So Ted Cruz Did the Politically Appropriate Thing....

[là bạn điên]

[quote='EvolutionKills' pid='602055' dateline='1392201874']

My biggest problem with Obama is he's a super conservative, and just as a toady of crony capitalism and big business. Keep in mind this is coming from a Progressive, and Obama and the Democrats just do not represent liberals, let alone progressives.[/quote]

I don;t think he is a 'super conservative' but he is certainly a tool of business. There is no conceivable way such an inexperienced politician could possibly became president on his own merits. Frankly Big interests decided that they needed a black guy who didn't frighten white people and be their gimp.





[quote]Republicans gutting the middle class, for the benefit of the oligarchs and corporations, and blaming it all on the poor. Democrats are guilty too, but they're still not as bad as the Republicans.
[/quote]

Both parties are utterly ruled by the corportations

[quote='là bạn điên' pid='602007' dateline='1392184679']

[quote]Obama could nominate the most conservative, Republican friendly judge or other appointee, and the Republicans would oppose and filibuster the appointment purely on the basis that they were an Obama appointee. That's a level of knee-jerk hyperbole and opposition-for-the-sake-of-opposition that grinds the working of government to a halt.[/quote]

I think you are wrong. Obama has made no effort towards bipartisanship whatsoever. he claimed he was going to unite America and America is even more divided than ever.






[quote]Yeah, some people could no longer keep their insurance. Know why? In many cases it simply wasn't insurance, in others it was the companies themselves being dishonest. The insurance companies used this transition time to use people's ignorance and scare tactics to try an up-sell more expensive plans to their customers; never telling them that it would be possible to find a plan with comparable coverage for less on the exchanges. Paying $724 a month for a 'plan' with a $10,000 deductible is not insurance. Paying $50 a month for a plan to cover prescriptions that only cover up to $50 a month, is not a plan. [/quote]

Pull the other one. Obama lied.

America doesn't need Obamacare. It needs socialised medicine. Obama's backers don;t want socialised medicine.

[EvolutionKills]

My biggest problem with Obama is he's a super conservative, and just as a toady of crony capitalism and big business. Keep in mind this is coming from a Progressive, and Obama and the Democrats just do not represent liberals, let alone progressives.

I don;t think he is a 'super conservative' but he is certainly a tool of business. There is no conceivable way such an inexperienced politician could possibly became president on his own merits. Frankly Big interests decided that they needed a black guy who didn't frighten white people and be their gimp.

He a corporatist, and that's the last thing the public needs. Do you think he's not going to okay the Keystone Pipeline, environmental and public safety concerns be damned? Not only that but his most likely Democratic successor will be Hillary, and she's just more of the same...

Republicans gutting the middle class, for the benefit of the oligarchs and corporations, and blaming it all on the poor. Democrats are guilty too, but they're still not as bad as the Republicans.

Both parties are utterly ruled by the corportations

Agreed, and it's why I support the move for a Constitutional Convention to add an Amendment to correct for the Citizens United decision, and to get money out of politics by ending the legal bribery of our elected officials. But also remember that the Democrats generally don't demonize the poor, homosexuals, minorities, immigrants, and women; their policies don't always help them either, but 'discrimination' is not a stance that they run on or are elected for.

Obama could nominate the most conservative, Republican friendly judge or other appointee, and the Republicans would oppose and filibuster the appointment purely on the basis that they were an Obama appointee. That's a level of knee-jerk hyperbole and opposition-for-the-sake-of-opposition that grinds the working of government to a halt.

I think you are wrong. Obama has made no effort towards bipartisanship whatsoever. he claimed he was going to unite America and America is even more divided than ever.

