I heard on the radio today that over 90% of the people in my state have health insurance. Therefore, over 90% of the people in my state don't need health insurance. The radio commentator (this was local Public Radio) stated that the primary concern of the insured is cost.
I agree that, as a moral matter, we should have everyone covered. However, some people that don't share this morality. Even amongst those who do, many would not support a bill that they believe worsens their own coverage.
I'm hoping that Congress will keep this in mind when they re-tool health care reform. It's not going to be easy, but I'd like to see something that gets as much support as possible. This really can be a win-win situation. Control costs and increase the number of insured. What's wrong with that?
No, I meant was he high on something. Glue can be used as an inhalant drug. What prompted me to say this was that the Democrats practically threw out the baby with the bathwater to tempt the few Republicans that were willing to come to the table on health care reform at all (i.e. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins).
No, I meant was he high on something. Glue can be used as an inhalant drug. What prompted me to say this was that the Democrats practically threw out the baby with the bathwater to tempt the few Republicans that were willing to come to the table on health care reform at all (i.e. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins).
Ah. Then, yea, verily!
EDIT: Er. About your point that the Dems are trying to be bipartisan.
90%? What kind of crazy socialist paradise are you living in, Vermont?
I know several families that have private health insurance through their work, and have instead opted to take the tax-payer funded state plan. Why? The state plan is insanely cheap. I think a family of four can earn something in the $60's per year and still qualify - even if they already have insurance through their employer! I think the premiums are something like $30 per month with little to no co-pays. This is just for the kids, mind you.
I'd rather see more uninsured adults covered (this plan is only for children) than those who already have insurance take the coverage. There are some plans for adults, but I am not as familiar with those plans. They must not be as good since I've yet to hear of a friend going on one of those plans. I also think the eligibility rules are much more strict.
I agree with the "crazy dude" part, but why was outrage at ACORN 'fake"? Assisting an attempt to disguise the identities of underaged sex workers is worthy of outrage, even if there were no such sex workers in this case. Advising perceived clients on tax evasion is also worthy of contempt. Especially when the agency benefited greatly from tax dollars.
I'll be the first to admit that a couple of isolated examples can't be treated as indicative of the entire agency, but my Spidey-sense has little sympathy for anyone who takes steps to facilitate ongoing underage prostitution.
I agree with the "crazy dude" part, but why was outrage at ACORN 'fake"? Assisting an attempt to disguise the identities of underaged sex workers is worthy of outrage, even if there were no such sex workers in this case. Advising perceived clients on tax evasion is also worthy of contempt. Especially when the agency benefited greatly from tax dollars.
I'm pretty sure from things I read about this after the fact that the people assumed they were involved in some sort of "daily show" type interview and played along. I'm not hundred % sure if that's correct but if you ever watch the video's they are smiling the whole time and seem pretty entertained by the notion.
Republicans admit afterward it was a mistake to let camera's in.
I'm moving through the transcripts and trying to access the speech, but I gotta tell you that Obama did a pretty damn good job at this event and if anyone doubts he can give a good speech without a teleprompter this is a moment for you.
I've kept quiet for a while now, but this is just getting depressing. Stalled health care reform, exploding deficits, increased partisanship, significant friction between Pelosi and Obama, a stalled economy, flip-flopping on Wall St. bonuses, continuing war in the middle east, botching intelligence on the underwear bomber, getting into bed with big business...
Ugh. Frankly, I think it's reasonable to discuss tax obligations given the state of the deficit. However, Obama seems to have forgotten the price Bush Sr. paid for reneging on a no-new-taxes promise. It's like Obama WANTS the Republicans to have a legitimate chance of beating him.
I think the biggest problem is that Obama doesn't seem to have a steady direction. It's hard to believe in a person who seems to keep grasping for a foothold. Bill Clinton changed course during his presidency, but you always knew that he had a solid foundation and a plan. Clinton's shifts seemed more savvy and calculated, whereas Obama's seem more desperate. You can say that I'm wrong, but the poll numbers show that my feelings are not unique.
Obama has time to gain some traction, but he needs to get his act together quickly. He's alienating the left and independents. He needs to rectify this. Many presidents have inherited tough times and have risen to the challenge. Time will tell if Obama can too. So far I'm not encouraged.
And Sarah Palin remains the likely challenger? Ugh. Double ugh.
If Obama backs down, and these men aren't given a civilian trial... Well, there's nothing much left I can threaten to do. I'm so painfully and bitterly disillusioned about American politics at this point that I have almost no response left whatsoever.
If Obama backs down, and these men aren't given a civilian trial... Well, there's nothing much left I can threaten to do. I'm so painfully and bitterly disillusioned about American politics at this point that I have almost no response left whatsoever.
Well, Here is the deal, if you don't start speaking up, your government is going to assume that the American people want military trails (and the polls support this). Get out there and protest, talk to your congressmen and senators. Speak out about this.
A major problem here is that after having heralded Obama as the antichrist, a large portion of Congress is left with no choice but to oppose everything he tries to do or look like they are siding with the antichrist. When pure politics prevents you from doing anything that might be good for your people, something is terribly wrong.
The only real recourse we have is to insist to our representatives that we want the things Obama is trying to achieve. Everyone who wants it has to get involved and speak out, both to the politicians AND to the voters. The only way these things are going to happen is if the politicians think they (a)won't lose their jobs or credibility over them or (b) think they will lose their jobs if they don't support them.
Governance in America (and abroad) has been completely undermined and undone by politics and media theatre. Honestly, if it weren't for my parents living in here, I would likely leave the nation and seek citizenship elsewhere.
This is so speculative it's painful. They're basically saying, "We're considering all of our options, but the civilian trial is top of the list." Ooh. Big deal. Call me when they actually decide what to do.
Do you think the federal government should just overrule the valid concerns of New York City?
Breaking a promise you made to not raise taxes on the middle class?Hang on tight.
Again, we have a president who is considering all of his options. That's a good thing. Call me if he actually breaks his promise, and then I'll read into his justification.
This is so speculative it's painful. They're basically saying, "We're considering all of our options, but the civilian trial is top of the list." Ooh. Big deal. Call me when theyactuallydecide what to do.
Do you think the federal government should just overrule the valid concerns of New York City?
I love when people speculate and other take it as fact, but still the polls are weighing in against a civilian trial, if this is something you care about it would do you will to write your representatives.
Again, we have a president who is considering all of his options. That's agoodthing. Call me if he actually breaks his promise, and then I'll read into his justification.
Sounds a lot like when I was campaigning for council and one Democrat asked me "If you ran out of opinions, would you raise taxes" and he wanted me to attempt that I would, which I did. He would only vote for someone who admitted that they might raise taxes if they had to.
A major problem here is that after having heralded Obama as the antichrist, a large portion of Congress is left with no choice but to oppose everything he tries to do or look like they are siding with the antichrist.
I disagree. Obama came into office riding a wave of approval and a Democrat controlled Congress. He had the momentum for sure. Somehow it's gone. Sure, he's had opponents. But so has every other president in our history. Obama shouldn't get a free pass for living in the real world. He had much more opportunity than most.
He can still pull it off. Clinton had bumps in the road, and pulled it off. So far, though, Obama doesn't seem to have the political intuition that Clinton had. To be fair to Obama,though, Clinton had to shift to the right. Obama has, and will likely continue to have to, but in doing so his approval rating remain very low, whereas Clinton morphed and got his approval ratings higher.
Comments
I agree that, as a moral matter, we should have everyone covered. However, some people that don't share this morality. Even amongst those who do, many would not support a bill that they believe worsens their own coverage.
I'm hoping that Congress will keep this in mind when they re-tool health care reform. It's not going to be easy, but I'd like to see something that gets as much support as possible. This really can be a win-win situation. Control costs and increase the number of insured. What's wrong with that?
What prompted me to say this was that the Democrats practically threw out the baby with the bathwater to tempt the few Republicans that were willing to come to the table on health care reform at all (i.e. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins).
EDIT: Er. About your point that the Dems are trying to be bipartisan.
I'd rather see more uninsured adults covered (this plan is only for children) than those who already have insurance take the coverage. There are some plans for adults, but I am not as familiar with those plans. They must not be as good since I've yet to hear of a friend going on one of those plans. I also think the eligibility rules are much more strict.
I'll be the first to admit that a couple of isolated examples can't be treated as indicative of the entire agency, but my Spidey-sense has little sympathy for anyone who takes steps to facilitate ongoing underage prostitution.
The wikipedia page with a lot of references
Republicans admit afterward it was a mistake to let camera's in.
I'm moving through the transcripts and trying to access the speech, but I gotta tell you that Obama did a pretty damn good job at this event and if anyone doubts he can give a good speech without a teleprompter this is a moment for you.
(Sadly, I didn't come up with that; some random on the Internet did.)
When is a commitment to a civilian trial not really a commitment? We may find out soon enough.
I've kept quiet for a while now, but this is just getting depressing. Stalled health care reform, exploding deficits, increased partisanship, significant friction between Pelosi and Obama, a stalled economy, flip-flopping on Wall St. bonuses, continuing war in the middle east, botching intelligence on the underwear bomber, getting into bed with big business...
Ugh. Frankly, I think it's reasonable to discuss tax obligations given the state of the deficit. However, Obama seems to have forgotten the price Bush Sr. paid for reneging on a no-new-taxes promise. It's like Obama WANTS the Republicans to have a legitimate chance of beating him.
I think the biggest problem is that Obama doesn't seem to have a steady direction. It's hard to believe in a person who seems to keep grasping for a foothold. Bill Clinton changed course during his presidency, but you always knew that he had a solid foundation and a plan. Clinton's shifts seemed more savvy and calculated, whereas Obama's seem more desperate. You can say that I'm wrong, but the poll numbers show that my feelings are not unique.
Obama has time to gain some traction, but he needs to get his act together quickly. He's alienating the left and independents. He needs to rectify this. Many presidents have inherited tough times and have risen to the challenge. Time will tell if Obama can too. So far I'm not encouraged.
And Sarah Palin remains the likely challenger? Ugh. Double ugh.
The only real recourse we have is to insist to our representatives that we want the things Obama is trying to achieve. Everyone who wants it has to get involved and speak out, both to the politicians AND to the voters. The only way these things are going to happen is if the politicians think they (a)won't lose their jobs or credibility over them or (b) think they will lose their jobs if they don't support them.
Do you think the federal government should just overrule the valid concerns of New York City? Again, we have a president who is considering all of his options. That's a good thing. Call me if he actually breaks his promise, and then I'll read into his justification.
He can still pull it off. Clinton had bumps in the road, and pulled it off. So far, though, Obama doesn't seem to have the political intuition that Clinton had. To be fair to Obama,though, Clinton had to shift to the right. Obama has, and will likely continue to have to, but in doing so his approval rating remain very low, whereas Clinton morphed and got his approval ratings higher.