The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[miked]

BTW...Chuck Grassley's main contributions:

Health Professionals	$222,406	
Insurance	        $184,998	
Pharmaceuticals    	$145,150	
Lobbyists            	$137,846	
Hospitals            	$137,337	

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Since when is there a need for a 'good faith effort' by anyone? Last I checked, anyone in Congress can sponsor a bill and put it up for a yea/nay vote. If it's a bill you agree with, you vote for it. If it's not, you don't vote for it. These claims that the Republicans somehow interfered with passage of Democrat-proposed legislation when they hold a wide majority aren't going to stand up at all, especially with Democrat leadership publicly feuding with each other on what should be in the bills.

I wasn't talking about interfering - i was talking about offering up compromises or negotiations or ways they'd go about it. because that's how the legislative process works - it's a whole truckload of compromises and negotiations. Always has been - regardless of which party has the majority.

[miked]

Originally Posted by cartman

Wrong. Yes, anyone can sponsor a bill, but not just anyone can force a vote on the bill.

Right...the good senator from Georgia has never had a bill make it out of committee (fairly certain).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

Wrong. Yes, anyone can sponsor a bill, but not just anyone can force a vote on the bill.

I overgeneralized. I'll be sure to pull out the social studies book and type out the full process next time.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I wasn't talking about interfering - i was talking about offering up compromises or negotiations or ways they'd go about it. because that's how the legislative process works - it's a whole truckload of compromises and negotiations. Always has been - regardless of which party has the majority.

Does that occur? Yes. Is it required? No.

I think this is where the Democrats have made a horrible misstep. They're tossing stuff out there in the hopes that the Republicans will work with them and provide some sort of political cover. The Republicans are playing hardball and letting the Democrats walk out on a political limb that they're not all too interesting in walking. There's a lot of Democrats that aren't terribly interested in voting for this bill in any form at this point.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miked

BTW...Chuck Grassley's main contributions:

Health Professionals	$222,406	
Insurance	        $184,998	
Pharmaceuticals    	$145,150	
Lobbyists            	$137,846	
Hospitals            	$137,337	

Of course the rest of that story is that Grassley has received a lifetime total of $422k from insurance companies & HMO's ... less than the amount given to Obama, Dodd, Clinton, Kerry, Rangel, and Bayh ... as well 13 others.
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/notepad/...lains-mon.html

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Does that occur? Yes. Is it required? No.

I think this is where the Democrats have made a horrible misstep. They're tossing stuff out there in the hopes that the Republicans will work with them and provide some sort of political cover. The Republicans are playing hardball and letting the Democrats walk out on a political limb that they're not all too interesting in walking. There's a lot of Democrats that aren't terribly interested in voting for this bill in any form at this point.

That's my point though MBBF. You just made it for me.

It occurs all the time. It's the cornerstone of the legislative process no matter which party has the majority. Happened in Republican-controlled Congresses also. It's how you build coalitions and get bills passed that might be more along regional lines, or industry-lines or anything like that.

The fact that in this case the Republicans have failed to engage in this process means that (as I said in my initial post), the Democrats should have said "okay...they're not behaving in a constructive fashion at all" to the American people and passed the bill along straight party-lines and made the Republicans look like the petulant child who said "i'm taking my ball and going home." The fact that they were so disorganized that they couldn't is (yes I agree with you) pathetic, and a huge blunder. A more politically astute triumvirate of Obama/Reid/Pelosi would have ensured BEFORE ANY BILL EVEN MADE IT'S WAY ONTO THE FLOOR that they would be able to pass it, in it's existing form, along straight party lines. Whether by making concessions ahead of time, or by twisting arms. The fact that they didn't is frankly...amateurish.

[miked]

Never said others were on the take, but it's hard to take a guy seriously when he says he'd vote against his own bill if his party wanted to, all while advocating change in the drug company/academia regulations, while his top contributors are mostly drug companies, insurance, HMOs, etc. Makes you wonder what a tool like that stands for, other than getting elected.

