Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 46

Thread: Even Barack Obama's deputy campaign manager has lost patience with him

  1. #31
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    I don't recall anyone complaining that it was "too early" and needing "trust" established when Bush pushed through his tax cuts in 2001 even though those cost more than the health care changes currently being proposed.

  2. #32
    Elite Member Shinola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Smokin' with your baby
    Posts
    4,211

    Default

    No, I only complained that it made no sense and that the Bush administration was out to bankrupt the government. I figured they'd get their cuts. It's very hard to take a stand against tax cuts, even when the cuts aren't justified.

    And ... I don't really see tax cuts (very standard sort of thing) and major health-care reform as comparable undertakings. ??
    Posted from my fucking iPhone

  3. #33
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Hopefully, Obama will finally step up to the plate tonight in his healthcare speech and deliver the leadership and details that have been lacking so far. The Republican response afterwards should be interesting.

  4. #34
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shinola View Post
    I sort of see it this way. First off, I thought that the health-care-reform thing was rolled out way too soon after the election, given that the Obama administration had not yet shown that it can really accomplish anything, let along something so challenging and divisive. I'm not even going into all the ways they have bungled it beyond that.

    It starts at some point to look like a farce or even some Illuminati conspiracy. I mean, did someone freaking plant Obama in the White House race just to ensure that we'll have four years of stalemate and then probably two decades of all-out Bush-like fascism?
    Quote Originally Posted by hotncmom View Post
    I have thought all along that health care should've been a 2nd term goal and that Obama should've focused on jobs and the economy first and foremost. I was hoping that he would get stimuli into place for massive development of alternative energy technologies and the high-speed rail system - which would create hundreds of thousands of jobs at all levels when fully implemented.

    And as for healthcare, I have always felt that it is easier to eat an elephant one bite at a time. The resistance to healthcare changes has been there a long time. No leadership is going to be able to change it lock, stock and barrel right away, particularly when the public trust hasn't even been earned yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinola View Post
    No, I only complained that it made no sense and that the Bush administration was out to bankrupt the government. I figured they'd get their cuts. It's very hard to take a stand against tax cuts, even when the cuts aren't justified.

    And ... I don't really see tax cuts (very standard sort of thing) and major health-care reform as comparable undertakings. ??
    And the point is that the Obama Administration should just do what exactly until they've "shown that it can really accomplish anything?" Twiddle their fingers? Somehow the GOP has no problem going right after what they want done like tax cuts for the rich and embracing the "starve the beast" philosophy when they get into office, yet the Dems shouldn't go after what they want when they get into office and have majorities? Sounds like a double standard to me.

  5. #35
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,697

    Default

    We're going to get the same shit in tonight's speech that we've heard 100 times already from Obama.


    Gibbs is saying it's going to be 'forceful'. So I guess that means instead of him saying 'Let me be clear' he'll say 'Let me be very clear'.



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  6. #36
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,186

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffy View Post
    And the point is that the Obama Administration should just do what exactly until they've "shown that it can really accomplish anything?" Twiddle their fingers? Somehow the GOP has no problem going right after what they want done like tax cuts for the rich and embracing the "starve the beast" philosophy when they get into office, yet the Dems shouldn't go after what they want when they get into office and have majorities? Sounds like a double standard to me.
    No, I had goals in mind for them to accomplish:

    I was hoping that he would get stimuli into place for massive development of alternative energy technologies and the high-speed rail system - which would create hundreds of thousands of jobs at all levels when fully implemented.

  7. #37
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hotncmom View Post
    No, I had goals in mind for them to accomplish:
    I was hoping that he would get stimuli into place for massive development of alternative energy technologies and the high-speed rail system - which would create hundreds of thousands of jobs at all levels when fully implemented.
    Last I recall the stimulus package had light rail in it. There ARE actually jobs in health care too like doctors and nurses, ya know. Some of them have been lost in the recession too.

    I find it really interesting that you've stated multiple times (in other threads) how much your health care premiums are costing you, yet you're now saying health care reform should have been a "2nd term goal." Meaning that no reform would be legislated until after 2012 and not take effect until well after that. Really? Because you want to continue to pay more and more?

  8. #38
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,186

    Default

    ^^No, frankly I am afraid of the provision that we are required to keep our currrent employer coverage that we already have and that the insurance companies will take advantage and jack up premiums even more as a punitive measure.

    During the speech the term "affordable" health insurance kept coming up, and I was wondering WHO defines affordable. What you can afford to pay for health insurance depends on your personal financial situation. It is different from other types of insurance coverage, eg. auto, where if you want to lower your costs you raise your deductible, or, you could even buy a really cheap car. We have no options to lower our premiums - you get what you get. And now it will be illegal to decline coverage if it is offered through your employer (or you will be penalized? unclear on this point)? So if we are paying $400/month now and it goes up to $700 are we just supposed to somehow eat that?

    I'm for reform but I am worried that by forcing companies to do things they clearly don't want to do, like insure everyone, that they will take advantage of the legal loopholes and penalize the rest of us.

    If anyone can make me feel better about this, please do.

  9. #39
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,697

    Default

    I wish I could, but without single payer, these are the issues that will arise.

    Which is why I agree with Bill Moyers point about fighting until there is real reform, and not this bullshit that only benefits the insurance companies. All that is happening as it stands now is that they are going to get a whole lot of new customers.

    The core issue is that the insurance companies are for profit companies, and by forcing them to stop denying people based on pre-existing conditions, or forcing businesses to insure their employees or pay into the system, and providing subsidies for low to moderate income earners, you do not get to the core. These steps are not victories for the public, as the cost gets passed on to you, the consumer.

    The companies need to be dismantled.
    Last edited by witchcurlgirl; September 9th, 2009 at 09:01 PM.



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  10. #40
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    you should probably ask Obama, oh wait HE WONT TELL YOU
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  11. #41
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,186

    Default

    Well, I wrote my congressman, who is a democrat, and never heard anything back...not even a form letter email.

    I also called one of the Senators and only got a Washington staffer who was probably filing her nails while I spouted off.

  12. #42
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Hildebrand seems to have changed his mind. He was on Olbermann tonight and said he was pleased with Obama's speech, and that he heard what he wanted to hear.

    And I was happy Obama FINALLY showed the leadership and provided the key details that had been lacking up to this point. And he showed some passion and fire, which people said had been lacking but I never thought that was a big deal. But, now, I agree the passion and fire were missing and do help sale it.

    Although I did like how Joe Wilson shouted out 'you're lying' and thought the other Republicans would chime in and they didn't.
    But my favorite image was Eric Kanter texting during the speech.

  13. #43
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,186

    Default

    Last I recall the stimulus package had light rail in it. There ARE actually jobs in health care too like doctors and nurses, ya know. Some of them have been lost in the recession too.
    I was also thinking in terms of tax credits for companies developing viable alternative energy technologies to hurry things along in the solar, wind, geothermal, etc. industries to make them more mainstream. Right now these technologies are still sort of fringe. Obama calling together the leaders in this field for a green energy conference where ideas are shared and the mainstream populace can know what's on the horizon. I mention geothermal heating and cooling to my friends and no one has ever heard of it.

    High speed rail - development of this would employ engineers, and tons of blue collar jobs, from the guys who lay the rail to the people who work in the rail stations. It would also pump up the steel industry, which is down because of lower auto production. Auto workers could be retrained to build rail cars instead of automobiles. People would travel more if they could do it quicker and cheaper.

    What I am saying is if first term Obama did things like this and could point to millions of jobs created and industries revitalized, that would give him a whole lot of punch for the next election. Then BAM! smackdown with the healthcare reform and no one can say he's doing anything to get reelected.

  14. #44
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,697

    Default

    To me the most interesting part of the speech was the brand new '30 million without insurance' number used tonight. For months, we've been hearing about 40, no, 45, no, 47 million uninsured and, no sir, that did not include illegals. Just the number of good ol’, hard working Americans getting screwed by 'big insurance.'

    But now with only 30 million w/o insurance, does that not drive the need for 'change' further down the list? So that we aren't so upset when it doesn't happen? Prepping us for the failure?

    And what happened to the other 17 million people?



