or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › Does President Obama play too much Golf?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Does President Obama play too much Golf? - Page 34  

Poll Results: Does Obama play too much golf?

 
  • 24% (20)
    Yes
  • 75% (62)
    No
82 Total Votes  
post #595 of 786
In Mass Romney passed a health care law nearly identical to the one he has promised to repeal on his first day as President. So which Romney will we get? I feel like a vote for Mitt is like playing that arcade game where you drop a claw into a case filled with assorted toys. Who knows what will come out of the chute at the end?
post #596 of 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post

In Mass Romney passed a health care law nearly identical to the one he has promised to repeal on his first day as President. So which Romney will we get? I feel like a vote for Mitt is like playing that arcade game where you drop a claw into a case filled with assorted toys. Who knows what will come out of the chute at the end?

 

Where you see inconsistency, I see apples and oranges.  What may be good at the state level isn't necessarily any business of the federal government.   

post #597 of 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

 

Where you see inconsistency, I see apples and oranges.  What may be good at the state level isn't necessarily any business of the federal government.   

 

Did you use the same philosophy when Clinton ran?  Not saying you're one of them, but there are too many people who create criteria in order to dislike/like a candidate, but they don't apply the criteria equally to both parties.

 

Again, I'm not saying you do this (I don't know whether you do or not) but this is exactly what ticks me off about politics and why I think it's more emotional than rational.  We can't just go changing the rules and say that one guy's religion is relevant but another guy's religion is irrelevant, for instance.  But that's EXACTLY what I see a lot of people doing these days.

post #598 of 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

Where you see inconsistency, I see apples and oranges.  What may be good at the state level isn't necessarily any business of the federal government.   
i find it funny that the left keeps bringing this up. Romney has said time and time again that same thing that you stated above, but I don't think they understand what it means.
post #599 of 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryTimes View Post

i find it funny that the left keeps bringing this up. Romney has said time and time again that same thing that you stated above, but I don't think they understand what it means.

 

What he hasn't said (as far as I've heard) is WHY he doesn't think it's a good idea for everyone.  The primary argument for why one thing is good for one state and not necessarily another is because different states have different needs.  Basic health needs are pretty much universal, aren't they (I mean, that's the assumption I always had, working in healthcare for the last 20+ years).

post #600 of 786

I'm not trying to convince you to vote for Romney, even if I wanted to, your opinion is formed and nothing is likely to change that.  My point to the post was that unlike Obama when he ran 4 years ago, Romney has a record of how he governs to review and decide if you like him or not.  We all know candidates morph into what they think will win them an election so the shape shifter comments apply to anyone that's run for office imo. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post

Well as someone from Massachusetts, that is what I am worried about.  Romney was a lousy governor.  We knew 5 minutes after he won that he only ran so he could run for President.  All is claims like balancing the budget are misleading.  Every Governor in MA has to balance to budget because it is the law here.  His other claims are equally as dubious.  He has very little support here in his home state.  That should really tell you something.  His predecessors, both Republican and Democrat did a much better job and were much better at reaching across the aisle.

 

Romney is a used car salesman.  I'm not even sure why he wants to be President.

 

 

I didn't mean to suggest you were a liberal (not that there's anything wrong with it, I'm socially liberal, financially conservative), it's just that you kept pushing the shape shifter stigma which imo can apply to all candidates that run for office.  I agree Mitt has flip flopped on some issues but he has a record in Mass that more likely represents who he is than the commericals and debate positions he's taken to win the election in the last 6 months.  

 

I personally wish he'd picked Christie as his V.P.  As a Long Islander with family suffering from Sandy's destruction I'm jealous of the leadership he's provided in NJ compared to NY's leaders.  I'd like to see a guy like Christie running NY and this country one day.

 

Overall we agree more than we disagree.  Biggest difference between us is I don't believe Obama has earned another 4 years, so I'll vote for Romney.  Last election I didn't think Obama had enough experience to be POTUS but couldn't vote for the McCain / Palin ticket so I refrained from voting for President.  This year I'm voting against Obama more than I'm voting for Romney.  We'll have the answer tomorrow, the country has a tough 4 years ahead of it, no matter who lives in the White House.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post

To newtogolf, we might all want Mitt to play golf with Obama if he had changed his positions early. But the fact is, he's been singing this right wing song since his Governor days when he realized he would be running for President. If he had tacked back early in the summer, I could vote for moderate Mitt if I thought he had a backbone, was not a great closer of a sale, and could stand up to his right wing. But he tacked back in early October - too late. 

 

You don't ask voters to forget what you've said for 6 years in the last month of the race. That's why the press calls him a shape-shifter, etch-a-sketch, you name it.

 

We don't know.

 

Mitt talks in platitudes, not details - the mark of an unprepared salesman.

 

Hey, I wish he had more... but he does not. It's not as if I'm a flaming liberal - I've got an MBA, was a CPA, have two law degrees and practiced tax law for 20 years - I'm on the side of business, gently regulated and responsibly behaved. But I also see trends - putting more in the hands of fewer does not help the economy. I want reform. I want a new, simpler tax code with low rates and quick deprecation. I want people off welfare. I want people employed. I want a plan to reduce the deficit over 10 years - even partially (the failed Grand Bargain). I don't want more and more defense spending in leaps and bounds. I don't want to go to the right of Bush. Been there, done that.

 

Neither of these guys will deliver what I want. So I will stay with a guy who is at least going forward, not backwards, and wait for the next guy or gal.

post #601 of 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryTimes View Post

i find it funny that the left keeps bringing this up. Romney has said time and time again that same thing that you stated above, but I don't think they understand what it means.

I will admit that in my case, this is true.  I don't understand why health care that would be good for people in Massachusetts wouldn't be good for people everywhere else.  How different are we?

post #602 of 786

 Because states have different demographics and needs as do their citizens.  Health needs aren't universal, they are specific to each family.  Obama care doesn't cover the POTUS, senators or representatives, why not?  Obama care won't be forced upon certain unions and states that stood in the way of it passing at the same time as others, why not if it's so great? 

 

NY has a denser population than Montana, the number of hospitals and doctors required to cover such a massive population in such a small area is different than say Montana where there needs are more spread out across the state.  You hand out free healthcare to everyone and suddenly no one can get service because the infrastructure isn't in place to support it.   

 

One size fit all golf hats might be okay, but they rarely fit anyone perfectly, one size fit all retirement plans don't work either imo, nor does one size fit all health care.  It may work, but I'm more selective about my health care than my golf hats as is Obama and all the elected officials who chose to opt out. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave67az View Post

 

What he hasn't said (as far as I've heard) is WHY he doesn't think it's a good idea for everyone.  The primary argument for why one thing is good for one state and not necessarily another is because different states have different needs.  Basic health needs are pretty much universal, aren't they (I mean, that's the assumption I always had, working in healthcare for the last 20+ years).

post #603 of 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

I will admit that in my case, this is true.  I don't understand why health care that would be good for people in Massachusetts wouldn't be good for people everywhere else.  How different are we?

 

I'm with you Golfingdad.  As far as I can tell, there's no difference in the federal government saying that "the need for basic healthcare insurance exists for everyone so we're going to help them get it at a reasonable price" or to say that "the financial needs for every business are the same so we're going to give all of them tax breaks regardless of whether they're struggling or not."

 

Corporate welfare being dished out by the federal government is okay...but healthcare is out of line.

post #604 of 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

 Because states have different demographics and needs as do their citizens.  Health needs aren't universal, they are specific to each family.  Obama care doesn't cover the POTUS, senators or representatives, why not?  Obama care won't be forced upon certain unions and states that stood in the way of it passing at the same time as others, why not if it's so great? 

 

NY has a denser population than Montana, the number of hospitals and doctors required to cover such a massive population in such a small area is different than say Montana where there needs are more spread out across the state.  You hand out free healthcare to everyone and suddenly no one can get service because the infrastructure isn't in place to support it.   

 

One size fit all golf hats might be okay, but they rarely fit anyone perfectly, one size fit all retirement plans don't work either imo, nor does one size fit all health care.  It may work, but I'm more selective about my health care than my golf hats as is Obama and all the elected officials who chose to opt out. 

Actually, the federal government is making available to the insurance exchanges two of the same insurance plans used by other federal employees. I can't remember the details - posted it last week.

 

It is not free health care. Don't y'all get it?

 

If you have insurance, you keep it. If you don't have it, you purchase it through each state's insurance exchanges. If you can't afford it based on federal income standards, you receive assistance to pay for it.

post #605 of 786

Newtogolf, think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  Basic health care is, indeed, the same for everyone.  The need for access to emergency care is the same for everyone.  The only people who don't need a viable healthcare plan are people who are dead, or who will never get sick or injured in their lifetime.

As for why it doesn't apply to Congress, I imagine it's the same reason it doesn't apply to the military.  We already have a healthcare plan that works fine, and it's very similar to the one that everyone who wants it will soon have access to.

 

I also think everyone needs a retirement plan.  But I agree with you that not everyone needs the same one.  Everyone also needs a healthcare plan.  But since not everyone needs the same one, you can CHOOSE between a private plan (from any insurance company you want), and one from a government contractor (much like TRICARE in the military).

post #606 of 786

I wasn't talking about some of the plans used by other Federal employees, I'm referring to what health care options the POTUS, senators and representatives have today and will have after ObamaCare is enforced.

 

It's free or subsidized to those that can't afford it, are we down to arguing semantics now?  Statistics seem to indicate that 40% of the population didn't have health care and now everyone will be required to have it or be fined (can't use the tax word).  If people have it, they will use it.  So in a state with 1,000,000 citizens, doctors in that state can now expect 400,000 more patients.  Am I the only way that sees the logistical and infrastructure issues this creates? 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post

Actually, the federal government is making available to the insurance exchanges two of the same insurance plans used by other federal employees. I can't remember the details - posted it last week.

 

It is not free health care. Don't y'all get it?

 

If you have insurance, you keep it. If you don't have it, you purchase it through each state's insurance exchanges. If you can't afford it based on federal income standards, you receive assistance to pay for it.

post #607 of 786

We're not talking about basic healthcare, we're talking health care.  If I have an existing condition my need for health care is different than someone that doesn't.  If my family has a history of certain diseases the needs are different than someone that doesn't. 

 

You goal is to ensure everyone has health care and we're subsidizing those who can't afford it.  Who's going to ensure they make the right decisions about their health to ensure their costs of their coverage that I'm paying for don't increase? 

 

And overall you believe the Federal goverment is in a better position to make this decision compared to each state that has to manage their citizens?  

 

Is the federal government providing the doctors, nurses, hospitals, MRI, X-Ray and other equipment that will be required to ensure everyone can receive the care they need or they are accustomed to.  I don't want to pay for a health care plan that requires I wait 2 weeks to see a doctor and 1 month for an MRI.   

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave67az View Post

Newtogolf, think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  Basic health care is, indeed, the same for everyone.  The need for access to emergency care is the same for everyone.  The only people who don't need a viable healthcare plan are people who are dead, or who will never get sick or injured in their lifetime.

As for why it doesn't apply to Congress, I imagine it's the same reason it doesn't apply to the military.  We already have a healthcare plan that works fine, and it's very similar to the one that everyone who wants it will soon have access to.

 

I also think everyone needs a retirement plan.  But I agree with you that not everyone needs the same one.  Everyone also needs a healthcare plan.  But since not everyone needs the same one, you can CHOOSE between a private plan (from any insurance company you want), and one from a government contractor (much like TRICARE in the military).

post #608 of 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

I wasn't talking about some of the plans used by other Federal employees, I'm referring to what health care options the POTUS, senators and representatives have today and will have after ObamaCare is enforced.

 

It's free or subsidized to those that can't afford it, are we down to arguing semantics now?  Statistics seem to indicate that 40% of the population didn't have health care and now everyone will be required to have it or be fined (can't use the tax word).  If people have it, they will use it.  So in a state with 1,000,000 citizens, doctors in that state can now expect 400,000 more patients.  Am I the only way that sees the logistical and infrastructure issues this creates? 

Hey, I don't know what insurance the elite have or whether it is better than other fed employees.

 

Two, You're assuming that everyone who has health care insurance will use it.

 

Don't assume. That's why the deal was made with private health care companies. They said that they'd cover with pre-existing conditions, but to get the costs down, everyone had to get insurance, including those who may not have health care needs at this moment.

 

Bottom Line - if you think I want to depend on Rick Perry and the Texas Legislature to protect me from private insurance companies dropping me, I've got some dry oil wells to sell you. I want health care insurance and I can depend on the feds to actually offer an assist on this issue.

 

If you don't have federal insurance, you'll have cats walking with dogs, pigs flying, and people moving to states with better health care insurance. If you don't want 10 million Texans moving to your State, I suggest you beg for ObamaCare.

post #609 of 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

We're not talking about basic healthcare, we're talking health care.  If I have an existing condition my need for health care is different than someone that doesn't.  If my family has a history of certain diseases the needs are different than someone that doesn't. 

 

You goal is to ensure everyone has health care and we're subsidizing those who can't afford it.  Who's going to ensure they make the right decisions about their health to ensure their costs of their coverage that I'm paying for don't increase? 

 

And overall you believe the Federal goverment is in a better position to make this decision compared to each state that has to manage their citizens?  

 

Is the federal government providing the doctors, nurses, hospitals, MRI, X-Ray and other equipment that will be required to ensure everyone can receive the care they need or they are accustomed to.  I don't want to pay for a health care plan that requires I wait 2 weeks to see a doctor and 1 month for an MRI.   

 

The federal government is not providing the healthcare.  They're not even providing the insurance.  They're simply negotiating a contract with an insurance provider...more than likely an insurance company that is already in existence.  As for the additional patients, you're making a false assumption that those people who are uninsured are not already getting healthcare.  They are...at taxpayer expense.  They show up at Emergency Rooms with no insurance and because of EMTALA they cannot be turned away.  Who picks up the tab?  You do.

 

So yeah, we're already subsidizing it at the current rates, which will be negotiated DOWN in the contract thereby reducing costs.

 

In all my years of service, counting all the patients I treated, one question I never had to ask when determining how to treat them was "what state are you from?".  Healthcare is universal for humans.

post #610 of 786

I get where our differences are now, in the assumptions;

 

I get that I'm paying for them anyway but people who don't have health care now go to emergency rooms as a last resort.  They don't schedule appointments with doctors for check ups and cold symptoms and any other minor malady they suffer.  Once they have a real heath care plan I expect they will use it as freely as they do food stamps, free cell phones etc.  This means demands for health care goes up in the entire industry, not just the ER as it is today. 

 

You're both making the assumption then that single payer insurance isn't Obama's end goal, where as I'm convinced it is.  I believe they plan to overwhelm existing plans and there will be no choice but for the federal government to step in with a "solution".  Talk about flying pigs? 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post

Hey, I don't know what insurance the elite have or whether it is better than other fed employees.

 

Two, You're assuming that everyone who has health care insurance will use it.

 

Don't assume. That's why the deal was made with private health care companies. They said that they'd cover with pre-existing conditions, but to get the costs down, everyone had to get insurance, including those who may not have health care needs at this moment.

 

Bottom Line - if you think I want to depend on Rick Perry and the Texas Legislature to protect me from private insurance companies dropping me, I've got some dry oil wells to sell you. I want health care insurance and I can depend on the feds to actually offer an assist on this issue.

 

If you don't have federal insurance, you'll have cats walking with dogs, pigs flying, and people moving to states with better health care insurance. If you don't want 10 million Texans moving to your State, I suggest you beg for ObamaCare.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave67az View Post

 

The federal government is not providing the healthcare.  They're not even providing the insurance.  They're simply negotiating a contract with an insurance provider...more than likely an insurance company that is already in existence.  As for the additional patients, you're making a false assumption that those people who are uninsured are not already getting healthcare.  They are...at taxpayer expense.  They show up at Emergency Rooms with no insurance and because of EMTALA they cannot be turned away.  Who picks up the tab?  You do.

 

So yeah, we're already subsidizing it at the current rates, which will be negotiated DOWN in the contract thereby reducing costs.

 

In all my years of service, counting all the patients I treated, one question I never had to ask when determining how to treat them was "what state are you from?".  Healthcare is universal for humans.

post #611 of 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

I get where our differences are now, in the assumptions;

 

I get that I'm paying for them anyway but people who don't have health care now go to emergency rooms as a last resort.  They don't schedule appointments with doctors for check ups and cold symptoms and any other minor malady they suffer.  Once they have a real heath care plan I expect they will use it as freely as they do food stamps, free cell phones etc.  This means demands for health care goes up in the entire industry, not just the ER as it is today. 

 

You're both making the assumption then that single payer insurance isn't Obama's end goal, where as I'm convinced it is.  I believe they plan to overwhelm existing plans and there will be no choice but for the federal government to step in with a "solution".  Talk about flying pigs? 

 

 

But you have no evidence for your assumption about single payer insurance.  That's about as logical as me saying that I don't want Romney to be president because he's going to force the Mormon religion on everyone and we're going back to the days of polygamy (which is ludicrous).

 

And, in case you weren't aware, clinic visits are MUCH less costly in the healthcare industry than ER visits so, again, this will save money.  We have free healthcare in the military and we don't have that many people abusing the clinics as you suggest they will.  And these aren't active duty members I'm talking about.  Family members and retirees are no different than civilians when it comes to healthcare needs and they don't abuse the system.  Now...there are ALWAYS a very small percentage of people who abuse the system (just like those that cheat on their taxes) but you can't assume that everyone is going to do this or that it's going to place a burden on the healthcare system.

post #612 of 786
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

I get where our differences are now, in the assumptions;

 

I get that I'm paying for them anyway but people who don't have health care now go to emergency rooms as a last resort.  They don't schedule appointments with doctors for check ups and cold symptoms and any other minor malady they suffer.  Once they have a real heath care plan I expect they will use it as freely as they do food stamps, free cell phones etc.  This means demands for health care goes up in the entire industry, not just the ER as it is today. 

 

You're both making the assumption then that single payer insurance isn't Obama's end goal, where as I'm convinced it is.  I believe they plan to overwhelm existing plans and there will be no choice but for the federal government to step in with a "solution".  Talk about flying pigs? 

 

Once again, you are assuming people would pay high premiums for health care without a deductible so they will use it more frequently.

 

NO -- I think they will purchase insurance at a balance between the cost and the deductible, and the copay. Life is not as simplistic as you make it. Think - have you purchased health insurance lately? It costs a helluva lot money even with a high deductible. If you think people who don't use health insurance will pay a lot to get a no deductible policy, think again.

 

And for your second point, are' kidding me?? He can't pass a single payer. If he was going to do it, he would have done it the first time! He doesn't have the votes now. YOU have this bias that Obama is a leftist to the far left. The facts PROVE YOU WRONG.

 

Don't give me "I think" - Look at what the President passed. Yeah, in a perfect world, some people would LOVE a single payer system. But the problem is that  type of system is expensive and  - it is less efficient than a private system. Obama realized a single payer system is something we can't afford and would not pass. Obama recognizes that a private system that is regulated by the state is a more efficient system. He has praised the free market system and private enterprise numerous times as the reason for our success. The guy is not some Kenyan-born, socialist commie who wants to take your guns. Or maybe he is - but then, he kind of saved our capitalist system in 2009 when people we're saying "we're doomed, doomed, doomed!" I kid, but I'm tired of this crap. Look at the facts, not conspiracy theories.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Grill Room
This thread is locked  
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › Does President Obama play too much Golf?