Barack Obama: A Historic President

[daydreamer41]

Hello Daydreamer,

Compare all you want. I didn't say not to. I said it's worthless. What's you goal? Talking points in some game? When anyone argues about which group is worst you get to the level of bickering children. In other words ...again, being worthless. I mean, what's next...the rock-paper-scissors game...or maybe the famous "I'm rubber and you're glue" retort? If this sort of thing is your goal then that's very sad. You aren't looking for or offering good advice or a better solution, you are just pointing fingers. It doesn't get more worthless than that.

If anyone can explain why their view is better using sense and facts then that might be worth reading. No one cares which side is worse, and as Jman said, the pointless and the extremists only make people run away from them.

BTW, I am from Massachusetts (as anyone who has been here for a little while knows) a state even international leaders come to for the quality of medical care they get here.



Actually we've been a little thin on truly personal insults lately. I'd stock up on popcorn for a while. <Huge bulging cheeks full of hot cheddar POPCORN smilie>

Cheers,

Merlot

I am responding to all these posts who are responding to me. Anyhow Merlot. In your wonderful pictures of the Tea Partiers, there was one picture that I agree was rather provocative, the first one. All the rest may have been construed as having some racial overtones, as I said before, but they were not violent. That's what all the Dems have been screaming about. The racial ephitats made to the Congressmen may have been made up by the Congressmen. They may hve went passed the Tea Party protestors to be provocative. I would not put it past them.

As for hospitals in MA, I know you have some fine hospitals. You have many great Universities and Colleges. So does New York and Philadelphia. And Minneapolis. The medical care in the US is very good. And I have no doubt that the doctors in Canada are top notch. It is just that everywhere, there is a physician shortage. They have not been educating enough Doctors. There are several reasons for it.

My opinion is this stupid bill that the Congress passed will not help with the shortage. It will make it worse. The Democrats missed a good oportunity. Even the Tea Party protestors are not saying nothing should be done. A better bill with less government control could have been drawn up and passed. The Democrats did not involve Republicans, so they are on their own. If the bill is a disaster, they need to take full responsibility. It works, then they will get credit. But common sense says it will not work.

 

[daydreamer41]

Dude, I'll answer both in one...

1) Instead of having tea, you should campaign for your choice - it is more effective of a method of removing idiots.

2) I said nothing of Moody. Nor was that part of Samuelson's article. Stop leaping like a 7 yr old A.D.D hypoglycemic on Snickers. Stick on topic. Re-read what I wrote and please present a counter argument, I'd be glad to explain it to you.

I am campaigning for my choice. I have to find out who is running against my Congressman and support him.

Re-read the article. He starts out menitioning Moody's. The whole article centers on Moody's warning and how the US is spending itself into oblivion. I copied the first paragrahph. So I have no idea where you are coming from.


By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, March 29, 2010; A19

When historians recount the momentous events of recent weeks, they will note a curious coincidence. On March 15, Moody's Investors Service -- the bond rating agency -- published a paper warning that the exploding U.S. government debt could cause a downgrade of Treasury bonds. Just six days later, the House of Representatives passed President Obama's health-care legislation costing $900 billion or so over a decade and worsening an already-bleak budget outlook.

 

[Below500k]

It is just that everywhere, there is a physician shortage.

Yes, some logic, there we go. But...

They have not been educating enough Doctors.

Is not the reason. The reason is in the large discrepancies of the salaries between general practitioners, and specialist. It is huge (150k to 400k approx). So when students have to choose which field they will practice in, which do you think they will choose? Now, to make you aware, part of the bill that was just past includes subsidies (yes your paying for it) to narrow that gap in order to encourage more students to become general practioners. Why? Because THAT is the single largest best-shot-at changing both the health of the nation, and reducing costs. Regular, early, medical advice and attention is really the only chance the country has in achieving better health, and lower costs. It is obvious that there are food, nutrition, and exercise issues, but hey, you are who you are and you can't take away your Twinkies or TV. Now THAT would be a Tea Party!!

The Democrats did not involve Republicans, so they are on their own. If the bill is a disaster, they need to take full responsibility. It works, then they will get credit. But common sense says it will not work.

Aww now ya gone and degraded shit again. <sigh>

 

[daydreamer41]

There's not enough doctors period, not just general practioners. There are enough schools to teach all of the doctors needed. There have been several studies backing this up.

And the incentive to becoming a doctor is a lot less than maybe 25, 30 years ago. The education for a doctor, Undergrad and Medical School in the early 1980's was $50,000 to $70,000 depending on the school the person went to. Today, the same education could cost $250,000 to $450,000 depending on the schools. The difference in tuition for state medical schools and private medical schools is not as much as Undergrad schools. It takes 10 years of school to become a GP, and 12 to 13 to be a specialist, depending on the specialty. Therefore, the doctor will not start earning a living until he is 28 or 31, depending whether he wants to be a GP or specialist. Then he or she has to pay off the loans he or she may have. It can take many years to pay off those hefty loans. I know a doctor who it took 10 years to pay his loans off.

And what do you mean I am degrading shit again. That is my opinion. Did you read the bill or a summary of it? Can you tell me what is in the bill? I can. I do not think it will work, like Samuelson says. And I agree with him because I have taking my time to read a summary of it and I think it is very bad legislation.

 

[Below500k]

Indeed. Point was that it is irrelevant to the discussion - it was a justification for an opinion that he did not back up with anything meaningful. Kind of like name-dropping to tell an irrelevant story.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Daydreamer is correct that there is a doctor shortage in Canada. There are 2.1 doctors per 1000 people in Canada, ranking Canada #58. The US, on the other hand, has 2.3 per 1000 and ranks 52nd.

Who ranks higher? #2 Cuba, #5 Belarus, #7 Russia, #9 Turkmenistan, #10 Georgia, #11 Lithuania, #22 Czech Republic, #23 Germany, #26 Sweden, #28 North Korea, #30 Hungary, #25 France. In fact, every single country with socialized medicine except Canada and the UK, each of which barely trails the US, has more physicians per 1000 than the US.

Where does the US stand in life expectancy? #38, behind, among others, Switzerland, Spain, Sweden, France, Canada, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Austria, Netherlands, UK, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Denmark, cuba, among others.

Where does the US stand in infant mortality? #33, behind most of the same countries as above including both Canada and Cuba, only in this case it isn't so close. Why does the US lag more in this category than in those above? Because health care is denied the poor and infant mortality affects the poor more than it does others.

The health care system in the United States is failing miserably and Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi have gone a long way toward fixing it.

 

[Below500k]

DD, relax, I was being cute. Your opinions are yours, we know what they are, move on, let's discuss shit. It does not add anything to the conversation and degrades the quality of your facts when you end (or begin) it with this sucks, I hate OB and the Dems and here's why. It is pointless. And please for the love of whatever, don't go into "well they said it first". SO...

I've not read the entire bill, and even if I did, there would be too much to cross research before I could say that I understand how everything will work.
Remember that there is a difference between reading and understanding. Case in point (about your cost's observation)...

Part of that bill (the part I was describing about making out the differences in starting salaries - which is one of the keys to the health care platform), was to also allow those entering into medical school - that choose to be a general practitioner - would be allowed to waive most of their student loans. The average btw is about 170k (nationally). Are you in support of that?

 

[daydreamer41]

Hello Daydreamer,

Your statement is quite inaccurate. You should read the Frum article again. http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

Excerpts include:

"A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves."

"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994."

"Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law."

"There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?"

You are perfectly right that a "better bill with less government control could have been drawn up and passed". But it wasn't the Democrats that missed the opportunity, it was the hard-line Conservative stalwarts of the Republican Party who said no deal in any form according to Republican David Frum. So I agree with you about what should have been done, and that an opportunity was definitely missed.

It was a very foolish miscalculation for the Republicans to rely on defeating the bill rather than participating to make it as close to their principles as possible. Now the last chance is for the Republicans in the Senate to participate to tweak the bill rather than disown it and refuse to have anything to do with it. Will they? The Republicans have no one to blame for the form of the bill but themselves. But blame is worthless too. What would not be worthless is learning this lesson. Don't rely on one strategy (winning the vote) when using two good options (participating to make legislation more Conservative) is the wiser choice.

Why didn't the Republicans also try to insure it would be more acceptable to them if passed rather than counting on it not being passed. STUPID!

Cheers,

Merlot

Merlot, hang on to your Frum, because he is not a Conservative. He is a fraud. He misleads. Here is an excerpt that you left out. It shows how deceiptive David Frum is. I repeat he is not a Conservative.

"Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure."

What is wrong with that comparison of Obama's percentage of the popular vote with Clinton's popular vote?

Clinton ran against Bush Sr. and Ross Perot.

Clinton 42 percent
Bush 36 percent
Perot 18 percent

Obama 53 percent
McCain 46 percent

The difference between Clinton and Bush was 6 percent.
The difference between Obama and McCain was 7 percent.

Very little difference. Frum's article is a bunch of crap, pardon my French. In fact, many of the people who voted for Obama where disguisted and scared of the Financial meltdown that happened in October right before the election. Obama probably would not have won if the financial meltdown did not happen. Bush who was unpopular because of the ongoing Iraq war, was even moreso when the meltdown occured and the Congress had to spend $750 Billion in bailout. McCain did not have a chance.

Sorry, I think Frum is dishonest and deceptive, and I backed up my opiniion with facts.

 

[daydreamer41]

DD, relax, I was being cute. Your opinions are yours, we know what they are, move on, let's discuss shit. It does not add anything to the conversation and degrades the quality of your facts when you end (or begin) it with this sucks, I hate OB and the Dems and here's why. It is pointless. And please for the love of whatever, don't go into "well they said it first". SO...

I've not read the entire bill, and even if I did, there would be too much to cross research before I could say that I understand how everything will work.
Remember that there is a difference between reading and understanding. Case in point (about your cost's observation)...

Part of that bill (the part I was describing about making out the differences in starting salaries - which is one of the keys to the health care platform), was to also allow those entering into medical school - that choose to be a general practitioner - would be allowed to waive most of their student loans. The average btw is about 170k (nationally). Are you in support of that?

I am for increasing the number of doctors, but there has to be more schools., and available professors. Just writing it in a bill does not increase the supply. Plus giving people free education increases the deficiit. My opinion is get government out of Education and the price of Education will drop on its own. The truth is that most schools in the US have way too many Bureaucrats. They did not have this when I went to school. That's why Education costs in the US have skyrocketed.

 

[daydreamer41]

Daydreamer is correct that there is a doctor shortage in Canada. There are 2.1 doctors per 1000 people in Canada, ranking Canada #58. The US, on the other hand, has 2.3 per 1000 and ranks 52nd.

Who ranks higher? #2 Cuba, #5 Belarus, #7 Russia, #9 Turkmenistan, #10 Georgia, #11 Lithuania, #22 Czech Republic, #23 Germany, #26 Sweden, #28 North Korea, #30 Hungary, #25 France. In fact, every single country with socialized medicine except Canada and the UK, each of which barely trails the US, has more physicians per 1000 than the US.

Where does the US stand in life expectancy? #38, behind, among others, Switzerland, Spain, Sweden, France, Canada, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Austria, Netherlands, UK, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Denmark, cuba, among others.

Where does the US stand in infant mortality? #33, behind most of the same countries as above including both Canada and Cuba, only in this case it isn't so close. Why does the US lag more in this category than in those above? Because health care is denied the poor and infant mortality affects the poor more than it does others.

The health care system in the United States is failing miserably and Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi have gone a long way toward fixing it.

I have different figures about infant mortality rate. The US ranks 180th lowest out of 229 (CIA world fact book). Singapore ranks the lowest with 2.31 infant deaths per 1000 and U.S. has 6.22 infant deaths per 1000. Cuba does have a slightly lower infant mortality rate of 5.82 per 1000.

The U.S. has a higher life expectancy rate than Cuba. The US is 49th with 78.11 years and Cuba is 55th with 77.45.

Canada life expectancy ranks 7th with 81.12 years and Canada ranks 190th in lowest infant mortality with 5 infant deaths per 1000.

However, I have a different take on the numbers. Americans in general as they age have an obesity problem. The average diet of people in the US is not very good. True, wealthier people have the opportunity to eat better, but they do not always do so. Plus, the cancer incidence in the US is rather high since the US has a poor diet and has been an industrial country longer than the developing world.

In addition, I wonder how much drugs and alcohol among the poorer population plays in the higher infant motrality rate. I do not think it is a medical issue among the poor, since the real poor get Medicaid.

 

[Below500k]

Please provide an iota of evidence that this...

"My opinion is get government out of Education and the price of Education will drop on its own."

would work. And back it up with even a slim outline of a realistic plan.

Most things are indeed too full of bureaucrats, but bureaucrats does not equal gov't. The private sector is far more bureaucratic than any Repub will ever seem to admit.

And the Reganist dream is long gone. Why? Because while it was proven to help as a short term boost (to some), it has been equally proven to fail over a longer period of time due to lack of regulation to stop the very overlooked problem that so many right wing people seem to forget... humans are greedy.