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  15. #45
    Elite Member Cali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    citizen of the world
    Posts
    5,443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hotncmom View Post
    ^^No, frankly I am afraid of the provision that we are required to keep our currrent employer coverage that we already have and that the insurance companies will take advantage and jack up premiums even more as a punitive measure.
    First off- here's an online version of the bill: Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

    If the bill passes as-is, it will create a Health Care Commission which will have 'sanctioning authority', and I believe that jacking up premiums violates some parts of the bill. I'm not positive, I'm still working my way through it. Anyway, the Health Care Commissioner will oversee the insurance exchange, and the affordability credits. That person will be able to issue sanctions for violations of the bill or the state's insurance commission, and after a series of warnings, can shut down the insurance company, and offer their clients insurance via the insurance exchange. You can read more about that in the Governance part, Sect. 142 D.

    Quote Originally Posted by hotncmom View Post
    During the speech the term "affordable" health insurance kept coming up, and I was wondering WHO defines affordable. What you can afford to pay for health insurance depends on your personal financial situation. It is different from other types of insurance coverage, eg. auto, where if you want to lower your costs you raise your deductible, or, you could even buy a really cheap car. We have no options to lower our premiums - you get what you get. And now it will be illegal to decline coverage if it is offered through your employer (or you will be penalized? unclear on this point)? So if we are paying $400/month now and it goes up to $700 are we just supposed to somehow eat that?

    I'm for reform but I am worried that by forcing companies to do things they clearly don't want to do, like insure everyone, that they will take advantage of the legal loopholes and penalize the rest of us.

    If anyone can make me feel better about this, please do.
    What would happen in that instance is that you'll have options: if your insurance is too expensive, you can shop around, and if your income is below a certain point, you would qualify for the public option, or for affordability credits. You can read about qualifying for those in sect. 424 under 'Affordability Credit Eligible Individuals.'

    I'm working out some numbers right now, I'll post later if I figure it out.

    ETA- I found some numbers, not sure if they are reliable but it sounds about right:
    'Affordability credits are available on a sliding scale for people who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid (133 percent of the poverty line), up to people with incomes at 400 percent of the poverty line. (That's about $73,000 per year for a family of three). At that level, if your health care premiums cost more than 11 percent of your income (or about $8,000 a year), you could get an "affordability credit" through the Exchange that would make up the difference. The most you would pay for your premiums would be 11 percent of your income. Lower on the income scale, say 200 percent of poverty ($36,620 for a family of three), you would only need to pay about 5 percent of your income for health premiums (about $1,800 per year). In addition, Medicaid would be expanded to everyone in the U.S. living below 133 percent of the federal poverty line, including adults with no children.'
    Health Care Reform -- Here's What's on the Table in the House - FCNL Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    To me the most interesting part of the speech was the brand new '30 million without insurance' number used tonight. For months, we've been hearing about 40, no, 45, no, 47 million uninsured and, no sir, that did not include illegals. Just the number of good ol’, hard working Americans getting screwed by 'big insurance.'

    But now with only 30 million w/o insurance, does that not drive the need for 'change' further down the list? So that we aren't so upset when it doesn't happen? Prepping us for the failure?

    And what happened to the other 17 million people?
    AP covered this one- apparently its from a newly released study:

    'THE FACTS: Obama time and again has referred to the number of uninsured as 46 million, a figure based on year-old Census data. The new number is based on an analysis by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, which concluded that about two-thirds of Americans without insurance are poor or near poor. "These individuals are less likely to be offered employer-sponsored coverage or to be able to afford to purchase their own coverage," the report said. By using the new figure, Obama avoids criticism that he is including individuals, particularly healthy young people, who choose not to obtain health insurance.'
    FACT CHECK: Obama uses iffy math on deficit pledge - Yahoo! News
    Last edited by Cali; September 10th, 2009 at 12:38 AM.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Barack Obama, if you've lost Maureen Dowd, you've lost snarky Americans
    By witchcurlgirl in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: March 5th, 2009, 02:57 PM
  2. Barack Obama's Nevada campaign manager dead of a heart attack
    By Sasha in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: November 3rd, 2008, 11:33 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 8th, 2008, 07:36 PM
  4. Barack Obama's new campaign ad
    By greysfang in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 29th, 2008, 09:44 AM
  5. Hillary Clinton gets new campaign manager
    By *DIVA! in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 12th, 2008, 12:55 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •