Obama Needs to 'Reset' His Presidency

There are more than enough out there now who want a do-over on thisvote for change!

Lets hope the voters let him know in the 2010 mid terms Donnie...I see more evidence every day that they will.

I think the President is a little more confident in his agenda than you or the writer of the article you seeded.

You might not agree with all of the decision he makes but if you really believe he's the right person for this time in our history your need to have a little more faith in your initial assessment.

If we got "do-overs" (how old are you?) Bush would never have been president at all. You'll get your chance in 2012. Meanwhile, sit back and enjoy the ride.

I think the President is a little more confident in his agenda than you or the writer of the article you seeded.

KGMO- I'm sure he is as well, Obama is a left wing ideologue, but the public is not so confident anymore, due to the fact that he oversold and rushed through the porkulas bill that has done nothing to stimulate the economy.

What crap! Obama is a moderate, pragmatic centrist, and anyone who bothers to check the facts instead of treating Limbaugh and Beck as the source of absolute truth would know it. Someone has a messiah complex, but it isn't Obama voters.

What crap! Obama is a moderate, pragmatic centrist, and anyone who bothers to check the facts

Not only drinking the Kool Aide...bathing in it as well, "moderate, pragmatic centrist" that's funny.

"moderate, pragmatic centrist" that's funny

It's funny in a weird kind of sadistic sense. Obama is moderate only if the word moderate means so far left of center that he's almost off the chart. He is way left of center than he appeared to be in his campaign. The large print (he's campaign) gives it to you and the fine print (he's presidency) takes it away.

Thanks for the great article dar63. It tells a story that and more and more are actually paying attention. Even the Dems.

The biggest problem I see, is that Obama is still campaigning, when he should be governing. That being said, he is doing the only thing he knows how to do, campaign. He spent a little over 2 years in the Senate, and most of that time was spent campaigning for President. He never got a chance to see governing-in-action, because he was too busy reading his teleprompter. Now that he is the POTUS, he is still too busy reading his teleprompter. i.e.: He's saying what his advisers write for him.

70% of the American people want a public option health plan. Are all of them wild-eyed radicals?

FrJackHackett wrote: 70% of the American people want a public option health plan. Are all of them wild-eyed radicals?

No, they are not. They are simply looking for government sponsored babysitting of their health--and will do nothing that takes any work to change it for themselves. That's pathetic and sad.

Take it from someone who used to be heavy--and did something about it, none of which involved surgery, diabetic medication or government-sponsored anything. What it did take was blood, guts, sweat and plenty of tears.

70% of the American people want a public option health plan. Are all of them wild-eyed radicals?

Your poll numbers are just "slightly" off the mark Padre!

49% Oppose Health Care Reform Plan, 46% Favor It

Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters now at least somewhat oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats, while 46% at least somewhat favor it, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Just two weeks ago, 50% were for the reform plan, and 45% were opposed.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/july_2009/49_oppose_health_care_reform_plan_46_favor_it

Poll: Voters Reject Obama's Healthcare Reforms

The year's biggest survey on healthcare reveals most Americans oppose the very reforms that President Obama is trying to push through Congress.

By 52 percent to 40 percent, voters say they are against the healthcare bill introduced July 14 to the House of Representatives, a new Zogby International poll reports.

Co-sponsored by the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, the survey is based on interviews with nearly 4,000 adults nationwide the largest such survey conducted this year.

The poll's findings: Americans oppose raising tax rates to pay for a new healthcare system. Instead, they favor innovative approaches that would save money, which in turn could be used to fund health benefits for the poor.

Among those currently insured, Zogby reports, 84 percent are satisfied with their current health care. Also, four out of every five people surveyed agreed that rising healthcare costs are hurting American businesses.

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.cfm?ID=18967

Do 70% of Americans realize that the "Public Option" being proposed is not an option at all? The version that I have read expressly states that private individual insurers will not be able to write health insurance policies for new coverage after the effective date of the legislation.

Whats the effect. You have a limited option in the sense that you can choose to keep your current insurance indefinitaley or the go with the government option.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111q6uBTt:e22987:

Essentially, Private Insurance is dead.

trex

What crap! Obama is a moderate, pragmatic centrist,

I could see where you are coming from (so far left there is no room left, part of that 9% below) that he looks that way (centrist) to you, but to most of us Americans he is another far left barney franker! he can lie, straight faced like Barney can as well, and not miss a beat when called out on it!

The Battleground Poll is different. It is bipartisan. A Republican polling organization, the Terrance Group, and a Democrat polling organization, Lake Research Partners, collaborate in picking the questions, selecting the sample population, conducting the surveys, and analyzing the results. The Battleground Poll website, along with the raw data, is "Republican Strategic Analysis" and "Democratic Strategic Analysis." There are few polls that are bipartisan. No other polling organization asks the same questions year after year, none that reveal the internals of their poll results so completely, and none ask anything like Question D3 in every survey. What is Question D3 and what were the results to Question D3 in the August 20, 2008 Battleground Poll? It is this:

"When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be...

Very conservative

Somewhat conservative

MODERATE

Somewhat liberal

Very liberal

UNSURE/REFUSED"

In August 2008, Americans answered that question this way: (1) 20% of Americans considered themselves to be very conservative; (2) 40% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat conservative; (3) 2% of Americans considered themselves to be moderate; (4) 27% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat liberal; (5) 9% of Americans considered themselves to be very liberal; and (6) 3% of Americans did not know or refused to answer.

The Battleground poll!

70% of the American people want a public option health plan. Are all of them wild-eyed radicals?

Hackett, never lets facts get in the way of a good argument!

Essentially, Private Insurance is dead.

I can't wait to "dance" on its grave.

Donnie says:

Hackett, never lets facts get in the way of a good argument!

CBS poll: June, 2009 72% favor public option
Kaiser Family Foundation: June, 2009 67% favor p.o.
Employee Benefit Research Institute: June, 2009 83% favor p.o.

Donnie, your apology is graciously accepted.

Hackett,

14 hours ago!

WASHINGTON, July 17 (UPI) -- U.S. adults, by a 50-42 margin, oppose the House of Representatives' healthcare bill introduced July 14, a U.S. survey indicates.

Hmmmmmm

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Most Americans like their health care coverage but are not happy with the overall cost of health care, a national poll shows.

More than eight in 10 Americans questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday said they're satisfied with the quality of health care they receive.

Presented two polls in post 2.16 with similar results...the information must be a little over the Padre's head.

PanhandleMikeThank you. I agree, more people are paying attention and questioning the means and ways of Obama. Campaigning versus Governing. Never the twain shall meet.

The campaigning Obama is the polar opposite of the governing Obama. The governing Obama is an over achiever, doing to much without any thoughts toward looking down the road to the damage he is causing in record time. Campaigning Obama said what hypnotized the masses, selling his make believe, change, didn't say what time of change,

Hence, this will be his legacy. Empty promises. But a lot a really nice reading from the teleprompter. He is above his head and pay grade. Gonna be a long three and a half years.

Gonna be a long three and a half years

The saddest part is that most of us won't live to see our country recover from the immeasurable damage being inflicted upon her. Obama and the rest of us will be long dead before our great, great grandchildren finish paying off the debt he has incurred.

They are simply looking for government sponsored babysitting of their health--and will do nothing that takes any work to change it for themselves.

Or maybe they don't want to chose between healthcare and bankruptcy and have premiums that rise and rise while insurance companies look for ways to deny their coverage.

How exactly can the average person change the health care companies for themselves? Cancer, heart problems, etc. happen to even the healthiest and fittest, you know.

Conservativevoice: Well, that's mainly because we'll be spending the next fifty years cleaning up the mess that Bush/Cheney left him. It's darkly ironic to see the likes of you having fits that Obama hasn't succeeded in completely correcting every Bush-caused disaster in five months, after you spent 8 years justifying the combination of incompetence, arrogance and corruption that got us where we are now. The funniest part of all is to hear you guys rant about the deficit and the national debt, as though you have only just noticed both of them. Uh, you don't suppose cutting taxes in wartime had just a teensy weensy little smidgen to do with it, do you.

How long are you people going to let Obama continue in blaming Bush for EVERYTHING? Did not Obama spend more $$$ in his first 4 months in office than Bush spent his entire 8 years? Was I imagining that? Is not Obama set to quadruple the deficit???

Yes, Bush did spend A LOT, I don't pretend that he did not. However, simply placing your head in the sand to ignore the INCREDIBLE amount of money Obama is spending and saying it is all Bush's fault is COMPLETELY BOGUS.

Good point FL Ind. Problem is that it typically takes a bit of initiatve to find out what these people do, when it takes only a push of the button to find out what they say.

Outcome? The majority only know what has been said and believe in it.

I'm having a hard time decipher posts like yours, FL. You didn't agree with his stated plans in his campaign but you were expecting that he wouldn't try to make good on them now so you're holding that against him--the fact that he's trying to deliver on his promises? This just doesn't make sense on any level.

Thats because its not what I said. I also made my statements in the context of the article.

I agreed, like most people, with some of the supposed goals of his administration, like fixing healthcare. Its how he plans on fixing it where it becomes a problem. He would talk about things he is for and against and then leaves it to people like Pelosi to set the details which often conflict with what he promised or are even worse than what he promised.

There are also several items, like posting bills online beforehand, not hiring lobbyists, etc that he quickly broke. Bills arent even being completely written before they are voted on at times, much less having Congress read it before they vote on it.

He is also trying to do too many things at once. Congress cant even get 1 subject correct when they focus on that. Now he is trying to remake several large sections of our government all at the same time, knowing that most people dont have the time to focus attention on all of the items to keep people aware and raise issues in time to prevent them. Its like watching an octopus magician distracting you with 1 tentacle while 7 others are coming at you.

FL,

He does the exact opposite of how he says he does things.

That's the "Barney Franker" in him, metaphorically speaking of course!

Its like watching an octopus magician distracting you with 1 tentacle while 7 others are coming at you.

What a great description!!

What a great description!!

The attack...of the Obuctupus.

I do not thinkhe learned enough, quick enough. The Health ins bill is awful.

wishful thinking....he won't!

AMPhoto, the trouble with the stimulus is that it wasn't big enough. And the health insurance reform is 15 years overdue. It needs to happen fast, for a lot of people who can't afford to wait. I'm afraid that may include me, because my employer recently sent around a memo that they will in future offer coverage through only one insurance company, not the one that covers me now. And that company is already rationing my health care by refusing to pay for a bone-density scan my doctor ordered, even though I was at risk for osteoporosis (which I now have).

AMphoto wrote:

I'm still happy I voted for him, however I do wish he would reevaluate his cabinet...tell Pelosi to get the hell out

Point of order: Pelosi is not a cabinet member, and the president doesn't have the authority to remove her from the position of Speaker of the House.

Nancy Pelosi is a member of Congress, not the Cabinet.

Dennis: These people don't even know the basics of the difference between the legislative and the executive branch, and you expect them to understand reality?

trex - you're living in the past, probably around January 21st.

In July Obama's popularity is falling like a rock, as it should be. This is because people now see him for what he is. The independents and far left have abandoned him, his lack of knowledge on economic issues is clear, he's a fool overseas with everyone but the press, the economy will continue to stagnate or get worse, unemployment will continue to rise, cap and trade will drive jobs overseas if it passes (if it doesn't he will have suffered a huge political defeat), his healthcare project is on the ropes (another huge defeat on the horizon), he got the stimulus bill passed but can't get the money into the system (only 7.7% has been spent so far), he has had to make up this story of the two-year economic recovery plan which he had to lie about and tell us that was the plan all along (see if you can find that video). I know he won't resign and even his resignation would but Biden in charge, but the people are catching up with this guy and his future is bleak. Oh, and political capital? He has none. With a majority in both houses he can't pass anything of substance.

Like I said, how's the weather on your planet? Here are those supposedly devastating poll numbers:

"70 percent of respondents believe Obama is "a strong and decisive leader," down from 80 percent in February; 56 percent think he generally agrees with them on issues they care about, down from 63 percent five months ago; and only 53 percent said he has a "clear plan" for solving the nation's problems, down from 64 percent."

Notice something about those supposedly terrible low numbers? If you ignore the "onlys" and "down froms," they're all still pretty good, and better than Bush could have dreamt of from 2005 onward. Five months ago, Obama had only been in office for a few days, and the usual new-president euphoria was running high. All these numbers mean is that the honeymoon is over, but that he still has solid support.

Who cares? Obama is President now.

IV, it's called "analogy." And it serves the purpose of highlighting how utterly ridiculous it is to take a WSJ editorial seriously.

I think you mean July of 2000 to be a similar analogy. And at the time Bush was doing absolutely nothing except constantly going on vacation. However, when he did start pushing his agenda, especially the Patriot act, there was quite alot of opposition to it. Dont know how you missed it.

FL I: I think you mean July 2001 and Bush had already pushed hard for his $300 bn giveaway to the rich. He was already plenty busy at setting the stage for our current recession and financial collapse. It's true he wasn't paying any attention to or taking any steps against terrorism, as we were to learn in a couple of months.

And I think if you look at what Bush said his agenda was versus what he actually did you will see, just like Obama, they do not match. Now some will excuse it saying 'well 911 changed everything', but no it didnt. You dont just change all of your beliefs when they are tested. If you do, then they most likely werent really your beliefs, they are just what you told people so you can get elected.

And it serves the purpose of highlighting how utterly ridiculous it is to take a WSJ editorial seriously.

Even if that editorial was written by a former assistant to a Democratic VP in a Democratic WH that has been active in Democratic politics for over 40 years. What's utterly ridiculous is that you don't believe in the very party you support. I can tell that credence (to you) means a rock-n-roll band from the 1960's

And I think if you look at what Bush said his agenda was versus what he actually did you will see, just like Obama, they do not match.

Bush promised huge tax cuts and got 'em. Obama promised major health care reform and he's trying to delilver. I can't see much difference at this point in their respective presidencies between the two as far as delivering on their campaign promises. Sounds like you're extrapolating Bush's whole presidency against Obama's first 6 months.

Even if that editorial was written by a former assistant to a Democratic VP in a Democratic WH that has been active in Democratic politics for over 40 years.

You aren't aware of these "Blue Dog" Dems and their efforts to sabotage Obama from the inside? And, I'm not a blanket supporter of every Dem just because he/she's got a D next to the name. Is that how you feel about Republicans?

Bush promised huge tax cuts and got 'em. Obama promised major health care reform and he's trying to delilver.

Ah yes, because thats the only promise Bush made. What about non-intervention and nation building? What about humble foreign policy and not policing the world? What about fiscal responsibility and paying down the debt? Or pretty much all the other promises he made and broke?

You aren't aware of these "Blue Dog" Dems and their efforts to sabotage Obama from the inside?

Ah yes 'sabotage'. They are traitors because they dare to have a different view of things and, gasp, work towards what they believe is right. Why arent they selling out their core beliefs and towing the party line?

HA!!!

Whatever you're smokin', better stock up for an 8 year supply.

Jack, ya never know. History may repeat itself. There are 435 members of the house that need to be booted along with the queen. We'll see in 2010. I quit smokin a long time ago.

Why do you and others always fall back to assume that people only disagree with him because they are being partisan? Do you really think that the only reason people disagree with what he is doing is because hes not a member of their party?

Bullseye. The right would like nothing better than to see him wimp out. If he did what the WSJ and other righties are urging now, they'd be calling him a failure for not being more aggressive later on. They're already doing that with the stimulus. Remember how it was "too much, too fast" back in Feb? Now it's, "why isn't it working; it's not enough and it's taking too long." Never undersell Republicans' talent for double-dealing and hypocrisy.

To Fl Independent: Yes

(This has been brought to you by the "Quick Answers to Simple Questions" service)

You realize how dumb that position is. You are basically saying Obama is always perfectly correct in all things and it is impossible to disagree with him unless you just want him to fail cause hes not a member of your party?

You are obviously anti-Bush, so does your 'logic' hold true there as well? Was Bush right about everything and you just disagreed with him because he was a Republican? Or do you have to be a Democrat in order to be right about everything?

Bullseye. The right would like nothing better than to see him wimp out. If he did what the WSJ and other righties are urging now, they'd be calling him a failure for not being more aggressive later on. They're already doing that with the stimulus. Remember how it was "too much, too fast" back in Feb? Now it's, "why isn't it working; it's not enough and it's taking too long." Never undersell Republicans' talent for double-dealing and hypocrisy.

Welcome to the modern political climate. Dont fool yourself thinking this is only done by Republicans. Democrats do it just as much. And I never saw anyone say it was 'too fast'. Everything I saw said it was too much and wasnt focused on doing anything quickly. One of the biggest complaints is that most of the money wasnt going to be spent til years down the road despite Obama's promises that it would be spent quickly.

And what about the rest of us that dont want things rushed through and want to make sure its done right? Those of us that think think the current healthcare system is broken and needs fixing but dont like the current solution? Those of us that didnt like the bailouts but also felt the government needed to do something but not that? What about the rest of us that you cant just throw into the Republican box in so you can attempt to easily dismiss?

FL Independent

It's the nature of the disagreement. I disagree with the president. I think he's not progressive enough and has been a little bit too timid. I don't think we need to bend over backwards to accomodate the republicans who aren't going to vote for the bills we're trying to pass anyway.

KGMO

There are plenty of Republicans (or perhaps at this point former republicans) and independents as well. What about us? Do we get no voice in the legislation? So its just what the Democrats in power want and what their lobby masters want? We disagree and we give our reasons.

It's the nature of the disagreement. I disagree with the president. I think he's not progressive enough and has been a little bit too timid

Please tell me what issues Obama has not been progressive enough and a little bit too timid on?

Please tell me what issues Obama has not been progressive enough and a little bit too timid on?

I'd have to say he hasn't been progressive enough on deficit control, lobbyists in Washington, and getting the bi-partisanship he wants.(or that's what he said he wanted) I think he has been too timid on Iran, North Korea, deficit control, lobbyists in Washington and bi-partisanship. He has however been extremly strong on spending.

Well for starters we should not have traded infrastructure projects for taxcuts and no Republican votes in the stimulus package.

Healthcare should be single payer. Gitmo should be closed and all prisoners ther either tried or released. Suspend 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' pending congressional review. Get rid of the defense of marriage act.

That should be enough for now.

You realize how dumb that position is. You are basically saying Obama is always perfectly correct in all things and it is impossible to disagree with him unless you just want him to fail cause hes not a member of your party?

No. I'm just applying my answer to you, not everyone who disagrees with him.

Do we get no voice in the legislation?

Of course you do. Through your elected members of Congress.

Well for starters we should not have traded infrastructure projects for taxcuts and no Republican votes in the stimulus package.

Healthcare should be single payer. Gitmo should be closed and all prisoners ther either tried or released. Suspend 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' pending congressional review. Get rid of the defense of marriage act.

Well that explains why you think Obama is a "moderate, pragmatic centrist"

@PanhandleMike

I'd have to say he hasn't been progressive enough on deficit control, lobbyists in Washington, and getting the bi-partisanship he wants.

What makes those things progressive? I think those things are wanted by all Americans. Although ou wont get bipartisanship with the current people in Congress on either side. They are not statesmen.

@FrJackHackett

No. I'm just applying my answer to you, not everyone who disagrees with him.

Right, and anyone else who actually voices an opinion but only when they do. That way you can always say its just about them rather than everyone. Gotta love the intellectual dishonesty.

Yes, OPN, that's exactly what I'd say. It takes at least two years for government spending to turn around a situation this bad.

President Reagan inherited an economy that was nowhere near in as deep trouble as we are now, but two years later the country was still in recession. Republicans ran on the slogans "stay the course" and "let Reagan be Reagan," assuring us that eventually his policies would work. I don't know whether they did or whether he was lucky, but before you claim that Democrats are asking for too much time to let their economic policies work, remember that your party asked for the same amount of time and got it.

So you think if we give this great deal of spending 2 years, or Jan 2011 that all will be right and turn itself around, even though the Fed Reserve just stated yesterday there will be no new influx of jobs for the next 5 years.

Even though the CBO just stated that this healthcare plan will do more to increase medical costs, not decreased, we should just move forward.

Except for the fact that the stimulus IS actually starting to work, your post is entirely accurate in the right-wing sense of that word, which is to say completely wrong.

Except for the fact that the stimulus IS actually starting to work,

Why don't you back that up with some facts...not your opinion.

Consumer confidence improving http://www.conference-board.org/economics/images/chart_cci.gif (the first step before anything else good can happen). Housing starts up (3.6% over May and June combined) after months of decline. New jobless claims down nearly 100,000 over the last two months. A whole lot of new stim $$ is going to start flowing soon as well. I'd hold off on the gloom and doom for a bit longer or you're going to look pretty silly by Christmas.

House prices are set to fall again, so that has yet to bottom out. Foreclosures are also up.

New jobless claims are less, but that doesn't mean anything - or that the jobless found jobs.

The market will correct without Obama, but Obama can certainly impede it should his spending plans go out of control.

I'd wait to see what else this DB signs this year before I display any optimism.

You might think also, too, of waiting for actual facts rather than what your imagination is telling you.

Consumer confidence improving http://www.conference-board.org/economics/images/chart_cci.gif (the first step before anything else good can happen). Housing starts up (3.6% over May and June combined) after months of decline. New jobless claims down nearly 100,000 over the last two months. A whole lot of new stim $$ is going to start flowing soon as well. I'd hold off on the gloom and doom for a bit longer or you're going to look pretty silly by Christmas

Try this Padre...you need to work on presenting current, accurate facts in your posts!

Last Updated: June 30, 2009: 10:48 AM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Consumer confidence fell unexpectedly in June after two straight months of gains as Americans' optimism over business and job conditions weakened.

The Conference Board, an industry group, said Tuesday its index of consumer attitudes dropped to 49.3 this month from a downwardly revised 54.8 in May. Markets were expecting a reading of 55.0 for June.

The Present Situation Index also slid to 24.8 from 29.7

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/30/news/economy/consumer_confidence.reut/index.htm?postversion=2009063010

Andy, m'lad, the graph I gave you showed the June number. Even with that slight drop, the overall trend of the CCI is way up from Feb-Mar.

You misrepresented the fact that consumer confidence went DOWN, not up Padre...pretty pathetic!

My Doom and Gloom as you called it was based on facts presented on everyday TV, Radio and Newsmedia, no Fox source at all. Do you sit here and tell me that the CBO didn't state the current bill will in fact INCREASE medical costs.

That the Fed Reserve went on Record as saying no significant new jobs in the next 5 years. If you take this one fact alone, all the spending in the world will not improve the economy if people don't have jobs.

The latest which I found alarming was the AMA coming out in support of the plan, I was really worried until a local raido host brought on air, the head of the Georgia AMA. Bascially the AMA backed aspects of the plan because supposedly the Obama administration was going to fix some major flaws in the way Medicare and Medicade payments are occuring. Apparenlty this is a huge issue with them, so Obama made the promise to the AMA to correct this, but it's not in any part of the legislation that currently exists, so the head of the AMA made the promise to Obama in hopes he would keep his word to fix their problem.

The Georgia head of the AMA is signing a petition along with seven other states as of last night with more to come, stating they do not back this plan and think it is bad for overall healthcare as the decisions on how a patient will be treated will not be handled by the patient and the doctor, but by politicians. As of the airing last night, in 3 days they have 36,000 signatures from doctors. So, I'm telling you now if this healthcare reform in it's current state passes, the bottom will drop out. (MY OPINION)

And they should be have been. The only problem was the only other options are the people we have now. Given a choice between 2 losers, no matter who you pick, you are still left with losers.

Says alot for the voter and the system in general.

1) Do we deserve the Government we have?

2) Is there really anything We The People can do about it?

Gary

I don't think we the people can do anything.

I would like the health care plan to be put on a ballot to see how many AMERICANS truly want nationalized health care.

Gee, I seem to remember being called a sore loser because I didn't think much of the SC deciding who's going to be president back in 2000. But here we have a guy who blew his opponent out in the last election and right-wingers are already asking for a do-over. About a quarter of the country is all sour grapes about losing, which is about the same number of Bush die hard, dead end supporters at the end, but we on our side had to wait patiently for the election and your side came out with the short stick--a really short stick. We (Dems, liberals, progressives, sane humans) were told to eat Republican dirt for 8 years while we had to witness the deconstruction of our Constitution and prosperity. I wouldn't expect your side to do that, so if you really hate our system of government so much, right-wingers, why not find some empty country to take over somewhere (you can kill off any indigenous you might find there--I'm sure you can remember how that's done) and establish a right-wing dictatorship.

P.S. We had to listen to right-wingers tell us to eat "dirt" for 8 long years while your side systematically demolished American prestige, values, honor and prosperity. I wouldn't think of treating you in this way, so this is why I invite you to leave.

Dar, which values? There are some values that may need changing, many of which were on display from 2001 through 2008. As for honor, we lost that a long time ago (round about March 2003, to be precise), and you know perfectly well who was in the White House when the economy collapsed.

Will a moderator please shut this idiots account down!

I'd report you for this one but the @!$%# moderator doesn't get up this early...

This is what he/she had to say about Tyler yesterday, so I'm pretty sure we won't have to read this stuff much longer Andy.

Good...thanks Holly

tyler? Generally he's too busy passing judgment on the "quality" of liberals posts to be bothered to really take the real trolls out.

incognito

Congress has been asked a simple question in the past days. They were asked how many would sign up for Obamas health care plan? To date none have been willing no repubs and no dems. The democrats however did give a response as to why they would not. They said the plan was being designed for the people. What the h*** are they gods?

I say if this plan goes into effect all politicians should be forced not only to contribute but also take this plan as opposed to what they currently have.

meagan-974639

That's very interesting. I'd like to read that article can you post a link?

Here is the Congressman that is proposing it. I will support the government health care bill if everyone who votes for it, along with Obama and everyone in the administration are bound by law to drop their current plan for whatever plan they pass and sign into law.

Thursday, July 09, 2009

Politicians Who Support Government-Run Health Care Should Lead By Example

Posted by: Townhall.com Staff at 11:08 AM

Guest blog post by Rep. John Fleming, M.D. (La.)

Over the past few weeks, members of Congress and the American people have come to know the details of the Administration’s proposed health care plan. Call it what you like, this proposal is nothing more than government-run health care. As a physician, I am amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this House who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs. In response to this, I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.

Under the current draft of the Democrat health care legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.

Congressman Fleming represents Louisiana's 4th congressional district

http://townhall.com/blog/g/965a4396-6a2d-49fe-8126-868b6e905bdb

The proposed legislation hasn't been finalized yet but my understanding is nobody is required to drop their insurance if they have it and switch to the public health insurance.

Thank you Andy,

KGMO

Doesn't it worry you that no politician wants to participate in this great plan.

As I said before, I don't know what it is yet. As far as I know I won't be eligible for the plan becasue my employer offers me insurance. So I already have Insurance that I have to pay for and no real choices.

The proposed legislation hasn't been finalized yet but my understanding is nobody is required to drop their insurance if they have it and switch to the public health insurance

Feds and Unions do not want this plan. On top of that, there will be a requirement that you MUST have health care. Even if you are a pay as you go urgent care kind of person. They will remove your CHOICE! Wasn't that a big argument? Keeping the government from your medical decisions? :::cough::::abortion:::::cough:::::

The public option will expand and as it's already been brought up, the proposed legislation will let you keep your coverage for now but eventually force everyone on the same plan. Private insurance companies will not be able to offer affordable coverage with the public option being so expansive. Because the public option will be reimbursed at such low costs, people on private plans will be forced to pick up the costs. Since the proposed legislation pretty much fixes the costs, they will simply go out of business or only offer complimentary plans for the rich. As seen in the UK.

Once taxes skyrocket from this, no one will be able to afford the private option anyway.

As I said before, I don't know what it is yet.

Neither will the lawmakers, since they have this nasty little habit of not reading legislation before they vote on it!

They were asked how many would sign up for Obamas health care plan? To date none have been willing no repubs and no dems. The democrats however did give a response as to why they would not. They said the plan was being designed for the people.

This was in your post but not in your link.

:::cough::::abortion:::::cough:::::

Are abortions covered by insurance now? I don't think so.

The public option will expand and as it's already been brought up, the proposed legislation will let you keep your coverage for now but eventually force everyone on the same plan. Private insurance companies will not be able to offer affordable coverage with the public option being so expansive. Because the public option will be reimbursed at such low costs, people on private plans will be forced to pick up the costs. Since the proposed legislation pretty much fixes the costs, they will simply go out of business or only offer complimentary plans for the rich. As seen in the UK.

The slippery slope is a fallacy.

KGMO - the slippery slope isn't fallacy unless you can prove it. You're really not going to convince anyone that the public option ISN'T a slippery slope without a shred of proof.

I have proof they intend to raise taxes and even tax employer sponsored health insurance... That certainly is a slippery slope. Especially when EVERYONE'S net worth is lower these days.

Are abortions covered by insurance now? I don't think so.

I guess you missed the irony. The liberals cried "keep the gov't out of my health care decisions" - yet now they favor rationed public care. Interesting. The irony would be that the same people who were against the government being involved in their health care decisions now want the government to control their health care decisions.

It loses something when I have to break it down for people. It's like breaking down a joke.

the slippery slope isn't fallacy unless you can prove it. You're really not going to convince anyone that the public option ISN'T a slippery slope without a shred of proof.

Actually the converse is true, You are making a slipery slope argument unless you can prove that a will be followed by b, c, etc.

You have advanced a theory, namely

The public option will expand and as it's already been brought up, the proposed legislation will let you keep your coverage for now but eventually force everyone on the same plan. Private insurance companies will not be able to offer affordable coverage with the public option being so expansive. Because the public option will be reimbursed at such low costs, people on private plans will be forced to pick up the costs. Since the proposed legislation pretty much fixes the costs, they will simply go out of business or only offer complimentary plans for the rich. As seen in the UK.

You offer no proof of your theory AND insist that it is true unless I can disprove it.

In cognito, it looks like you made the same false assessment of Obama as the right-wing did: that he was some kind of wild-eyed socialist. It was a myth concocted by the right-wing propaganda mill and you fell for it.

The proposed legislation hasn't been finalized yet but my understanding is nobody is required to drop their insurance if they have it and switch to the public health insurance.

Page 16 of the proposed house bill. No new private insurance will be issued once the bill becomes law. Which means if you lose your insurance where you work your only option is the public option.

Please don't confuse the Padre with the facts Lampell

You don't have to cal me Padre, Andy. ;-)

I wasn't referring to you.

