What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

Heh. Just saw an interview with Michael Moore on CNN. Here's how it went:

Q: So does this legislation do anything to reduce health care costs?

Moore: <3 second pause> Well, let me tell you about what the bill does do...

Some reform. :rolleyes:

Umm, using Michael Moore as your primary source about what a piece of legislation does is kind of like asking Rush Limbaugh for pharmaceutical advice.
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

Umm, using Michael Moore as your primary source about what a piece of legislation does is kind of like asking Rush Limbaugh for pharmaceutical advice.

Nah. The creepy old addict actually knows something about that. :eek:

Edit: Jinx Bakunin. :)
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

Some good to news to take from all of this is that it effectively rules out Romney from mounting a serious challenge in 2012. Now just have to get Palin out of the way.

And that leaves who? Newt? McCain? Pawlenty? DeMint?

I think this bill's passage, and the GOP's failure to stop it or inability to modify it in meaningful fashion is a perfect example of "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu."
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

And that leaves who? Newt? McCain? Pawlenty? DeMint?

I think this bill's passage, and the GOP's failure to stop it or inability to modify it in meaningful fashion is a perfect example of "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu."

In other words, your Jefferson sig. "We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate." They sat on their hands and they paid.
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

And that leaves who? Newt? McCain? Pawlenty? DeMint?

I think this bill's passage, and the GOP's failure to stop it or inability to modify it in meaningful fashion is a perfect example of "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu."

Hell no to Newt and McCain, Pawlenty is boring, DeMint wouldn't be bad, but I doubt he runs. Someone like Mitch Daniels would be awesome.
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

They sat on their hands and they paid.
The cynical side of me (ok that's all of me) says that to some degree, the GOP is happy this passed - it gives them an easy issue to flog the Democrats with in the election cycle and brand them as socialists who are bankrupting the country. It doesn't matter that the GOP bankrupted us first because everybody has a short-term memory.
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

The cynical side of me (ok that's all of me) says that to some degree, the GOP is happy this passed - it gives them an easy issue to flog the Democrats with in the election cycle and brand them as socialists who are bankrupting the country. It doesn't matter that the GOP bankrupted us first because everybody has a short-term memory.

That depends on who you're calling "The GOP."

I'll link to David Frum again (as I did earlier in this thread):

http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

Sure, it's a big win for the dittoheads and talk radio - but as far as actual governance goes, it's a tremendous setback.

That's the problem the GOP faces - the hard right partisanship they've embraced makes actual governance and participation next to impossible. They attacked Scott Brown for voting for Cloture on the jobs bill, for example.

There's a fundamental disconnect there that the GOP has to deal with if it ever wants to govern successfully.
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

The cynical side of me (ok that's all of me) says that to some degree, the GOP is happy this passed - it gives them an easy issue to flog the Democrats with in the election cycle and brand them as socialists who are bankrupting the country. It doesn't matter that the GOP bankrupted us first because everybody has a short-term memory.

The flip side is that this bill, for its flaws, does a number of things that have immediate benefits for some people, especially with regard to how insurnance companies allocate coverage, etc. Dropping $250 to the seniors isn't a bad idea either.

I doubt many of the GOP complaints such as the feds will take over 1/6 of the economy or that the bill is "unconstitutional" for whatever reason will resonate over time. Right now, the only really "angry" folks are white, rural teabaggers whipped into a frenzy by sociopathic talking heads, and the GOP politicos who gambled on making this Obama's "Waterloo" and lost the battle, and possibly the war. By November this bill will be a distant memory, especially if the economy improves in a personally meaningful manner, e.g., lower unemployment numbers.
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

Obama wanted Republicans on board. Your representatives could have included themselves in the solution. INSTEAD you went with the Waterloo method. You lost. Now we all have to live with what the Democrats cooked up.

By the way. We're still all paying (unfunded) for your President's socialistic NCLB and Medicare Prescription Drug legislation. Where the hell is the call for an appeal of that crap?

Classic "BlameitonothersDoo".

And here I thought Cornell graduated some semi intelligent people?

"Some" isn't 100% inclusive.

They sat on their hands and they paid.

Case in point.


What's the plural for 'ignoramus'?
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

The flip side is that this bill, for its flaws, does a number of things that have immediate benefits for some people, especially with regard to how insurnance companies allocate coverage, etc. Dropping $250 to the seniors isn't a bad idea either.

I doubt many of the GOP complaints such as the feds will take over 1/6 of the economy or that the bill is "unconstitutional" for whatever reason will resonate over time. Right now, the only really "angry" folks are white, rural teabaggers whipped into a frenzy by sociopathic talking heads, and the GOP politicos who gambled on making this Obama's "Waterloo" and lost the battle, and possibly the war. By November this bill will be a distant memory, especially if the economy improves in a personally meaningful manner, e.g., lower unemployment numbers.

Here's the thing: I don't mind that this bill expands coverage, takes care of our seniors better (re: les, Rover's rant thread) and allows for the coverage of those with pre-existing conditions. It just shouldn't be at the expense of taxpayers and everyone who currently pays their insurance premiums. Create a government pool for those who are truly in need. Hell, expand Medicare. This bill is more than slightly flawed--it is going to be a complete palsy on our current health care system and will do nothing other than increase costs and drive down quality of care.

And I'd beg to differ on your assertion that only "white, rural teabaggers" are the ones "whipped in to a frenzy". Around 60% of the populus doesn't want this bill. But I will give you this: It very well may be forgotten by November, but people will DEFINITELY remember in four years from now when their insurance premiums skyrocket and the cost/availability of medical care hasn't been addressed. That train wreck is coming......conveniently, after the next presidential election.
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

. By November this bill will be a distant memory, especially if the economy improves in a personally meaningful manner, e.g., lower unemployment numbers.

