Mixed Bag: I think you have it wrong. The republican right-wingers and health care insurance companies are against healthcare reform. The rest of the country want it and need it. The republicans tried to scare people into believing otherwise but most people have woken up and realized that death-panels etc. only exist in Silly Sarah's otherwise empty head.

Does "spin" mean getting the facts out there while rebutting the other side's arguments? Nobody opposed to health care can explain why we're 31st in the world in life expectancy and 37th in infant mortality according to the World Health Organization. Or, is WHO not tea-baggy enough for ya?

Ramboet:

It does not have anything to do with "Right Wingers". The whole frikken country does not want this. Poll after poll have shown most are against it. That is all that matters not the reason you're against it.

You better hope that Democrats maintain control of Congress because it will never be funded if not. So the actual ramifications of it will never hit until Obama is long gone.

Ramboet I think you sir are wrong!! Then why has every poll since the debate (pre-law) was taking place have a Double Digit lead Majority oppose this law!! I why has my insurance and my job already went up and others I know have had the same effect...And dont forget that most so-called benefite dont kick in untill 4 years from now including pre-exsisting condition for Adults so put down the Kool-aid and Barry Obama albums and come back to the light(reality) LOL>>

There are five reasons many do not support the current HCR bill as passed. 1) The Republicans and the private insurance companies did one bang up job of using misinformation to inform the people about the bill 2) the progressives are upset the bill is not more progressive, they wanted a public option 3) the current economic crises is scaring many people in relation to the estimated cost of the HCR bill 4) the fight over passage of the HCR bill took way too long convincing people there must be something wrong with it and 5) the Dems and Obama spent so much time defending the bill that they did not spend enough time explaining the details to the general public. to their satisfaction.

As a result people are waiting for their taxes to be raised, their insurance premiums to go up, for seniors to be placed on ice bergs and floated out to sea, to lose their doctor, to have to wait a month or more to see a doctor, for the quality of health care to decrease, for seniors to lose their medicare benefits, for illegal immmigrants to get free health care, etc., etc. If and whe these things occur I could see why folks would be against the Bill. But until they do I'll hold my opinion knowing that Obama and Congress knows the original Bill will have to go through some adjustements and amendments as it progresses in the implementation of the same. I see the Bill as opening the door. Now it is up to Obama, Congress and furutre administrations to tweek it to get it right. I think they know this will be required as we alll know the struggle with the money hungry private insurance firms will continue until one day the people finally see the light and the benefits of adding a public option plan. As far as paying for it. Bring home some of that money being given to many other countries in the world as asssitance to the same. The President and Congresse's responsibility is to represent and to take care of the American people first. Then we can see what we can do to help other countries.

Ramboet-

Take a trip over to Pollster.com or RealClearPolitics.com. Both websites maintain averages of every major polling organization in the country on approval/disapproval of Obamacare. There are links to each polling organization and to pdf's of individual polls, allowing the viewing of the individual questions about the health care reform bill posed to each poll's respondents

Averages of all polling at both sites show that a plurality, or outright majority, of the public disapprove of the health care reform bill passed without any bipartisan support in Congress and signed into law by President Obama.

Additionally, virtually every individual poll shows pluralities or majorities opposed to Obamacare. Most polls show that Americans (correctly) feel the new law will degrade the quality of the health care they presently receive, while at the same time increasing its cost.

The ongoing effort of the Obama Administration to sell their health care "reform" bill amounts to little more than an effort to convince the public that they don't know what's good for them.

Problem is...the public made up it's mind about Obamacare long ago.

The Administration and Democrats in Congress simply chose to ignore that fact.

We'll soon see what it cost them to do so.

Auntie Fascist

Does "spin" mean getting the facts out there while rebutting the other side's arguments? Nobody opposed to health care can explain why we're 31st in the world in life expectancy and 37th in infant mortality according to the World Health Organization. Or, is WHO not tea-baggy enough for ya?

Nobody can explain it? You have got to be kidding. Life expectancy in the US is lower because of the high murder rates in our big cities. Gangs, mostly of illegal immigrants, are killing each other, and these gang members are in their teens and 20's. That will put a huge drag on any life expectancy number. It's not the health care systems fault gangs are murdering each other. Normalize that number against other countries numbers without the murder aspect, and the life expectancy of an American rises right to the top of the list.

