BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 03:49 AM

Today on 'news' show, Pelosi is telling Sawyer, that some Debitcrats, were noble for voting for it('For the children, sniff sniff', of course), because now they've been voted out of office. How utterly noble!

Compare that, to those 'noble' citizens who really need real health care, who voted, in hopes of repealing it!


I wonder why Obama needs to take 3000 people on a ten day trip, out of the country, (at a cost of two billion). Are they 'needing' to be out of the country for something?...something here??...I hope not for a collapse...and I really hope not!
3000????
Jeez!


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 04 Nov 10 - 01:34 AM

I think the electorate has spoken at the ballot box. Their view of the Obama Administration is ...it sucks.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 05:45 PM

Two more years of Repub posturing and gridlock...

No surprises there, Bobert- Boner has already promised as much.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Bobert at the library...
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 03:58 PM

Manchin is a Dem in name only... We'll see if it catches on when he gets to DC... No bets on it, however...

BUt it really doesn't much matter seein' as the blueprint for "minority rule" has been chizzled in stone the last two years by the Repubs...

Hope: The newly elected Repubs will come to Washington with the hopes of doing something other than the Boeher "Rope-a-Dope"...

Fear: Two more years of Repub posturing and gridlock...

Prediction: The latter...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: pdq
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 11:46 AM

Even with amazing Republican victories in the Pennsylvania and Illinois races, the Democrats will have at least 49 seats plus their two pseodo-independants.

The Democrat total will probably go up.

Alaska, Washington state, California and Colorado are still "too close to call".

Colorado should go Republican, Alaska independant, and the other two Democrat, making a final count of   DEM: 51    REP: 46    IND: 3.

The Nevada and West Virginia race were not as close as expected.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 01:12 AM

In case naybody missed it, the eason for the

Do you know why Jerry Brown can't see Russia from his house?

comment was made because Gov Moonbeam Jerry brown said

"we're gonna make the sun rise in the West and move over to the East,"

Yeah.

He cain't see Russia from him house 'cause the sun is in his eyes.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 03 Nov 10 - 12:38 AM

"Progressives just want policies to work for the people becuase if they don't - and they ceratinly aren't now - then thei8ngs historically have gotten very messy."


Yes indeed Bobert. Things are not working for the people and it is messy.

Manchin had to make an ad showing him literally shooting at Obama's Cap & Trade bill to get re elected.

Up until then he was loosing.

Why?

coal.

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!

Maybe he's one of those disgusting little red***k hypocrits. Gun totin' and hatin' Obama.

"The retiring senator on Friday praised the television spot released by the campaign of West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin, who is running for the seat of the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) The ad shows Manchin using a rifle to shoot a hole through a what is supposed to be a copy of the bill.

"The best commercial I've seen was the governor of West Virginia using a rifle to shoot the cap-and-trade bill," he said during an appearance on CNBC.

Manchin, who is locked in a tough contest with Republican John Raese, cut the ad in an effort to distance himself from Washington Democrats."

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: pdq
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 09:55 PM

Manchin has been declared the winner in West Virginia.

If that holds the Democrats can expect to keep control of the Senate.

There is really little chance that the GOP will displace incumbants in Washington state or California but stranger things have happened...

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 09:00 PM

Just to conclude this trivial piece of smegma, Bruce, it IS really stupid to imply, as Ms Palin did, that she in some manner was qualified as VP because her experience in international relations included a peekaboo glimpse of one extreme corner of an islad belonging to Russia from a few vantage points in the state she was the inept governor of. Really.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Charley Noble
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 08:17 PM

The American public is going to really start screaming if Republicans attempt to roll back some of the better Health Reforms:

No denial of insurance for pre-existing conditions

No termination of health insurance for people who get sick

No limits on health insurance for catastrophic illness

Bargaining pools for prescription drugs

It's true that some middle class people will oppose lower income people receiving subsidized health insurance, even if it is less expensive to them than free emergency medical care. But not only is that better public policy it is cheaper in the long run.

My frustration is that the Obama Administration did not succeed in passing a public health system which totally eliminated private health insurance.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 07:18 PM

Any government that's in power when the economy is bad gets blamed for it, and punished at the polls. You know why, Doug? People have a very short attention span. ;-) They mostly think like they drive...no farther than 10 or 15 feet past the end of their noses.

The Republicans got punished for the bad economy in 2008 and for 8 years of war and folly.

The Democrats are being punished for the bad economy right now and for continuing war and folly.

