Don't think this is worth talking about? How about the liberal hypocrisy in regards to deficits? As bad as Bush was on increasing the size of the federal govt and spending Obama is worse yet no outcry over this?
The reason that there's such an outcry about Bush is that his massive deficit spending directly contradicted the doctrine they were spouting off. You can't run a massive war in a foreign nation for most of your term and then claim to be a proponent of "small government." We call that "hypocrisy" where I'm from. The whole issue is that the neo-cons want to portray themselves as being fiscally conservative, while actually ramping up the spending.
Obama told us that it would cost money. He told us that there would be a massive deficit, and that he would reduce that deficit by the end of his term. So far, we're getting what we were promised in that regard.
The economy went to shit, and the government needed to spend large amounts of money to keep it hobbling along. Tell me, do you think McCain would have had a smaller deficit than this? Would his plans have involved any less spending? I don't think so.
So I read an article by Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post this morning, which spoke of two major points:
Ending malpractice suits, and dolling out money from a government-run malpractice award pool (the amount to be determined by medical experts)
Decoupling health insurance from employment, and make people buy it on their own, as with auto and home owner's insurance.
Now, the reason I bring this up is: I don't often agree with this guy. In fact, I rarely do, but this article seems to make a lot of sense. What's everyone's take on it?
Decoupling health insurance from employment, and make people buy it on their own, as with auto and home owner's insurance.
Fundamental problem: People are lazy. If health insurance isn't handed to them upon hire, or at an enrollment period, they probably won't take the effort to get it on their own... at least until it's too late.
Fundamental problem: People are lazy. If health insurance isn't handed to them upon hire, or at an enrollment period, they probably won't take the effort to get it on their own... at least until it's too late.
Very good point. In this case, you would have to continue refusing people with pre-existing conditions, as there's a good chance they've just avoided paying into the system until they developed something bad. Whereas with a mandated public option everyone has been paying into it, so nobody has to worry when they need payouts.
Still, the part about tort reform still stands, and I would love to see it happen, in particular before we invest any more in public care. It seems like a quick, effective way to drive costs down.
Okay, So I'd like to invoke a retroactive TL;DR here and would like someone to tell me what exactly is President Obama's healthcare plan, Why it's good, and why it's bad. I know I'm just being lazy, but I figure one of you guys could explain it better than a random news article.
Decoupling health insurance from employment, and make people buy it on their own, as with auto and home owner's insurance.
In a word, costs. The cost to many individuals is more than they could/would be willing to pay unless their employers also began paying them more to match the expense, particularly those with pre-existing conditions or past conditions that up their individual costs when not covered by a larger group or pool.
Okay, So I'd like to invoke a retroactive TL;DR here and would like someone to tell me what exactly is President Obama's healthcare plan, Why it's good, and why it's bad. I know I'm just being lazy, but I figure one of you guys could explain it better than a random news article.
It doesn't exist yet, he is working with Congress to develop it. All he has done so far is issue information about what he would like to be included in the plan.
Indeed, Barack Obama and George W. Bush. One and the same. Yeah.
I'm tempted to make some bad joke image saying something along the lines of: "New President, Version '08 Now Comes With New Skin. LIMITED TIME OFFER ONLY."
Indeed, Barack Obama and George W. Bush. One and the same. Yeah.
He frequently claims that he just posts this stuff to stir the pot and play devils' advocate. Just ignore him.
But is he that far off? The points in the linked article seem perfectly valid. Regarding the OpenLeft page: I'll be the first to say that we were told an escalation in Afghanistan was necessary, and should be expected, so that bullet point seems to be a little off.
The AP article to which the OpenLeft page links talks about three provisions in the Patriot Act that the Obama administration wants to extend: business records surrender, roving wiretaps and provisions for tracking "lone-wolf" terrorists. The most controversial, of course, being the unconditional surrender of business records, a stipulation of which is a permanent gag order by the company. Reading up on this bit of legislation, it certainly doesn't seem to be in line with Obama's campaign platform, which promised "real and robust oversight" in regards to the Patriot Act.
The AP article to which the OpenLeft page links talks about three provisions in the Patriot Act that the Obama administration wants to extend: business records surrender, roving wiretaps and provisions for tracking "lone-wolf" terrorists. The most controversial, of course, being the unconditional surrender of business records, a stipulation of which is a permanent gag order by the company. Reading up on this bit of legislation, it certainly doesn't seem to be in line with Obama's campaign platform, which promised "real and robust oversight" in regards to the Patriot Act.
From the AP article:
Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote Sen. Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that the administration is willing to consider stronger civil rights protections in the new law "provided that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important (provisions)."
Leahy responded with a statement saying it is important for the administration and Congress to "work together to ensure that we protect both our national security and our civil liberties."
While I'm not a fan of the powers granted here, the administration isn't just doing this without room for discussion. It's also important to note that the Judiciary committee has scheduled a meeting on the Patriot Act for next week, so this isn't the final word on anything.
I didn't read the article because I was at work. Moreover, I usually ignore his posts when it comes to politics by holding fast to the "fool me once" principle. Since you are vouching for the article (at least to some extent) I will look it over when I am home.
I didn't read the article because I was at work. Moreover, I usually ignore his posts when it comes to politics by holding fast to the "fool me once" principle. Since you are vouching for the article (at least to some extent) I will look it over when I am home.
I also didn't get to read over the entire article, and I wasn't attributing or detracting anything from it. The claim that President Obama is now the same as George Bush was just such a wild overstatement, it begged for a sarcastic response.
I can't believe you guys aren't getting your panties in a bunch about Obama calling Kanye West a jackass. All the cool kids are doing it.
I didn't know that President Obama had made a statement about the Kanye West incident. As little as I care about the VMA incident, Kanye West is a jackass many times over.
I didn't know that President Obama had made a statement about the Kanye West incident. As little as I care about the VMA incident, Kanye West is a jackass many times over.
It was off-the-record, but the interviewer had recorded it, and then tweeted it after the interview.
I have to say, I can't think of many harsher burns than having the goddamn President call you a jackass.
I thought that was pretty awesome actually, after watching the video of what happened, Yea, Kanye West is a jackass ;-p
I find it amusing that after clicking 5 videos on youtube, all claiming to be "actual footage", I still haven't seen a video of what he did. Obama's reaction was epic awesome in my opinion. Terribly unimpressed with the press core for reporting such a non important issue though.
Comments
Obama told us that it would cost money. He told us that there would be a massive deficit, and that he would reduce that deficit by the end of his term. So far, we're getting what we were promised in that regard.
The economy went to shit, and the government needed to spend large amounts of money to keep it hobbling along. Tell me, do you think McCain would have had a smaller deficit than this? Would his plans have involved any less spending? I don't think so.
- Ending malpractice suits, and dolling out money from a government-run malpractice award pool (the amount to be determined by medical experts)
- Decoupling health insurance from employment, and make people buy it on their own, as with auto and home owner's insurance.
Now, the reason I bring this up is: I don't often agree with this guy. In fact, I rarely do, but this article seems to make a lot of sense. What's everyone's take on it?Still, the part about tort reform still stands, and I would love to see it happen, in particular before we invest any more in public care. It seems like a quick, effective way to drive costs down.
The AP article to which the OpenLeft page links talks about three provisions in the Patriot Act that the Obama administration wants to extend: business records surrender, roving wiretaps and provisions for tracking "lone-wolf" terrorists. The most controversial, of course, being the unconditional surrender of business records, a stipulation of which is a permanent gag order by the company. Reading up on this bit of legislation, it certainly doesn't seem to be in line with Obama's campaign platform, which promised "real and robust oversight" in regards to the Patriot Act.
What more do you need?
I have to say, I can't think of many harsher burns than having the goddamn President call you a jackass.