No effort? All he does is give the Republicans almost exactly what they want. The Democrats bring something to the table, the Republicans ask for something ridiculous, and Obama thinks he's being bipartisan by splitting things down the middle; ignorant of the fact that the Republicans still end up with most of the crazy shit they ask for. Even after all that, there are still jackasses like Rand Paul that will filibuster to shut down the government for their own political gain; and he still fights anything coming across the aisle tooth and nail. Fighting over the debt ceiling and holding the entire government hostage to the whims of the Tea Party hardliners in the House of Representatives? Accusing Obama of increasing debt when he's cut the 1.2 Trillion deficit that Bush left him, in half? The record amount of filibusters?

The Republicans are fucking nuts, and the Democrats have no spine.

Yeah, some people could no longer keep their insurance. Know why? In many cases it simply wasn't insurance, in others it was the companies themselves being dishonest. The insurance companies used this transition time to use people's ignorance and scare tactics to try an up-sell more expensive plans to their customers; never telling them that it would be possible to find a plan with comparable coverage for less on the exchanges. Paying $724 a month for a 'plan' with a $10,000 deductible is not insurance. Paying $50 a month for a plan to cover prescriptions that only cover up to $50 a month, is not a plan.

Pull the other one. Obama lied.

America doesn't need Obamacare. It needs socialised medicine. Obama's backers don;t want socialised medicine.

Was his exact quote a lie? Yes.

Is it a good thing that Insurance companies can no longer fuck people over as badly with the new standards, even if they have to lose their old 'plan' that was never really insurance in the first place? Yes.

Is it as scary as the fear mongers over on Fox, Bloomberg, and Politico make it out to be? Not even close.

Should we have a public option? Most assuredly.

[Isun]

Obama has been less effective then I would like, but look at the his handicap.

Michele? A: Republican party. Michelle has been an asset.

A party that couldn't care less about their country. A party who is very pleased and works hard to not create jobs.

A: The republican party has done everything they can to prevent jobs from being created. They decided they were going to do everything possible to keep the economy down to spite Obama.
What are you talking about?

A party that has made it their number 1 objective to oppose everything that Obama advocates.

Are you talking about the republicans party? they are the opposition. Why would they support the president? Democrats opposed Bush when he was president.

A: Big difference, democrat party worked with Bush. They may not have always liked the results, but they worked with him and got bills passed. Opposition doesn't mean one should sabotage American progress. But evidently it does to the republican party.

How many presidents have had to work under that kind of handicap? Not many you can bet.

An opposition party that acted against them? A: None in other words. Th

As to whether Obama lied about losing one's insurance? They didn't lose their insurance, they just had the policy changed. Quite different. It's just a game that republicans are playing pretending that they lost their insurance.

Rubbish, it was an outright lie. he said 'if you like your policy you can keep it'. They couldn't.

Well, guess we will have to disagree. I do know for example the majority did get to keep their insurance including me. All that happened was that FOX and a few other's made a few like it was almost everyone. Further, if those people who "lost their insurance" looked into the exchange, they would have often gotten better for lower cost.

I know in many cases that FOX lied about more expensive health care. Perfect example was "Betty" that the republicans referred to during their rebuttal of the state of the union address. The claim was that Betty lost their insurance because it was much higher. When the local paper traced her down what they really found out was that she not only never looked at the exchange, but if she had, it would have been cheaper for a lower deductible.

I am not saying all cases are like that, but many are. Yes some will end up paying more, but the many that don't have health care and can't afford it, it will help.

We should have had at the minimum a public option, but Obama kowtowed to republican interests and failed to get implemented the bare minimum. So we are stuck with it. At least we are moving forward from the dysfunctional and failed health care system that we had.

Ideally we should have just extended the medicare system for everyone. It may have cost us more tax wise, but I have no doubt it would have saved us money compared to the current cost of insurance. Further, we need to take off the table negotiations for prices to pharmaceutical company's, hospitals, etc.

[là bạn điên]

I keep repeating this every month or so.

The US Government pays MORE per head than the governments of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan or South Korea and yet all those countries have fully comprehensive socialized medicine including dental and prescription medicines this is quite separate to the amount of money people pay for private healthcare.

The US government has the money already for a fully comprehensive health care system.

[EvolutionKills]

I keep repeating this every month or so.