As for infant mortality rates, it's clear that other countries do not count infant deaths as they are counted in the US. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) definition, all babies showing any signs of life, such as muscle activity, a gasp for breath or a heartbeat, should be included as a live birth. The U.S. strictly follows this definition. Switzerland, for instance, doesn't count the deaths of babies shorter than 30 cm, because they are not counted as live births, according to Nicholas Eberstadt, Ph.D., Henry Wendt Scholar in Political Economy at the American Enterprise Institute and formerly a Visiting Fellow at the Harvard University Center for Population and Developmental Studies. So, comparing the 1998 infant mortality rates for Switzerland and the U.S., 4.8 and 7.2 per 1,000 births, respectively, is comparing apples and oranges.

Anyone that takes the WHO numbers on face value is really not serious in understanding what they mean. Just a little digging for information shows the WHO's numbers to be bogus.

How do you know Conservatives realize they've painted themselves into a corner? When they're still lying about HCR months after it passes and are desperate to make sure consumers never actually experience the benefits.

You seriously DON'T do any research before you post, do you?

Okay, let me break this down to you:

1.) There were 2,426,264 TOTAL deaths in the United States in 2006.

2.) Life expectancy in the United States in 2006 was 77.7 years.

3.) Assault was the 15th leading cause of death in the United States in 2006. There were 18,573 of them. That includes ALL deaths by homicide. That includes all the stabbings, shootings, strangulations, pushings down elevator shafts, running over of people with cars, etc. And that includes homicides of people of ALL ages. So that means that ALL of the homicides put together accounted for 0.08% of the TOTAL deaths in the U.S..

4.) The top of the life expectancy list in 2006 was 82.6 years. 82.6-77.7 = 4.9. So let's basically round that up to 5.

We have already established that all murders in the United States accounted for 0.08% of the total number of deaths. By looking at the statistical abstract, we discover that 6809 of those deaths by homicide were by people under the age of 24. This means that murders of young people account for 0.03% of all deaths in the nation.

That's less than 1/3 of 1%.

So basically, you seriously think that even if NONE of those 6809 people had died, the life expectancy of the entire nation would rise 4.9 years to 82.6?

Seriously?

If you do, then you flunk remedial math.

IntheMiddle, TX

Ramboet:

It does not have anything to do with "Right Wingers". The wholefrikken country does not want this. Poll after poll have shown most are against it. That is all that matters not the reason you're against it.

You better hope that Democrats maintain control of Congress because it will never be funded if not. So the actual ramifications of it will never hit until Obama is long gone.

IntheMiddle, TX lets go through a few things in our history that most Americans did not want once it was passed.

1. medicare and medicade

2. civil rights bill, voters rights act

3. social security

4. clean air act

5. Lend lease with England before we were attacked by the Japanese

6. war in Europe

so your argument does not hold water, all through our history Americans have been slow to get with the times. we are the only industrializes nation in the free world that does not have health care for everybody. HCR for those who have had to live with relatives dying because of inferior health care knows how important HCR really is, some day and i hope for you or any body it never comes, you will see the difference between inferior health care and health care that works for everybody.

The American people do want healthcare reform. When the Republican legislators confuse our citizens with false rumors (i.e. "Death panels" as stated by the biggest tea bagger, Sarah Palin). Ms Palin flat out lied as to what the legislation provides for. Why lie? Because it invokes fears of the people. As the correct information is disseminated with the actual benefits of the legislation, the American People will see the benefits of healthcare reform. Remember, these same Republican arguments existed when the democratic president and congresses passed the Social Security Act in 1935 (FDR); Social Security Disability Act 1956 (Eisenhower); and, Medicare Act of 1965 (Johnson).

Keep in mind that about 20% opposed the bill from the left. They opposed the bill because they thought we could do better either with the public option or medicare for all.

How can the new law degrade the current healthcare other than to TERMINATE the ill regardless of age, gender, and ethnicity. Have you taken a look at what we have now?

Don't tell me, you are on Medicare

Eric, Salinas,CA

It's sad that President Obama and the DNC have to waste so much money trying to convince the braindead slackers in this country that health care reform was the correct thing to do, even if it was a rather worthless conservative piece of trash.

Those slackers you speak of are the Democratic base, the base that is so unmotivated to vote this coming November. Obama isn't trying to sell his health care plan to the non-believers, he's trying to spin it to his liberal base so they will be motivated vote this fall. That, and trying to change the subject from his awful response to the oil spill in the Gulf.

And in other news: A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Nevada, taken Wednesday night, shows Republican Sharron Angle earning 50% support while incumbent Harry Reid picks up 39% of the vote. Five percent (5%) like some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided. The low percentage of undecideds shows that voters are already firmed up on who they will be voting for. Bye-bye Harry. You won't be missed.