Thats what I believe also.

I laughed at Micheal Steele on TV this morning saying, we had 30,000 people in DC this weekend and you didn't listen to them. Out of touch would be the first thing that comes to mind when listening to him.
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

Here's the thing: I don't mind that this bill expands coverage, takes care of our seniors better (re: les, Rover's rant thread) and allows for the coverage of those with pre-existing conditions. It just shouldn't be at the expense of taxpayers and everyone who currently pays their insurance premiums. Create a government pool for those who are truly in need. Hell, expand Medicare. This bill is more than slightly flawed--it is going to be a complete palsy on our current health care system and will do nothing other than increase costs and drive down quality of care.

Why wouldn't insurance companies then dump everyone who is sick onto the government pool and run away laughing with the cash from all the healthy people? If you are going to throw people in to a government pool, the best way to do it is to throw everyone in.
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

And I'd beg to differ on your assertion that only "white, rural teabaggers" are the ones "whipped in to a frenzy". Around 60% of the populus doesn't want this bill. But I will give you this: It very well may be forgotten by November, but people will DEFINITELY remember in four years from now when their insurance premiums skyrocket and the cost/availability of medical care hasn't been addressed. That train wreck is coming......conveniently, after the next presidential election.

The thing with that number though, is that of that 60%, about 12-15 % is people who think the bill doesn't go far enough. Now, if those 15% are mad enough to stay home in November, that's great news for the GOP, but if not, then 60% is a little wishful thinking.
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.


Good, unbiased view. :rolleyes:

From the liberal rags over at the Council on Foreign Relations:

People all over the world have followed the political rollercoaster surrounding healthcare reform in the United States, and millions witnessed Sunday's debate and countdown to midnight in the House of Representatives. The chaos that we call a "health system" in the United States--featuring some 47 million Americans with no insurance and millions more who are under-insured and face bankruptcy with catastrophic illness--stuns people overseas, especially in Western Europe.

Many view passage of healthcare reform as a test of President Barack Obama's mettle, and an unfortunate distraction for the White House from pressing issues such as the global economy, Iranian nuclear capacity, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and trade negotiations. The president's decision to postpone until June his planned swing through Indonesia and Australia in order to be in Washington for the House vote appeared to validate overseas concerns that the U.S. domestic situation was overwhelming the White House.

It's hard not to wonder how international audiences responded to the image of a pro-life, conservative Democrat (Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan) apparently being decried as a "baby killer" by Texas Republican Randy Neugebauer during the weekend's final debate, and whether it reinforced concerns about the deep, often uncivil divisions in the American body politic.

For Americans engaged in global health efforts, the sorry status of the U.S. healthcare system--its nearly $9,000 per person annual costs and its lowest-in-the-industrial-world achievements in health outcomes--has been a source of considerable embarrassment. Even as the United States funds the largest efforts in the world to provide antiretroviral drugs to people with AIDS in Africa, several U.S. states now have waiting lists for access to the same drugs, for American citizens. As the United States puts increasing pressure on poor and emerging-market countries to develop their healthcare infrastructures and meet the medical needs of their people, millions of Americans have lost health coverage amid layoffs in the financial crisis.

Many overseas friends of America have been befuddled by the anger healthcare reform has evoked inside the United States--cries that reform equals socialism, the entire Tea Party movement, and the general concept that bringing more people into the medical system is, somehow, a bad thing. Foreign observers cannot be blamed for their confusion: Americans, too, are perplexed by the anger and emotions the debate has engendered. It is painful.
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

If socialism 'allows' you to do what you're already able to do, what is it when the government 'forces' you to do something you may not have wanted to do? (aka buy health insurance)

There is lots of things the Government "forces" me to do under threat of penalty...

I am going to have a few years to figure out how I am going to deal with being "forced" to buy health insurance so I am not worried as of yet, even though I think overall it is BS. The fact is though the Government makes us do things all the time, lets not pretend this is the first.
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

The thing with that number though, is that of that 60%, about 12-15 % is people who think the bill doesn't go far enough. Now, if those 15% are mad enough to stay home in November, that's great news for the GOP, but if not, then 60% is a little wishful thinking.

Not to mention that a good portion of the people aren't single-issue voters. Plus the Congressional districts have been jury-rigged so much they're not even recognizable. Then there is the "Every Congressperson is corrupt and evil - except mine!" mentality. When other members of Congress deliver pork to their constituents; my Congressperson brings home the bacon! People don't even think that it all comes from the same pig.
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

There is lots of things the Government "forces" me to do under threat of penalty...

I am going to have a few years to figure out how I am going to deal with being "forced" to buy health insurance so I am not worried as of yet, even though I think overall it is BS. The fact is though the Government makes us do things all the time, lets not pretend this is the first.

Name another instance where the federal government forces you to purchase a product from a private company.

It's unconstitutional - which is why when it hits the SCOTUS, it will be labeled as such.

...and it's only fitting that the Messiah has ordained the IRS as the responsible agency to enforce the bill.
 
Re: Obama 10: Rahm it through.....even in the shower.

It's unconstitutional - which is why when it hits the SCOTUS, it will be labeled as such.

...and it's only fitting that the Messiah has ordained the IRS as the responsible agency to enforce the bill.

And that's part of the problem the states will face. The feds have enormous discretion to tax whomever, however and whatever they want, and the federal courts tend to defer to them. If they had delegated the duty to impose a penalty to HHS or DoL, I think one could make a stronger case for the feds overstepping their bounds.

Moreover, the fact the individual mandate doesn't kick in for a few years creates the problem now that nobody's "rights" were violated or the feds overstepped. I think the larger issue is the commerce clause butting heads with the 10th Amendment, and those clashes could have unintended consequences for states on other levels too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top