If you are a "pay as you go urgent care" kind of person, you can expect to declare personal bankruptcy if you have a major illness. You will then get your care in emergency rooms, at my expense and everyone else's, after it is probably too late for the care to help you, but not too late for the hospital to rack up enormous costs trying to correct the damage that preventative care could have averted. And that is why the administration wants everyone to have insurance; Obama, unlike Bush, is not so pathetically clueless as to say that "Anyone in this country can get health care, you just go to an emergency room."

The reason why the insurance industry hates the public option so much is that they're afraid it'll work too well, and that people will like it and switch to it. That's why they're fighting tooth and nail to keep the current for-profit system in which health care is rationed by insurance companies who specialize in finding ways not to give you what you thought you were paying for.

I agree Holly--and I didn't vote for Obama--but I didn't vote for the opponent, either. I voted independent... :)

Delay will mean denial...i.e., will guarantee that nothing will be done. If the economy is recovering then the Republican excuse for obstructionism will be that we don't need those reforms or environmental protections. No matter how things go, Republicans will always come up with ideas for running the train off the tracks.

Fred....denial right now is better than these bills getting approved as they are.....they don't even read them. Fred right away you have to start on the repubs.....but it is the whole government not just one side of it.

Delay will mean defeat of any hope for health reform--ever. The last time the Republicans and their owners in the Health Industries kept reform from happening was 1994. Fifteen years later after promises galore from the Health Cartel in this country that they'd fix all the problems, we're in worse shape than ever--well, except for the Health Cartel which has continued to have gangbuster profits even right through this recession. If we miss this chance it's over and the privateering health care sector will be so powerful, it might as well become the government.

Shirley, it's called the Democratic Party. It has never been a lock-step organization like the Republicans, which is one of the reasons I tend to favor it with my vote. It allows for disagreement. Haven't you and your side made the mistake of counting Obama out enough yet?

Ah, the Democrats are lock stepping us in to the poor house and I will reiterate, without even reading the bills that are sending us, our children, their children and their children's grandchildren to the poor house with. I say that based on the fact that this Congress is a Democrat majority. Luckily in America we do all have a vote. You have no idea who I am or who "my side" is. My concern is out of control spending and the false numbers about where the money will come from and where it will go. Speeches do not solve serious problems, no matter how eloquent a speaker one is.

same old dire predictions which only seem to come true when Republicans get elected to high office or control of the Congress.

It allows for disagreement. Haven't you and your side made the mistake of counting Obama out enough yet?

Wait a second arent those blue dog democrats traitors to the cause? Are they allowed to disagree?

I am assuming that you are not unemployed so you are certainly willing for the stimulus to work its way through. The mortgage relief plan that was going to save 4 million homes from foreclosure has already been acknowledged by the government as a failure and has saved 155,000 homes. If you are unemployed there is no modifying a loan if you are without income. These people dont have time, once you are out in the streets, your credit is destroyed for years. These people dont want to hear give it time. The goverment was going to take toxic assets off the banks and have scaled it back to 30 billion because no one thinks it will work.

Not to mention that the administration hired a hack for Tsy secty who is really a holdover from the previous administration in his position as Fed president of NY. Hiring a tax cheat to be the head of IRS and Tsy is in poor taste. How about that for "change"

Stimulus: 787 allocated, 300 billion sent to people who are still employed giving them 13 dollars a week to stimulate spending, unfortunately they didnt spend fearing unemployment. 487 left, 59 spent of which 13 went to Social Security so they could send out checks for seniors to spend. They didnt. We have 46 billion left, which all by itself "saved, stabilized" the entire economy proving that it worked. Imagine that all that for a mere 46 billion, a miracle. Give it time: 3 million people will have lost their jobs since the stimulus passed, 3 million or 4 million were going to be created?saved

Lets see 3 million created, 3 milion lost equals 0. A big fat 0. Give it time, yup.

Oh yes its a two year plan some of which kicks in about the time of the midterm elections. How convenient. How about the spin of unemployment is a lagging indicator, yes we know that and if we didnt the govt would pound that into our heads. Unemplolyment is indeed a lagging indicator, new claims for unemployment is a LEADING indicator along with the stock market which predicts where the economy will be in 6 to 9 months. Oh yes but the stockmarket is up, hooray, no its not its where it was in the beginning of the year, net result 0.

Now that the stimulus is working with that 46 billion dollars but we "misread" the economy lets try it again since we need to give the first one time, but we must be impatient cause it was too small and we have to do it again. I guess all we need is another 46 billion to save the day again. Paying all this back? Heck who cares, once you get to 1 trillion another 5 or 600 billion is just a point behind 1 trillion as is 1.5 trillion, its just a number from the folks at the Fed.

Ah, the Democrats are lock stepping us in to the poor house and I will reiterate, without even reading the bills that are sending us, our children, their children and their children's grandchildren to the poor house with.

Same old tired litany of false propaganda. We're in the poor house right now because of a right-wing Republican President's complete economic and fiscal failures. The country routinely does better ecoonomically, and often much better, under Dems but right-wingers will never give up their myths.

Let's try that again:

AMA On Board with House Health Reform Bill

OMG, can't believe I didn't hear about this yesterday. This is one big obstruction removed from the path to a public health care option:

Wait a second arent you the same person who said the AMA didnt represent the doctors and that the AMA were a bunch of right wing reactionaries and now they are the good guys. Bethca it helped that they were bribed for more pay than they get from Medicare, wouldnt you say?:)

OMG, can't believe I didn't hear about this yesterday. This is one big obstruction removed from the path to a public health care option:

The AMA must be speed readers, since they endorsed a bill, less than 24 hours after it was released.

Physicians are supposed to be pretty good readers and fairly smart.

Lampy, you haven't changed a bit. You still like to put your words into my mouth. Like this, e.g.:

Wait a second arent you the same person who said the AMA didnt represent the doctors and that the AMA were a bunch of right wing reactionaries and now they are the good guys.

I said the AMA did not represent the MAJORITY of doctors. I probably did say something to the effect of their being pretty right-wing, and they are. I never said, and do not believe now, that they are the "good guys." The only reasons they would buy into this plan is that they thnk they're going to get something in return for the support and hope to be at the table when the money talk starts. I'd appreciate it if you actually used your own words for your thoughts and not try to make them mine.

I'd appreciate it if you actually used your own words for your thoughts and not try to make them mine.

Believe me I have seen enough of your posts to know that if the AMA didnt support it you would have said they were reactionary right wingers who dont represent the majority of doctors. There is no need to put words in your mouth you knew my meaning. Please dont play silly

I say exactly that now, even with them on board, and said so above. They are just going along in hopes of getting the most money possible from this plan. Their being on board just means one less obstacle to passage, although I wouldn't rule out perfidy and betrayal on their part before this is all over. Do you just not bother to read or is it something else?

I say exactly that now, even with them on board, and said so above. Do you just not bother to read or is it something else

Again I have read your posts accusing people who disagree with you as mere propaganda but your opinions are fact. If it makes you feel better I am right wing, since both of my parents were members of the Social Workers Party and voted for Norman Thomas 6 times. To them I was a capitalist pig and a right winger along with all the other liberal right wingers. The AMA was bribed and the govt will go back on the agreement as soon as the bill becomes law, plain and simple. The drug companies made an agreement with the Senate to give back 80 billion in savings in return not having price caps on drugs, 10 minutes later the bill was changed with caps regardless of the agreement. No one will feel sorry for the drug companies but it shows how the government is operating.

Really, where are you getting all this, ok, I'll call it "information." And does that last sentence mean you disapprove of the caps? You're all over the place. I don't think you know what you really think. And let's stop mincing words here. Aren't you really claiming I'm lying without having to come up with an example? I think it's pretty clear where the line is between when I state an opinion (as in the AMA is right-wing) and when I state a fact (as in SocSec is NOT going broke). If you're having trouble telling distinguishing the difference I think it's your problem, not mine. So, summon up a little courage and call me on anything you think I've said that's untrue as to fact instead of dancing around.

So, summon up a little courage and call me on anything you think I've said that's untrue as to fact instead of dancing around

You have asked people in this thread to come up with reasons why they dont think the policies are correct, dancing around? Because I addressed numerous subjects on various posts such as the stimulus bill, mortgage relief bill, the House Healthcare reform bill and you want to keep going on your Social Security tack? Have you ever come up with any ideas of your own or are you just in the habit of catching someone with something you feel you tripped them up on. Is everything the government doing ok. You asked for arguements on specicfic issues and when one provides them you ignore them like a kid trying to catch his daddy in one falsehood, to make yourself feel good.

Keep it coming:)

Why do you persist in using that worn out old right-wing "something-for-nothing" gambit? No one, and I mean NO ONE is claiming that health reform involves making health care "free." It's such a silly strawman start to your response that it's quickly apparent that you don't want to answer the question at hand but just use it to score points in a game that only you are playing. And that's exactly what the rest of your statement does. The question really is a simple one and you chose to dodge it. Or, maybe more correctly, you chose to answer it by, let's call it sleight-of-word. Because what your answer seems to be is: "I'm for government programs that I benefit from but not for ones that would benefit a lot of other people that I don't think deserve it."

Or, maybe more correctly, you chose to answer it by, let's call it sleight-of-word. Because what your answer seems to be is: "I'm for government programs that I benefit from but not for ones that would benefit a lot of other people that I don't think deserve

Everyone pays Medicare tax and recieves a benefit in the future since when they retire they usually have a tiny income known as Social Security which they also paid into. So to repeat everyone contribute regarless of income. The fact that it is going broke and the newly discovered "cost savings" will be going from it to the new public plan is besides the point. Who cares of a bunch of old people who paid in for 40 years will see their plans gutted, not much votes there.

I for one am certainly in favor of universal health care, but not single payer system. I am certainly willing to pay higher taxes if the program actually received those taxes. Again one assumes if someone is against a bill they are against reform, sorry not the case. Having a program that fines people is ok, but to base the cost of that bill on those fines to subsidize others who take the coverage is riduculous. What would happen if everyone took the coverage, were subsidized as a result and no fines were levied. The entire premise of covering everyone would come crashing down since the program would go broke, making it necessary to raise more funds. Look at Mass, where people game the system, drop coverage when they dont need it, pay the fine, then jump back in when its convenient. Problem with Mass is that they cant print more money. And with all the talk of universal healthcare bringing costs down, the rates in Mass are double what they are in California. Oh but you can keep your private coverage, right, page 16 again of the bill states that once the bill becomes law no private insurance can be issued. Once you dont have private you gonna have the public. So what you say, heck with the private, lets have single payer, it works real well everywhere else. Could be, may not, forget that I lived overseas for 16 years. You want a European system, then you pay for it like they do, and they dont have fines, since it is free in the first place. You want their plan you pay for it in tax and not someone elses tax, VAT and gasoline taxes pay for it..

I know you love your propaganda, Lamp, but SocSec is not going broke no matter how often Rush says so. It's solvent for at least 30 more years at which time it will, if nothing is done to change things, pay 75% of projected benefits for another 30 years. A relatively painless fix now could make SocSec completely solvent and fully operational for 100 years. And that "tiny" income you refer to is often enough to keep people out of poverty so it may not mean much to a rich guy like you but a lot of people will be helped by it. Medicare's in worse financial shape and that will be fixed by the creation of the public health plan option, so I'm sure that'll get your support.

I know you love your propaganda, Lamp, but SocSec is not going broke no matter how often Rush says so

When you post it is an opinion or fact and when I post its propaganda? I was being sarcastic when I speak of how cares about old people. I be one of them. I paid my taxes and would like to see the benefit of Medicare and will be ticked off if Medicare benefits are reduced and premiums go higher. My sister has Medicare and her "rich" brother pays for her Medicare supplement for the past 8 years. And yes I want my Social Security that successive governments have borrowed from. And I dont know where your standard Rush crack comes from since I have never listened to him in my life nor any other "right wing entertainment" shows. For some reason you assume that if someone has another opinion they are right wing. How convenient. I have no affiliation with parties, never even voted in my life, cept for my roomate in college when he ran for student body president. I do have a scar on my head when a soldier cracked a billy club when I was protesting the war in Viet Nam. I guess I was one of the right winged protestors.

I am pro choice, in favor of gays marrying, in favor of defcit financing if it would be properly put to use. I like one of my senators who is a practical politican and helped on her campaign, Dianne Feinstein, but think that Boxer and Pelosi are twits

Sorry I am not going to be one of your convenient stereotypes, try again

You're seriously challenging my facts about SocSec? You sure you want to go there?