Yeah they could have just sent the $250 out without sticking the rest of the country with a massive peice of BS bill huh!! Just like the Progressives Libs to throw you a few crumbs to buy your vote and put it to you 3 to 4 years down the road...Funny how that happens..One day minorities will wake up and see that it is their own that keeps them down like little sheep and you cant always blame someone else in Barrys words that is LOL. Kind of reminds me of the Muslim middle east Funny how that is...My insurance has already gone up and many others I know Thanks Nancy,Barry & and whats his name i appreciate it..I am more than happy to buy little Lupita and family some health care....

You must be very young and in excellent health. Do you have any idea how far 250 dollars will go when buying prescription drugs? I'm sure we old geezers are awaiting that windfall with unimaginable glee.

Scole, looks like the milk of human kindness might just've turned to cottage cheese with you!

My insurance has already gone up and many others I know

Scole bandit, are you saying that your health care wasn't already going up every year? Mine does and has been for years now. How do you know that your HC has gone up as a result of the new HC bill anyway?

Frankly, I'm not sure how the HC bill is going to play out. I assume that after the knobs are tweaked that it will go up far less than the previous HC system. Perhaps if the GOP had not been shouting "no, no, no!" for an entire year and calling everyone not on their side facists and nazis and communists and socialists, etc. and they had actually put up some ideas with some sho nuff numbers things could have been different but we will never know that now.

The hc debates were a prime opportunity for the GOP to come up with a plan and the numbers and expert's opinions to back up that plan. They could have shown it to the people and had a good chance at selling it. Honestly, I kept waiting for anyone to put up some legitimate plans. There were ideas and small brochures with pretty graphs and charts but nothing like a plan. This is where we are.

Cramming through this bill that affects the biggest part of our economy and is so important to everyone's well-being is irresponsible. Given where we are as a country with the economy, the deficits, housing etc the administration should have taken an incremental approach to this and dealt with the few biggies like pre-existing conditions, portability and tort reform.

As it relates to access to healthcare the administration should invest in expanding the community health centers that use income means testing to price services and do a fine job with preventive medicine and dealing with basic care like dental, pre and post natal care, eye care and low-level medical.

This bill is simply a take over of our economy and was not well thought out, discussed and debated as a result I am dealing with this kind of crap.

The company I run employs 3,500 $12.00 an hour employees. I authorized putting this plan in last year so that my employees can get some coverage. We also kick-in some money along with the employee. 600 employees and their family members signed up the first year and our goal was 1,000 next year.

We are up for renewal 10/1/2010 and ran into this buzz saw first-hand. This is absolutely ridiculous. This is incompetence at its worst. These are the people that need the help the worst and they are getting the short end of the stick.

Unfortunately we can't offer the "government mandated" type of insurance because my employees can't afford even a 25% contribution to an approved plan. The government plan does not go into effect until 2014 and I am sure that will be delayed. What are my employees supposed to do??

I am calling for the administration to delay this part of the plan or fix the bill so the timing is right. Hopefully after November this nonsense will be fixed. I am confident of one thing "THIS IS ONLY THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG" as it relates to this bill.

posted at 10:12 am on June 8, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly

Well, Nancy Pelosi did tell us that we wouldn’t know what was in the ObamaCare bill until it became law. However, this development really isn’t a surprise, but actually part of the plan. Politico notes that as many as a million low-income workers currently covered under “mini-med” health plans will find themselves with no coverage at all, thanks to a ban on hard-cap plans offered at low cost:

Part of the health care overhaul due to kick in this September could strip more than 1 million people of their insurance coverage, violating a key goal of President Barack Obama’s reforms.

Under the provision, insurance companies will no longer be able to apply broad annual caps on the amount of money they pay out on health policies. Employer groups say the ban could essentially wipe out a niche insurance market that many part-time workers and retail and restaurant employees have come to rely on.

This market’s limited-benefit plans, also called mini-med plans, are priced low because they can, among other things, restrict the number of covered doctor visits or impose a maximum on insurance payouts in a year. The plans are commonly offered by retail or restaurant companies to low-wage workers who cannot afford more expensive, comprehensive coverage.

Depending on how strictly the administration implements the provision, the ban could in effect outlaw the plans or make them so restrictive that insurance companies would raise rates to the point they become unaffordable.