[flere-imsaho]

From page 4:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

POLITICS

Hopes: Obama and Biden (Biden especially) work deftly with Democratic leaders in Congress to develop cohesive democratic voting majorities that deliver lots of progressive legislation. A thoroughly demoralized GOP loses even more seats in Congress in 2010, as the Democrats gain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Predictions: Democratic leadership in Congress continues to be weak and division in Democratic ranks is exploited by activist Republicans in Congress (more noticeable in the House) who attack legislation relentlessly and mercilessly. An Obama White House becomes increasingly frustrated with Democratic leadership and tension increases greatly in 2009 and 2010. In 2010 the GOP gains seats in the House, and many seats are won by activist "social conservatives". Despite this the Democrats pick up just enough seats in the Senate to go over 60, but the outlook for preserving those gains in 2012 looks especially bleak.

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

A more politically astute triumvirate of Obama/Reid/Pelosi would have ensured BEFORE ANY BILL EVEN MADE IT'S WAY ONTO THE FLOOR that they would be able to pass it, in it's existing form, along straight party lines. Whether by making concessions ahead of time, or by twisting arms. The fact that they didn't is frankly...amateurish.

I'm quickly getting the impression that Obma/Reid/Pelosi are all happy to have the majority numbers, but at the same time, none of them want to share the credit for the victory per se. All three individually want to be seen as the primary one pushing the buttons. Pelosi would love to be seen as the Queen Bee, Obama would love to be seen as the great communicator who brought everyone together to pass idealist laws that work for everyone, and Reid, well, I think he wants to be seen as a great leader, but I really think the Democrats would be better off with someone else in the Senate leadership position.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

That's my point though MBBF. You just made it for me.

It occurs all the time. It's the cornerstone of the legislative process no matter which party has the majority. Happened in Republican-controlled Congresses also. It's how you build coalitions and get bills passed that might be more along regional lines, or industry-lines or anything like that.

The fact that in this case the Republicans have failed to engage in this process means that (as I said in my initial post), the Democrats should have said "okay...they're not behaving in a constructive fashion at all" to the American people and passed the bill along straight party-lines and made the Republicans look like the petulant child who said "i'm taking my ball and going home." The fact that they were so disorganized that they couldn't is (yes I agree with you) pathetic, and a huge blunder. A more politically astute triumvirate of Obama/Reid/Pelosi would have ensured BEFORE ANY BILL EVEN MADE IT'S WAY ONTO THE FLOOR that they would be able to pass it, in it's existing form, along straight party lines. Whether by making concessions ahead of time, or by twisting arms. The fact that they didn't is frankly...amateurish.

So is it fair to say that Obama has failed to bring "CHANGE" to Washington?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

So is it fair to say that Obama has failed to bring "CHANGE" to Washington?

"failed in his largest test to date" would be fair...sure. Although as stated, I'm not sure how much of it is him and how much is Pelosi/Reid...as the titular leader of the party with the majority I suppose you could say that he (or his administration) bears ultimate responsibility.

they could still turn it around, and there have been some more minor changes, but in a large sense...yeah.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

So is it fair to say that Obama has failed to bring "CHANGE" to Washington?

Nope. We no longer have a President that believes tax cuts are the solution for every economic problem, standardized tests and budget cuts are the solution for every education problem, torture and warrantless wiretapping is the solution for every intelligence problem and invasion is the solution for every non-proliferation (real or imagined) problem.

Oh, and that Harriet Miers would be a good Supreme Court Justice.

Seriously, what were you expecting me to say?



Seriously, though, we can pick out specific examples and counter-examples until our fingers fall off, but here's the crux of the matter for me: George W. Bush practiced a "simplest solution, fastest" approach to governance, which plays well in electoral politics but generally fails to get anything substantial done (or at least anything intended done). Obama's the exact opposite, taking a nuanced and intellectual approach to the sophisticated problems presented to him, and asking his staff to do the same. Although this approach is traditionally not electorally successful in America, it's the approach I prefer, so I hold out hope.