The US Government pays MORE per head than the governments of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan or South Korea and yet all those countries have fully comprehensive socialized medicine including dental and prescription medicines this is quite separate to the amount of money people pay for private healthcare.

The US government has the money already for a fully comprehensive health care system.

No shit, because of things like the Senate signing laws that prevent the Government from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies for the drugs they purchase through Medicare and Medicaid. If the government was allowed to negotiate, being one of the largest (if not the largest) purchaser from these companies, they would have a lot of clout and could get much lower prices. Instead the Senate passes laws that forces the government to pay the company's asking price, regardless of however ridiculous that price may be. But even that being said, do you know what the overhead is on Medicare and Medicaid? 3%. The ACA guarantees at least a 15% for the for-profit insurance companies, and that's bullshit; health insurance (like education and emergency services) shouldn't be for-profit. It's just one of the reasons why America pays more than any other First World country and has the least amount to show for it.

[là bạn điên]

I keep repeating this every month or so.

The US Government pays MORE per head than the governments of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan or South Korea and yet all those countries have fully comprehensive socialized medicine including dental and prescription medicines this is quite separate to the amount of money people pay for private healthcare.

The US government has the money already for a fully comprehensive health care system.

No shit, because of things like the Senate signing laws that prevent the Government from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies for the drugs they purchase through Medicare and Medicaid. If the government was allowed to negotiate, being one of the largest (if not the largest) purchaser from these companies, they would have a lot of clout and could get much lower prices. Instead the Senate passes laws that forces the government to pay the company's asking price, regardless of however ridiculous that price may be. But even that being said, do you know what the overhead is on Medicare and Medicaid? 3%. The ACA guarantees at least a 15% for the for-profit insurance companies, and that's bullshit; health insurance (like education and emergency services) shouldn't be for-profit. It's just one of the reasons why America pays more than any other First World country and has the least amount to show for it.

I agree with you for the main. In the UK the NHS gets such great bulk order discounts that individual suppliers don't make a profit on sales (but its worth it to them because they cover costs and can then produce the other drugs they sell at lower cost.

However I see nothing wrong with the private sector contacting for certain contracts if they are better. For instance in the UK to get Spectacles on the NHS you could wait 3 months and have no choice then they introduce a voucher system and all the main high street stores had a range that could be bought at the voucher value.

[EvolutionKills]

No shit, because of things like the Senate signing laws that prevent the Government from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies for the drugs they purchase through Medicare and Medicaid. If the government was allowed to negotiate, being one of the largest (if not the largest) purchaser from these companies, they would have a lot of clout and could get much lower prices. Instead the Senate passes laws that forces the government to pay the company's asking price, regardless of however ridiculous that price may be. But even that being said, do you know what the overhead is on Medicare and Medicaid? 3%. The ACA guarantees at least a 15% for the for-profit insurance companies, and that's bullshit; health insurance (like education and emergency services) shouldn't be for-profit. It's just one of the reasons why America pays more than any other First World country and has the least amount to show for it.

I agree with you for the main. In the UK the NHS gets such great bulk order discounts that individual suppliers don't make a profit on sales (but its worth it to them because they cover costs and can then produce the other drugs they sell at lower cost.

However I see nothing wrong with the private sector contacting for certain contracts if they are better. For instance in the UK to get Spectacles on the NHS you could wait 3 months and have no choice then they introduce a voucher system and all the main high street stores had a range that could be bought at the voucher value.

Sure, I could see that working. Or even still have the option for private sale, if you have the money, no reason you can't walk out with glasses almost on the spot. But waiting three months so a child can get a pair of glasses that their parents would be unable to otherwise afford? That wait is a small price to pay for those glasses that the child needs, and will greatly improve their standard of living.

"If you want to see the true measure of a man, watch how he treats his inferiors, not his equals." -J.K. Rowling

:EDIT:

On a side note, that quote actually has a really interesting history, which you can check out on the Quote Investigator blog.
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/03/09/inferiors/