This is entirely deliberate, although Congress apparently never considered the timing. Barack Obama and Pelosi continually harped about the “underinsured,” and the mini-med plans are what they had in mind. They wanted to put an end to such cost-efficient plans and force employers to either provide comprehensive insurance or kick their employees into the state-run exchanges, where the newly-uninsured would get welfare payments to buy their own plans in the individual market.

Democrats will get their wish — but the employees won’t get their coverage. The law imposes the penalties for mini-med plans in three months, but the exchanges won’t start until 2014. That means more than three years of having no insurance at all for low-income workers who previously had it, even if Obama and Pelosi sniffed at the worth of the plans.

Why did they impose the mandates first? This was part of the “front-load” strategy of the Democrats, who wanted to implement what they thought would be the most popular components of ObamaCare immediately, in order to build support for its continuance. Instead, the mandates will mean that mini-med plans will either cost so much that the employees can’t afford it, or more likely, the insurers will drop the plans as money-losers. It’s a big indicator that the people who drafted the law had very little understanding of the insurance industry, or of the private sector.

It’s also worth noting the irony of the timing. The mandates kick in in September, which is probably when the insurers will terminate the coverage. That means up to a million people will get the first-hand impact of ObamaCare just nine weeks before going to the polls in the midterm elections. That certainly qualifies as an unintended consequence.

It may STILL not have passed! You can sell it after it passes. This needed to get done as far in advance of the elections as possible.

Vernr, do you not think your premiums would have gone up 30% if not for this bill?

No, I do not. This bill does nothing to control costs of premiums. I am part of the conversations withing the company on insurance costs and I know premiums would not have gone up 15% much less 30%. Reason: Company is positioning for the minimums under the law. Without the law forcing penalties if people pay x percentage of the premiums, the companies response is to raise premiums just below the treashold of the law to prevent penalties. The law has so many loopholes and if you think for a second insurance companies will not find them, as the saying goes, I have a swamp in Florida that I would like to sell ya

Vernr--obviously you haven't been following the exhorbitant increases in your healthcare insurance premiums prior to this year.

drive-by-observer:

I'm a middle-class former union worker who has employer based health insurance. Under the Democratic Senate health care reform bill, I discovered that my health insurance was a so-called "Cadillac" plan and would be subject to a 40% excise tax.

My former union, which runs a non-profit health care plan of its own, informed members that if Obamacare was implemented, they would be forced to either curtail the medical care they offered, or raise co-pays and out-of-pocket expenses to it's members. The 40% excise tax has been delayed, but proposing it at all showed that the Democrats didn't care what they did to working class folks who already have decent health insurance, and are desperately struggling to keep it.

At a time when we know...KNOW that Social Security and Medicare have huge unfunded liabilities and desperately need reform to avoid bankruptcy, it was irresponsible to implement a massive NEW entitlement program in an economy in danger of falling into a double-dip recession.

Next time, instead of just "driving by"...take some time to learn a little about the subject you intend to weigh-in on.

Regards,

MB

I see you don't believe your non profit health care plan had an incentive to lie to you. How naivete can you be.

OK, Mo-

Then explain why the Obama Adminstration agreed to concede to labor union demands to delay implementation of the excise tax?

Do you believe that the unions that overwhelmingly support President Obama were lying to the White House about the effect of Obamacare on their own non-profit health care plans?

That goes way beyond naive...

You're engaging in some of what Ed Schultz calls "psycho-talk", Mo.

Mixed Bag

Then explain why the Obama Adminstration agreed to concede to labor union demands to delay implementation of the excise tax?

What a sweet deal the unions got with that lobbying effort. So Obama stands there and tells all Americans we must have shared sacrifice. Shared, well except for Obama's friends, and major campaign contributors. They pay less, if at all.

Isn't it amazing how when a law enforcement officer shoots someone they were always attacked first even when evidence shows different.

What smuggler? What evidence? Which one of you were there?

Don't know if you saw that bit about the Mexican Law Enforcement crossing the border collecting evidence, and then planting said evidence on their side of the border to make it look like US Border Patrol had crossed the border in pursuit of the suspect.... God Bless surveillance cameras, the tape was promptly turned over to the Mexican authorities who are apparently reviewing it.

And it's also a good thing that the Mexican President can freely call the Border Patrol agents racist for defending themselves, but it is not apparently racism when Mexican citizens attack them.... go figure...

Isn't it amazing how when a law enforcement officer shoots someone they were always attacked first even when evidence shows different.

What smuggler? What evidence? Which one of you were there?

