Obamas stake to get socialistic NHS system in the US!

[brentsg]

And here's what Obama gets for accomplishing something: 51% disapproval rating. Jesus...

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/22/cn ... irst-time/

I don't think that's surprising, it seems like the bill was universally disliked by the left and the right.

Pelosi's approval rating is at 11% (Speaker of the House)
Reid's approval rating is at 8% (Senate Majority Leader)
Congress' approval rating is at 11% and this is the lowest number on record, I believe.

I know the last one was taken right before the bill passage so it'll be interesting to see what it does, though it can't go much lower.

[Acid King]

Pelosi's approval rating is at 11% (Speaker of the House)
Reid's approval rating is at 8% (Senate Majority Leader)
Congress' approval rating is at 11% and this is the lowest number on record, I believe.

I know the last one was taken right before the bill passage so it'll be interesting to see what it does, though it can't go much lower.

Eh, Congress' ratings are always shitty, I don't think that tells us much.

[antron]

And here's what Obama gets for accomplishing something: 51% disapproval rating. Jesus...

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/22/cn ... irst-time/

I don't think that's surprising, it seems like the bill was universally disliked by the left and the right.

most polls, like kaiser's, show the public split.

even if you devised a poll that showed everyone agaist it, it would be for opposite reasons. like the far left wants single payer.

i can't wait til november, neither can David Axlerod. the bill was designed to be an election winner. popular provisions now, tough ones in 2014. it's pretty dirty trick, but justified given how we got tricked into Iraq.

[Acid King]

most polls, like kaiser's, show the public split.

even if you devised a poll that showed everyone agaist it, it would be for opposite reasons. like the far left wants single payer.

No shit. That was my point. It was a bill that made nobody happy.

[antron]

most polls, like kaiser's, show the public split.

even if you devised a poll that showed everyone agaist it, it would be for opposite reasons. like the far left wants single payer.

No shit. That was my point. It was a bill that made nobody happy.

no such poll exist.
here's a fresh one:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... able_N.htm

[Acid King]

no such poll exist.
here's a fresh one:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... able_N.htm

[antron]

what? you no likey that 49% think "it was a good thing"

get used to it.

[Acid King]

what? you no likey that 49% think "it was a good thing"

get used to it.

Actually, I'm just baffled at how you respond to stuff that isn't even inferred in my posts and you remind me why i avoid wading into these threads anymore.

[antron]

I don't think that's surprising, it seems like the bill was universally disliked by the left and the right.

I am disputing this statement. The left isn't one website, it's millions of people that need to be sampled.

[JoshF]

Shame on you Acid, not providing a million links!

[antron]

Five Stages Of Grief
1. Denial and Isolation.
2. Anger.
3. Bargaining.
4. Depression.
5. Acceptance.

[Acid King]

I am disputing this statement. The left isn't one website, it's millions of people that need to be sampled.

Hence the use of the word "seems like". Anyone that paid attention to the debate over the course of the past 6 months would have seen that some of the biggest critics of the bill were liberals, including prominent lefty members of Congress who said they wouldn't vote for it. It wasn't just one website, it was dozens of sites, bloggers and op ed writers. I included that link just to show some of the common complaints liberals had with the bill. The poll you cite does nothing to refute the possibility that a big chunk of those people who say they don't like the bill are liberals and bring up a 49% response rate where people said passage was "a good thing". A liberal respondent can feel that passage of the bill was a good thing because it's a first step even if they have severe misgivings about, or even outright disdain for, the content of the legislation. That's why people like Kucinich wound up flipping on their votes on a bill that they had previously vowed to vote against, because voting for a shitty bill that did something was better than voting against it and getting nothing. Next time I post an impression, I'll be sure to randomly sample a few million liberals to ensure statistical accuracy for you. Don't be so fucking daft.

[undamned]

I blame some of that on the Dems having to spend all their time trying to pass the legislation; they will start to campaign about the details and perceived benefits quite soon.

That sounds completely backwards (not saying it's untrue). Shouldn't you try and sell people on perceived benefits before you ask them to sign off on it? That was one of the warning flags that went off in my mind with this whole situation (seemed like a "rush everyone into this before they know what they're getting into" job).
-ud

[antron]

Don't be so fucking daft.

congratulations, you've moved on to step #2

[Acid King]

[KBZ]

you guys suck

[antron]

so here are some more details about the USAtoday/Gallop poll


and I do not believe, as Acid King contends, that liberals harbor "severe misgivings about, or even outright disdain for, the content of the legislation" despite their response to this poll. A good thing is a good thing.