Little has really changed, in my opinion. The deck chairs got re-arranged, that's all, but it's still the Titanic.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 07:01 PM

Greggie Boy,

When you decide to discuss the topic, rather than make personnal insults, it might be worth listening to what you have to say. Until then, YOUR postings have shown that you have nothing to offer to the conversation.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 06:43 PM

Back to the subject of this thread: I think we will have a better idea about the popular and unpopular views of the Obama Administration AFTER tonight.

Democrats are going to mightly argue that the huge losses they are going to experience are a result of the economy. That dog won't hunt. After all, hasn't Obama and the Democrats in congress spent the last two years blaming GWB for the terrible economy?

Democrats are going to pay heavily for the legislation opposed by the majority of U.S. citizens pushed through congress by the Obama administration and the Democrats in congress.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 06:34 PM

And if I quote the truth, YOU would not believe it.

Possibly because:

1.You wouldn't know the truth if it reared up on its hind legs and bit you on the ass

2. Because your posts heretofore have consisted of Faux News/BuShite/NeoCon delusional fantasies.

Ya reap what ya sow, Beardie.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 05:01 PM

And if I quote the truth, YOU would not believe it.

When asked about health care for the elderly, and whether it would be economivcally feasible under his plan,he said If the 80 year old woman needed a hip replacement, Obama would give her an aspirin. FACT- I heard him say it live.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 04:58 PM

Hardly a stupid remark to say that Russia was visible FROM ALASKA- IT IS!

The STUPID remark is to say that she could see it from her back yard- which she never said.


Shall I make up comments mocking Obama and put stupid remarks into HIS mouth, and expect you to accept them? Is that what you are saying is OK???

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 04:50 PM

Rewriting history again, Bruce? She DID say she could see Russia from her state. Tina Fey turned it into "I can see RUssia from my porch".


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 04:43 PM

Amos,

Nice twist to the FACT that it was a comedy skit, and NOT Sarha that said that.

"just because your favorite airhead made stupid remarks about seeing Russia does not mean "


The airhead s are those that keep saying SHE said it, when it is FACT that she did not.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 04:40 PM

Well, no it isn't.   First of all, just because your favorite airhead made stupid remarks about seeing Russia does not mean that a veteran executive like Jerry Brown has any connection to her stupid remark.

Second of all you have no evidence Jerry Brown uses pot.

Third of all even if he did, there is no logical reason to assume he has any reason to see RUssia, since he lives in California. The whole thing's stupid, not funny, and brain-dead.

But hey, whatever floats your boat, man...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Bobert at the library
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 03:49 PM

Exactly correct, LH...

This is waht America has become... A failed state that does not provide even basic services to it's own citizens...

(Hey, BOPberdz... Ain't that alot like 3rd world countries???)

Yes, it's very much so and the reason for this goes back to Geroge Busgh the Senior who started the "elite" bashing which has grown into a full force movement of people who not only dispise, okay hate, educated people but pride themselves on being ignorant themselves...

This does not bode well for intellegent policies becuaser the Epsilon Nation runs on emotion rather than reason... That is the absolute worst formula for success of a democracy that any political scienctist could imagine but that is exactly what we have become...

Progressives aren't this monolythic bunch that are all left or all right or all in-the-middle... Progressives just want policies to work for the people becuase if they don't - and they ceratinly aren't now - then thei8ngs historically have gotten very messy...

I mean, you have Epsilon Nation allready prepared to take up arms to protect the corporate pigs withouit the slightest clue that the corporate pigs are using Epsilon Nation as shields against intellegnce???

So, yeah, LH... Our health care stinks and is not going to get any better until and if Americans can shake off this idea that being stupid is cool...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 02:17 PM

Sorry, Amos.

It IS germaine and funny. Just as Donual's cartoons are- You MIGHT argue whether it is factual, but that never stopped Donual, so why complain here? Unless you are still pushing the double standard that yu have special priviledges and are not to be held to the same standard YOU hold US to...

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 01:58 PM

YEah, Sawz, whatever. It's not germane and it is not funny, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 01:34 PM

No Amos.

Jerry can't see Russia because the smoke is in his eyes.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 12:58 PM

Dude, you SO need to check your meds. You are bouncing off the walls here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 12:51 PM

Hey Amos.

Do you know why Jerry Brown can't see Russia from his house?

The sun is in his eyes.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 10:20 AM

Sawz:

Fine,m but why are you deliberately ignoring the point I made? Dumb or rasty?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Nov 10 - 12:24 AM

Lemme see Amos. I have seen Sheiks and football stars checking into the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. They were settling for second best?

What are the top medical universities in the world?