*******************************************************************************

What'd I say?

no joe, no bo, nj

It's is very nice of the DNC to remind voters WHY they want to boot Democrats out-

That's all Obama can talk about are his failures, so he's picking and choosing which failure will cost him the least number of votes. He doesn't have much to choose from other then his failed Stimulus bill, his deficit busting budget, an incoherent Iraq/Afghanistan strategy, his pointing of fingers to blame anyone but himself for the oil spill, a health care bill most people didn't want, his weak response to the growing Iran threat, and his apologies to Muslim nations. Not much to choose from is there?

Excellent point, no joe...

I'm sure that a whole lot of incumbent Congressional Democrats would prefer that the topic of health care reform just go away, at least until after the mid-term elections.

They don't want to discuss this right up to Election Day.

This is just another example of how incredibly tone-deaf the Obama Adminstration actually is.

Amazing, really.

Come now JoAnna:

Your comments are typical of someone who wants to overgenerlize another's actions and decisions in order to fit the same into that category that helps you vaidate your personal dislike for that person. The fact is the stimulus bill like it or not did save the country from falling into a depression and although things can improve kept the country's head above the water line versus no action was taken. As for the deficit busting budget the U.S. has been living on borrowed money for years now since Bush made a shambles of Clinton's surpluses by way of a Iraq policing action that should never have taken place and that was not, is not, paid for. Obama's Iraq and Afhanistan strategy is quite clear, get our troops out of harms way and draw down troops in Iraq while maintaining a presence in Afghanistan due to the potential threat of militants attempting to gain power in nuclear Pakistan. Yes, point fingers at those responsible for the oil spill and its consequences because they choose to cut corners on safety equipment that was available at a cost of 500,00 to stem such a blow out. That would be BP of course. Proposed a HCR bill that most Amecians supported and that was one of the inital reasons why he was elected in the first place. Follows standard international rules by placing sanctions on Iran before taking out their nuclear facilities in the event the Iranian people are unable to change their leadership on their own. Holds a welcoming hand out to the Muslim world because they live on this planet too, in massive numbers, and you better learn to find a way to win peace within their hearts and minds or you'll have greater hell to pay in the future as the Muslim population increases world-wide (of course I guess your option would to be to kill every Muslim on this earth).

Why don't you think for a moment before you post comments, and try and remove some of your deep personal dislike for Obama before you respond to other's comments. It might help you to gain a more objective and rational opinion about all these issues. Not asking you to agree with Obama's actions and decisons on the same, but at least your comments would appear a tad more sensible when your arguements against the same are based on rationality and objectivity rather than on the basis of backwards logic thinking.

CA Tuscaloosa, AL

Come now JoAnna:

Apparently you are not keeping up with the conversation and you have misunderstood the context. Obama is trying to put himself and his party in the best possible position for this falls elections. Doing so requires him to talk about his successes. And the "success" he choose was his health care bill, the same bill that over 60% of Americans want repealed! Not modified. Repealed! If that's the best Obama has to offer, then it looks like Obama has a losing poker hand, don't you think?

Ya see?!? JoAnna actually thinks that the entire nation has been polled about the repeal of a health care and insurance reform bill which has yet to even go into full effect. Pathetic.

Admit it. Party of NO and it's suppoters are jealous of the President.

Get ready for your hed to explode because there will be another success by years end. Energy Reform will be on the President's desk for his signature soon after the elections in November.

Can you count? Healthcare, Financial Reform and Energy Reform.

Three major pieces of Legislation passed by the Dems in 2010 and DADT and SCOTUS nominee on the fast track. All the while dealing with the worst man-made disaster in our lifetime, caused by the greediest corporation in the world. I say give the President another Nobel Prize.

On one level they did refuse to listen to their elecorate: They did not put in the public option. And that is the reason why the polls show that many do not like HCR. Additionally, if the republicans hadn't scared everyone out of their wits, the democrats would not have to put any such ad up.

How come republicans hate America?

How is quoting polls defining those policy specifics that need to be recognized, discussed and attended to if required. So 60% want the HCR Bill repealed. Did you break that poll down to determine why those 60% want it repealed? What if 20% of that 60% want the Bill repealed because they think (based on misinformation) that they will have to give up their current doctor for some government panel who will determine what treatment they can pursue (which is not true). Does that make the 60% figure legitimate. What if only 5 % want the HCR repealed because they think the government is going to implement death panels for seniors. If not true and these people were able to be properly informed about this misinformation would that 60% then not come down to 55%. What if 30% of the 60% are for repeal because they are afraid their taxes will be tripled in the next five years, and that such fear is based on misinformation. Would that not then bring the 60% figure down to 30% if these people were to realize their taxes wil not be tripled?

The point being JoAnne is that polls are useless to quote in an arguement about any issue, in this case HCR, if one is not able to follow up with those reasons all 60% want to repeal the Bill and all those reasons are in fact legtimate and bonafide reasons to oppose the Bill. So to say blankley that we need to repeal this HCR Bill because 60% of the people want this Bill repealed is stretching a truism that the Bill needs repealed because all those reason (fears) are the absolute truth. Frankly, I would bet, just an opinion as I have no facts to back it up, that there is a certain percentage of those 60% who want the HCR Bill repealed because, well, they really don't know for sure. They just know they don't like it. Kind of like the elderly lady interviewed in a small town in Mississippi who was quoted just before the general election that she would never vote for Obama because he is a Muslim. And how did she come to this conclusion? Because her local hair dresser told her so.

What an interesting conversation we are having here...

CA, the bottom line is this - HCR is LAW. If the right-wingers or the GOP had ANY ARGUMENT or ANY PRECIDENCE to get this law overturned, they would have done it by now. The fact of the matter is that the right wing is ANGRY with the President because he outplayed, outsmarted, and outwitted the GOP. They are MAD because their representation has FAILED them.

Think I am wrong?

Well, then, as we can see, the GOP has NOTHING to counter this law other than idle chatter. NOTHING. They are smarting from the butt-whipping this President put on them. The funny part about all of this is that the GOP's constituents are STILL LISTENING to the LOSERS (that's right, I said it) of the HCR battle. They are willing to believe ANYTHING - and hang on ANY percieved wrong - to say that 'the President is wrong'.

The fact of the matter is that people may NOT have understood HCR when it was a bill, but they DO understand it now and for MOST people, it has helped (I am sure that some insurance companies are raisng their premiums because of this law). The main part of this law has NOT EVEN BEEN ENACTED yet, so how can ANYONE say it is a failure? How can anyone say that it is NOT what the American people want? If this is NOT what the American people want, why hasn't the GOP DONE ANYTHING to get it repealed?

It's because the GOP has NOTHING. They don't have a DAMN thing they can propose to get this law repealed.

Unfortunately for the right-wing, this will be a thorn in their side until Hell freezes over because it is a CONSTANT reminder of the FAILURE of the GOP ideaology. Instead of getting in the faces of their inept GOP leadership, they will continue to whine and cry about how 'bad' HCR is.

And THESE are the guys that the right wing are expecting to take over Congress in November?

I'll never say never, but I REALLY don't see that happening any time soon.

YOU LIE! Was the line from the galley at the state of the union which shows a mistust of the information that was set before Congressman Wilson of SC. Well I know that Polls LIE! I doubt polling it depends on how the question is asked I listen to Hannity and he is an expert at framing a question some polling questioned are asked in way to obtain the results wanted. But if the Tea Partiers can just not believe the facts as placed in front of their face then I reserve the right to not believe the polls. After all I have never been polled. Who determines what 1000 people are polled for this scientific calculation? From people who don't believe in science...I dont believe that the polls are reflective of America. I believe that conservatives are more apt to take a pollsters call while Liberals unless they are polically active tends to hang up or just let the answering machine take the call or just have cell phones. Polling is an obsolete way of determining things when most pollster call only landline phone and most progressive people have ditched those old phone and are more mobile. Just a thought on polling.

Funny, all this stuff about the polls from the right to support their case and yet everytime Clinton did anything he was 'governing by the polls'. Bush didn't give a dang about polls and he was respected for it...now Obama won't look at the polls before he makes a decision and the sky is falling. Give me a break.

At least in theory the bill is paid for, unlike when the Republicans forced Medi-care part D down our thoats w/o any thougt how it would be paid for. I guess they figured, increase the debt like their hero Ronald Reagan did and blame Democrats for the damage. When will Republican ever realize that it is THEM who create this debt, and then leave the Democrats to figure it out. Bush did the same thing w/ 2 wars, one w/ no plan on catching those responsible and another that was rammed down our thoats w/ lies. And to this day, no apology for any of it!

Appearently phillip, you are better informed than the CBO! The CBO says that it will increase both costs and the deficit!!

How can a bill be written that NO ONE HAS READ?

