then why would you make a claim saying you would know she wouldn't? do you even understand what you type half the time?
Well the previous administration had taken it farther from it's basic principles, and Obama has moved us back in the direction of the basic principles.
I actually think you believe that tea parties would be happening if McCain were president and did two sensible things: a stimulus package, and a request of congress to propose a healthcare bill. "Far afield." Um, just wow. But I believe you if you tea partied against Reagan's deficit spending (check the percentage expansion comparatively), and that you tea partied against TARP in 2008. Seriously, if you tell me you tea partied those, I believe you. If the liberal media misses a large march in DC for gay rights, I'm sure they could miss a smaller tea party against TARP last year.
B-Bob, McCain's ideas for a stimulus were far more modest than Bush and Obama. Now, let's look at two notions with which the tea party movement has been saddled: 1) we were and are opposed to the stimulus and 2) opposition to health care reform. First, (and I can speak for my tea party group)we were not opposed to a governmental stimulus. What we opposed was the haste in devising the plan and the waste it brought about as well as the opportunities it presented to taking over huge slices of the American economy. Second, we have supported health care and insurance reform but not a government takeover of these industries. Better regulation? Absolutely needed. There is no argument here and never has been. The difference has been in that we have no confidence that the government can run anything more efficiently than (regulated) private enterprise. Obama was elected with a sigh of relief by the American majority because a kinder, gentler government and the promise of governmental transparency were greatly desired. Unfortunately, IMO we are seeing an even more spiteful goverment operating in an even darker cloak of secrecy. These are two of the concepts that actually drive the mainstream of the tea party movement.
Tea party's response to the stimulus should have been: It didnt work when Bush tried it, Obama is trying basically the same thing, so why then would we expect it to work this time?? We thought it would work when Bush did, so we were OK with it. It didnt work, so we dont want to repeat the same mistake. Thats my basic problem with it. Too bad they were busy vilifying the president to find a coherent reason.
Can't we let the tea parties, the tea partiers, and this thread sink into the sea? Their 15 minutes are up.
These are some facts that the TeaBaggers seem to ignore: In some places, there is absolutely no competition for health insurance providers meaning they can charge whatever they want. There is nothing keeping health insurance providers from dropping people from insurance when they need it the most. There is no way to punish the company when they drop people from their rolls when they start to cut into their profit margin. There is no way to force insurance companies to insure those with a pre-existing condition. Medical bills are the number one reason that people go bankrupt in this country. The mortality rate is higher than other industrialized countries that have some public option for health care. Overhead for Medicare is 2% compared to 20+% for private health insurance. NO ONE (aside from those on the far left) have seriously discussed Single Payer as a plan for health care reform. Obama has never advocated jumping to a single payer system. My question is, if the government could allow people who are uninsured to be grouped together so that they could negotiate a rate for health insurance that would cause private companies to lower their rates so more people could afford it, and those with pre-existing conditions would have the ability to get the care they need, why would anyone be opposed to that? @thumbs: I read that you have diabetes and neuropathy and I know how terrible that can be. If you were to lose your current health insurance, there is no way that any insurance provider would insure you (unless they had to) because of those conditions. My wife was denied private coverage when she was 25 lbs overweight and had type 2 diabetes. Add the neuropathy and the wheelchair? Not a chance.
1) This is an area where we need not only regulation but the ability to buy insurance across state lines. 2) Again, this is an area where insurance reform is desperately needed -- no coverage exclusions and equalization of premiums, regardless of age or gender, with all covered persons required to pay into the system equally. 3) Regulation would cure this -- perhaps with government intervention at some specified point where a cost ceiling is reached. 4) See response #2. 5) Medical bankruptcy occurs when a person runs out of money and applies for Medicaid, which can and will seize assets like a family home. This is so wrong ... I have seen this happen. Again, this is an area where government does need to step into the picture, putting that family into a temporary or permanent Social Security pension system. 6) The current U.S. mortality rate is somewhat skewed by a number of factors ranging from abortion (I think those babies are counted as mortalities, but I'm not sure about that) to illegal immigration (few pay attention to the dying who come here to get medical attention). However, in other countries they tend to eat more real food and less junk food. 7) The Medicare cost descrepancy can be attributed to operating in the red -- I think Medicare is about $15 billion or so in the red. The government tends to count the money when they want to be funded and ignore it when showing that Medicare is so much more efficient. However, I do know doctors (mine included) who charge the insurance companies more to compensate the prices they charge to the uninsured. 8) Obama dances around single payer. His administration backed it but went to calling it public option when the protests started. I forgot the new name Pelosi wants to rename public option. 9) I personally would not be opposed to a "special needs" insurance classification run and funded by the government under the same rationale / guidelines extended to the physically / mentally handicapped. 10) There is a category you did not address but cries out as well. In rural America there is a shortage of doctors and medical facilities. In western Kansas you had better not get sick or have an accident. There are no doctors for miles and miles. Similarly, don't move to a rural area without finding a doctor who has a patient opening. We have to solve this need as well. My sympathies go out to your wife and you. I understand not only the pains that are incurred but the inconveniences from a physical as well as a mental standpoint. Once upon a time...well, I was considered a smart guy. Now posters here can make fun of my lack of mental accuity and I can't argue. Sad. But I still have my moments.
I protested TARP in front of the Houston Federal Reserve branch last year. We had about 100 show up throughout the day. Based on the thumbs-up versus middle fingers that we got, I'd estimate that 85% of Houston was on our side, 14.8% didn't care, and 0.2% were on the bankers' side. I was interviewed by Channel 7, so there's video evidence somewhere.
I sincerely and enthusiastically applaud you (separate from my convoluted views on TARP.) I just applaud convictions that are clear and consistent, based on careful consideration. And I will be writing my reps about wiretaps and transparency, just as I did under the last administration. I took to the streets against invading Iraq, and I will do so again if Obama starts something new based on a similar set of evidence. thumbs, thanks for the reply. We could very well end up with reform that doesn't have a public option, and Obama has said he would accept it. Just seems like an awful lot of strong rhetoric (at the tea parties) for what might not even be a sizable difference of opinion, if you see what I mean. We can agree to disagree on what many of your colleagues would have done in protest if McCain was doing the same basic things as Obama.
thumbs - part of tea-partying is a pro-states-rights movement, right? Not in the negative light from slavery and all that, but the idea that the federal government should stay out of more things? If so, how does that fit with your desire for cross-state selling of insurance? That would require the federal government to take away the power to regulate insurance from the states.
"States rights" positions are sometimes the most sound, and sometimes federalism is the best approach. When there is no compromise of positions, there is no strength of government. BTW, I have never viewed the tea party groups as pro states rights but pro citizens' rights.
McCain's ides for stimulus changed almost every single hour. I think we can look at Japan and how slow and incomplete their stimulus was and how that started a decade of recession there. I guess we can disagree on the urgency of the stimulus. But I think the tens of thousands people who were saved from foreclosure, and bankruptcy would be among those who believed it was urgent. Neither Obama nor any version of the health care reform bills out there advocates a govt. takeover of health care. While Obama hasn't removed near enough of the shroud of secrecy, the spitefulness certainly has decreased. He's done far and away more than the previous administration to reach out to people on the opposite end of the political spectrum.
How much do you believe McCain would have spent on stimulus? Wait - so you wanted an emergency stimulus to be debated for many months, while the economy slid into disaster? What slices of the economy, exactly, were taken over by the government with the stimulus? So, to clarify, your only real problem with the health care legislation is the public option?
might have been the better thing to do. Less than 20 percent was spent after it being around for 8 months so what would another month or two have really done? Get some pork removed?