You're seriously challenging my facts about SocSec? You sure you want to go there?

Go where? I can read government statistics as well as anyone, we are talking about Medicare being gutted to be put into a new program. It is a fact that Social Security money was "borrowed" I didnt get that from a talk show. And that is not why I am against the House bill for healthcare reform, you want to pick a sentence of mine and say I dont read your posts? Starting a new public plan is a distraction for not fixing Medicare.

And, if you don't want to be mistaken for a stereotype, Lamp, you would do well to stop using that stereotype's propaganda, like SocSec "going broke." It's a damned lie. I'm about to be away for a great weekend so here's the FAQ section from SSA. BTW, you're going to be fine. If you want your children to be fine, too, I'd suggest you support the very modest changes in the FICA that it would take to make SocSec fully solvent for 100 years, or more. And, in case you're suspicious, this is the same information that appeared at this SSA site all during the Bush administration.

http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm

Ooops, I almost made it out and then read this:

we are talking about Medicare being gutted

Who's talking about that? Rush would certainly be doing so but you say you never listen to him. So where are you going to get all this bogus crap? Stop filling your head with crap, Lamp.

It's a damned lie.

Again with the propaganda statement. Unbelievable I post on the stimulus, the House bill, mortgage relief program and you keep up on the Social Security. If it is ok shape why do they have to fix it? Or do you just like semantics.?

You're going to prove to me that Medicare's going to be gutted. Because in order for my statement to be just propaganda, that is, false propaganda, you're now going to have to show us factually how Medicare is going to be "gutted."

You're going to prove to me that Medicare's going to be gutted. Because in order for my statement to be just propaganda, that is, false propaganda, you're now going to have to show us factually how Medicare is going to be "gutted."

The Speaker of the House was asked where additional savings would come from to pay for this healthcare reform bill. She said that additional "cost savings" could come from Medicare. One has to ask why they didnt discover these "savings" before when it is well known that due to this recession that Medicare will be broke sooner than earlier projected. It doesnt take much imagination to see that cost savings means cuts in benefits since the cost savings are not being applied to Medicare itself. The government already stated that "adjustments" will be made after 2011 and that was before this bill was presented. Proof? Common sense. Since the government, any government has never come close to projections who knows what cuts they will make. Its called robbing peter to pay paul as there are more votes building than saving.

There you go again, Lamp. Long on conjecture and quite a bit of imagination (don't be so modest), short--very short--on fact. The only fact you almost got right was that, yes, there are big savings proposed for Medicare/Medicaid. Those savings are entirely administrative. Do you really want to know about this or would you rather continue in your fog? Let's give it a try: the U.S. govt. gives nearly $100 bn every year to private insurance companies (yes, really) for the so-called Medicare Advantage plans. Although this practice started in the first Reagan term (surprise), it was (surprise, surprise) drastically increased by Republicans with legislation in 2003. There's at least $15 bn yearly that can be trimmed off that without affecting the life or health of anyone. Here's an article that explains it very well:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/20/2048

Can we at least agree to live in a fact-based world, Lamp, and not the one of your wild suppositions based on ideologic pre-judgments?

Let's give it a try: the U.S. govt. gives nearly $100 bn every year to private insurance companies (yes, really) for the so-called Medicare Advantage plans

I never said I was in favor of Medicare Advantage plans so I dont know where that came from, however 10 million people took that option, yes you could say they were suckered into it. If a company offers you Medicare with no premium payments and increased coverage with no copays or deductibles you might be inclined to take it, as 10 million people did. Kaiser does receive money from the government to put people on the Medicare Advantage pays them the cost the government figures it would cost them to have that customer and pays them 14 pct extra so that Kaiser can offer more benefits. My sister who is 73 was on such a plan, she moved to NY, and now has standard Medicare, Part A, B and D, the cost of which comes off her Social Security check. To get her coverage equal to what she had with Medicare Advantage I pay 100 dollars a month for her Medicare Supllement. If the government reduces the payments to Medicare Advantage naturally the benefits will go down, who knows by how much.

And just for the record, could you discuss things rather than attack,attack as if anything on this vine is a matter of life and death. It is a place to discuss things rather than being antagonistic. Just because you disagree with something I said doesnt mean you have to say that my views are "wild" suppositions as if only you are the one that is correct. I dont need links, I only speak about what I have read in books and numerous papers, and 30 years of experience in finance. I dont know it all and I know that.

I already told you I dont have an ideology, as I look at each subject differently, again I am pro choice, in favor of gay marriages, and deficit financing if done correctly. But what the heck you will keep on attacking.

Don't worry Lampell's an idiot. He's got a suit on in his avatar so he thinks his IQ goes up 20 points when he's typing on the vine. He more hot air than fact.

Now there is an intelligent remark that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that facts are irrelevant:)

Puh-Leaze, We are have a grand ole time watching you shoot yourselves in the OTHER foot with your doomer rhetoric , attacking your moderates and alienating yourselves from minority voters.

In fact the ass whupped Republik party in utter defeat is barely distinguishable from the Republik party of their short lived "Permanent Majority". Well except for the body count.

How many conservative churchs were shot up when Bush won? How many cops killed by paranoid lefties? How many times we protested idi we urge revolution? Succession, Revolution,Promise violence if they don't get their way?

Republiks were allowed to enter 160 amendments into the Health bill, for what? A thimbleful will vote for it, and show me where the "distinquished" majority allowed Democrats 150. 100? 50?10?

It will pass my bitter friend , and just as republik party was wrong with Clintons plan in 93, not a single repu vote. Just like the Nazi appeasment. Just like the New Deal.

I have to chuckle at the thought of cons saying they are going to sweep our massive majority out with Bush and the Republik track record of failure. The party of No.

No. The next time republiks get the full majority many, of us will be pushing up daisies.

They were against medicare and then medicaid the only health bill they liked was medicare part-D which the pharma and insurance co.s hand wrote for them.

They were against medicare and then medicaid the only health bill they liked was medicare part-D which the pharma and insurance co.s hand wrote for them.

And you were there when "they" was against it?

Whats that mean.

Whats that mean.

You said that "they", I assume Republicans were against Medicare, Medicare was passed in 1965 by Congress. I was around when it passed.