Okay, maybe no one is a bit of an exaggeration, lets say no one but the author has read. Is that better.

Nice of you to miss the point to argue symantics though...

I didn't miss the point, your ilk are almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion with as you are prone to hyperbole, semantics or not.

My ilk? Obviously you haven't seen me on here before, as I don't support either party consistently. In fact I am generally against the two party system as a whole, as all it does is divide the country along philosophical lines rather than generate a kind of genuine debate in the interest of working toward a solution.

The only thing a two party system does is blind peoples objectivity and cause them to see Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, rather than actually listening to the merit of an argument or point of view.

Much as you have just succeeded in proving.

Your quite right and neither side will allow any real change in the system to happen.

Appearently paul you haven't worked on a committee researching anything major. The committee will,usually, divide the issue into sections with smaller groups researching each section, then come back together where recommendations are asked for. Therefore,given the speed with which this thing was forced through, at the time of the vote it's a very real possibility that no one had read the entire bill!!!

You may very well be right in your comments Philip.

Thank you. It besides the point. He failed and now unless Congress does something to create fixes and I know this will come out like a Socialist, generate more revenue, we will become a 3rd world nation indebted to those who have made the difficult choices and succeeded.

As usual, the President is ten step ahead of everyone on this issue. The Progressives were complaining about a public option, correct? We got something that is a little short of that. The President is giving the insurance companies enough rope to hang themselves. Just like what some on the right are complaining about, we got a little bit of what we wanted. We have to GO BACK and REFINE the process.

The HCR law was NOT DESIGNED TO BE PERFECT right out of the box. There are going to be things that need to be fixed as this whole opera progresses. There is NO WAY that President could have forseen all of the twists and turns and changes that will follow the life of this law. He is instituting change incrementally, and with each incremental step we will get the law we have needed.

Isn't that what everyone wanted?

It's amazing to me to see how short-sighted people are. There is NO WAY that ANYONE would have been able to accept a drastic, sweeping HCR law without upsetting society as we know it. The pragmatic approach would be to do things in little steps, and with each step, things will become better (or worse, where then you can amend the law to fix the error(s)).

If our right-wing friends were smart about this, they would be looking to introduce legislation to AMEND what they don't like about the law. Our left-wing progressive friends have the same opportunity. So, if everyone is so 'unhappy' about the law, WHY IS IT THAT NO ONE - on either side if the aisle - is producing any amendments? Why is it we just have a 'chattering class' of do nothings?

Could it be that the idiots we have in Washington ACCURATELY reflect the idiots who elect them?

Those are strong words, yes, but can anyone refute what I am saying? In these posts, all I can see is that everyoune says the President has failed. Well, I think that is wrong. I think that we the PEOPLE have failed because we are not willingto do anything about a percieved wrong - except complain.

So, are we going to do something or remain idiots?

Do you actually believe it's difficult to refute your drivel, Pietro?

You argue that those who disagree with the most reprehensible elements of Obamacare should be content with trying to amend this costly abomination...

Yet, you conveniently ignore, while at the same time (amazingly) still mentioning and even acknowledging (!), that an incremental approach to health care reform (with the possibility of bipartisan agreement) would have been vastly preferrable...

That is...preferrable to the massive monstrosity that the Obama Administration ultimately produced, and belatedly realized that, from a political standpoint, had to be passed, no matter what?

Really, Pietro...

Why should anyone take you seriously?

Why...?

Mixed Bag, you (apparently) forgot to acknowledge that I mentioned that the GOP has miserably FAILED their constituents when it comes to HCR and that their constituents are mad at the President about that.

Frankly, I do NOT think you could refute my 'drivel', as you have put it. You never addressed the fact that the GOP did NOTHING to represent their constituents, if their constituents were truly against HCR.

Nice try, Mixed bag, but no sale.

They did everything they could, short of circumventing the Constitution,Pietro! They voted NO to the last one! You must remember that ignoring the Constitution is a progressive tactic not a conservative one!!

"Nice try, Mixed bag, but no sale."

I'm not trying to sell anything, Pietro

I'm certainly not among those still pathetically trying to sell a health care "reform" bill that the American public long ago gave a "thumbs down" to.

Only the Obama Administration, the DNC, and the Administration's mindless sycophants would be moronic enough to waste time and money on that.

As usual, everyoune skirts the issue. WHERE was the GOP? Why isn't anyone upset with how incompetent the GOP representation was on this issue? Why do we not have any legislation to repeal or amend this law?

