An Historic Week

[dieseldiva]

Lots of special deals in this thing for their cronies but THIS is what our Veterans get.

 

[greg334]

You know Diva, after meeting THE dumbest couple I have ever met in my life, I am convinced that a lot of people don't get the connection - taxes are not paid by companies but are passed on to the consumer.

In this case, the insurance company will pick up the tab in most cases and that will add another expense to the health care cost which will be made up by increases in premiums.

But the great thing is a few of the insurance people and a couple of the economist I know are not saying this is a haphazard disaster in the making but a calculated disaster to ensure that the government has to fix the problems by 2014. One even went so far as to praise Obama because it is just like FDR and social security where he almost crashed the economy but then came back to "fix" the problems with a reform package that was bullet proof at the SC level. Obama is doing almost the same exact thing and is arrogant enough to say "so what" to the people.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

If you knew what my premiums would be because of state interference. Now the rest of the country will know...

 

[Oilerman1957]

Well Oiler, it seems that he sold all of of you on the idea that there would be an open government, no more back room deals, disclosure of ear marks, reaching across the aisle and so on - I take it he lied about that which also means he never intended to change the face of Washington Politics.

A lot of the health care changes have strings attached, which is not really normal when you see what's been squeezed into it. The trickery is not just about ethics but how it is perceived by many opponents on shuting down the opposition.

But the defenders of Obama, those who are so fooled by the need to "right a wrong", seem to be saying that health care was the only thing keeping his administration alive. Without it "his administration would be doomed", it would go down in history not as one of change but as one of defeat because of racism within the politics of Washington.

It comes down to this, he's has a lame administration because of the divide within his own party and the vote that took place.

The republicans didn't vote against this because he was proposing it but because the changes that the great messiah were selling that he was against to get elected were the very ones which is how business is done there. The bipartisim, the reaching across the aisles, the open doors were actually practiced by the republicans between '94 and '06, it was the democrats that actually got a lot of their stuff passed and the repubs sacrificed a lot of things to appease them - look at the bills and who sponsored them while looking at the margins of passage.

See it seems that you among others just don't get a lot of things about the messiah.

You don't seem to understand what this is really about because if it was all about health care, then it would have taken the same amount of words to enact the legislation as it did for the original social security act - 15,000 or so words, 38 pages. There isn't anything complex telling insurance companies not to restrict subscribers or other things, but 1500 actual pages with another 1000 pages of addition definitions are used in this to create a mess.

Nevertheless, It comes down to facts;

FDR and LBJ both had their party and the opposing parties support in congress for a lot of their stuff.

Never have we seen such a divide from a party with a sitting president in hard times as we have with this one.

The actually benefit of this law will not actually help a lot of people because of the complexity of it, the stripping of rights of some individuals and the fact that it leaves out so much because of political posturing.

AND we all were lied to, regardless who thinks this was his agenda, by trashing the republicans and then telling the people we will see a better government but in fact had seen more closed door political maneuverer with no one reading what's in the bills, we are in for a lot more crap in the future.

And then he became president and found out he cant change it all, back room deals, ear marks, reaching across the aisle, those will always be part of washington, nice idea to get rid of them except reaching across the aisle, but will never happen.

Strings attached in a bill? say it isnt so!!!

And I know, the poor honest republicans that have never lied to this country have been abused and they have never trashed a democrat, Thats just so wrong. hahahaha

Right now the republican party isnt going to agree with anything the democrats are going to try and do, right or wrong, they will argue against it, such is the state of politics in washington right now.

Its nothing more then the each party wants control and will do whatever they think it takes to get the power. Neither party really cares about what the country really needs, its only about having the power.

All I was saying was it was the man's agenda to get a health care bill passed and he did, like it or not, he did what alot of others have tried and got it done

 

[hdxpedx]

obumer's name will be remembered forever as Benedict Arnold's name has!! They both STABBED AMERICA in the BACK!

