Well yeah. I doubt you need two hands to count the times a govt program got repealed. But I don't think it will ever become what the Dems and Obama sold it as. It'll always be a deficit. Much like the Hope Scholarship.
It does not solve the problems with HMO's, uninsured, or prices. The only good thing, I've found from it, is preexisting. But since now Insurance co. can collude prices, the fix was that we all pay for people's pre existing.
Who exactly is the media? Were you in Libya to witness the events? How do you obtain information about events that you cannot witness? Do tell... Should we care about Chemtrails more? if so we got mouse as our media...
Loose conservative blather. Let's have your sources of information and the most relevant news of the day. You choose for us. Since The Media guides us, you must now guide.
Start... Now.
"launch of Barrycare was an epic fail"
and it was fixed, the contractor removed. Repugs and you right-wing s didn't whine about hype-wealthy monster Oracle screwing up OR's exchange, or other private companies screwing up other state exchanges, or the cluster- when MA launched their highly successful and popular universal insurance system.
All y'all's cherry picking destroys any credibility and good faith.
Obamacare, now cemented in place for ING ever, will be fixed and improved right in the face of Repug sabotage.
Eventually, poor people getting health care sooner will save $100Bs later by pre-empting tax-payer-paid health expenses for their more advanced diseases, like CVD, diabetes, BP.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-16-2014 at 11:28 AM.
I think this is right. But the reason there will be less campaigning on repeal, imo, is because the repeal effort got so entwined with the gov't. shut down that the public won't support a candidate who they think will try that route again.
Repeal definitely isn't a valid strategy without a counter.
even with a replacement, which the Repugs don't have, and won't ever have, ACA repeal is totally out of the question now.
Yeah I think this is also true. They have to have something to replace it with. Doesn't really seem like it would be all that hard to come up with an improvement, and almost any candidate of either party who runs on improving the program would seem to have a leg up.
Bush acted unilaterally in almost all cases. Obama won't take a piss without the EU to hold his . He let France take the lead in Libya and when he couldn't get any support to intervene in Syria, he waffled and peed his pants. We did nothing.
Bush basically told Germany et al to go themselves and attacked anyway. If you cannot see the fundamental difference in the approaches that is pretty sad.
Still both are war mongers in my book. I'd say Obama is the type of war monger that is a pussy and wants everyone to like him even though his war mongering will have huge blowback. Bush's war mongering had huge blowback as well.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/doc...zi-attack/748/
So, Dan thinks this report exhonerates this admin? Mmkay.
Which wars has Obama started? iow, the ones that the Repugs hadn't already started.
Boutons, did you know that Obama tried desperately to extend then war in Iraq? Who ended the war in Iraq? I want to know your answer to that. Obama basically extended the length of the war in Afghanistan and has made things worse in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Libya. Your guy is a war monger brah.
I think we all know it would never become what was promised. I can't think of a program that is. I agree it doesn't rein in prices, etc, and the profit motive still reins supreme over the concerns about care.
It is an extremely flawed law, but IMO, sometimes you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet. In other words, a necessary stepping stone to move away from the previous status quo, which had much of the same problems, and into refocusing towards solutions that include the laundry list you included above.
What war did Obama even start? He had the troop surge in 2009 sure but we were already there. He switched from cruise missiles to drones for blowing up enemy combatants.
Stop trying to defend Obama and open your eyes. He's got just as much blood on his hands as Bush does.
Defending Obama? gmfb. I cannot stand the man for his lies regarding banking regulation and personal liberty. I am just not going to play the GOP fluffer and take the anti-Obama stance on every ing issue.
Stop laying out empty pla udes and discuss policy.
Obama wanting to keep 3k troops in Iraq after the 2012 withdrawal deadline is not nearly the same as invading two countries. Had Obama invaded Syria and Libya then I would agree with you but as I pointed out he won't do anything unilaterally.
i don't know how anybody could look back at the last 5 years and say "job well done" tbh. not that the other candidates were any better, but
You want to know policy? Obama has basically expanded everything that Bush started on the war on terror. Bush waterboarded people. Obama drones the out of people. Bush used missiles. Obama uses drones. Obama has given himself the power to detain yo ass indefinitely without trial. Obama has initiated coups that created massive blowback in Syria, Egypt, and Libya. Obama has done nothing for bank regulation or lobbying. Obama is a for corporations and big banks. Anything else I mentioned? Oh I forgot, he publicly said he supports gay marriage so let's give him a medal for that.
"tried desperately" link?
"extended the length of the war in Afghanistan"
really? how? the surge tried to end it after your boys dubya/ head started it in 2001 and failed to end it by 2009.