Harvard University

University of Cambridge

Johns Hopkins University

University of Pennsylvania

University of Oxford

University of California at San Francisco

Yale University

Karolinska Institute

Columbia University

University of Dundee

And for the umteenth time, the health care bill does nothing to contain the cost of health care like it was supposed to do.

"I think the health insurance industry's lobbyists were probably the primary architects of Obama's bill."

I am glad you are realizing that Amos but didn't Obama say that lobbyists were not going to run things any more?

How in the hell can he claim it is so great when it didn't do what it was supposed to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 06:44 PM

Yeah, sure Marx had a different definition of "capitalism" in his mind. I'm not him, and I don't share his views on that at all. I am not a Marxist. I too believe in a mixed economy, just as you do. That's what we have in the USA and Canada...a mixed economy. That's what I believe in.

Neither socialism nor capitalism are words that should be used as pejoratives.

Obama is no socialist! His health care bill was primarily a big windfall for the private health insurance companies, because it got them a lot more customers...by legislation rather than by choice! I think the health insurance industry's lobbyists were probably the primary architects of Obama's bill. As long as your people have to pay a fortune for health insurance and health care, pdq, you are not getting a socialist health care plan.

The whole principle of a socialist health care plan is that it spreads the very high cost of health care around evenly among the entire tax-paying public...at a very affordable price. Most people aren't sick most of the time. That means if we all share in the cost of health care, we can all afford it, but if we don't all share...if it comes down to YOU ALONE when you're sick to cover the cost.....trust me..........you can't afford it.

That's the principle of defence funding too, pdq. The tax system spreads the cost around evenly among the entire public...rather than just billing a few directly affected individuals when an emergency arises. And that way everyone can afford the very high cost of maintaining an armed forces. THAT's socialism! Without it, you could not afford to field an army, navy, and air force.

Same goes for the fire department.

How can you not see that this is what's needed to provide affordable health care?

Here's a tip: Obama is not doing that. He's continuing with passing on huge costs to people for private health insurance. He is NOT practicing socialism. He is not a socialist. He's a servant to entrenched corporate interests, just like all your previous presidents were.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: pdq
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 06:32 PM

I believe you will find that Marx meant something quite different by "capitalism" when he coined the word back in the mid 1900s. It is a nice little pejorative (like "neo-con") that you can hurl at your enemies, real or imagined.

We do indeed have a "mixed economy", a mixture of free market and government control, and it works well. Pure Socialism would destroy everything we have built.

Tomorrow, 2 NOV 2010 will be a referendum on Obama and his Socialist agenda. Expect an earthquake.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 06:09 PM

You obviously have an entirely different definition of the word "socialism" than most non-Americans do, pdq. ;-) No surprise there. I know it's right next to the word "satanism" in the American dictionary.

You see, what Americans think when they hear the word "socialism" is something very different from what the rest of the people in the world think when they hear it. And that's the fault of your educational and political propaganda system which starts out indoctrinating young minds right from kindergarten on.

The rest of the world takes socialism as a totally normal thing that is a part of any modern society, and that works harmoniously alongside capitalism. In most of the world capitalism handles the manufacture and marketing of the vast majority of goods and services, and runs the vast majority of businesses of all kinds in most societies, and that's fine with me. Socialism takes care of the few absolutely essential public services and institutions such as: the different levels of government, the police, the fire department, the parks department, major transportation infrastructure such as highways, bridges, etc...some major utilities such as the hyrdoelectric grid or communications infrastructure...the armed forces....all totally essential things that are, by definition, not there to make a profit! They are there to supply a needed part of a society that must exist, and that is not there for profit, but for result. Thus they are funded by public money, and are therefore socialist institutions.

Another public service that is utterly essential in any modern society is to give everyone access to inexpensive health care. That can only be done through socialism, as it is being done in most modern countries.

A society does not have to be ALL socialist, and it shouldn't be. Nor does it have to be ALL capitalist, and it shouldn't be. It should be a mixture of the two.

Your braindead American propaganda system fails to explain this to your people and gives them the impression that socialism is an ALL or NOTHING proposition that takes over everything. It isn't, except under Communism. Communism is an extreme form of socialism that I don't agree with, because it takes over everything. The most extreme form of capitalism could be called a "robber baron" system, such as existed in the Middle Ages...where the richest men take over everything, hire the most soldiers, and they terrorize the populace, rape, loot, and do as they please. The only check to that in the Middle Ages was to take refuge in a church...was was sort of vaguely socialist to some degree, as the church did offer sanctuary to all who entered its doors...but the church was also capitalist, in that they had a lot of money, and were busily seeking to get more of it.

I am neither a socialist nor a capitalist, because I know a society needs both of them in harmony to be a healthy society. Your children are not being told about that. They are being kept ignorant, afraid, and misinformed, and their view of socialism is an American myth fabricated to enable big corporations, drug companies, and doctors to rob them from cradle to grave.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: pdq
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 05:49 PM

"Mussolini shot socialists."

Well, some of us might have to revise our opinion of Moose A. Leeni.

BTW, the Rasmussen poll just put the Connecticut Senate race in the "dead heat" department.

We now have California, Washington state, Illinois and Connecticut as "tossup".

If even one of them goes Republican, it will create an earthquake.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 03:45 PM

The American health system is not the envy of the world, it's the laughingstock of the world. It is viewed with amazement and horror by the world, as is the American political system in general.

Now...let me explain that. It is true that America has some very advanced medical technology, yes....and some very fine doctors. That's not what the world views in horror and amazement. What the world views in horror and amazement is the fact that ordinary Americans have to spend almost unbelievable amounts of money to get their health care and health insurance, and that the USA spends more per capita on health care than any other nation, but somehow ends up only having the 37th best health care among nations in the world, and is way behind countries like France, Austria, Italy, Japan, and Saudi Arabia. Canada is just slightly better than the USA, but with the huge difference that all Canadians are covered by a public single-payer health insurance system paid for by taxes (and costing quite a bit less per capita than in the USA).

That's what's astonishing about the USA, and it's shameful. The American public is being robbed blind by the private health insurance companies and the AMA, and Obama's much touted health care plan has done very little to improve that grotesque situation, because it's mostly just another huge cash giveaway to the private health insurance industry. That's why it was passed!!!!!!!! And that's what they don't tell you. Obama is about as "socialist" as Benito Mussolini, in my opinion. Mussolini shot socialists.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 03:40 PM

Okay, the librarian just shot me that look...

Yer plane, Amos...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 03:33 PM

Sawz:

One quick point as I have neither the time or inclination to quibble with you. The notion that our health care system is the envyof the world --because our leading technology is often the envy of the world--is completly hollow and sadistically false. I hope that even you can see the difference between the best of our technology--which is excellent--and the system of distribution of health care, which is less equitable and less secure for the majority than the systems of a dozen other nations.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 03:16 PM

Polls no longer matter, Amos, 'cause way too many people are forming their opinions on mythology...

Garbage in = garbage out...

I mean, let's get real here... This is not something new... Remeber the Big Three BIGASS LIES that the Bush/Cheney War Machine concocted: WMDs, Iraqi ties to al qeada, Iraq therefore tied to 9/11... Well, even afetr those BIGASS LIES were debunked and Bush adminsistration people admitting it there were still over 60% of the people who believed them...

This is a sad commentary on then state of educational system today when people do not possess the mental capacity to be informed...

I mean, right now the Repubs have put forth so much negative crap otu there about raising taxes that 60% of the people not only don't realize 95% of Americans taxes went down with the Stimulis but also think that continuing the tax cuts to the wealthy will craet jobs and cut the deficit... Only flat-earth bogus economists think that 'cause niether are founded in reality... Reality is that the wealthy are drowning in cash now and have no interest in investing it... Reality is that continuing those tax cuts means will create ***NO*** jobs what so ever...

So polls don't mean anything except that with a dumbed down population incapable of critical thinking that America is headed down a slippery slope...

At some point we have to pull out of this nose-dive and get back to making decisons based in factual information, not emotional wishing and hoping... I mean, I kinda think of America at a crossroads and it can continue downward with mytholgy and bad policies or it can grow some balls and quit the crybaby stuff and buckel down and get back into the race... Right now??? We are just...

...watching as...

...and our competitors are loving it!!!

I mean, if I'm a German or a Japanese I'm rooting for the Tea Party...

Like I've said over and over and will say again,...

...garbage in = garbage out...

Ain't no poll in the world that can change wrong thinking...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 03:14 PM

Partisan survivors will always cling to any tiny bit of flotsam they can find, rather than yield to an ocean of reality....

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 12:52 PM

Amos,

"despite every counter-effort Bush, Cheney and Rover could throw"

1. proof of the previous post

2. NONE of whom have been active political opponents- YOU are stuck back before the last election.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 12:49 PM

Amos,

"I'll tell ya this much. If I have two evaluations of the same person and one of them is rancorous and spiteful, bitter and demeaning, and the other assesses the individual's ability in positive terms, I am much more inclined to believe the latter as being closer to the truth. "


Except you have shown this statement to be false, in every thread you have posted an anti-Bush comment. If you did believe it, you would have looked at something positive, instead of what you did post.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 12:17 PM

Don't bet on Vicar of Bray Lieberman voting with the Dems. You'll lose your money.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: pdq
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 12:01 PM

Last week Obama said he was not on the ballot on NOV 2 but that his agenda was.

All sources say the House will got to the Republicans which will require about a seat change of (I'm pretty sure it's) 39. Most people expect more than that.

The Democrats cencede 5 lost seats in the Senate, but pollsters say 8 and some Republicans say as many as 11. The last is wishful thinking.

For the record, I predict the Senate this way:

               Republicans   49
               Democrats      49
               Independants   2 (Sanders and Lieberman vote with Dems)

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 11:58 AM

HUFFPO
After a year of angst and agony, Congress passed and the president signed two major bills governing health care. The 2,800-page law will almost certainly provide more Americans with health insurance. But nothing is free. Our nation's biggest flaw may be the unrealistic view that you can get something for nothing. In this case, more Americans may be insured, but this worthy goal will impose huge costs - costs that some of the new law's most ardent supporters have intentionally obfuscated:
1. The new law will increase the federal budget deficit.
Shortly before the penultimate vote, Democrats trumpeted the bill as reducing the deficit. They relied on last minute scoring from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reporting that the bill will reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over 10 years. As a result, proponents declared the bill as good for the deficit and the economy. History will prove whether this claim is true. But anyone who has even peeled back one layer of this onion knows the CBO was boxed in to giving a distorted picture. This law will be proven quickly to expand our bloated deficit -- and sadly, the media was asleep at the switch and did not report on it. The big distortion occurred by the CBO assumption that the 21 percent cut in doctors' Medicare reimbursements would stay in place. The 21 percent drop in doctors' pay began April 1 (no April Fools) and was included by CBO scorekeepers as permanent. This allowed them to claim $450 billion in Medicare savings. Yet, the same politicians who voted for the bill have also promised doctors a "fix" and that they will restore the drastic cuts in Medicare reimbursement. Even before the 21 percent cuts, increasing numbers of doctors refused to take Medicare patients, as the Medicare reimbursements are tiny compared to private insurance reimbursements, not even factoring in the cost and time of the additional paperwork, audits and hassle of collecting from the government bureaucracy. With a 21 percent cut in Medicare reimbursement, tens of thousands more doctors will refuse Medicare patients and the goal of getting more Americans health coverage will be countered by fewer available doctors. Medicare patients, our oldest Americans, will suffer, and a marketplace form of rationing will be imposed. This real problem begins this month, and the promise to "fix" Medicare reimbursements puts both Democrats and Republicans in a pickle. If they don't reverse the Medicare cuts, thousands of doctors will close their doors to Medicare patients, depriving millions of needed health care and belying the promise of the health care bill. But if they vote to restore the doctors' cuts, then the myth of deficit neutrality will be exposed for Democrats, and the promise of fiscal prudence will not be met for Republicans. In any case, either Americans will suffer or the myth of the new medical law's deficit neutrality will be exposed. Members of Congress from both sides expect a vote within weeks. That vote will transform the entire financial assumption underpinning the health care law. And if you are not convinced yet that the new health care law is not a deficit expander, here are two other tricks the CBO used to hide the true costs. First, the CBO used 10 years of revenue-raising and only six years of expenditures. Had the 10 years been based on both revenue and expenditures, it would cost $114 billion annually. More, the CBO was told to assume many plans would pay the 40 percent excise tax on plans and offset the costs of this new government benefit. This 40 percent tax will impact very few plans - if any. If realistic assumptions were used for those two items, then the law clearly does not reduce the deficit. If that's not enough, other revenue assumptions have been labeled by fantasy. For example, The Hill notes that the $2.7 billion assumed to be raised by a tax on tanning salons would require tanning customers to make 3.9 billion visits to tanning salons over the next 10 years. The government takeover of student loan processing is assumed to save $70 billion and presents the questionable assumption that government can do something cheaper than private industry. Government scorekeepers rarely consider the true cost of government employee pensions, overhead, real estate, support by other government employees or supplies when calculating theoretical savings of "insourcing." The calculations by Congress of every new entitlement program have been multiples off the mark. The 1965 Medicare program was supposed to cost only $9 billion by 1990. Instead it cost $67 billion in 1990 and it now costs $521 billion. This expansion of the deficit is an enormous cost that we are imposing on our children.
2. The new law will reduce jobs in private industry.
