George Stephanopoulus(sp) was one rude SOB Sunday.

[kjackson227]

This TOOL belongs on Faux News along with John Stossel.

[CanonRay]

1. I thought so too

I was at my sister-in-laws and said "What a jerk" and she defended him.

[kjackson227]

2. You know, I don't mind the tough questioning, but he was totally...

disrespectful, and continuously interrupted the president when he (the president) was trying to get his point across. The hatred for the president was written all over his troll face. I find it hard to believe that he's a Dem. even though he worked for the Clintons.

[goclark]

3. I missed it and I'm glad because my hand would be hurting

from putting my fist through my television.

[kjackson227]

6. Here's the vid clip... it starts getting "intense" at the 13 min. mark.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=8622797

[goclark]

12. Oh my hand was set to go ~ I do not like that tool

These people will do anything to raise their salary by saying what the M$$$$$$$$$M wants them to say.

[asjr]

5. I think the Clintons learned early on

just what an ill-informed person he is. But he probbly got his gig on ABC just by having been around the Clintons.

[Cha]

34. Did the President call for "a time out"..like he did when Steve

Kroft interrupted him on 60 Minutes?

georgie stephenoupoulous is trying to insure that his corporatemasters at mickey mouse stay happy with him.

Did PO come across as intelligent and gracious? How could he not.

[Rambis]

4. Little man

Meet Napoleon complex- Still amazes me how a little man can be such a gigantic prick. Move over god George is coming.

[rvablue]

7. Accept for that one "definition" bit, which was BS, I say, "Meh..." Pretty run-of-the-mill interview

[Laelth]

8. Or, for once, he decided to be a good journalist.

It's unfair for him to pick on Obama and the Democratic Party when deciding to employ this newfound power, but I must give him credit for doing his job.

The President promised that he would not raise taxes on persons earning less than $250K/year. The individual mandate, if it passes, will be perceived as a new tax by those uninsured people who will be forced to buy it.

The President can play a semantic game if he wants and say it's not a tax, but that's how it will be perceived, and the Democratic Party will pay for it (if it passes) in 2010.

It's a bad idea, and it will be perceived as a violation of a campaign promise. The semantic game that the President is playing will not float with the uninsured.

:dem:

-Laelth

[olegramps]

9. This concept that people would be forced to buy health insurance....

I find the concept troubling and from what I have read, thanks to DU, concerning the Massachusetts’s plan it appears to be nothing more than a boondoggle for enriching the insurance companies. I am totally depressed that the Democrats don't just offer up for a vote a single-payer plan and if it fails then so be it. But I can't understand any legislation that would force people to buy into a plan that would actually bankrupt them or have to pay a fine for opting out as is the case in the Massachusetts’s plan.

It would appear to me that any insurance plan that is to be mandated by the government should also be made to be non-profit with stringent restraints on management compensation.

I can not help from being very disappointed at this time with what I understand is being proposed.

[quiet.american]

16. Olegramps, I hear you, but a couple things the prez has said about this.

On single-payer: Obama has said that's the way he'd like to do it, too. Start from the ground up and establish single payer. However, he thinks this would cause complete chaos in the short-term, completely disrupt the healthcare system, and be politically impossible to pass, thereby resulting in nothing but the status quo remaining in place, or worse. (Of course, I'm paraphrasing -- this is essentially what he's been saying at rallies).

About the Massachusetts plan: As we know, it was put in place by a Republican governor without plans as to how it was to be paid for -- corporate-friendly and not paid for -- hallmarks of current GOP governing ideology. Obama has said that he owns the upcoming healthcare bill, and he is very aware it MUST make obtaining healthcare easier for Americans - not raise our premiums or still fail to provide affordable healthcare. He has also stated that there will be subsidies and tax credits available for those who still cannot afford any of the insurance options after the bill has passed. (But, granted, at one rally, Obama did also say that there will still be some who won't be able to get health insurance, but didn't elaborate -- I'm not sure if he was referring to illegal immigrants - that part I don't agree with - that illegal immigrants will not have access to healthcare, they are our fellow human beings, after all -- but that's another conversation!).

I think the inclusion of a public option in the bill, which the president remains in favor of, would come closest to the "non-profit" scenario you'd like to see.

I'll admit, when Obama was still a candidate early on the primaries, I was troubled, too, by "mandatory insurance." I remember the debate and interview question being asked then was, well how do you force someone to buy health insurance? And the answer primarily was, levy tax penalties if they don't. I remember thinking, whoa!