/cue "bleeding heart liberal pussy" posts

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm not too sure how that's your interpretation of a none too subtle reminder that that the right to bear arms gives a certain amount (albeit woefully insufficient) protection against the tyranny of government but ... okay, whatever works for you I guess.

If you have to carry around an assault rifle in a nice part of Phoenix to protect yourself, you're a raging pussy. I mean petite women can get by with a little pepper spray and this guy needs an assault rifle to feel safe. I would just feel like such an embarassment having to carry something around like that for protection.

And lets drop the tyranny from government. This isn't the 1700's. Having a townhall on health care isn't tyranny. And if it was, some lone dipshit with a gun isn't stopping anything.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Nope. We no longer have a President that believes tax cuts are the solution for every economic problem, standardized tests and budget cuts are the solution for every education problem, torture and warrantless wiretapping is the solution for every intelligence problem and invasion is the solution for every non-proliferation (real or imagined) problem.

Oh, and that Harriet Miers would be a good Supreme Court Justice.

Seriously, what were you expecting me to say?



Seriously, though, we can pick out specific examples and counter-examples until our fingers fall off, but here's the crux of the matter for me: George W. Bush practiced a "simplest solution, fastest" approach to governance, which plays well in electoral politics but generally fails to get anything substantial done (or at least anything intended done). Obama's the exact opposite, taking a nuanced and intellectual approach to the sophisticated problems presented to him, and asking his staff to do the same. Although this approach is traditionally not electorally successful in America, it's the approach I prefer, so I hold out hope.

/cue "bleeding heart liberal pussy" posts

I thought he meant something a little more than change from the last president. That was definitely the rhetoric. I mean, that's how he beat Clinton, right?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

The reason why I said what I said is the despite numerous people in this thread pointing out where you're wrong, you continue to throw out talking points like, "80% people already have good health care plans," which just isn't true.

Reading comprehension once again. I said they have access to quality health care. Whether or not they choose to pay for it is another issue.

The RNC's already come out against the co-op plan, so I'm sure in a week or two you'll be talking about how "you're not sure about the costs" or whatever the argument will be.

I haven't seen any plans yet, so I'm not sure what the RNC is rejecting. But, based on the terms I've heard so far, I don't see a big issue with the plan. My big concern is giving more options to people while controlling costs. If this does that, I don't give a rat's behind what the RNC says.

But, I do find it interesting that you think something that will cover less people, lower less costs, and have less leverage against the insurance companies is a "step in the right direction." Truly interesting.

It's the liberal mantra once again: If you can't fix it for everyone, don't even try! Chipping away at uninsured, giving more options to people without good options and starting the ball on lowering cost is a solid first step.

If people keep your logic, nothing will get passed and we'll be in the same spot we are now in the next election.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Arles

Which country has 300 million people, with 2/3 of their adults listed as obese? If that country has a better plan, let's check it out!

2/3rds of adults? I think the percentage has to be in the high 20s as there are only 6 states above 30%

Obesity and Overweight for Professionals: Data and Statistics: U.S. Obesity Trends | DNPAO | CDC

BTW- watching that animated map is scary. It's only taken 20 eyars and we've doubled our obesity rate. Damn we're fat

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

The Republican Party has always proven itself to be good at letting the Democrats self-destruct.

So true

(Just pretend the horse is a donkey...)

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Commentary: Frightening future if health reform fails - CNN.com

Milliman Inc., an employee benefits consulting firm, publishes annually its Milliman Medical Index on the total health spending by or for a typical American family of four with private health insurance. The index totals the family's out-of-pocket spending for health care plus the contribution employers and employees make to that family's job-related health insurance coverage.