 

[Oilerman1957]

obumer's name will be remembered forever as Benedict Arnold's name has!! They both STABBED AMERICA in the BACK!

I still dont see how you guys say these things, The people elected him and he ran on a health care reform policy.

 

[hdxpedx]

I still dont see how you guys say these things, The people elected him and he ran on a health care reform policy.

Simple- roll the video tape! he gave speeches while he was running- now compare what he's doing! Wait until this garbage bill is completely read and exposed!!

 

[Oilerman1957]

Simple- roll the video tape! he gave speeches while he was running- now compare what he's doing! Wait until this garbage bill is completely read and exposed!!

What is he doing? He said he would reform health care and he did, whether you like the reform is another story.

 

[greg334]

And then he became president and found out he cant change it all, back room deals, ear marks, reaching across the aisle, those will always be part of washington, nice idea to get rid of them except reaching across the aisle, but will never happen.

Actually that is propaganda to justify his inability to fulfill promises and cover his a** by the dems. I also get their emails.

See he isn't someone who has been sheltered all his life and all of a sudden burst on the scene as the savior of the country. He was a constitutional lawyer, he was a state senator and the a US senator - all a rather exclusive club member and actualyl well imformed on how things actually work and what can be changed. He knew what to do to sell the dumb people that he will do away with the republican lock out of the people's representitives - the dems, but now he is president and the promises he made to change Washington mean nothing to him. The excuse has been made because he 'wasn't prepared' for the work involved. Kind of sad when you hear people actually saying that, makes you wonder.

Well not to degrade you but learn what it really is about. It has never been about his promises but the elmination of the checks and balances within the congress and the government, pretty much what people have been saying - we are going to have a ruler.

He knew going into this that it would be easy to change things but his own party has been stopping him, not the republicans.

The BS about the republicans is that, BS. From '94 to '06 they didn't stop much in the way of appointments under clinton, or the bills Kennedy, Fingold and others came up with. It is BS that they controlled the congress by shutting the dems out, that didn't happen on much if anything - even budgets were discussed by member of both parties. The bush tax changes (not the bush tax cuts) were not made perminate because the repubs didn't think that they would be needed with the honesty of the dems in congress.

See maybe you don't see the sacrificial attitude that some have in the party - a few have decided not to run for re-election while others are resigned to the fact that they may not be here after the election.

The one thing is all of this could have been done to include all the parties involved, especially those who didn't want it to happen.

All I was saying was it was the man's agenda to get a health care bill passed and he did, like it or not, he did what alot of others have tried and got it done

Well his agenda isn't the country's, and it seems that now we have this abortion to deal with and they now get the idea that people can't stop the next mess of bills, they will ram through immigration reform which may cuase more problems to our economy.

 

[Oilerman1957]

Actually that is propaganda to justify his inability to fulfill promises and cover his a** by the dems. I also get their emails.

See he isn't someone who has been sheltered all his life and all of a sudden burst on the scene as the savior of the country. He was a constitutional lawyer, he was a state senator and the a US senator - all a rather exclusive club member and actualyl well imformed on how things actually work and what can be changed. He knew what to do to sell the dumb people that he will do away with the republican lock out of the people's representitives - the dems, but now he is president and the promises he made to change Washington mean nothing to him. The excuse has been made because he 'wasn't prepared' for the work involved. Kind of sad when you hear people actually saying that, makes you wonder.

Well not to degrade you but learn what it really is about. It has never been about his promises but the elmination of the checks and balances within the congress and the government, pretty much what people have been saying - we are going to have a ruler.

He knew going into this that it would be easy to change things but his own party has been stopping him, not the republicans.

The BS about the republicans is that, BS. From '94 to '06 they didn't stop much in the way of appointments under clinton, or the bills Kennedy, Fingold and others came up with. It is BS that they controlled the congress by shutting the dems out, that didn't happen on much if anything - even budgets were discussed by member of both parties. The bush tax changes (not the bush tax cuts) were not made perminate because the repubs didn't think that they would be needed with the honesty of the dems in congress.