However, I've changed my thinking on this. The president's stated that reduced costs for health insurance will come from the leveraging power of, as David Letterman says, "volume, volume, volume!," which, if everyone carries health insurance, will create a huge pool of buyers that will bring the costs of premiums down -- which to me is comparable to social security -- it could not work with only "some" paying in, yet with everyone eventually needing to use it (except for the wealthy - but even McCain still collects a social security check).

I guess I've used all these words to say that given Obama's own outlook and statements on the subject, he is not going to sign off on the type of legislation that Mitt Romney put through in Massachusetts, a bill that adds burdens, rather than relieves them.

[kjackson227]

11. Laelth, I think we've had this conversation before. You are not open...

to understanding why the mandate is needed. Everyone can't get a free ride... it's not fair to those of us who will have to pay. If the mandate is the only thing you have to complain about with the hcr then consider yourself lucky because at least if you can't afford to purchase the very MINIMUM, there will be subsidies/reimbursements and or tax credits that you can utilize, AND for those who can't afford to pay anything then there will be a hardship subsidy or a free pass put in place. President Obama may have promised that there would be no mandates, but once the reform debate began he had to renegotiate. If you can't see that there are more pros than cons to hcr (not including the Baucus bs), then I'm sorry for you. Plus, we haven't seen the final proposal yet, anyway.

[kenfrequed]

13. No dice

Forcing people to buy insurance just encourages various insurance companies to jack their rates. After all they end up with a captive market this way and Baucus bill seems to provide little incentive to reduce costs.

A single payer universal solution is cheaper and more credible a solution rather than filtering tons of federal dollars through a private-insurance based solution that is already a failure.

A public option is a reasonable compromise. A mandate is a way to say 'we got everyone covered' without actually having to make healthcare a budgeting priority. Take back ALL of the Bush tax cuts and pull out of Iran and Afghanistan and you will find more than enough money to cover peoples healthcare.

Terms like 'free ride' and phrases like 'unfair to people that have to pay' are often used by republicans and conservatives. These self same people thought it was fair for ME to have to pay to murder, bomb, loot, pollute, despoil, and profit their friends during a time of war.

Healthcare should be a right.

[kjackson227]

17. I don't think single-payer is on the table... Public option still is...

Soo, do the repugnants have a patent on the phrase "free ride" and "unfair to people who have to pay"??? If so, then that's too bad because it is what it is. Anyone whose car has been hit by an uninsured motorist should understand the implications here. Healthcare should be a right, but it's not... at least not yet. Unfortunately, insurance companies are at the table so we (and Obama) have to play the hand that's dealt us.

[kenfrequed]

22. Context

You are ignoring context completely in favor of a foolish sounding technicality. You also seem to ignore the heart of my counterpoint in regards to 'fairness.'

How is it fair that Halliburton, Bechtel, and a host of others get my money? How is it fair that we were bankrupt by the wealthy and how is it fair now, at a time when medical costs are at an all time high, that the disparity of wealth is greater than at any time in American history?

All this and somehow those that have been broken of their middle class status and consigned to poverty are somehow getting a free ride from a system that only recently cheated them and lied to them? WE have lost homes, jobs, and security. The insurance companies though are being gently treated and catered to by Jackasses like Max Baucus who seems to care more for campaign contributions than healthcare.

Again, a strong public option is a compromise and it is a worthy one. Mandates are a free giveaway to the insurance industry and they solve NOTHING. If you have a strong public option you do not need a mandate at all because people will opt for healthcare of some kind.

[kjackson227]

24. kenfrequed, it isn't fair, but two wrongs don't make a right. In order...

for this to somewhat "work", I just feel the same as President Obama. My analogy might be foolish sounding to you, but I can tell you from EXPERIENCE, it's no laughing or foolish matter when it's happened to you personally. BTW, I too have struggled in one way or another (unemployment, illness, etc.) from the economy, but we can't let that cloud our judgment. If public option isn't in the bill, this will be very troubling to me.

[kenfrequed]

30. Alright what are we arguing here

My positions:

Mandate- No


Public option - yes


Universal healthcare/single payer-- yes


That about sums it up. I do not want a mandate. If you have a proper public option you do not need a mandate. I have great insurance, I am more than willing to pay additional taxes for other people to have insurance too. I am on the upper end of the lower income bracket. I think people that occupy rungs of the economy above me SHOULD be willing to pay more in taxes. I think they wouldn't have to if we had a strong public option or universal single payer as they would be far cheaper.

[kjackson227]

31. With the exception of the "mandate", I think we agree, but...

even if a strong public option were included, and costs $2.00 per month there would still be individuals who will not want to pay into it. Sad but true.

[kenfrequed]

32. ad absurdem

It would never be 2$ a month if it is a mandate to purchase insurance. To use that as an example of 'people not wanting to pay' is silly and casts unfair aspersions.

To dispel that thoroughly I would point out that some forms of Medical Assistance in the state of Minnesota require a three dollar copayment for an office visit and almost all people use it and pay their copayments eventually.

The idea that someone wouldn't pay 2$ a month for insurance is also sort of a slap in the face to the poor.

[Laelth]

15. Fair or not, it will be perceived as a breach of a campaign promise.

And the President can't play a semantic game with the word "taxes" to get around that. We, the Democratic Party, will be punished for it (if the individual mandate passes), and rightly so.

But you are right, I am quite sensitive to the right-wing rhetoric I see around here that makes the uninsured into the new "welfare queens" and blames the uninsured for the current failure of our "health insurance system." I feel I've landed in Free Republic. "Health insurance reform" isn't something the Democratic Party is doing for the uninsured, it's something the party is doing to the uninsured, i.e. fining them for their poverty and from their exclusion from the system. This seems very regressive to me.

:dem:

-Laelth

[TheKentuckian]

23. Who was the national level politician that promised anything that didn't have to

reconsider/reverse on anything? I can't think of a single one and I give points for trying as well as for coming close.

In this situation I'm not sure I understand why you think there will be any significant backlash considering the vast majority of the electorate has insurance without any mandates and most of those without it want access to the health care system. If people can afford the costs, they get a decent value, and the systemic issues with preexisting conditions and recession are corrected then I suspect far more people will be in the mode to reward rather than punish. Until I came to this forum I had never heard a living soul say they didn't want insurance other than from people who could afford to pay as they go. In most minds in this country insurance and access to health care are synonymous, which makes backlash on a reasonable execution of the broad plan a minimal concern.

Obviously, if costs aren't contained and if the shenanigans continue then there will be some answering to do but that would be the case with ANY effort. There would be significant fallout from a failed single payer roll out too. The devil is ALWAYS in the details and delivery. If you screw the pooch then you take the hit no matter what way you tried.

[kjackson227]

26. Laelth, I didn't call anyone a welfare queen and I most definitely...

do not blame the uninsured (which I can relate) for the failure of our health insurance system. As a citizen, I feel that I've done everything that was asked of me. I feel the system let all of us down, also. Unfortunately, we are going to have to take baby-steps to get to the kind of reform we need and deserve. At this point all we have is time, so it's got to get better because it can't get much worse.

[Laelth]

29. I know you didn't call anyone a welfare queen.

And I have no problem with baby steps ... but I do feel compelled to warn people that the individual mandate will cost us dearly (and by "us" I mean Progressives and Democrats). I feel there must be other baby steps we can take that won't be so disastrous for the Party.

Thanks for the response.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Cha]

35. Oh, you would like it to be a giant prick that interviews

the President and call it good.

Fucking obvious.

[populistdriven]

10. i saw that jackass's show on my tivo and didnt even watch it and gave it 3 thumbs down

my Obama filter auto recorded it - glad to hear my impulse was correct

[otohara]

14. More Info Would Be Welcomed

by those of us who didn't see the rude SOB.

[kjackson227]

18. It's up thread.

[BlueIdaho]

19. Short man's syndrome...

Georges only problem is he's 4 feet tall.

[kjackson227]

20. Funny, Rambis said the same thing :)

[FrenchieCat]

21. It's either his height or his problem of suffering from Tiny Testicular Syndrome....

Whichever one it is, Napoleon impressed me much more than this troll looking miniature GOP attack dog. Looks like John "don't raise my Capital Gains tax" Gibson is not the only one who should have retired!

[AlinPA]

25. During the presidential debates the fool asked Obama why he didn't wear his flag pin all the time,

as he sat there without one himslf. What a POS.

[BeyondGeography]

27. And, "Does Jeremiah Wright love this country as much as you?"

He was vaguely shamed and defensive the next morning, but returned to whoring by nightfall.

[Ghost of Tom Joad]

28. Isn't he always?

remember the debate, he's a prick

[smoochpooch]

33. Why haven't I heard anyone call the mandate a tax until Steph did yesterday?

He said critics have called it a tax increase, but nobody had called it that until after that interview. He basically created the RW talking point.

But I do agree with Obama that his critics call everything a tax increase. I think that will be a pretty good response, especially if he points out the cost of Bush's wars on taxpayers. Plus, if the bill actually works it could save individuals money.