[BulletMagnet]

and I do not believe, as Acid King contends, that liberals harbor "severe misgivings about, or even outright disdain for, the content of the legislation" despite their response to this poll. A good thing is a good thing.

Not to throw too big of a monkey wrench into the gears here, but as a liberal (though not a Democrat) I think AK does have it right about at least some of us, myself included - in some ways I'm quite disappointed in what we ended up with, compared to what we might have had if the Dems were sterner in their resolve (and the press would actually do its job in actively dispelling total crap like the "death panels" rather than just pulling the flim-flammy "we report, you decide" BS), in the same way that I'm disappointed that Obama has sleazes like Geithner and Summers on his economic team. As AK says, though, I do still feel that the passage of the bill, even as it is, was a good thing, and hopefully will at least make people more willing to take steps in a similar direction once they see that nobody's going to force them to abort their babies and surrender their guns. It's nowhere near enough to solve the problem, obviously, but for the first time in decades there's SOMEthing, which, at this point, is enough to get a little bit excited about.

In any case, even though I disagree with him on a lot of things, I really don't think that what AK said in that passage was all that unreasonable.

[antron]

people have outright disdain for things they think are good?
even severe misgivings is a stretch

do you think it "seems" the bill was universally disliked by the left, as claimed by AK?

I think you are being understandable about the legislative process, in your disappointment. I think he's trying to demonize the law.

[Drum]

people have outright disdain for things they think are good?

do you think it "seems" the bill was universally disliked by the left?

I think you are being understandable about the legislative process. I think he's trying to demoize the law.

Wellllll ... sorta. A lot of folks think the whole thing is actually a sop to the insurance companies, and not only doesn't go far enough but may make a lot of things worse because of some of the compromises (compromises that were made to people who never had any intention of compromising themselves) - then there are the people who think it costs too much considering the shitty state the US is in. Me, I think those things can be tweaked over time, especially with the Right having marginalised themselves by becoming so beholden to the crazies. The reason the Right is so frothingly against the bill is that once it gets in, it will never, ever, EVER come out - because even if it's unpopular now (and it isn't), it will only build in popularity over time. Everybody here knows that, maybe most of all the folks insisting so strongly that it's against the will of the public. The disingenuousness of it all makes me want to hurl.

[brentsg]

people have outright disdain for things they think are good?

antron, where are you with this thing? Will you be one of the folks that makes additional sacrifices and will be paying to support someone else? Will you be on the receiving end of this bill, in that you think you'll benefit? Or are you in a neutral position (or at least you expect to be)?

[brentsg]

Me, I think those things can be tweaked over time, especially with the Right having marginalised themselves by becoming so beholden to the crazies. The reason the Right is so frothingly against the bill is that once it gets in, it will never, ever, EVER come out - because even if it's unpopular now (and it isn't), it will only build in popularity over time. Everybody here knows that, maybe most of all the folks insisting so strongly that it's against the will of the public. The disingenuousness of it all makes me want to hurl.

It's funny reading the different perspectives. I have 180 degrees the opposite take. I would suggest that the left has become beholden to the crazies, and I expect November to be a reckoning. I also believe that the bill's popularity is a difficult discussion. I mean you could propose legislation that would take every single penny from the 10% richest people in the country and give it to everyone else. One would think that 90% of the people would think this was the greatest fucking idea ever. Does that mean it's a good idea and the right thing to do? So you could over simplify this and say that there are 3 camps of people. The first group will benefit because they will be better off than they were before. The second group ends up worse off because I believe they are going to wake up after a period of time and find that the nice, reasonable middle of the road health insurance they previously enjoyed is gone and now they're beholden to the government. Then there's the third group that sees an erosion of their current health insurance, and also a tapping of their wallets. But if the left's sales pitch that only the "rich" will bear the burden of this is true, then the current approval ratings for the thing suck pretty badly because everyone else should expect neutrality or benefit.

Of course this is a vast simplification. In the end I expect it to take a serious financial toll on the country, so we'll all pay for it. I think it will give an incremental amount of financial disincentive to high wage earners, and this has a trickle down. I believe that it will serve to stifle cutting edge medical research and treatments. I think it's yet another nail in the coffin for small businesses in the USA. I think it follows up the previous Obama financial policy, to send a message that if you make poor decisions it's ok, the government is there for you. But if you make wise investments with your time and money you will be penalized.

Anyways I believe if you feel that people in opposition are disingenuous, it's because giving a thumbs up for the government to take someone else's money is an easy thing to do and you aren't willing to look at the big picture given the current state of things in this country. Arguing that anyone in opposition is being disingenuous is equivalent to saying that there is no other valid opinion on the matter than your own. That sounds a bit elitist to me.

[antron]

antron, where are you with this thing? Will you be one of the folks that makes additional sacrifices and will be paying to support someone else? Will you be on the receiving end of this bill, in that you think you'll benefit? Or are you in a neutral position (or at least you expect to be)?

I'll have security. If I lose my job that gives me group health-care, I have 18 months (COBRA law) to get a job with another group plan. If I don't do that it's no more insulin and supplies for a loved one, until I qualify for Medicaid. But to do that I have to prove I'm worth less than $2000.

Granted, some states have High-Risk pools that do not require you to be poor, but they have long waiting lists because of underfunding.

In three months all states will have them, well funded. And in 2014 we can buy full coverage privately.
Which will give me the option to be self employed someday. You know, the American Dream.

[BulletMagnet]

It's funny reading the different perspectives. I have 180 degrees the opposite take. I would suggest that the left has become beholden to the crazies, and I expect November to be a reckoning.

There were some silly, nasty things said about Bush and his bunch during his tenure, but I'm sorry, NOTHING from then (or any other GOP President's term) even BEGINS to compare to the downright vicious lunacy that has become largely mainstream during Obama's first year, and to a lesser extent the equivalent during Clinton's years (they STILL won't drop the Vince Foster thing). I'll certainly tell you one thing, when the Dems had a minority in Congress they didn't threaten to filibuster nearly nine out of every ten bills the Reps brought up, unlike what's happening now that the roles have been reversed.

In the end I expect it to take a serious financial toll on the country, so we'll all pay for it...I think it follows up the previous Obama financial policy, to send a message that if you make poor decisions it's ok, the government is there for you. But if you make wise investments with your time and money you will be penalized.

Were you of the same mindset when Bush decided to slash taxes for the rich while fighting two wars? Granted, I'm less than thrilled with the way Obama's handled the economy so far, but TARP wasn't his baby, and neither was the superbly ill-adivsed deregulatory addiction that led to it even coming into existence.

Arguing that anyone in opposition is being disingenuous is equivalent to saying that there is no other valid opinion on the matter than your own. That sounds a bit elitist to me.

Seriously dude, where the hell were you (and, frankly, almost every other presently-indignant conservative) during the Bush years? Dismissing the opposition as not only disingenuous but traitorous was all the rage back then.

[brentsg]

There were some silly, nasty things said about Bush and his bunch during his tenure, but I'm sorry, NOTHING from then (or any other GOP President's term) even BEGINS to compare to the downright vicious lunacy that has become largely mainstream during Obama's first year, and to a lesser extent the equivalent during Clinton's years (they STILL won't drop the Vince Foster thing). I'll certainly tell you one thing, when the Dems had a minority in Congress they didn't threaten to filibuster nearly nine out of every ten bills the Reps brought up, unlike what's happening now that the roles have been reversed.

Were you of the same mindset when Bush decided to slash taxes for the rich while fighting two wars? Granted, I'm less than thrilled with the way Obama's handled the economy so far, but TARP wasn't his baby, and neither was the superbly ill-adivsed deregulatory addiction that led to it even coming into existence.

Seriously dude, where the hell were you (and, frankly, almost every other presently-indignant conservative) during the Bush years? Dismissing the opposition as not only disingenuous but traitorous was all the rage back then.

Sorry my multiquote skills suck..

On the first part, I guess I would disagree. I suppose that it's all perspective and opinion.

The second gets into one evil justifying another, which is just a silly discussion.

The flip side on the last point, dissent was the highest form of patriotism when the Dems were the minority. Now they would like to silence the opposition, and I hear the same talk about dissent being traitorous. I agree that it's silly in either regard. My point here was that the post to which I replied stated that "Everybody here knows that, maybe most of all the folks insisting so strongly that it's against the will of the public. The disingenuousness of it all makes me want to hurl." Well everyone here doesn't know that, so the people who are supposedly disingenuous simply have a different perspective and opinion. Last time I checked differing opinions were ok and shouldn't make one want to hurl.

[Drum]

Me, I think those things can be tweaked over time, especially with the Right having marginalised themselves by becoming so beholden to the crazies. The reason the Right is so frothingly against the bill is that once it gets in, it will never, ever, EVER come out - because even if it's unpopular now (and it isn't), it will only build in popularity over time. Everybody here knows that, maybe most of all the folks insisting so strongly that it's against the will of the public. The disingenuousness of it all makes me want to hurl.

Anyways I believe if you feel that people in opposition are disingenuous, it's because giving a thumbs up for the government to take someone else's money is an easy thing to do and you aren't willing to look at the big picture given the current state of things in this country. Arguing that anyone in opposition is being disingenuous is equivalent to saying that there is no other valid opinion on the matter than your own. That sounds a bit elitist to me.

I only meant that the argument about public healthcare being unpopular is disingenuous. If you are so crassly stupid as to believe that the opponents of this bill will ever drum up enough support to repeal this bill - ever, ever, ever, ever, ever - you can count yourself among the foaming crazies. Same as Medicare and Medicaid, which the Right would love to dump but never will. Ever (ever, ever, ever).

[BulletMagnet]

On the first part, I guess I would disagree. I suppose that it's all perspective and opinion.

Just for starters, find me the left-wing equivalent of Michael Savage or Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter (to name just a few), who says things as downright venomous as they say on a daily basis and still either gets invited back onto the "liberal" cable news shows to promote her new book or is simply given his own show. Or, if the media situation doesn't interest you for some reason, make a me a list of elected liberal officials who were able to run, on the record, with something as ridiculous and fear-mongering as the "death panel" smear, and continue to earn praise for their "truth-telling bravery". Are there kooks on the left? Of course, but I'm sorry, they're nowhere near as numerous, extreme, or accepted by the mainstream as the kooks on the right.

The second gets into one evil justifying another, which is just a silly discussion.

I'm not "justifying" anything - what I'm doing is asking why so many conservatives have adopted such an obvious double-standard when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Bush lost this economy more money on far more frivolous endeavors than Obama ever will, but back then you couldn't get enough of it - to be frank, so did Reagan, back in the day (and the only President who ever came remotely close to balancing the budget since then was Clinton). So why all the howling about "thinking of the children" all of a sudden? You couldn't have cared less about them when your guy was in office.

Now they would like to silence the opposition, and I hear the same talk about dissent being traitorous. I agree that it's silly in either regard.

Where in heaven's name are you hearing this? Who's silencing anyone, or accusing anyone of treason? You guys are the ones showing up to health care town halls with assault rifles and tossing bricks through legislators' windows, not to mention stoking talk of secession.

Last time I checked differing opinions were ok and shouldn't make one want to hurl.

Opinions are one thing - the acknowledgment of facts is another. If your viewpoint differs from mine on something that is actually a matter of opinion, that's fine - however, not all things are matters of opinion. How much the health care bill will cost and who will pay for it is not an opinion - it's a bunch of hard numbers. The long record of Republican obstructionism come hell or high water, even to stuff they supported under their own Presidents, is not an opinion - it's a verifiable historical record. "Obama's a Stalinist" is not an opinion - it's an obvious lie. And all three deserve to be called, and treated as, exactly what they are.

Opposing opinions don't "make [me] want to hurl" - factual topics being treated like matters of simple opinion are another story.

[brentsg]

Just for starters, find me the left-wing equivalent of Michael Savage or Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter (to name just a few), who says things as downright venomous as they say on a daily basis and still either gets invited back onto the "liberal" cable news shows to promote her new book or is simply given his own show. Or, if the media situation doesn't interest you for some reason, make a me a list of elected liberal officials who were able to run, on the record, with something as ridiculous and fear-mongering as the "death panel" smear, and continue to earn praise for their "truth-telling bravery". Are there kooks on the left? Of course, but I'm sorry, they're nowhere near as numerous, extreme, or accepted by the mainstream as the kooks on the right.

I'm not "justifying" anything - what I'm doing is asking why so many conservatives have adopted such an obvious double-standard when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Bush lost this economy more money on far more frivolous endeavors than Obama ever will, but back then you couldn't get enough of it - to be frank, so did Reagan, back in the day (and the only President who ever came remotely close to balancing the budget since then was Clinton). So why all the howling about "thinking of the children" all of a sudden? You couldn't have cared less about them when your guy was in office.

Where in heaven's name are you hearing this? Who's silencing anyone, or accusing anyone of treason? You guys are the ones showing up to health care town halls with assault rifles and tossing bricks through legislators' windows, not to mention stoking talk of secession.

Opinions are one thing - the acknowledgment of facts is another. If your viewpoint differs from mine on something that is actually a matter of opinion, that's fine - however, not all things are matters of opinion. How much the health care bill will cost and who will pay for it is not an opinion - it's a bunch of hard numbers. The long record of Republican obstructionism come hell or high water, even to stuff they supported under their own Presidents, is not an opinion - it's a verifiable historical record. "Obama's a Stalinist" is not an opinion - it's an obvious lie. And all three deserve to be called, and treated as, exactly what they are.