"has made things worse in Egypt ..."
they were broken and prepared to break after YOUR boys dubya/ head/Repugs invaded Iraq and destabilized the entire region.
and list for us all the Repugs who rampaging and agitating to get out of Iraq, Afganistan, then you have the Repugs who want to bomb Syria and Iran.
Five Reasons Benghazi Wasn’t Hillary Clinton’s Fault
1. The Senate report does not so much as mention Secretary Clinton, so it cannot be used to damn her.
2. Ambassador Stevens repeatedly asked that security not be increased at the Benghazi consulate. I know US diplomatic personnel posted to places like Beirut where the US embassy is a fortress and they just can’t very easily get out and mingle with Lebanese. They deeply regret the imposed isolation and feel it interferes with them doing their jobs as diplomats. But, well, security in Beirut for embassies isn’t always very good. I was in Libya in May-June 2012 and walked around without incident, and it just was not the case that the situation was Beirut-like at that time. Stevens had supported the Libyan revolution and valued his ability to move among Libyans, who loved him, and did not want to be isolated by security. The Secretary of State doesn’t micromanage these matters, an Stevens was rightly given control over this issue.
3. There was a CIA annex near the consulate, and it included former special ops guys that consular officials including Stevens saw as the “cavalry.” That group of operatives did play an important role in getting the remaining 55 consular personnel out of Benghazi but in the end could not protect Stevens. CIA safe houses are covert. The Senate report makes clear that the US military was not apprised of its existence. Very likely, Secretary Clinton was not told about it either. If she was not told the details of what security arrangements were in place, she would have had no basis for questioning them. That there was something covert about the entire US operation in Benghazi seems clear, which means that then CIA director David Petraeus was probably more involved than Hillary was, but the GOP never brings him up with regard to Benghazi.
4. The Senate report found that after the attacks “there was no cover-up.”Since the Secretary of State doesn’t actually make decisions about individual consular security arrangements, it was only after the attack that Secretary Clinton would have become intimately involved with the Libyan mission. She acted with probity in the aftermath, which is all you could ask. The senate report’s conviction that there were no demonstrations in Benghazi that day against the US based on an anti-Islam film made in the US is contradicted by eyewitnesses on the ground, including Libyans involved in them, and this talking point seems to have been some sort of concession to the Republicans on the committee by the Democrats; as often is the case, yielding to Republican weird convictions produces positions at odds with reality. If we listened to them, we’d have to give up evolution, minimum wages, separation of religion and state, and climate change, too.
5. While the Senate felt that the tragedy was “preventable,” hindsight is 20/20. There wasn’t any reason for Stevens (or Secretary Clinton) to fear that the revolutionaries whom he had aided would turn on him, and 99% did not. But a small radical group with old grievances against the US cut him no slack for his heroic role in 2011, and that could not have been foreseen. This small group was not an al-Qaeda affiliate and was not important in governing the city in 2011-2012.
http://www.juancole.com/2014/01/reas...-clintons.html
Where are, where were, all the Fox/Repug investigations into the multiple diplomats killed overseas in multiple sites under dubya/ head?
well...it's already reining in the annual rising costs of heath-care, which was inflationary to all families...its a flawed law because it caters to the benefit of the health-care industry which co-opted the law and quickly stomped out any chance of single-payer ...still, my health-care cost is pretty much the same as last year, but my insurance company can not longer dump me if I get sick or bail on me after some predetermined spending limit..
dp
Excuses excuses...
The difference between drones and cruise missiles is a delivery system. This notion that blowing someone up with a cruise missile is somehow better than with a fire missile is fun I guess.
Obama stopped torture of prisoners.
He started the coups? That's tin foil unsubstantiated nonsense. France was much more involved in Libya we know because they started the bombing. We know that the Arab league is literally building an army for the FSA.
The rest is domestic policy. I thought we were talking about foreign policy.
reining in what costs? There's no price caps for providers, and there won't be because the law does not address that. The law only control reimbursement rates for Medicare/Medicaid providers. And that's not including drug prices, another area where it was decided not even Medicare can negotiate better prices. The law is a slamdunk to the insurance industry and the health-care industry as a whole, and a big you to consumers.
Which is why you shouldn't be so quick to celebrate the "they can't kick me out"... since there's no price controls, the extra cost of insuring those people will get passed directly to the rest of the pool (ie: you)
IMO, the best that can happen is the young not enrolling, and the system being ed. Then we can go ahead and change this turd into something else. Hopefully they don't wait to do that until the GOP controls both the executive and Congress.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote