process) to bypass our legislative process.
 

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

6 comments Log in to Comment

Mary Smith
Wed Mar 3 2010 19:44
Jim Matheson, D-Utah, voted "NO" last summer for so-called "health care" bill; this past fall he was "undecided"...tonight he is being wined and dined by Obama...who announced the following at a White House dinner party:

Obama just named his brother, Scott Matheson, as judge to circuit court - an apparent attempt to BUY Jim Matheson's health care vote.

Contact the following Dems - who need to hold FIRM and VOTE NO against the health care fiasco:

CONGRESSMAN LINCOLN DAVIS
202-225-6831

CONGRESSMAN HERSETH SANDLER
202-225-2801

CONGRESSMAN FRANK KRATOVIL
202-225-5311

CONGRESSMAN BETSY MARKEY
202-225-4676

CONGRESSMAN JIM MATTHESON
202-225-3011

CONGRESSMAN HEATH SHULER
202-225-6401

CONGRESSMAN JOHN TANNER
202-225-4714

CONGRESSMAN SCOTT MURPHY
202-225-5614

CONGRESSMAN JASON ALTMIRE
202-225-2565

CONGRESSMAN BOYD
202-225-5235

Contact these Dems and tell them to stand FIRM in opposition to the health care fiasco.

Brandon Keller
Wed Mar 3 2010 00:00
When I said, "... this statement can also apply to George Bush." I was thinking that Michael always accuses Democrats of doing such things, when in fact, Conservatives have done so as well. No, it doesn't make it right since Bush did it, but since Michael failed to make a good case about Obama being beligerent, one has to wonder if Michael truly knows how to establish a valid argument. This is further evidenced by his non-sequitur arguments and factually incorrect information. For example, Michael says that the health care plan is "irresponsible, incredibly expensive, socialist and divisive..." The plan is actually deficit neutral, it gives health care to millions of Americans who need help, and it only resembles the vaguest forms of socialism (if at all).

Sure, his article has logic, but it is flawed, frivolous, incredibly biased, and has little evidence to support it. Also, lying and unconvincing are two separate ideas. One has an agenda to decieve, while the other could involve honest intentions but fails to properly make a good argument. I'm not one to question Michael's intentions, but as I have shown earlier, he doesn't seem to understand how to present his accusations clearly and effectively, especially without any substantial support to back it up. He also can't decide whether it IS socialism or a "stepping-stone."

Sorry if you don't like it, but the majority wins.

John Locke
Tue Mar 2 2010 16:50
Sorry, "George Bush started it!" is just what it sounds like when you say "The Problem with this statement, Michael, is that this can absolutley apply to George W. Bush." I'm sorry but since Bush did it does that make it somehow right? Should our President just make "his choice about what he thinks should happen and...care less what the rest of us think about it?" And I would hardly call George Bush a conservative. Where is the double standard, did Michael at any point state that it was all right for George Bush do that?

Perhaps you should read the article again, it has just as much logic and reasoning as any other editorial. The logic is simple. Obama and many democrats are still trying to push a bill that has been denied time and time again. It has been denied by the "obstructionist Republicans" with bipartisan support of many Democrats. So in response Obama is attempting to use reconciliation.

Whether you call him a "liar" or "unconvincing" you're saying the same thing to him, that is "Michael your not telling the truth." One just has a bit more evil intent than the other.

Brandon Keller
Tue Mar 2 2010 01:20
John Locke, could you point to an example of where I said, "George Bush started it!"? I merely stated that Michael is making an accusation about Obama that can also apply to our previous, conservative president. That's not blaming Bush, but instead, pointing out a double standard. I also didn't ask for a works cited page, but that Michael should back up his claims with sound logic and reasoning. I didn't call Michael a liar, but I did say that his accusations were very unconvincing.

Perhaps you should have carefully read my comment before making straw man arguments. It makes you sound like someone who skipped out on English 2010. Also, perhaps you shouldn't just take an editorial for their word, but instead, take a more skeptical approach. I'm sure that will help you in your life. I hope that helps, John. :-)

John Locke
Mon Mar 1 2010 18:45
"George Bush started it!" Come on Brandon, my 10 year old brother has even grown out of that excuse. Let me clue you in on something. Go to any newspaper at Weber State. You can pick either the Signpost, The Standard Examiner, or the New York Times. In any of these papers you will NEVER see anything like a works cited page, yes Brandon, we take their word. The Editorial page is OPINION, its not even news, let alone a research paper. So save all you learned in English 2010 for English 2010. If you feel something is incorrect about this editorial write a letter to the editor and make some debate, screaming "Liar! Backup your claims!" makes you sound like a freshmen college student who has just picked up the newspaper for the first time in his life.
Brandon Keller
Mon Mar 1 2010 18:27
"...the President has finally made it clear that he has absolutely no intention of making any sort of compromise. There will be no meaningful discussion or debate. [He] has made his choice about what he thinks should happen and he couldn’t care less what the rest of us think about it.

The problem with this statement, Michael, is that this can absolutely apply to George W Bush. Also, you don't really seem to make your case very well; when I read this article, it's obvious you just want us to take your word for it. Michael, here is what I want you to do. Go to google, and look up "unsubstantiated claims." It may help you in terms of logic and reasoning. Good luck!

You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now

Log In