The Milliman Medical Index stood at $8,414 in 2001. It had risen to $16,700 by 2009. It is likely to rise to $18,000 by next year. That is more than a doubling of costs in the span of a decade!

[Arles]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

2/3rds of adults? I think the percentage has to be in the high 20s as there are only 6 states above 30%

Obesity and Overweight for Professionals: Data and Statistics: U.S. Obesity Trends | DNPAO | CDC

BTW- watching that animated map is scary. It's only taken 20 eyars and we've doubled our obesity rate. Damn we're fat

SI

Sorry about that. 8 of 10 adult Americans are overweight, while only 27% are obese. I had the overweight numbers by accident.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Commentary: Frightening future if health reform fails - CNN.com

Milliman Inc., an employee benefits consulting firm, publishes annually its Milliman Medical Index on the total health spending by or for a typical American family of four with private health insurance. The index totals the family's out-of-pocket spending for health care plus the contribution employers and employees make to that family's job-related health insurance coverage.



The Milliman Medical Index stood at $8,414 in 2001. It had risen to $16,700 by 2009. It is likely to rise to $18,000 by next year. That is more than a doubling of costs in the span of a decade!

Herein lies the problem. The writer presents that costs will continue to go up if nothing is done. He doesn't present one shread of evidence from ANY of the multiple bills that demonstrates how that will improve under the plan. He also does not take into account the increased taxes on health benefits and/or payroll that will occur in the middle class with the increase in spending if any of the bills do pass. So while the rise of benefit costs may come to a halt, the actual amount that those middle class people spend may continue to rise to fund the health care for those who can't afford it. It's a very short-sighted and narrow analysis of the situation. You have to consider everything involved. He didn't do that.

[flere-imsaho]

What Harry Reid Could Learn from L.B.J.: Andrew Cohen | Vanity Fair

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Herein lies the problem. The writer presents that costs will continue to go up if nothing is done. He doesn't present one shread of evidence from ANY of the multiple bills that demonstrates how that will improve under the plan. He also does not take into account the increased taxes on health benefits and/or payroll that will occur in the middle class with the increase in spending if any of the bills do pass. So while the rise of benefit costs may come to a halt, the actual amount that those middle class people spend may continue to rise to fund the health care for those who can't afford it. It's a very short-sighted and narrow analysis of the situation. You have to consider everything involved. He didn't do that.

to be fair - he may have considered them they just may not be in this article. i find it hard to believe that an academic economist would fail to consider those factors.

valid point that they weren't presented though.

was linking it more so people could see where the quote came from...wasn't necessarily endorsing the article.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Arles

Sorry about that. 8 of 10 adult Americans are overweight, while only 27% are obese. I had the overweight numbers by accident.

Damn, that's crazy. 8 in 10! Still paints an ugly picture

SI

[RainMaker]

Misleading though in a way. I mean we are a fat country, but the weight is actually a crappy way to judge. Should be done by body fat %.

If you look at the current charts, just about everyone falls under the fat category. That includes every NBA player out there when in fact they are probably the healthiest people on the planet.

[sterlingice]

You know (and I started thinking this about Sunday night when I was trying to find a silver lining)- and I could be very wrong on this but I'm starting to feel a little better over the past 24-36 hours.

Could this whole "putting the public option on the back burner" rumor over the weekend be a way to bring the actual health care issues back to the debate rather than stupid stuff like "death panels" and gun toting, mouth breathing astroturfers? People have now started talking about public option vs non public option as a side story to the Democratic infighting.

Now, it's way too early to say this is what was going on but could this have been a sneaky way to get the real health care debate back to the forefront and steal the headlines from the doofus squad?

SI

[Flasch186]

FWIW CNN is fuckin' unwatchable.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

FWIW CNN is fuckin' unwatchable.

The Daily Show just mentioned this again (Just Sayin')

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

You know (and I started thinking this about Sunday night when I was trying to find a silver lining)- and I could be very wrong on this but I'm starting to feel a little better over the past 24-36 hours.