Every employer with over 50 employees soon must provide health insurance for every employee or face stiff penalties. This mandate will impose new costs on those employers that now do not provide insurance. Simple economics means these companies will reduce jobs to pay the costs of the new law. Less visible are the millions of starter and entry-level jobs it will eliminate. For example, my company now hires about a dozen paid interns every summer and we use seasonal employees for our big annual event, the International CES. Both types of jobs - and the entry level full-time positions to which they are designed to lead - could now be discouraged because of the new mandate that every employee have employer-provided health insurance. The legislation also includes new taxes on medical equipment, passive income for millions of Americans, and new Medicare taxes - all costs to those making investments in job-creating businesses. It is a zero-sum game and every dollar of new costs means a dollar not invested in a business or paid to an employee. More, the law also removed thousands of jobs from the banking industry that provided student loans. This last minute add-on to the bill had nothing to do with health care - but it does kill a private industry and turn it into a government-run industry. The millions of private jobs lost will be only partially offset by new jobs created for additional health care professionals. And of course the heath care law creates new work for lawyers who litigate over the hastily drafted and often ambiguous language.
3. The new law will increase government jobs.
Estimates are that 17,000 new IRS agents will be hired to make sure the new complex laws for hiring and buying insurance are followed. More, the federal takeover of student loans will create a new bureaucracy with thousands of new government jobs. These will be jobs with good pay and lifetime benefits and they will further expand the deficit.
4. The new law will hurt health care for those with critical needs.
The American health care system is the envy of the world as almost every innovation now comes from the United States, and the wealthiest people from around the world come here when they are very sick. The bill's supporters claimed that the legislation is necessary as we have poor health care in the United States, and the present system needed to be changed. They pointed to our low ranking in the developing world on various measures of health care, such as infant birth rate and average mortality rate. These rankings are cause for alarm as they reflect unhealthy lifestyle choices. Americans eat more, consume unhealthy food, and exercise less. More, many American girls have babies at a young age. But on measures where our doctors have influence, like cancer survival rates, we top the world. If there is any doubt that the legislation will hurt quality of care, I suggest following the membership of the American Medical Association (AMA). The AMA supported the legislation - even though the AMA doesn't represent most American doctors and most doctors had serious concerns with the proposals. If you learn soon that many doctors quit the AMA you can conclude that the doctors voted on the bill with their feet. Indeed, every major specialist group opposed the bill as bad for patients with critical and thus highly specialized needs.
5. The new law will reduce American innovation.
The new law will reduce innovation in several ways. First, specific taxes on innovative medical devices and new costs for drug companies mean a special tax on innovation. New taxes will be added to the overall cost of treatment and innovation thus will be discouraged. Second, innovative medical treatments will be discouraged in America. Articles by American doctors dominate almost every medical journal in the world. Today's system encourages breakthroughs and creativity. Yet the new health law encourages cookie-cutter treatments and punishes deviation from treatment norms thereby discouraging innovation. Third, the bill imposes several new taxes on investment. This means less money will go to new businesses and taking risks. The result will be less money for research, development and innovation. Sadly, the costs of insuring the uninsured using the methods in the new law are real and not speculative. In my ideal world, we would have reached national consensus on the problem (uninsured Americans), agreed on facts (we are innovators and innovation should be preserved) and then brainstormed solutions (cut malpractice, encourage healthy lifestyles, encourage competition in health care). Indeed, at several points in the last year good faith, bipartisan efforts were heading in this direction. But politics got hold and any solution was viewed as preferable to a well-considered bi-partisan solution. At the end, recalcitrant Democrats were then purchased with special favors (Michigan airport repairs, water projects, special state Medicare payments, to name just a few). Some legislators were even convinced that this was a necessary vote to preserve the historic presidency or their majority in Congress. These legislators went for ego and a person who is president rather than what was best for America. Some may challenge this recognition of reality as sour grapes. Perhaps. But there would be fewer sour grapes if we could agree on the facts and that this new sweeping mandate imposes costs. Even with the factual mirage described above, this is the first time in our history Congress imposed a major change opposed by a majority of Americans. The factual cloud Congress sought to obscure will blight the result and challenge the credibility of those who imposed it. As our economy sags under the weight of this newest mandate, we must learn and approach every future proposal with a long-term, honest view of its impact on our nation's deficit, jobs and innovation and investment.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 11:56 AM

Editorial
Health Care and the Campaign
Published: October 23, 2010

Republican candidates and deep-pocketed special interests are spreading so many distortions and outright lies about health care reform that it is little wonder if voters are anxious and confused.

Here are a few basic facts that Americans need to keep in mind before they go to the polls, and afterward. First, most aspects of the reform do not go into effect until 2014. Second, things are indeed bad out there: The costs of medical care and insurance premiums are (still) rising, and some employers are (still) dropping coverage. But for that, you should blame the long-standing health care crisis and the current bad economy. Health reform is supposed to help with these problems.

Here is a look at the claims being made on the campaign trail — and the distortions they contain:

PURE NONSENSE: John Raese, the Republican candidate for the Senate in West Virginia, is claiming that the law will require patients to go through a bureaucrat or panel to reach a doctor. That is flat out untrue. You will still choose your own doctor or insurance plan without interference. Nor, despite other claims, will the law provide subsidized insurance to illegal immigrants. They are precluded from using even their own money to buy policies on new exchanges.

The Obama administration will not be compiling a federal health record on all citizens, including each individual's body mass index, as Ann Marie Buerkle, a Republican running for a House seat in upstate New York, has claimed on her Web site. The administration is offering incentives to doctors to record various vital statistics in electronic medical records and report the data in the aggregate, to help understand national health trends.

WE CALL THAT CAPITALISM: Republican politicians never tire of denouncing health care reform as a "government takeover" — or socialism. What is true is that the law relies heavily on private insurers and employers to provide coverage. It also strengthens regulation of those insurers and provides government subsidies to help low- and middle-income people buy private insurance on the exchanges.

Those exchanges will promote greater competition among insurers and a better deal for consumers, which last time we checked was a fundamental of capitalism.

WHAT ABOUT MCDONALD'S? Conservative commentators pounced after the fast food chain and several other large employers that provide skimpy, low-cost policies to their workers warned that they might drop their health plans entirely if forced to comply with the new law. They particularly objected to a requirement that they begin raising the low annual limits on what their plans are willing to pay for health care.

In response, the administration has granted some 30 waivers for one year (Rush Limbaugh promptly accused the administration of allowing these employers to "break the law") and has signaled willingness to smooth out other bumps on the road toward full reform. In 2014, all plans will have to meet minimal standards and large employers will have to provide coverage or pay a stiff fine.

WHAT ABOUT MY PREMIUMS? Some Republicans are also claiming that health reform is driving up premiums. There have been sharp increases in some states, primarily in response to soaring medical costs. Some insurers may also be trying to increase their profits before the reform law holds them in check. A few very welcome provisions that take effect early, like requiring insurers to cover preventive care without cost-sharing, will play a minor role in premium increases for next year.

Reform has also energized federal officials and many state regulators to challenge and force down big increases sought by insurers. The Justice Department just filed suit against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan for allegedly using its market power to drive up costs for its competitors and its own subscribers.

MEDICARE SCARE TACTICS: Republican candidates routinely and cynically charge that the reform law will "cut" $500 billion from Medicare — leaving the clear implication that benefits will be reduced. In reality, the law will slow the rate of increase in payments to health care providers over the next decade, and benefits for most beneficiaries will be as good or better than they are now.

The only beneficiaries apt to see a change are those enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans that will lose their unjustified subsides. Many of these beneficiaries, roughly a quarter of the Medicare population, may have to pay more for their plans or may lose the extra benefits, like gym memberships or dental care, that the subsidies pay for. Some inefficient plans will die out, but the efficient private plans will compete successfully with traditional Medicare — on an even playing field.

MEDICAID SCARE TACTICS: Republican governors are complaining bitterly that reform will force them to expand their Medicaid programs. What they are not saying is that the federal government will pick up the vast bulk of the added expense to cover millions of vulnerable Americans. States that do not want this largess will be shortchanging the health of their poorest citizens, who will continue to use costly — to the state and the taxpayers — emergency rooms for routine health care.

WHAT THEY'RE NOT SAYING: Health care reform has already brought substantial benefits, mostly starting in late September. Insurers are now barred from dropping coverage after a beneficiary becomes sick. Dependents can stay on their parents' policies until age 26. Insurers must cover preventive services and annual checkups without cost-sharing. Lifetime limits on how much insurance plans will pay for treatment are gone.

The major benefits start in 2014, when tens of millions of the uninsured will gain coverage through Medicaid or by buying private coverage — with government help for low- and middle-income Americans — on the new competitive exchanges. If you lose your job, you will no longer lose access to insurance. And with government help the coverage should be affordable.

Far too few Democrats are explaining this on the campaign trail. The barrage of attack ads are hard to push back against. But the voters need to know that health care reform will give all Americans real security.

A version of this editorial appeared in print on October 24, 2010, on page WK9 of the New York edition.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 11:47 AM

Are you addicted to rhetoric Amos? Can you speak in a normal tone or is it uncontrollable? It ads nothing to your credibility. Rather it detracts because rhetoric is a logical fallacy. Are you a down to earth person or a wordy windbag?