So while its nice to think that that unregulated, self propelled, self regulated talking point would work, I think that the last bunch of years has proven that belief incorrect in today's world.

And that really is the biggest sore spot with most people and the Repubs. There is this unrealistic love of a country that never really existed. If I listen to them, what they are holding on to was the pleasantville dream of the 1950s, when everything was just so good. Except that it was not that good, unless you were a white man. But that's a whole other discussion now 'aint it.

Bush and the RNC gave it their best shot to revive that dream. 8yrs later, the majority of the people in the country did not seem to think it went all that well. The majority of the rest of the planet seemed to agree. Time to move forward. It is very unfortunate that, as this thread proves, that they seem more interested in arguing talking points then working from within to actually do something to help.

 

[Below500k]

However, I have a different take on the numbers. Americans in general as they age have an obesity problem.

Um, I think that the scarier statistic lies in the youth, not the elderly. The average American diet is insanely horrible, so much so that exercise (lack thereof) is becoming less and less of a contributing factor. I could go political about this and start in on the gov't corn farm subsidies and how almost everything that is in an average diet just so happens to contain it, but we'll stick to the topic.

 

[daydreamer41]

Please provide an iota of evidence that this...

"My opinion is get government out of Education and the price of Education will drop on its own."

would work. And back it up with even a slim outline of a realistic plan.

Most things are indeed too full of bureaucrats, but bureaucrats does not equal gov't. The private sector is far more bureaucratic than any Repub will ever seem admit.

And the Reganist dream is long gone. Why? Because while it was proven to help as a short term boost (to some), it has been equally proven to fail over a longer period of time due to lack of regulation to stop the very overlooked problem that so many right wing people seem to forget... humans are greedy.

So while its nice to think that that unregulated, self propelled, self regulated talking point would work, I think that the last bunch of years has proven that belief incorrect in today's world.

And that really is the biggest sore spot with most people and the Repubs. There is this unrealistic love of a country that never really existed. If I listen to them, what they are holding on to was the pleasantville dream of the 1950s, when everything was just so good. Except that it was not that good, unless you were a white man. But that's a whole other discussion now 'aint it.

Bush and the RNC gave it their best shot to revive that dream. The majority of the people in the country did not seem to think it went all that well. The majority of the rest of the planet seemed to agree. Time to move forward. It is very unfortunate that, as this thread proves, that they seem more interested in arguing talking points then working from within to actually do something to help.

Sure, I will be glad to explain how it works.

There is a Youtube of Peter Schiff, who is an investment counselor, who is running for Senate in Connecticut. He predicted the financial meltdown. He spoke in front of a crowd of college students.

I will post it when I find it, but here's how it goes.

He asked the crowd who I forget the college, it may have been Connecticut College or another expensive school in the state, how many of you can afford to go to this college without financial aid?

One person raised his hand and he said that - one person of all of you in a room that was packed. He then said, "How about if I told you that all financial aid and loans have been cancelled and now how many do you think will be able to go to college?

There was silence of course. He then said, "What if I told you all of you could afford to go, what would you say? You think I am crazy."

He then said that the college won't close their doors. They have buildings. The teachers would lose their jobs and have nothing. They would find a price that the students would be able to afford. They would also cut unnecessary positions. like bureacrats; etc.

But when the schools are able to get funding from the government - guess what. They raise their prices with impunity. And I saw it happened. When I went to school, you could go to an Ivy League school for $6,000 per year, less than the price of a mid-size car. Today, the same Ivy League School would cost $50,000 a year, the cost of a Luxury car. I went to a state school that started at $1200 per year when I was Freshmen and was at $2400 when I graduated 4 years later. Schiff said in the video that the price of colleges did not rise from the early 1800s if at all until the Civil War. Then the tuitions rose, but not at the rate of the last 35 years when government grants have come into being.

Government throwing money at problems tends to add waste and graff and bureacrats which do not add value. I know an Economics professor at a state college. He did an informal study of University budgets and found that many University have bureaucrat positions which never existed 25 or 30 years ago. This adds to the budget and students pay in tuition for these unnecessary positions.

So basically, what I am saying is if the money is not available to these schools, they would be forced to set a price that people can afford or they are out of business. But if an unlimited supply is available, all the schools have to do is ask and they will receive, but nothing is unlimited.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

I have different figures about infant mortality rate. The US ranks 180th lowest out of 229 (CIA world fact book). Singapore ranks the lowest with 2.31 infant deaths per 1000 and U.S. has 6.22 infant deaths per 1000. Cuba does have a slightly lower infant mortality rate of 5.82 per 1000.

Um, I said the US is 33rd in infant mortality. You say that we're 180th lowest, which would make us 50%, far worse than 33rd.

And I don't know which CIA World Factbook you're looking at, but the one I'm looking at 2009, has US life expectancy at 78.2, Cuba at 78.3.

David Frum is not a Conservative? Which David Frum are you talking about? I'm talking about was a senior speechwriter for George W. Bush. The guy who coined the term "Axis of Evil." I know what you're probably thinking. Since he doesn't have smoke coming out of his ears, and isn't hurling racist epithets at Congressmen, isn't spreading lies about "death panels," isn't throwing bricks through Democratic offices, isn't painting pictures of Obama to look like an African tribesman, that he isn't a real Conservative?

 

[Doc Holliday]

David Frum is not a Conservative? Which David Frum are you talking about? I'm talking about was a senior speechwriter for George W. Bush. The guy who coined the term "Axis of Evil." I know what you're probably thinking. Since he doesn't have smoke coming out of his ears, and isn't hurling racist epithets at Congressmen, isn't spreading lies about "death panels," isn't throwing bricks through Democratic offices, isn't painting pictures of Obama to look like an African tribesman, that he isn't a real Conservative?

I had a good chuckle at that one also!

I suppose because he's not a 'tea bagger', Mr. Frum cannot be considered a conservative.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Hey Doc,

I think the same of your ridiculous statements, but I am not telling you to shut up. It always amazes me how people who call themselves socialists or have Left leanings are always the first to censor others with a different point of view. It happens everytime.

I've never called myself a socialist, nor a leftist. I've always been a moderate who voted for both sides of the spectrum during past elections. I always voted with my gut & voted for whom i considered to be the best candidate who would represent my views & beliefs. Looking at my voting history since i turned 18, i noticed that i voted for the conservatives slightly more than i voted liberal. In other words, when it comes to politics, i try to keep an open mind & will vote for whom i consider to be the best candidate/party at the time of the election.

 

[bumfie]

My take on this: If it costs me a couple hundred bucks a year in taxes to ensure that some poor child gets to see a doctor instead of dying, or that no one permanently disfigures their hand by not having it set when it is broken due to lack of insurance (which happened to someone i know), so be it. I can't imagine why people oppose this.

(post edited for dropped words...typing too fast while half-asleep)

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

My take on this: If it costs me a couple hundred bucks a year in taxes to ensure that some poor child can't see a doctor and dies, or that someone permanently disfigures their hand by not having it set when it is broken due to lack of insurance, so be it. I can't imagine why people oppose this.

Well put. Taxes, my friend, are the price we pay for living in a civilized society. What I find most ironic is that those that most cling to the mantle of "patriot" are those who are the most opposed to paying taxes.

 

[CS Martin]

This is currently being circulated around the real estate industry today and is already causing delays in an already stressed housing market. Seems the Pelosi led congress may have forgotten this issue in trying to push through other business:

Sorry, but the National Flood Insurance Program was not renewed by Congress in their last session. The next session will be Monday April 12. No new policies may be issued for at least the next 2 weeks. Please see the announcement below:
The National Flood Insurance Program was authorized through midnight, Sunday, March 28, 2010. As of today Congress has failed to pass legislation to reauthorize the NFIP.

Until reauthorization, unfortunately, we are unable to issue new policies, renew existing policies or process any increase in coverage changes until Congress reauthorizes the program. During the hiatus period, the system will only allow you to quote new business and coverage increases. We will not be able to allow payment posting through our policy system.

Keep up the good management Nancy!!! Hey Barack, remember Billy says, "It's about the economy stupid!"

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Keep up the good management Nancy!!!

Actually, Nancy doesn't run the Congress, CS. She is the Speaker of the House, which is but half the Congress. The renewal of the National Flood Insurance Program was blocked by Republicans in the Senate, the same Republicans (David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Coburn (R-OK)) who blocked extension of Unemployment Benefits to millions of out of work Americans.

"By BART JANSEN
Gannett Washington Bureau

The flood program expired because of a dispute over a $9 billion temporary legislative package.

The House approved the legislation March 17 by voice vote, which would also extend unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies.

Democrats have labeled the legislation an emergency that needn't be paid for immediately.

But the Senate was unable to act before leaving Friday for a two-week recess because Republicans insisted on paying for the legislation with spending cuts elsewhere in the budget."

Once again, the party of No says, "No."