Everyone complains about how bad the HCR law is, but it is a LAW. That means it would take a legislative effort to do SOMETHING about the law.

I submit that everyone who is against this law is not just mad because the law was passed. I think that subconciously you know the GOP fell down on the job and NOW you are stuck with legislation that you have to deal with.

And these are the guys you want running Congress? The same guys that fell down on the job with the HCR law?

Oy.

And remember, the GOP had the White House, Congress & and the Senate for 6 years, what did we get? Medicare Part D which was never paid for. Why is it when ever they run things into the ground, cause huge deficits, that the clarion call call for all Republican/Conservatives is " All the Democrats do is tax and spend." Well if we keep doing all these tax cuts, we'll never get anything ever budgeted.

obama appointed his own people to head that department phillip! It was obamas' people who just granted them an easment and a safety award, NOT BUSHES'!!!

No, Obama simply hadn't gotten rid of the roaches that we're there from previous one. I don't deny, there are still roaches there, Salazar being one of them, but this mess sits squarely w/ the Bush-Cheney administration.

tedcrawford Our President has made nominations but most of them have been sat on by the Senate.

So no Philip is correct there are still roaches there that have no leadership because of the appointments that haven't been approved.

The MMS mess is strictly a Shrub Cheney debacle.

I personally think they should cancel the summer break for the Congress because they haven't gotten their work done in this session. In corporate life you stay and do your work until you get it done. There are over 300 bills sitting at the Senate doorstep that need to be voted on and a lot of it is Small Business stimulus that REALLY needs to get passed.

If the R's hadn't held up everything that touched their desks they'd be done with this legislation and our economy would be better for it. Like Finance reform to start with.....

Regarding this article they don't have to sell it anymore it passed-remember?

Thank you

Philip-

A liitle respect please...Ken Salazar is a Colorado Democrat appointed by President Obama.

He, in turn, appointed Democrat and Clinton Administration veteran Liz Birnbaum Director of Minerals Management Service.

They are responsible for permitting and managing the Deepwater Horizon/BP drilling rig.

And...they're Obama's people.

If they are roaches...they're Obama's roaches, aren't they?

Thank you.

They are Obama's roaches, thats why Salazar needs to go. His ties to the industry make him unfit for the job

Well if that is the argument you are going with, then you might want to include every single elected official who claims to be doing the right thing in your list. I don't know that i have heard any politician speak with uttering the phrase "The American people.....", and I seriously doubt that any of them have talked to all of the American people.

And by saying my ilk aren't you just just marginalizing me the way you arwe accusing me of doing?

See the point I was attempting to make was regarding holding the legislature accountable for the measures they pass. The point was that politicians have no right to vote on a bill that they don't understand, and that they need to be held accountable when they do. That was the point, it didn't stop with HCR, but all legislation. HCR was just the example that was present.

Brutus please...............

If you are going to claim that you have never heard Mitch, John, or GWB for that matter, for eight straight years constantly use that very phrase before almost every declaritive sound bite that they offered, then the disingenuosness of your position proves my point. They , those in the minority now, speak as if they represent the majority. "The American people this... the American people that", you would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind to have missed all of that. There is a politics section on youtube, give it a try. And they do have a RIGHT to vote any way they want on a bill that they do or don't understand, it is up to us to hold them accountable.

Brutus, Please stop trying to be logical with a progressive! It's like trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and irratates the pig!! Your aware,of course that "progressive logic" is the ultimate oxymoron aren't you??

Paul,

I think that Brutus meant to say "without" uttering the phrase "The American people".

I notice so many people that reference youtube, Rachel Maddow, Glen Beck, Keith Olberman, Sean Hannity, as if these people/websites are actually "the news". Try reading an informed article folks, it's actually kind of fun. My recommendations would include articles contained in Newsweek, U S News and World Report, Time, and any other magazine that doesn't depend upon the editorializing (is that a word) of a particular suation (Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, Republican). They actually research their work, take a while to analyze the issue, and try to report factually.

To quote an old public service announcement "Reading is fundamental".

Reading is fundamental. I read plenty. Writing is fundamental on a comment board. Youtube and the cspan archives allow you to go back in time and see and hear what the lying politicians said along with the ability to note that they are contradicting their earlier statements and positions. Every politician will speak about what they think that every right thinking American SHOULD do or say or think, but when the minority party constantly speaks as if they represent the majority, rather than sighting the numbers and percentages of how many of their own 'supporters' don't agree with them , it reduces the discussion down to posturing and political hackery.