Could this whole "putting the public option on the back burner" rumor over the weekend be a way to bring the actual health care issues back to the debate rather than stupid stuff like "death panels" and gun toting, mouth breathing astroturfers? People have now started talking about public option vs non public option as a side story to the Democratic infighting.

Now, it's way too early to say this is what was going on but could this have been a sneaky way to get the real health care debate back to the forefront and steal the headlines from the doofus squad?

SI

I don't know. Obama could sign a resolution congratulating a sports team on their accomplishments and there would be people screaming about socialism, tyranny, and other words they don't know what they really mean.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

You know (and I started thinking this about Sunday night when I was trying to find a silver lining)- and I could be very wrong on this but I'm starting to feel a little better over the past 24-36 hours.

Could this whole "putting the public option on the back burner" rumor over the weekend be a way to bring the actual health care issues back to the debate rather than stupid stuff like "death panels" and gun toting, mouth breathing astroturfers? People have now started talking about public option vs non public option as a side story to the Democratic infighting.

Now, it's way too early to say this is what was going on but could this have been a sneaky way to get the real health care debate back to the forefront and steal the headlines from the doofus squad?

SI

I really think it comes down to one of two things:

1) The President testing public opinion.
2) A leak from a disgruntled staffer.

I tend to lead toward #1, as it seems similar to the earlier issue with the middle class tax increase that was later disavowed.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

The Daily Show just mentioned this again (Just Sayin')

SI

What the...?

Yeah thats what my comment was based upon. It truly is unbearable and honestly, I have no idea wtf theyre trying to accomplish, other than to totally sully their reputation.

[Flasch186]

POW,

R Jim Demint says on CNBC today that the GOP does not need to compromise and any gov't plan, co-op or not, will not get a 'real' Republicans support.

"Im quickly beginning to think that..." The GOP are going to begin to 'vastly' look like a party unwilling to compromise for the good of the USA and this could swing the pendulum the other way.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

POW,

R Jim Demint says on CNBC today that the GOP does not need to compromise and any gov't plan, co-op or not, will not get a 'real' Republicans support.

"Im quickly beginning to think that..." The GOP are going to begin to 'vastly' look like a party unwilling to compromise for the good of the USA and this could swing the pendulum the other way.

Their unwillingness to compromise and work together to craft a bill on this could really hurt them with independents and centrist voters (cue Jon saying "YOU CAN KEEP THOSE VOTERS WE DON'T WANT THEIR VOTES IF IT INVOLVES ANY COMPROMISE. THEY'RE NOT PART OF THE REAL GOP ANYWAYS"), and while I can see it riling up their base in a positive way it's not like there's some magical +30% that they get if they get their current base massively energized. The GOP base is going to continue to turn out and vote for them whether there's compromise and working-together on this or not, so the fact that they're pulling this move...from a "macro" political standpoint...is very curious. It doesn't help them win any voters in the future.

Then again I'm probably giving the American people too much credit in saying that this will be remembered for anything more than another month after it's all over.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Their unwillingness to compromise and work together to craft a bill on this could really hurt them with independents and centrist voters (cue Jon saying "YOU CAN KEEP THOSE VOTERS WE DON'T WANT THEIR VOTES IF IT INVOLVES ANY COMPROMISE. THEY'RE NOT PART OF THE REAL GOP ANYWAYS"), and while I can see it riling up their base in a positive way it's not like there's some magical +30% that they get if they get their current base massively energized. The GOP base is going to continue to turn out and vote for them whether there's compromise and working-together on this or not, so the fact that they're pulling this move...from a "macro" political standpoint...is very curious. It doesn't help them win any voters in the future.

Then again I'm probably giving the American people too much credit in saying that this will be remembered for anything more than another month after it's all over.

This doesn't hurt the Republicans one iota. The Republicans have already got their medicine in the form of a large majority in both houses of Congress for the Democrats. Nothing is expected of a party that holds no power. Much is expected of a party that holds a large majority in both houses and holds the White House. Any attempt to spin this as a blow to the Republicans holds little weight. The Democrats are the ones that have to make something happen if they expect their majority to continue over a longer period of time. The American people handed the Democrats the power to do what they feel is right. Those same voters are a fickle bunch and will swing in a hurry if the Democrats don't use that power to make something happen.

[JPhillips]

I love how, when it looks like he might succeed, Obama is a radial socialist who's far to the left of a center-right nation, but when he struggles he's unable to deliver the change Americans demand.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

This doesn't hurt the Republicans one iota. The Republicans have already got their medicine in the form of a large majority in both houses of Congress for the Democrats. Nothing is expected of a party that holds no power. Much is expected of a party that holds a large majority in both houses and holds the White House. Any attempt to spin this as a blow to the Republicans holds little weight. The Democrats are the ones that have to make something happen if they expect their majority to continue over a longer period of time. The American people handed the Democrats the power to do what they feel is right. Those same voters are a fickle bunch and will swing in a hurry if the Democrats don't use that power to make something happen.

like i said - i'm probably giving the vast swath of the electorate too much intellectual credit, but i can see how this could be used to further hammer home the "the GOP doesn't care about GROUP X" type messages.

cue hypothetical ad in battleground state/district:

(images of smiling happy members of GROUP X - hispanics, laid off workers, seniors, whoever)

"President Obama's healthcare proposal would have resulted in X thousand more GROUP X having affordable, easy healthcare. And healthcare would have been at a lower cost to you, thanks to the public option."

(cue images of sick kids and old people dying in bad conditions)

"CONGRESSMAN Y voted against Obama's bill, and said this (INSERT SOUNDBITE)."

or

"CANDIDATE Y said they agreed with FIGURE Z about the public option. FIGURE Z said (INSERT SOUNDBITE)."

etc.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I love how, when it looks like he might succeed, Obama is a radial socialist who's far to the left of a center-right nation, but when he struggles he's unable to deliver the change Americans demand.

I love it when people mischaracterize the opinions of a few nutjobs (i.e. "radical socialist") as the opinion of an entire movement or party. Very few play that card, though you'd like people to believe otherwise, but there are a lot of swing voters both independent and conservative who bought into the 'change' mantra and do expect some form of change from the status quo.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

like i said - i'm probably giving the vast swath of the electorate too much intellectual credit, but i can see how this could be used to further hammer home the "the GOP doesn't care about GROUP X" type messages.

cue hypothetical ad in battleground state/district:

(images of smiling happy members of GROUP X - hispanics, laid off workers, seniors, whoever)

"President Obama's healthcare proposal would have resulted in X thousand more GROUP X having affordable, easy healthcare. And healthcare would have been at a lower cost to you, thanks to the public option."

(cue images of sick kids and old people dying in bad conditions)

"CONGRESSMAN Y voted against Obama's bill, and said this (INSERT SOUNDBITE)."

or

"CANDIDATE Y said they agreed with FIGURE Z about the public option. FIGURE Z said (INSERT SOUNDBITE)."

etc.

Followed by a Republican ad noting that the Democrats didn't need any Republican votes to save all those innocent lives, yet they chose to play politics instead of vote for the supposedly helpful reform. The onus is not on the Republicans in any way to make things happen.

[RainMaker]

I don't get why Republicans are against the co-op model. Does some big company have to make a massive profit for them to like an idea? Doesn't seem to be about health care but about Obama.

[JPhillips]

The internent would work a lot better for you if there wasn't a search function.

Most people would disagree with that. Both the bailout and Obama's tax plan are socialist in nature.

vs.

The American people handed the Democrats the power to do what they feel is right.

But at least you acknowledged that you're a nutjob.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't get why Republicans are against the co-op model. Does some big company have to make a massive profit for them to like an idea? Doesn't seem to be about health care but about Obama.

Hint: They aren't interested in any healthcare bill if it means a win for Obama. Kyl and Grassley basically said as much yesterday.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't get why Republicans are against the co-op model. Does some big company have to make a massive profit for them to like an idea?

See, now you've hit the nail on the head.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The internent would work a lot better for you if there wasn't a search function.

vs.

But at least you acknowledged that you're a nutjob.

There's a BIG difference between calling a person a radical socialist and calling two of his policies socialist in nature. But don't let that get in the way of you avoiding the topic at hand. It's what you do and you do it well.

[RainMaker]

I think I heard this on CNN this morning with Gupta but there is talk of reducing the age for Medicare to 55. I think this would be a real nice solution. I really think that 55-65 age group has the most trouble getting insurance and dealing with the costs. It's an age where it can become tougher to get and keep a job. It's also an age where it's near impossible to pay for your own health insurance (if you can get it).

I know that our politicians are bought and paid for so any kind of real reform is probably not going to happen. Not to mention those arguing against their own self preservation. But I'd settle for something that helps older Americans get good health coverage.

[Swaggs]

While Obama's numbers are sinking, so are the GOP's as a whole, so I don't think you can, with certainty, make the argument that this health care debate is really helping them either. If the Republican side would present some alternatives, rather than just blanketly disagreeing with whatever Obama and the Dems present, I think they have a great opportunity to gain some traction with swing voters. As it is right now, their leaders have made it pretty clear that seeing Obama take one on the chin is their current priority and they are hoping to gain support by simply being the opposing party.

That strategy works relatively often (although usually after the other party has been in power for a longer period of time), but I think the GOP is probably choosing a bad time to use it because the economy is in such bad condition. Rather than present any new ideas, they seem to be (for lack of better terms) burning the clock, but that could pretty easily backfire for them if/when the economy rebounds (on its own or with the aid of gov't programs). If/when the economy improves, the Dems and Obama will, at least, have some "accomplishments" to point to (deservedly or not).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think I heard this on CNN this morning with Gupta but there is talk of reducing the age for Medicare to 55. I think this would be a real nice solution. I really think that 55-65 age group has the most trouble getting insurance and dealing with the costs. It's an age where it can become tougher to get and keep a job. It's also an age where it's near impossible to pay for your own health insurance (if you can get it).

I know that our politicians are bought and paid for so any kind of real reform is probably not going to happen. Not to mention those arguing against their own self preservation. But I'd settle for something that helps older Americans get good health coverage.

That would at least be somewhat of a better option. At least in that case you're working with an existing system rather than creating a whole new level of bureacracy and large costs to set up those new levels that may not even work.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think I heard this on CNN this morning with Gupta but there is talk of reducing the age for Medicare to 55. I think this would be a real nice solution. I really think that 55-65 age group has the most trouble getting insurance and dealing with the costs. It's an age where it can become tougher to get and keep a job. It's also an age where it's near impossible to pay for your own health insurance (if you can get it).

I know that our politicians are bought and paid for so any kind of real reform is probably not going to happen. Not to mention those arguing against their own self preservation. But I'd settle for something that helps older Americans get good health coverage.

I actually think that is a very good idea. If they scaled it back a few "age" years at a time, it likely would not put too much stress on the current system and would be a little easier to implement.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There's a BIG difference between calling a person a radical socialist and calling two of his policies socialist in nature. But don't let that get in the way of you avoiding the topic at hand. It's what you do and you do it well.

It's a semi-socialist country. I'm baffled that so many people can't figure out what this word actually means.

Do we start picketing new roads being built as it's a "socialist policy"?

[DaddyTorgo]

but is it going to provide any cost savings or would it just accelerate the Medicare-crisis that we're going to face?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

So, America's tax rates were socialist from 1933 to about 1985 or 1986?

It would make Reagan the most socialist President in the last 50 years.