"What specifically do you think is wrong with the Health Care bill?"

It does nothing to contain the cost because it was crafted by the drug and health care industries via lobbyists.

It is too large and complicated hidden containing crap like new 1099 requirements.

It could be done with smaller bills addressing each area instead of a "Monster" bill that no one person can figure out. Therefore each piece would have a wider approval and less arguments or it would fail based on our democratic system.

Nancy Pelosi said we have to pass this bill to find out what is in it.

Obama said Lobbyists would not run things. He said all of the negotiations would be out in the open on CSPAN.

Except for the one meeting where he made no compromises and claimed the Repubs would not compromise, He has not kept his word.

Yet he brags about his great historic accomplishment that people just don't understand which implies they are to stupid to understand.

That is a red flag to anybody that does critical thinking on their own and naturally they come to the conclusion that it is being rammed down their throat.

You can't understand it either Amos but you don't want to appear to be one of the stupid people so you echo whatever Obama says.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 11:20 AM

I looked over that Rasmussen BS page and it is a well-crafted piece of meretricious folderol. It cites percentages favoring and opposing a gross generalization called the HEalth Care Bill, and in no wise discusses the particular provisions of the bill or how it works and what people think about those policies.

THis means that the opinions being surveyed are responding to a general impression, colored by media, sniping and the various mudslinging from assorted asswipes. There's no way of telling whether even with that it is at all representative, or of what. Smoke and mirrors, and a lot of used bathwater.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 10:09 AM

Seein' as my pudder is down ( and prolly will be fir some time) and that only an occaional trip to town to the library will get me here then I am appointing Amos as my "proxy"...

As fir turning my entire paycheck over, GfinS??? That's exactly why I put the "in" in GfS... Hey, look... Let's getn real... Our taxes are lower now than any time in the last 30 years and lower than any of our competitors in the industrialized world... That is the real story here but if yer so Tea Party barinwashed that those facts just aren't convient then, yeah, why not just kill all taxes and privatize everything down to the air we breath and th sidewalks that we walk on...

That is the only alternative...

If you and yer Tea Party folks want that then please just say so and quit playing games...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 02:41 AM

Sorry, Sawz, I don't buy your bait.

Show me the actual poll, and it will be quite clear that it was an emotional reaction, not a reasoned conclusion. As for your crude assertions about my assumptions, they are in error.

What specifically do you think is wrong with the Health Care bill?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 02:40 AM

I guess we'll know shortly. If the American public love the bill, and thank all those who voted for it, I suppose they'll be re-elected with open arms and warm wishes....if not, well that might be a clue.

Being as the American public was virtually ignored during the debates, and finagling to get it pass, I'm sure we'll find out the feeling on the matter from them(us)...and it's only two days away! I personally wouldn't vote FOR anyone who passed a bill, any bill, who at least didn't READ it first! ......but that's just me. I like to be represented, not Lorded over!...and TOLD what I have to accept, when the clowns telling me that, didn't even read it..and frankly, don't know what the hell their talking about!..Throw that jerk-off out!
Gosh, I hope that doesn't sound THAT unreasonable!

All that being said, I guess we're now waiting for the Republicunts to sell us out, as well!...Gee, maybe they really didn't learn a damn thing!....Anyway, the die is cat, the agenda has been lined out, now we get distracted, into thinking either party can 'fix' it.

Inflation will be going up, dollar values down(as I said it would about a years or so ago.....and America will decay into default of its debts and morality!..with the buzzard politicians picking through the rest of the carcass!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 11:47 PM

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is incorrect reasoning in argumentation resulting in a misconception. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor. An appeal to emotion

Emotional triggers:

madding crowd

electrified

falsified information

Repub venom

a baaaad thing

You're on a roll Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 11:31 PM

Rhetoric Amos Rhetoric.

You still operate under the assumption that anybody who disagrees with you is stupid, uninformed and out of touch.

Show us the poll that brought you to your belief Amos.

"I do not believe that the majority of the US, were they consulted on the actual policies, would want the bill repealed."

Why do you believe that? How did you make that judgement?

Show us the poll that brought you to your belief Amos. Or is it something you just have in your head.

Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 10:46 PM

Sawz:

Read what I wrote. The madding crowd, electrified by falsified information and Repub venom, may say anything. If they were consulted on the issues, about which most of them do not know the first thing, they would think differently. What were the survey questions being used? Did they go into the particulars of the policy? Or did they ask, "Do you agree the Health Care Bill is a baaaad thing?" What sort of intelligent response would you expect>???



A