See maybe you don't see the sacrificial attitude that some have in the party - a few have decided not to run for re-election while others are resigned to the fact that they may not be here after the election.

The one thing is all of this could have been done to include all the parties involved, especially those who didn't want it to happen.



Well his agenda isn't the country's, and it seems that now we have this abortion to deal with and they now get the idea that people can't stop the next mess of bills, they will ram through immigration reform which may cuase more problems to our economy.

Wow, so everyone that voted for Obama is dumb? huh

I thought the check an balances were elimanted in the Bush era, kinda thought maybe that was the reason for the recession, wall street running wild and all, guess i was wrong. As far as degrading people, you seem to do a fine job of that by name calling, what is this? 5th grade?


As far as his party stopping him, look at who they are, democrats from republican states afraid of getting voted out, thats all

If his agenda isnt the americans agenda then why is his approve ratings still above his disaprove ratings even after the health care vote, hate to tell you this but your opinion is in the minority.

Maybe fron 94 to 06 the democrats were more willing to work within congress then the republicans are now, just maybe

Actually this kind of bill was a republican idea from past yrs that they supported, if you care to go back and research

 

[chefdennis]

He is losing his base and everyone else except those that believe that the country should take care of you...his support is lower then is has ever been, the majority of the people wanted nothing to do with this bill, reform yes, but not the socialist bs he is doing...this is not the "change" people expected and it is going to cost him...


Obama has lost most white men

BY DAVID PAUL KUHN - MCT Information Services
Obama has lost most white men - Other Views - NewsObserver.com

Published Thu, Mar 25, 2010 02:00 AM
Modified Thu, Mar 25, 2010 06:42 AM

Millions of white men who voted for Barack Obama are walking away from the Democratic Party, and it appears increasingly likely that they'll take the election in November with them. Their departure could well lead to a GOP landslide on a scale not seen since 1994.

For more than three decades before the 2008 election, no Democratic president had won a majority of the electorate. In part, that was because of low support - never more than 38 percent - among white male voters. Things changed with Obama, who not only won a majority of all people voting but also pulled in 41 percent of white male voters. Suddenly, there were millions more white men voting the Democratic ticket.

Polling suggests that the shift was not because of Obama but rather because of the financial meltdown that preceded the election. It was only after the economic collapse that Obama's white male support climbed above the 38 percent ceiling. It was also at that point that Obama first sustained a clear majority among all registered voters, according to the Gallup tracking poll.

It looked for a moment as though Democrats had finally reached the men of Bruce Springsteen's music, bringing them around to the progressive values Springsteen himself has long endorsed. But liberal analysts failed to understand that these new Democrats were still firmly rooted in American moderation.

Pollsters regularly ask voters whether they would rather see a Democrat or Republican win their district. By February, support for Democrats among white people (male and female) was 3 points lower than in February 1994, the year of the last Republican landslide.

Today, among whites, only 35 percent of men and 43 percent of women say they will back Democrats in the fall election. Women's preferences have remained steady since July 2009. But over that same period, white men's support for a Democratic Congress has fallen 8 points, according to Gallup.

White men have moved away from Obama as well. The same proportion of white women approve of him - 46 percent, according to Gallup - as voted for him in 2008. But only 38 percent of white men approve of the president, which means that millions of white men who voted for Obama have now lost faith in him.

The migration of white men from the Democratic Party was evident in the election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts. His opponent won 52 percent of white women. But white men favored Brown by a 60 percent-to-38 percent margin, according to Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates polling. Once again, Democrats could not win enough other votes to compensate for the white male gap.

It's no accident that the flight of white males from the Democratic Party has come as the government has assumed a bigger role, including in banking and health care. Among whites, 71 percent of men and 56 percent of women favor a smaller government with fewer services over a larger government with more services, according to ABC/Washington Post polling.

This recession remains disproportionately a "he-cession." Men account for at least seven of 10 workers who lost jobs, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Blue-collar men have suffered 57 percent of the job losses. And blue-collar white men, who make up only 11 percent of the work force, constitute 36 percent of those who have lost jobs. In total, nearly half of the recession's casualties are white men, having held 46 percent of all jobs lost.

Think about the average working man. He has already witnessed financial bailouts for the rich folks above him. Now he sees a health care bailout for the poor folks below him. Big government represents lots of costs and little gain. Meanwhile, like many women, these men are simply trying to push ahead without being pushed under. Some of them once believed in Obama. Now they feel forgotten.

Government can only do so much. But recall the Depression. FDR's focus on the economy was single-minded and relentless. Hard times continued, but men never doubted that FDR was trying to do right by them. Democrats should think about why they aren't given that same benefit of the doubt today.

David Paul Kuhn is chief political correspondent for RealClearPolitics and the author of "The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma." He wrote this for the Los Angeles Times.

 

[Oilerman1957]

Obama's health insurance rule a Republican idea
March 27, 2010 Email Print Free Newsletter
WASHINGTON -- Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the Republican presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest Republican senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed.

Republicans say Obama and the Democrats co-opted their original concept, minus a mechanism they proposed for controlling costs. More than a dozen Republican attorneys general are determined to challenge the requirement in federal court as unconstitutional.

Starting in 2014, the new law will require nearly all Americans to have health insurance through an employer, a government program or by buying it directly. That same year, new insurance markets will open for business, health plans will be required to accept all applicants and tax credits will start flowing to millions of people, helping them pay the premiums.

Those who continue to go without coverage will have to pay a penalty to federal tax authorities, except in cases of financial hardship. Fines vary by income and family size. For example, a single person making $45,000 would pay an extra $1,125 in taxes when the penalty is fully phased in, in 2016.

Conservatives today say that's unacceptable. Not long ago, many of them saw a national mandate as a free-market route to guarantee coverage for all Americans _ the answer to liberal ambitions for a government-run entitlement program. Most experts agree some kind of requirement is needed in a reformed system because health insurance doesn't work if people can put off joining the risk pool until they get sick.

In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon favored a mandate that employers provide insurance. In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement. Not anymore.

"The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea," said health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. In 1991, he published a paper that explained how a mandate could be combined with tax credits _ two ideas that are now part of Obama's law. Pauly's paper was well-received _ by the George H.W. Bush administration.

"It could have been the basis for a bipartisan compromise, but it wasn't," said Pauly. "Because the Democrats were in favor, the Republicans more or less had to be against it."

Obama rejected a key part of Pauly's proposal: doing away with the tax-free status of employer-sponsored health care and replacing it with a standard tax credit for all Americans. Labor strongly opposes that approach because union members usually have better-than-average coverage and suddenly would have to pay taxes on it. But many economists believe it's a rational solution to America's health care dilemma since it would raise enough money to cover the uninsured and nudge people with coverage into cost-conscious plans.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Wow, so everyone that voted for Obama is dumb? huh

Not everyone. Some actually think they like socialism. Sitting on one's fat arse, while someone else pays for them to do so, is quite appealing to some.

The rest? Yeah... they're dumb (ignorant).

 

[Oilerman1957]

He is losing his base and everyone else except those that believe that the country should take care of you...his support is lower then is has ever been, the majority of the people wanted nothing to do with this bill, reform yes, but not the socialist bs he is doing...this is not the "change" people expected and it is going to cost him...


Obama has lost most white men

BY DAVID PAUL KUHN - MCT Information Services
Obama has lost most white men - Other Views - NewsObserver.com

Published Thu, Mar 25, 2010 02:00 AM
Modified Thu, Mar 25, 2010 06:42 AM



David Paul Kuhn is chief political correspondent for RealClearPolitics and the author of "The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma." He wrote this for the Los Angeles Times.

really? the numbers show different, his approval ratings went up after the health care vote.

 

[Oilerman1957]

Not everyone. Some actually think they like socialism. Sitting on one's fat arse, while someone else pays for them to do so, is quite appealing to some.

The rest? Yeah... they're dumb (ignorant).

Again, nothing but name calling, such a shame

 

[chefdennis]

oiler wrote:

really? the numbers show different, his approval ratings went up after the health care vote.

LOL, yea they went up to 46.7 lol great increase and support from the masse..thats lower then what elected him....

And yes the republicans are for health insurance reform, but not this bs garbage and control and forced enforcement that barry has pit in place...LOL even barry was against the forced enforcement when hillary talked about it during the campaign, he called it un-American back then...but since he was elected, he can now show his true UN -American colors that he has held all along....

 

[arkjarhead]

I'm still trying to figure out how this deal is going to affect Vets. I mean are we going to be forced to buy this insurance, or if we just see our docs at the VA without the insurance will the government fine us?

 

[Oilerman1957]

oiler wrote:



LOL, yea they went up to 46.7 lol great increase and support from the masse..thats lower then what elected him....

SharePrintE-mailMarch 25, 2010
Obama Job Approval at 51% After Healthcare VoteSlightly improved compared to his recent ratingsby Jeffrey M. JonesPRINCETON, NJ -- President Barack Obama's job approval stands at 51% after the passage of landmark healthcare legislation. That is slightly better than, though not fundamentally changed from, his ratings for most of this month.



These results are based on Gallup Daily tracking from March 22-24, the first measure conducted entirely after the House passed the healthcare reform bill on Sunday night. The passage of the legislation itself met with an initially positive public reaction.

Obama's approval rating has hovered around 50% since November, and was precisely 50% in the last three days of Gallup polling before the vote took place. However, in recent weeks Obama has been consistently below the majority approval level and his ratings were generally the lowest of his presidency. That includes term-low 48% weekly average approval ratings each of the last two weeks, and several 46% ratings in Gallup Daily three-day rolling averages, the most recent coming in March 15-17 polling.

In the latest three-day rolling average, 83% of Democrats, 47% of independents, and 14% of Republicans approve of the job Obama is doing as president. Over the course of the prior week (March 15-21), the president averaged 81% approval among Democrats, 43% from independents, and 13% from Republicans. Thus, it appears all three groups may be marginally more positive about Obama since health reform passed, with a proportionately greater increase among independents.

Bottom Line

The passage of healthcare reform in the House, a major victory for the Obama administration, has not yet had an overwhelmingly positive impact on Obama's approval rating. That may be in part because of the divisiveness over the healthcare reform legislation, which struggled to gain majority public support throughout the process. It appears, though, that the healthcare victory did provide enough momentum to put Obama back above the majority approval level for the time being.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,544 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted March 22-24, 2010. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.


Guess it depends on who you ask, point is, it went up. not down like to tried to say.

 

[Oilerman1957]

And yes the republicans are for health insurance reform, but not this bs garbage and control and forced enforcement that barry has pit in place...LOL even barry was against the forced enforcement when hillary talked about it during the campaign, he called it un-American back then...but since he was elected, he can now show his true UN -American colors that he has held all along....

Guess you didnt read the article, it was a republicans idea yrs ago. Looks to me like he compromised on what the congress came up with to get the ball rolling, but if you just look for bad things thats all you will find, is bad things

 

[tallcal101]

The Republicans have drunk deep at the well of their version of bad moonshine.And their tainted moonshine of mis information has blinded then. All they have left is the threat of violence.

" The mobs of the great cities add just so much to support of pure government as sores do to the strength of the human body.....It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy is a canker which soon eats to the heart of it's laws and Constitution....." Thomas Jefferson

There will always be the disillusioned sad sacks who barn storm the will of the people and languish in their poorly executed game plan,all the time preaching the edict of guns and violence as sorry excuses for their defined lack of moral turpitude and inability to rise above their base instincts . TJ defined it ,canker's eventually dry up and are replaced by healthy cells.