You are justifying. You are playing the "this is ok now because that was ok then" card. We have to make decisions on the margin. We are where we are today financially. We have to make today's decisions with today's data. Dragging Bush into a discussion about being able to afford the healthcare plan doesn't make sense. Even making this a "my guy / your guy" debate doesn't make sense. We got to choose between McCain and Obama so it was a lesser of the two evils decision imo.

People equal to Beck, etc? Well first off Savage and Coulter are nutjobs. But what about Michael Moore? Heck, just about everyone in Hollywood.

Dissent? Pelosi is always talking about how people with different views are un-American. The Hollywood mouthpieces are always good for a laugh too, James Cameron most recently. Guess he doesn't favor the folks who don't agree with global warming, with the "shoot it out" comment. And "you guys"? Seriously? Let's just stereotype everyone since it makes everything so simple and hostile. BRB gonna go toss some bricks..

Regarding the bunch of hard numbers, do you really believe all the voodoo that goes into the budget estimates? You really think all that crap is fact? Those are people throwing darts at the numbers they'd like to hit, and that has nothing to do with any specific political party. They cook up the numbers and tweak it to come up with the story they want to tell. Do you honestly believe the nonsense? One side comes up with a rosy estimate to sell. The other comes up with the pessimistic set of numbers to argue, and they fight it out from there. The economic theory behind all their assumptions is just that, theory.

Anyways, I don't particularly have a strong set of political views and I don't spend much time thinking about it. But in regard to the healthcare bill, I don't like it. I favor smaller government and I tend to think everything they get involved with is terribly bloated and inefficient. Do we have a perfect system now, no. But I do think they will fuck it up worse, and it's got nothing to do with this party or that party. I don't think it's their job to insert themselves everyplace they can.

[antron]

But in regard to the healthcare bill, I don't like it. I favor smaller government and I tend to think everything they get involved with is terribly bloated and inefficient. Do we have a perfect system now, no. But I do think they will fuck it up worse, and it's got nothing to do with this party or that party. I don't think it's their job to insert themselves everyplace they can.

Have you no fear at all of being left un-insurable, but in need of care/medicine? It can take away everything you have.

So many people gave away their possessions to loved ones in order to qualify for Medicaid, that in 2005 they started looking into your dealings to catch that.

Who else can guarantee care, or force insurers to give up pre-existing condition clauses, but the government?
And no one could ever come up with a plan that could do that and not require everyone to be insured, because if they didn't everyone would drop coverage until they got sick. It's that simple.

[Ganelon]

Seriously dude, where the hell were you (and, frankly, almost every other presently-indignant conservative) during the Bush years? Dismissing the opposition as not only disingenuous but traitorous was all the rage back then.

Fiscal conservatives aren't necessarily the same as right-wing radicals. I for one was bashing Bush constantly (as were most true fiscal conservatives of the time; just read George Will's columns of that era). I bet some remnants still remain in my earlier posts here. In fact, like any good amateur political analyst, I foretold that the war's premise was fake (to stimulate the economy, to calm down Cheney's paranoia, for offhand defense bribes, whatever) even before Congress approved it. The plot stunk that obviously, and it was annoying as hell getting everyday folks then to understand my rationale instead of fearing imaginary WMDs from a country struggling to maintain order. The situation we're in now with health care would be sort of similar in that it seems obvious to me rates will increase in some form and service will worsen for the middle class over the long run, but at least there's some benefit to the citizens, even if some won't deserve it in my view.

As for repealing, it's hard to repeal something when the vocal majority can't take care of their finances/own needs and need the government to baby them, while bogging down those trying to rush ahead. So following them doesn't necessarily mean it's an efficient or good thing. Anyway, don't confuse us with those AM radio lunatics (and I'll agree they spew off McCarthyist hate); as brentsg said, all I'm for is as minimal a government as possible so that the money we earn remains our own for our pleasure. If you think about it, does it really make sense to be paying over 1/3 of our salaries to the government? Don't you want to keep your hard-earned money and if you have to give something, give to your local state that you live in?

FWIW, I'm actually a registered democrat for the sake of primaries, although I don't associate really with the complete ideals of any party. As much as I despise big government (as exemplified here), I despise people stripping away our civil liberties even more (thanks to the morals that the religious right feel they must impose on everyone else). Everything I view, I try to view in the fairness of all people, as any libertarian would, even if it won't help me personally (as severely taxing the very wealthy for little reason would). And yes, some parts of this plan are very fair and were needed (as I've repeated many times), but the universal health care isn't.