image stats
date added
previous votes
log in


indent register
indent recover
also liked

Obama figured it out

1 star2 stars3 stars4 stars5 stars
Obama figured it out

Comments for: Obama figured it out
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: March 29, 2010 12:19AM

My curious nature leads me to wonder when Obama or any of his supporters will ever accept blame for the failings of HIS policies and stop trying to affix that blame to others who are no longer in office confused smiley

Onyma Report This Comment
Date: March 29, 2010 12:59AM

Probably when he's been in office long enough for anything to have had an effect smiling

Bush was still blaming Clinton 3 years in.

I should add to this that he was probably right to do so too. Anyone who thinks that a country's economy, budget, deficit, etc. will turn around in a matter of months is plain naive. Things like that take years to change the current trends and as such EVERY administration inherits the leftovers from the one before it.

Clinton inherited a big deficit and the leftovers of a war. He did turn the economy around but in turn let some foreign policy issues slide.

Bush inherited a budget surplus, the beginnings of a mild recession, and a poor security policy. He got blindsided by 9/11 which wasn't his fault. He in turn beefed up the country's security but completely tanked the economy in the process. At the end of it don't forget he drafted the initial stimulus package.

Obama in turn inherited a tanked economy that was on a fast downhill slide and that isn't going to turn around any time soon no matter what he does. He also inherited 2 wars, one of which he doesn't think you should be in. I honestly believe IF his policies have any net effect it won't happen until after he's gone anyhow because the US is fairly royally screwed in the money department no matter how you slice it.

If anyone thinks this could be fixed in one term, let alone one year... or probably even one decade... I'd really like a hit off whatever you're smoking. Every administration inherits crap from the one before. It's been like that since Ure blamed Ogg for the fact their Neanderthal tribe was living too far from the river.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 29/03/2010 01:32AM by Onyma.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: March 29, 2010 02:24AM

O man, I'll give credit where it's due and admittedly every administration must work with the hand they're dealt from the get go and move forward from there.

Though the list of things the current administration's done, questionable appointments that have been made, policies enacted that will have an overall detrimental effect to our nation, economy and state of our society for some time to come is so lengthy it would require quite a voluminous recounting to cover it all even after only 1/4 of Obamas elected term I'll instead focus on his pinnacle program, health care reform.

While the ink's barely dry from the bill signing party at the white house the list of problematic entitlements, rules, policies etc.regarding this bill "we had to pass so we could understand what's in it" have already begun to unfold in ways that were all too predictable and outlined/foretold before it's passage. 'Course beforehand, such data and revelations were decried as "fear mongering", "fact manipulation", "obstructionist", "race based", "deluded" etc. ad naseum by the political steamroller piloted by Obama and his many minions/mouthpieces/emotional panderers. Financial reality, truth, and facts be damned, this HAD TO BE DONE, and fuck the groundswell of American people for having held an opposing view.

One source of news I always find stimulating/enlightening for their readers comments is the Wall Street Journal. These cats tend to live in a more rarified position than myself and tend to be among the movers and shakers of the business world so I enjoy their take on policy changes and the effects they tend to have on the financial health of our country.

An article I was just reading [] in regard to several large corporations (a list that will likely get MUCH longer in the coming weeks) having come out in the past few days about new costs/challenges/taxes this new legislation will have and the financial impact it will have on their businesses and planning regarding health care expenses for their employees/retirees and how (democratic) congressional members have now cried foul and have scheduled a congressional hearing for April 21st so they can rake them over the mainstream media coals for having made these outlandish claims about the new costs of this regulation.

I'll ask you or anyone to get past even the 1st page of comments on this article and then defend this legislation as anything our country will be able in even 5yrs, much less 10 or 20 yrs as anything but an absolute take over of health care and that its impact on business or the economy can in a sane mind be rationalized as a good move.

This is a gift that keep on giving YEARS after this POS prez is out of office and none of it will be good for the US, our economy, the US citizenry and will only lead us down the path to the same kinda shitty health care you Canadians, the Brits and French view as so "special" (*horse*)

Onyma Report This Comment
Date: March 29, 2010 05:02AM

You see I come from a country that has universal health care and I wouldn't trade it for your existing system if you paid me. I don't deny though that implementing it now in the US is going to be costly.

I would like to tell you a story though and while I don't have the 'permission' to tell this, I think it's important. I will obscure enough of the details to keep it general... these are friends of mine. A woman, 40's, goes in for a significant but still routine arthroscopic surgery which should have her home the next day. During the procedure the doctor slips and punctures something very important causing her blood pressure to immediately crash and she "dies". After emergency surgery (literally cracking open her chest), tons of transfusions, and 5 days in an induced coma she survives. 4 more surgeries are required to repair the damage and she spends almost 2 months in the hospital. That was mid last year, she is still recovering. Accident's happen.

Here's the rub. The woman's husband is a family doctor, self employed with his own practice for years. He has been informed by his HMO that due to the size of the claims from this event they will not be renewing their insurance at the end of this cycle as they are now considered too high a risk. My understanding is that being self employed they have a loophole to optionally not renew. He has shopped around and no other HMO will now pick up their family as long as he is self employed. This spring he is closing his doctors office to go work for another clinic so they can get health coverage through an employer. They will of course be filing a legal case about this but that only further exacerbates the issue by driving up coverage for doctors and your rates even further.

So due to a slip by one doctor another is forced to close is practice and leave his patients without their family doctor. Their medical insurance will be sky high for the rest of their lives... a lawsuit will be paid off causing a rate increase across the boards... another doctor will see the cost of his coverage go up... and the only ones not getting screwed in this whole thing is the insurance company.

I had a GF in NY in the early 90's and she had a noticeable step in her collar bone because it healed off-set after she broke it. It healed incorrectly because she couldn't afford to go to a hospital to have it set as every penny she had was tied up putting her through NYU.

I had a hernia repaired 4 years back at the Shouldice Clinic in Toronto. The Shouldice charges about $1000 for a hernia repair using their own technique and will have you home in 4 days and back to work in a week. They are world renowned for being a leader in hernia repair. What shocked me though was the fact that I was surrounded by Americans who had chosen to fly up and have their hernia repaired here because the combined expense was still between a third to a half of what they were going to get dinged back home.

And more stories like this: []

I don't deny that the US can offer good health care but no one can convince me even with my limited experience that the system is not fundamentally flawed at a core level.

I think the benefit to the productivity of the population in general by providing fundamental health care far outweighs the costs involved. It's a loose measurement but Canada is 11th on the list of world life expectancies. The US is 38th. We share a border... same continent, same basic climate, same social influences... something is very wrong with that picture. Every single country in the top 19 (except one) has universal health care. And that one exception (Switzerland) has Federal regulation of health insurance and it is mandatory for every citizen.

I'm not saying how it's being implemented is correct... I haven't studied the bill in detail. What I do want to say though is that I hear SO many people screaming "Socialism!!!" when they obviously haven't got a clue. Could it be done better or the transition smoother? Possibly... I can't say. But is the final goal worth pushing towards... I'd say yes.

And while you're at it go Metric! Dammit winking

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 29/03/2010 05:39AM by Onyma.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: March 29, 2010 11:02AM

Having trillions and trillions of dollars in debt the US just can't afford to visit health care reform right now and to be rammed through the way it was just pisses off many of us. Also requiring people to have insurance even when they just can't afford it is just wrong. Before I got medicare I was without health insurance for years because I just couldn't afford it. It was a choice of buying food for the family or buying insurance and there are many people in this situation as well. To enact a law which will require these people to buy insurance and go hungry at the same time is just not right. Nothing was ever mentioned about these low income people and how they will be able to afford the insurance they will be required to purchase. Right now my daughter need to have her gall bladder removed because ot gall stones. She doesn't have insurance because she works part time and her husband hasn't been able to find a job in 2 years. She barely makes enough money to keep them and her daughter housed and fed. No doctor will take the case without money up front and the hospital will not do it unless it is an emergency situation. Now she has to live in pain while she tries to find a method to have the surgery done. DHS will pay for it after it is done but nobody will do this relatively simple surgery without payment. This new health care law will put people like them in jail instead of helping them. I don't like it so screw everyone who is in office right now including the idiot in chief.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: March 29, 2010 02:09PM

Ok O man, let me say that we're certainly in agreement on many of the points you raised. The system of insurance regulations, loopholes and denial of some claimants rights to treatment even with health insurance have been the cause of many horror stories. These issues could have been addressed by legislation with a set of governmental regulations upon the industry itself without having to generate and create the huge clusterfuck this recently passed bill incorporates.

In every polling of folks here the overwhelming support for certain reforms of the insurance industry was resoundingly stated by the majority. The majority were in favor of new regulations that would end the practice of dropping coverage of insured claimants who became ill, people were in favor of lowering malpractice suit limits and ending the defensive practice of doctors requiring numerous tests prior to surgery or treatment which were required purely as a "cover your ass move" by doctors as a secondary means of protection against malpractice suits, with both of these measures as a means of cost containment on policies, and stopping the denial of treatment by health insurance companies coverage of previously existing injuries and conditions. These issues found almost unanimous support from coast to coast here and had these measures been taken up as the focus of this legislation it would have achieved a lot of positive effects for the bulk of Americans and likely found support by the people on the order of 80% .... but that's not what was legislated.

What was voted in and in many ways DOES result in this legislation being quite correctly viewed as a socialistic attack on the people and the medical community here is a system that does not "provide healthcare for 33 million uninsured Americans with no access to healthcare" as it was touted over and over to be. What was enacted that every citizen is now required to secure insurance coverage which is not the same thing at all.

Many folks currently go without coverage because it's outside the realm of their financial capabilities and not all of them do so because they're currently unemployed, but quite simply because in the choices their income allows them it becomes a decision to keep a roof over their familys' heads or keeping food on the table or buy health insurance that is outside their family budget parameters, they choose the former over the latter. This legislation now takes this choice away from them and will force them to buy health insurance regardless of whether they can reasonably afford to do so or not. Then, if they continue to choose to not buy the insurance they will be hit with a tax penalty that will be attached to their federal income taxes and enforced lovingly by those great folks over at the IRS who can eventually take away the home they chose to pay for instead of buying insurance, garnish their already lacking paychecks to pay the fines, or deduct the fine amounts from any overpayment of income taxes.

While supporters of this bill will point to the tax credits and reimbursement by the govt to many lower wage earners as a means of easing the financial load this requirement forces upon them, what most Americans know is this is aimed much more at people who are already on the public dole in allowing them to basically NOT PAY A FUCKING DIME for their health care insurance and will not realistically have a positive impact on working people who just flat out can't afford the additional expense.

There are so many ill conceived parts of this legislation that stand in stark opposition to the will of the American people that I can do little more than scratch the surface of it all here but let me briefly mention a few more:

1. Doctors, regardless of their specialty, experience or overhead will receive the same amount of payment for treatment of patients (try telling the heart or neurosurgeons who have invested many more years in their education and costs for it how this isn't a socialistic practice, and .... try mentioning how this will in future NOT decrease the number of such medical specialists in these and other special fields of medicine),

2. Hospitals will be required to get federal government approval before any expansion of a facility or before any new medical facility can be built, more socialism!

3. 30% of existing doctors have said these new regulations will lead them to leave the profession altogether. With our medical system already stretched pretty thinly in some areas this will not be beneficial overall and it's also likely these government interventionistic practices will lead fewer people in the future to choose medicine as a career path which will then exacerbate this situation even further.

4. Limits will be placed upon what insurers can charge while also forcing the same insurers to cover more patients at greater overall costs through implementation of the added costs of no lifetime limits on coverage, doctors will still be having to cover their buts by requiring multiple tests prior to surgery or treatment, which adds to the overall costs of treatment and many believe (myself included) the grand purpose and intent behind this is to force insurers out of business with the eventuality of the plan to be that government will then step in and completely take over the health care industry with the federal government as the provider of the health care insurance and the actual health care itself.

5. Several facets of the above will all convergently lead to a totally socialistic system of total control of our health care system at which point the decisions American now have rights to in regard to their own care, level of affordability, choices about treatment etc. is taken out of their hands and placed under total government control which is abso-fuckin-lutely SOCIALIST!

6. Responsible working Americans through increased taxation will now be required to shoulder the burden for even more health care expenses than they currently are paying for a segment of our population that refuses to accept responsibility for their own welfare and choose instead to live off $$ the government takes from the working folks here which is nothing more than a grand scheme of "wealth redistribution", another facet of it that REEKS of socialism!

7. While federal law voted upon many years ago allows women the choice in deciding whether they choose to seek abortion, tax payers have never been required to fund that choice by making funds available for free abortions. This legislation will now change that and the BS presidential order Obama signed as an appeasement move to draw in the last votes required by the pro-life segment of democrats to secure passage of the bill in the House has no actual force on the legislations approval to implement this. Such a decree is not law, laws can only be enacted by congress so this was nothing more than another in the long list of tricks, deals, and bribes that took place in ramming this unwanted legislation through congress.

There's really so much more regarding this legislation that riles the populace here but one facet in particular that's manifested itself in many of the individual states having filed cases against it in federal courts is that this is an area the federal govt has NO AUTHORITY to legislate on by the limited powers as outlined within the Constitution.

Many folks in the know regarding Constitutional Law regard this as a direct and illegal attack upon our system of government intended to move American government and society ever closer to the socialist state the leftists/liberals desire which finds itself severely lacking in receiving support by the bulk of the American population which is far more centrist in nature and as such stand in opposition to this legislation, both before it was voted in and even more so now as more effects are revealed.

One last thought here O man, but it's a pretty reasonable analogy, so I feel it's worth mentioning.

Let's say you're in the market for a new car so you toodle on down to the dealership and find exactly what you want there and sit down with the salesman to get the paperwork done. Everything's all worked out, papers all signed and as you get ready to head home with your shiny new wheeled toy, but when you ask for the keys to your new purchase you're told that you'll be required to make payments for the 1st 4yrs of the 10yr note you agreed upon before you'll have the right to drive that shiny new car. Would you feel like that was a good deal or would you feel like you were gettin screwed by being forced to pay for something for a number of years without even having the use of what you were paying for?

The majority of the American public feels like we've been screwed .... and I'm right there with 'em (*horse*)

Onyma Report This Comment
Date: March 29, 2010 03:03PM

Very sorry to hear about your daughter jgoins. My mother had gall stones and it is a painful painful thing. I am going to have to do some more reading on the details of what the new bill is bringing in. My understanding was that these are the situations it was meant to fix.

I do agree this is a bad time for the US to be spending on a huge health care reform package but I wonder if at any point in the future there will be a better time as the current system seems to be spiraling out of control at a faster an faster rate.

What's sad is that she SHOULD be able to afford coverage because it shouldn't be that expensive. Costs of an MRI vary by 250% state to state in the US. From $1500 to $4000 just by crossing state lines. How can that be? MRIs are all digital now, there are no consumables like film. Even with the cost of the machine there is just no way it should cost that much.

Up here she would be booked in for surgery and getting it done without concern for cost. It's not a stay in a luxury hotel but that gets you a bed in a 4 bed room and the procedure covered. A lot of people up here do carry additional health insurance as well for extras like private rooms, some medications that aren't covered, dental, eyes, etc. but it is optional. Like every system ours is still far from perfect but I am glad it exists.
Onyma Report This Comment
Date: March 29, 2010 03:17PM

Hey MK, thanks for the reply... going to have to go over it in detail later when work dies down some. I do agree on a quick skim that some of that does seem to suck and is actually quite unlike our system up here. What it sounds like is you're implementing a system closer to what Switzerland uses and not a true universal health care system. More comments later smiling
aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: March 29, 2010 11:56PM


Since Obama has only been president for little over a year, there is almost nothing that can be called a mistake or a failure yet

It amazes me that WHINERS like yourself think you know anything about govt when it is clear that you are just and ideologue that bases their opinion on proven failed policies.

Anyone who says the word socialism in relation to democrats or Obama prove they have no clue what real socialism is.

and anyone who says that they know what consequences will definitely be of the recent health care bill is a flat out LIAR that is conducting an exercise in BULLSHIT.

I know pussies who spout the BS you do are too chicken to put their money where their mouth is concerning the consequences of the health care bill.

If armageddon, financial collapse, and the end of health care does not happen

then how about everyone who spouted the BS scare rhetoric cut their tongue out and never enter the field of public policy again ?

I'm game.

We know all of the whining by Republicans has nothing to do with the substance of the health care bill. Democrats wanted single payer. Republicans wanted what Obama signed.

The whining by Republicans was about Democrats having control of congress for decades if they passed any health care bill at all.

the majority of the American public supported the bill.

"Responsible working americans" are perfectly happy raising taxes, just no theirs. There goes your individual responsibility argument.

You have no clue what you are talking about as usual.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: March 30, 2010 01:46AM

As could well be expected beast, no substance to anything you say, nothing but your own statement of opinion to back it up, but I'm the one that's FOS? Lay out some substantive arguments for your position and there might be some discourse to be had, otherwise ... you can (*butt*)

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: March 30, 2010 12:42PM

Beast you were ranting against Bush from day one of his presidency way back when. Now you say Odamna has only been in office a year and shouldn't be judged? You are clearly an idiot who will support anything a democrat does regardless of any damage it might cause.
Lexx Report This Comment
Date: March 30, 2010 04:19PM

aDCBeast is EVIL and he MUST be DESTROYED! (*finger3*)
ORLANDO399 Report This Comment
Date: March 30, 2010 04:26PM

I concur (*horse*)
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment
Date: March 31, 2010 01:34AM

This is my question. Were was the alternative healthcare bill? Really, if this bill is so bad why didn't anyone propose an alternate bill? It seems to me that this was a lot of political bluster. More to due with politics and less to do with the issue. No one really thinks the current healthcare system is good, so why weren't there several proposed bills for healthcare reform? It seems to me that if the detractors had put forth an alternative bill their complaints about the current one would have legitimacy. But, no they just wined about it. Why was that? Could it be that they didn't have any better ideas? Or, that their proposal would have been even worse. Or, maybe they didn't care and just wanted to oppose anything put forth by the current administration no matter what it was? Food for thought... enjoycool
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: March 31, 2010 02:50AM

it's a good thing i hate typing wolfie
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: March 31, 2010 03:31AM

Perfect regurgitation of the liberal talking points there wolfie smileys with beer

There were MANY other proposals submitted by the Republicans though none of them garnered the necessary votes by the Democrats to actually make it outta committee and to the floor so they could then BE voted on by the full legislative body(s).

Hmmm, let's see, now who was it that was really being "obstructionist" again? Who was it that was being "totally partisan" again? Who was it that was being the party of "no way but ours is good enough to even be voted on" again?

The main differences between the 2 versions were that the Republican sponsored version merely addressed measures to keep insurors from dropping patients when they get ill/injured, addressed tort reform regarding malpractice (in efforts to decrease malpractice costs/reduce insurance costs as well as helping to eliminate the extra tests doctors now have to order in CYA mode), creating insurance pools for small companies/individuals to get better rates, allowing sales of insurance across state lines to encourage competition, and would have made all insurors cover preexisting conditions.

But you see the REALLY biggest difference between the 2 streams of thought between Democrat and Republican sponsored bills was that only the Democrat version included the extra nice parts like allowing the fed govt (and their private contractors) to all your personal banking and health record info as well as allowing the govt to draft any amount they deem necessary against your bank account (good thing the govt never makes mistakes like OVERDRAFTING funds, huh?), using the IRS as their enforcement arm, keeps you from filing a suit against the govt for unfair charges, made special deal for the unions, attached another piece of legislation to the bill that now makes all student loans and places the federal government as the only one allowed to MAKE student loans (except for that ONE bank they agreed to let make loans in a democratic representatives home state so they could bribe his vote) [Just ONE of the MANY such bribes made to get votes for this slimy POS legislation] and fixed it so the pres and various advisory members who helped write the bill were exempt from the system, funds abortions, and here's one of the really great parts:

CREATING 159 NEW FEDERAL AGENCIES AND BUREAUS with somewhere over 100,000 new government employees and also added 17,000 new IRS agents to help with the aforementioned enforcement efforts.

See, changin the regulations on insurance companies and NOT expanding our already HUGE federal govt. by an additional 117,000 new employees (we the taxpayer get to pay for BTW! Wonder how much that adds to the cost of our government just to run this shitty plan) wasn't any part of the Republican plans and because the Democrat plan DID do that they were never going to support it since their constituents told them (just like many Democrats constituents did too) NOT to support this travesty of a government take over angry

Next question grinning smiley


Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 31/03/2010 03:37AM by Mrkim.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: March 31, 2010 11:44AM

Remember this and remind everyone you know about it in November. Vote everyone out.
aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: March 31, 2010 10:50PM

actually MRS KIM

The facts support what I said

the majority of the American public supported the bill.

You have yet to post a fact on the subject

Try this on for size @ss.

85% of the bill that was signed was written by REPUBLICANS back in the mid 90s.

even the individual mandate was written by a republican.

That's why Bob "viagra" Dole supported the current bill

You also have yet to show in any way shape or form how any of this is socialism

you done more to prove that you have no fucking clue what socialism is
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment
Date: April 01, 2010 12:17AM

MrKim, can you present any first hand knowledge links to support your claims? Please do not give us any second hand knowledge this is my opinion web sites.nerd
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: April 01, 2010 01:57AM

The facts support what I said the majority of the American public supported the bill.

Incorrect as usual beast. As the bill was being voted on in the House every poll published showed less support for the bill than for it.

You have yet to post a fact on the subject

I've posted plenty of info, you however just rattle your keeboard as usual.

85% of the bill that was signed was written by REPUBLICANS back in the mid 90s. even the individual mandate was written by a republican. That's why Bob "viagra" Dole supported the current bill

Really? News sources all seemed to relate the legislation was written by members of White House staff, special interest groups and Democratic congresspersons with a smattering of Obamas direct input over the past year. As always, more illogical statements based in fantasy.

You also have yet to show in any way shape or form how any of this is socialism you done more to prove that you have no fucking clue what socialism is

An excerpt from the wikipedia page on the subject, and here's the full link [] :

"Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and programme; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalisation (usually in the form of economic planning), but sometimes oppose each other. A dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established.
Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy."

Sounds exactly like what's been going on since this administration took office. A point could also be made that these moves are fascist, so take your pick. Regardless neither approach is representative of the type of government the Constitution outlined which was a representative democracy. up

Now onto wolfie:

I've done my homework, followed this issue intensely in the news over the past year now and since you obviously have not, you now want me to do YOUR HOMEWORK for YOU? Sorry, but that's really not my responsibility.

Since you obviously find yourself in opposition to the views I've stated how about attempting to put together something more than 2 sentences and actually formulate a coherent response stating facts (or even links if you can find any to support your claims) to support any argument you have with the assertions I've made here.

I know assembling even a paragraph is challenging wolfie, but why not give it the good ole middle school try eh smiling bouncing smiley


Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2010 02:08AM by Mrkim.
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment
Date: April 01, 2010 11:33PM

Mrkim I am not trying to bate you into a trap. I am not interested in an aggument just looking for some good information. You have made some very interesting accusations, and I would like to know the sources so that I may look them up myself. As for as the mainstream news media, I take it with a large grain of salt. They are profit based not factual based. I look for news sources that do not have an agenda and are interested in reporting the facts. This is very hard to find anymore.

I also noticed that you are calling out aDCBeast for his sources... well what is good for one is good for
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: April 02, 2010 03:28AM

In a years worth of studying all this it would be nearly impossible to list links to where all this data has been derived wolfie. I'm involved with 3 different online citizen action groups, watch news clips from MSNBC, CBS, Fox, ABC,, have spent time studying many different legislators comments/quotes/voting records and have read just about everything else I can find on the subject constantly.

Watching the news and sifting through opinion based pundits comments along with the other research helps in filtering the BS from the genuine data to be gleaned from it all.

Although I consider myself a staunch conservative and devoted Constitutionalist I find errors and mistatements of fact in what other conservatives say just as I do with an overwhelming amount of the stuff the liberals trot out as truth. I use all the data I study to formulate my own ideas about what's really being said and done legislatively, which is what I feel everyone should do.

Unfortunately if one were to simply hit the high points the mainstream media throw out as "news" much of the subtle details that round out the bigger picture and give a more thorough understanding of what's really going on would be lost. Many people seem content to use this approach to feel as if they're informed while in truth, following this issue in this way won't begin to give one enough details to make a truly informed decision, much less formulate an unbiased opinion.

The real bottom line is this wolfie. Though much of what I write is filled with opinion and the reasoning I use to interpret the data streams from my research I NEVER try to mistate fact or pointedly bend the truth. It's too easy these days for people to fact check things and disprove simple mistatement of fact.

While I may post a slightly skewed figure from time to time it usually has to do with either the data I've read was slightly flawed or that I have made a slight error from memory but I would NEVER knowingly try to mislead anyone by stating untruths to attempt to make a point, it's just not my way of doing things winking

Beast on the other hand tends to get on here and fling out loads of BS she/he knows damned well is improvable and then when you try to pin down where the source of this illogical crap is coming from makes claims like "look it up, it's truth", just evades the issue altogether, or another common bit of BS, tries to simply engage in personal attacks or redirect the discussion away from what's been said eye
rolling smiley

jgoins Report This Comment
Date: April 02, 2010 11:38AM

If you want to find out for sure if the majority of the public supports the legislation or not just keep an eye on the midterm elections. If all who hold office right now are going to be removed from office then it will speak very clearly that the majority of the voting public are dissatisfied with the bull shit politics that has occurred recently. It will also be a good indicator that a majority of people are not happy with the health care bill or the way it was shoved down our throats. If there is not a major change in the line up then it will show that the public is happy with the way things are done in DC and they get what they deserve. But I do feel we will see an major change coming in November.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: April 02, 2010 05:23PM

immigration...legalization is next, they're gonna need to by some more votes. eye
rolling smiley
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: April 02, 2010 05:43PM

More fuel for the fire ... aka costs to companies and taxpayers/retirees/consumers, etc. I wonder if GM, Chrysler, AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac are complying with SEC regs? If so, why aren't these heavily government subsidized/owned entities reporting these increased costs per the SECs guidelines? Maybe because that's a part of the financial equation of new costs the fed wants them to keep quiet about? Hmmmmm??

"Top Dems Call Companies 'Irresponsible' for Taking Write-Downs on Retiree Drug Benefits -- Even Though Federal Rules Require It
Friday, April 02, 2010
By Christopher Neefus

“I am from the Government, and I am here to HELP!”

The scariest words in America

( – Democrats are going on the offensive against major companies who have announced they will take a financial hit from the passage of health-care reform, saying it’s a ploy to make President Obama look bad.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke has condemned the moves as "irresponsible" and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) has launched an investgation, summoning the CEOs of the companies to Capitol Hill on April 21.

However, the companies say they warned the Obama administration and Congress about the issue last year, before Congress voted on the bill, and a prominent economist tells that the companies are simply acting in accordance with federal Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules.

Explaining the problem

In the last week, corporations like AT&T, Caterpillar, Deere & Co., and 3M have said they will collectively take write-downs into the billions of dollars because of a change in a federal subsidy that had helped the companies provide drug coverage for their retirees, keeping those seniors from joining the Medicare Part D benefit in droves.

(A “write-down” occurs when a company reports a reduction in the value of its assets compared with the value it trades for on the stock market.)

The 28 percent subsidy previously was tax-free, but President Obama’s new health-care reform law treats it as taxable income. As a result, the businesses are revising their earnings estimates downward to reflect the new costs, and some seniors may find themselves on Part D if the companies eventually decide they can’t absorb the loss.

AT&T has said the change will cost it $1 billion, Deere expects to lose $150 million, Caterpillar predicts a cost of $100 million, and 3M is projecting a $90 million loss.

Secretary Locke took to the White House blog on March 25 to counter the “couple of companies” that he said had begun to “imply that reform will raise costs for them.”

“This change is part of an overall reform package that will provide substantial benefits to employers and their employees,” he said, listing new benefits like reinsurance for early retirees and removing the “hidden tax” of emergency care for the uninsured.

Locke took a more combative tone later in the week on CNBC, saying that announcing the write-downs was “irresponsible.”

“A lot of the regulations on how this will affect big business haven’t even been published yet, so for them to come out, I think is premature and irresponsible,” he said on March 27.

But Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow and economist at the nonpartisan Hudson Institute, said Locke is really criticizing the SEC, because the companies are merely following federal regulations that have long been in place.

“It’s not ‘irresponsible,’ because if they don’t report it, the SEC is going to come down on these companies like a ton of bricks,” she told “They’re required to file by SEC regulation when something in their earnings path changes.”

The administration position is untenable, according to Furchtgott-Roth..

“You can’t have the Secretary of Commerce saying that the SEC rules don’t make sense. You can’t have one department contradicting another.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Waxman, the chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, unhappy with the companies’ actions, summoned their CEOs to an April 21 hearing, calling their claims “a matter of concern” in a letter.

“The new (health care) law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern,” Waxman wrote to them last Friday. “They also appear to conflict with independent (cost) analyses.”

But Waxman did more than request the presence of the CEOs at the hearing – he made a wide-ranging demand for company documents and records, asking for all communications among the senior staff of the corporations regarding the write-downs, along with “an explanation of the accounting methods used by (each company) since 2003 to estimate the financial impact of the 28 percent subsidy for retiree drug coverage and its deductibility or nondeductibility, including the accounting methods used in preparing the cost impact released by (each company) this week.”

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), the ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee and Waxman’s Republican counterpart, says Waxman is “vilifying” corporations for the bill’s unintended costs.

“It shouldn’t come as a shock that a bill that reengineers the health care system in America would cost private companies money,” Barton said. “I don’t think there is an overwhelming reason to call those companies before the committee and I certainly don’t think there is a reason to launch an investigation. I will not be a part of any witch hunt to vilify corporate America.”

Furchtgott-Roth, who served on President George H.W. Bush’s domestic policy council, said that the write-downs shouldn’t really be a surprise to Waxman, unless the powerful chairman failed to take into account the fact that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) assessment of the bill’s impact only focused on its impact on the federal government’s bottom line.

“CBO is asked to score the cost of the bill,” she explained to “So what it does to a company’s earnings is not reflected in the CBO score and I’m very surprised that Mr. Waxman doesn’t know this.”

Meanwhile, Congressional Democrats only appear to have been blind-sided by the projected losses. In fact, the chief financial officers of 10 major corporations, including Caterpillar and Deere -- along with Verizon, Xerox and Met Life -- wrote to the Democratic congressional leadership before the bill passed the Senate on Christmas Eve, and warned that just such an issue would emerge.

In their Dec. 11 letter, addressed to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the CFOs explained that the bill would “negatively impact both retirees and companies.”

“Taxing the subsidy means that more companies will eliminate or reduce the coverage, and more retirees will shift to Medicare Part D, which will create more cost for both the government and the retirees,” the CFOs wrote.

“Further, this change would result in large earnings statement reductions due to…income tax accounting rules, which would require employers to immediately account for the present value of this tax increase.

“The impact of the proposed Medicare Part D changes would be felt throughout the overall U.S. economy as corporate entities and investors would be forced to react. We urge our leaders in Washington to carefully consider the far-reaching effects of the health care reform effort and avoid unintended, negative consequences for all stakeholders.”

White House Health Care Nancy Ann DeParle was also copied on the correspondence.

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Tuesday in a statement that the response from Democrats thus far amounted to “scare tactics.”

“The White House blog has been used to question the credibility of these statements. A Cabinet secretary called these public disclosures ‘irresponsible.’ House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman wants to hold hearings and issue subpoenas,” he said.

“These scare tactics are not surprising," Boehner said. “America’s workers have a right to know how this new law will affect them. As do the millions of retirees who may lose their drug benefits. As do the customers who may have to pay higher prices to cover these losses. As do the small businesses who rely on these companies for telecommunications (AT&T), office supplies (3M), gasoline (Valero), and equipment (Caterpillar, John Deere).” "

Just some more food for thought as the real costs of this new legislation continue to see the light of day, and this is only the beginning totally lost

Ben Franklin Report This Comment
Date: April 02, 2010 09:29PM

Republicans proposed dozens of changes to the health care bill despite the fact that none of them supported it in any way. And then all the Republicans voted against it.

While Democrats put forth reasoned arguments for national health care, Republicans focused on medical horror stories from Canada and Europe. In the end, the bill passed.

I'm not saying the Democrats' or the GOP's actions are good or bad. I'm just stating some facts.

Source: []
ShockACon Report This Comment
Date: April 02, 2010 09:32PM

I have a serious question for Republicans.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says health care reform will cost $940 billion and will create $1.2 trillion in savings.

Why do Republicans keep claiming that the US can't afford to save $180 billion?
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: April 02, 2010 10:06PM

Hey shock, wanna bet $1000 on those figures? I would bet anyone who wants some of this action that the "savings" quoted will never materialize.

I'll gladly pay anyone wantin in on this $1000 if by 2030 the federal govt. realizes even 1.0 trillion of the 1.2 trillion they claim to be able to show in realized savings to the federal budget.

The fly in the ointment is the figures fed to the CBO to make their predictions on. An old rule of accounting is at play here "Garbage in, garbage out.".

The real deal is when has the govt EVER brought in even a single project they started "on budget"? Truth is, when have they ever done so without the real cost actually having come out as multiples of their predicted costs?

Here's a really good example of the shitty management skills they use. A very famous whore house in Nevada had gotten behind on their taxes and wound up with the fed takin it over. In less than a year it was bankrupt and outta business. So ask yourself this question .... if the government couldn't even turn a profit sellin pussy and booze, what are the chances they'll manage a whole fuckin countrys' healthcare program without raising even MORE taxes AND shavin services too?

Their track record for managing any program has always ended in failure and bankruptcy. Social Security, though people have been payin into it for over 70 yrs is already payin out more $$ than it takes in.

Amtrak is a steady money pit that hasn't made a real profit in years and one of Obamas BIG recovery plans is to spend hundreds of billions more (and make the states provide matching funds they don't have) to build high speed rail systems.

The Post Office, though they receive congressional perks in rates NO OTHER carrier gets can't even keep its head above water and will soon be cutting saturday delivery AND laying off THOUSANDS of full time employees to try and stay open.

We've been dumping BILLIONS into unemployment for months now just so there's not open rioting in the streets.

Welfare programs like housing assistance, food stamps and health care like Medicaid and Medicare are busted, especially since Obama just jerked $500,000,000,000.00 from Medicares coffers so he could use it to make his Obamacare BS look better.

With all this is it really a wonder that anyone would have a reasonable doubt that not only will the "savings' claimed never be realized, but nothin even close to that will ever be seen?

The problem is the govt doesn't have to work within the same constraints other operations do. Not only do they never have to stay solvent and turn a profit like other organizations do, worse yet, when they run outta money they either just print more or raise taxes to cover their shortfalls. Sadly, when there's no reason or incentive to force them to live within their means, guess what, they NEVER WILL!!!

I'm willin to even shave off $200,000,000,000.00 from their projected savings to hedge the bet in any takers favor, so who's willin to take my bet confused smiley


Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2010 11:32PM by Mrkim.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: April 02, 2010 10:32PM

i'm still waiting for the attempt to amend the constitution to make the bill legal.
ORLANDO399 Report This Comment
Date: April 02, 2010 10:48PM

I just fell asleep reading kim's paragraphs,jeez man why not go for it all and write a book!smiling bouncing smiley
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: April 02, 2010 11:15PM

Well wake your ass up !! I just made a fresh pot of coffee, want some ..... buahahahahaha clown

Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: April 03, 2010 07:11AM

Ben said :
Republicans proposed dozens of changes to the health care bill despite the fact that none of them supported it in any way. And then all the Republicans voted against it.

While Democrats put forth reasoned arguments for national health care, Republicans focused on medical horror stories from Canada and Europe. In the end, the bill passed.

I'm not saying the Democrats' or the GOP's actions are good or bad. I'm just stating some facts.

Though it's true some of the conservatives ideas were eventually added to the bill (by democrats in the last week before the final vote in the House in an effort to attempt to get repubs to vote for it and ... so that after they added these measures they could then again point to the repubs as obstructionists if they din't support it after their suggestions were added) the overall legislation was still viewed overall as unconstitutional, intrusive upon individual freedoms and socialistic in nature. These are the reasons the Repubs voted against it, which BTW is also what their constituents asked them to do.

To believe otherwise only shows you either agree with the ideas and tactics behind the democrat sponsored bill or else you problee get all your info from the extremely left leaning mainstream media and hence don't truly understand all the parameters of the overall issue since they never truly gave all the facts about it all, only the parts that made it look appealing. Had the mainstream media been comprehensive in their discussions and explanations regarding this piece of legislation (as in actually REPORTING instead of MAKING UP the news!) it's likely it would have had even less public support than it did winking

aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: April 03, 2010 09:57AM

Actually MRS KIM

the American public supported the bill that passed.

just because you are willing to entertain pollsters who are paid by DC GOP lobbyists is YOUR FAULT

the funny part is even the polls paid for by DC GOP lobbyists say that the American people supported the bill

I'm not surprised that someone with your limited education and experience doesn't know this
aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: April 03, 2010 10:05AM

85% of the bill that was signed was written by REPUBLICANS back in the mid 90s. even the individual mandate was written by a republican. That's why Bob "viagra" Dole supported the current bill



Just because the media has a half life of 3 years doesn't mean that those of us who have been in DC our entire lives don't know the truth

Bob Dole wrote most of the bill

Since you and the other nitwits haven't figured it out yet

All legislation being written by democrats is starting with GOP proposals of the past such that Republicans only have themselves to blame
aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: April 03, 2010 10:07AM


Republicans will fuck up their own Republicare program that just passed as they have with every other govt program and agency

well ... except the DoD which is a massive corporate welfare program to former military leaders
aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: April 03, 2010 10:09AM


MRS KIM's posts are 100% crap. That is the best reason for not reading them.

His expertise on any subject can be contained in a thimble.
aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: April 03, 2010 10:12AM


Why do Republicans keep claiming that the US can't afford to save $180 billion?


Because Republicans can't steer the money to their cronies and campaign donors

I would cut 200 billion from the DoD budget per year to cover the bill

American is on full pussy alert right now

so much for CONS being tough. They are the ones wearing the skirts
aDCBeast Report This Comment
Date: April 03, 2010 10:15AM


Republicans who were polled all responded with Get your Fucking hands off my Govt run Medicare

So much for individual responsibility
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: April 03, 2010 11:15AM

Beast, you have your facts wrong, only 10% of the American public supports this bill. I can make up facts just as good as you can if I don't have to provide proof. All this is moot anyway because on Dec. 21 2012 aliens are coming to return us all to our home planet.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2010 11:15AM by jgoins.
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment
Date: April 03, 2010 07:23PM

As far as a healthcare bill polls: According to Gallup 45% Approve, 48% Disapprove, and 7% No opinion with + or- 4% error rate. lists 40.2% in Favor and 51.6% Oppose, however after a description of the bill was given the poll changed to 51% to 56% in Favor and 38% to 43% Opposed. So, please read the articals at you leisure they have more detailed
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: April 03, 2010 09:32PM

this only stat that counts is blows! (*finger4*)
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: April 04, 2010 12:14AM

Wolfie I do hope you know the Gallup poll you posted was taken before the bill was passed and the Pollster poll you linked to was from last July, right? I'd suggest you have a look at a minimum of 4 current polls and then average them to get a more reasonable view of current public opinion winking


Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2010 12:15AM by Mrkim.
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: April 04, 2010 07:48AM

Rasmussen Reports here Very interesting it breaks it down.
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment
Date: April 04, 2010 04:24PM

Yes Mrkim I did see that the polls both took place before the bill was passed. I couldn't find any that took place afterward. I guess the short attention span of the public is to blame. As for the poll, the top part is from July 09 and the bottom part is more recent. Check the dates listed in the graphic.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: April 04, 2010 10:15PM

Hers's a breakout of many different polls, recent as well as over time. A quick or thorough perusal of these numbers will affirm that ot seems more people are against the HC bill than are for it. [] winking

ORLANDO399 Report This Comment
Date: April 05, 2010 01:05AM

Polls are worthless,just matters who's doing them.I can go out and find twenty african americans who dont have a clue what the health care reform bill is but if they here that it was obama's plan they will say they support it...soooooo fuck all these b.s. polls,they are meaningless.thumbs
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: April 05, 2010 10:21AM

Polls mean very little since they can be made to say anything. All they have to do is phrase the question differently and get different results. I run into many people every day and I have yet to find anyone who likes the health care bill or the way it was brought about.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: February 10, 2011 04:51AM

check those poll numbers today wolfie
woberto Report This Comment
Date: June 22, 2014 02:50AM

I can't believe I just read this whole thread and actually learned something.
drinking smiley
pulse Report This Comment
Date: June 22, 2014 07:22AM

Not to spend time reading things here? smiling
BlahX3 Report This Comment
Date: June 22, 2014 03:03PM

Most likely. smiling
pro_junior Report This Comment
Date: September 29, 2020 06:24AM

fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: September 30, 2020 11:57PM

chickey chickey