>> ^chilaxe:

As long as urban society pays more in order to subsidize rural society, whether through taxation or mailing costs, I think the point still applies... that the government arbitrarily giving rural society a "free" discount is a bug, not a feature.


I suspect it was a feature, not a bug, but intentional or not I agree that kind of subsidy is happening with flat postage rates.

I'll ask you what I asked blankfist, is there something wrong with that?

>> ^blankfist:

That wasn't my point? When did I say anything about something being "prohibitively expensive"?
"Cost effective" is right. At some point all three of those private carriers made a decision that delivery to your area wasn't worth it. The reason why is up for debate, but I'd suspect they evaluated the return they'd yield doing it themselves versus the return using the public option and chose the latter.

The highlighted part is what I'm taking issue with.

Do you think that the arrangement between FedEx and USPS is win-win, or do you imagine that USPS is losing money every time FedEx gives them a package?

Do you think that before FedEx arrived at this arrangement with the USPS, they didn't deliver to my house because it was prohibitively expensive not "worth it"?

>> ^NetRunner:

And my point is, it's not that my neighborhood is prohibitively expensive to deliver to, it's that using USPS deliver is more efficient generally (or as FedEx puts it, "cost effective"). That's why the whole product is being offered as a lower-cost alternative to traditional shipping to all US destinations for packages below a certain weight.


That wasn't my point? When did I say anything about something being "prohibitively expensive"?

"Cost effective" is right. At some point all three of those private carriers made a decision that delivery to your area wasn't worth it. The reason why is up for debate, but I'd suspect they evaluated the return they'd yield doing it themselves versus the return using the public option and chose the latter.

Not sure why you keep repeating back to me my points as if they're your own and then putting words in my mouth. Ha. You trolling?

I'm 100% on board with @MaxWilder. @Yogi, and @ghark seem to be falling into the same trap the tea party is falling in. By using your ideological base to hold your party hostage, you make your party less electable with the centrists. Right now, the centrists run this country, and Obama is our CEO.

To paraphrase Obama, "if we were to start from scratch, single-payer is the way to go, but we aren't starting from scratch." I agree, and in fact almost everybody agrees, there is little in this bill to effectively control costs. This bill is more about the moral imperative, not the financial one. It makes healthcare obtainable for more people, and it ensures that the people paying for coverage receive it. That is, it focuses more on the "quality and availability of care" problem, than the "cost of care" problem.

There is a very good reason for this. The cost issue is trickier to deal with.

On one hand you have the single payer direction. How do you do that? Presumably you just start offering medicare for everybody, which in effect means raising taxes substantially to pay for it. Remember, we just got out of a recession. Politically, nobody can stomach more taxes. Granted, in theory, everyone should receive a commensurate pay raise for the insurance they were previously receiving. If you thought that was going to happen... well... I think I've got a bridge that can get over that ocean for you...

On the other hand, you have the public option. In effect, that's making medicare optional for everyone. Well, if you talk to anyone in the medical industry, they'll tell you that medicare under-compensates. They don't cover the cost of care, and doctors are forced to subsidize that care by over charging patients with private insurance. Many doctors stop accepting medicare for exactly this reason. This puts you in a pickle. You can either A) force doctors to accept medicare, or B) reduce the availability of care to medicare subscribers. Of course, this is a false choice. Option A causes doctors to operate at a loss, which discourages entry into the medical profession more generally, and results in consequence B. Government price controls result in supply-demand imbalances. This is well documented.

If you really want to control costs, the best (maybe only) way is to lower the barriers to entry to the medical profession. Becoming a doctor should be a less costly endeavor, and doctors shouldn't be the only ones providing care. Nurses and technicians can do much of what is currently on the doctor's plate. Routine prescription renewals, diagnoses of common illnesses, and basic preventative tests could all be handled by people that didn't spend ten years and hundreds of thousands of dollars becoming a practicing doctor. Also, the creation of medical schools should be heavily subsidized. If you increase the number of care providers, the costs will come down.

The other aspects of costs are lawsuits, and medical technology (e.g. pharma, medtronic, etc). Dealing with lawsuits is hard, but one way to do it is to push liability to the people actually providing the care (like those nurses and techs, not the deep pockets), and make sure that the person getting the care understands the risks involved and signs waivers. That is where the dems are weakest because of their close ties to the ABA. With medical technology, we've got bigger problems that really have to do with overhauling our deeply flawed system of intellectual property in this country (and protectionist tendencies surrounding it). I agree, it's ridiculous that titanium screws cost 8k just because they go in your spine, or that 10 cents worth of pills can cost $600, but dealing with that is another whole TL;DR.

I amuses me that everyone thinks that they know what is right and that their opinion is the correct one.

I wish we had a public option. I think it is the best and most fair course -- spread the costs over the whole population and pay for it with a tax, instead of insurance premiums on the ones who can afford it. This just makes sense.

But who said that Americans are rational? I have so many conservative relatives who pop a vein over paying taxes and creating a social safety net. They are quick to sup at the public trough, but god forbid somebody get food stamps. "Those people don't work hard, I work hard, I deserve it, they don't."

I don't agree with their point of view, but believe you me, they hold it strongly. They believe that they are correct.

The lobbyists play into that. Fox News twists the story to play up that aspect. But it is landing on fertile soil, those manipulations.




>> ^ghark:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/MaxWilder" title="member since November 7th, 2007" class="profilelink">MaxWilder
You seem to be falling for the 'well if it's the lesser of two evils i'll take it' mentality. Firstly, the people did not want this - they voted in Obama under the premise he would provide real reform, this is not real reform because it does not deal with the core issue of huge overall expenditure on healthcare by Americans for very little result. Instead it forces most people to take it or face large fines, and as far as the pre-existing legislation issue goes, there are loopholes, who do you think wrote the bill?
It's a no brainer, do we want everyone to have access to healthcare or not? If no, then consider yourself partially liable for the 20,000 odd deaths that will result from the passing of this legislation per year (as opposed to to a public plan) - congratulations I hope that feels good sitting there on your shoulder. If yes, then this legislation fails, because millions still wont have access to healthcare under these changes.
The lobbyists spent huge sums of money to get what they wanted, and they were successful.

I've reached the point where the very fact that he says he rejects this plan, makes me very nervous. Virtually everything he's ever promised, he's done a 180 on. Amnesty for telecoms and warrentless wiretaps...Guantanamo Bay...the public option...standing up with unions...state secrets...DOMA. The list goes on and on. In every case, his actions utterly refuted his promises.

The only positive thing I can say for him is, he's still better than McCain. But not by much.

>> ^petpeeved:

I love Weiner but his closing remark almost caused me to have an aneurysm: "...you are an important part of the organism that makes politics work..."
Speechless.


Yea he seems like a nice guy, very smart and good values - however if you watched the coverage during the healthcare debates, you would have noticed he was vehemently for the public option, but then at the end they (the democrats) used him to sell the healthcare deal to the public with no public option because they knew that while people may feel let down, they would assume that Weiner had done everything he could. Politics is in quite a sad state of affairs when an entire (major) political party that is supposed to represent the people is being carefully abused to take advantage of people in all kinds of sneaky psychological ways.

Besides the 'muslim' points, I actually understand where they're coming from. Fundamentally, we have to admit Obama is a weak person. I could get into it ranging from his poker buddies who say he can't show strength (folding most of the time) to his weakness during the healthcare debate (about the public option).

Americans at a core like strong presidents, even if they disagree with them, they'll shut up and let the 'commander in chief' do his thing. Bush was a great example, he was strong and people followed him. I think these caucus voters hit the nail on the head when they say there's no policy or direction (no one seems to be in charge, there's no clear vision about supporting the democratic aspirations of egyptians vs mubarak, they disowned the special envoy's comments). And that's because fundamentally there is no policy (there are empty words, however) and the actual policy is to try to please the (washington) establishment. Even though the comments about Chamberlain are obviously being said for other reasons (OMG, he's hitler, etc.), they are in a sense correct about his unwillingness to have a conflict, even if it just a verbal conflict, in order to stand up for progressive values.

Not that I'm defending the Democrats, since I think both parties suck. But. Has there ever been an instance where a Democrat pundit or a clearly left-leaning organization ever changed the terminology of a commonly accepted phrase or concept in order to manipulate public opinion?

Because the whole Estate Tax/Death Tax, Public Option/Government Option, Torture/Enhanced Interrogation Techniques phenomenon where common phrases get changed to make people change their opinion on things seems to clearly be a Republican thing.

It just reminds me of the video of the Rand Paul supporter curb stomping the MoveOn.org protester. Has there EVER been an instance where the opposite is true and you have a left-leaning supporter committing violence or even threatening violence to a right-leaning person?

---
I can only work with proven results, not what others want things to be or theorize is possible. Obamanomics has failed to deliver prosperity, and this may be because increasing prosperity is not what it's designed to do. It could be working beautifully if its goal is to increase dependency on government and curtail American influence worldwide.

REAL American unemployment is currently 18%, not the BS that D.C. is spouting. 2 to 3% more wouldn't even register with the crew in D.C.
---

You cannot 'prove' anything in a social science. What you can do is historically look at past crises and see what worked and what didn't.

Financial crises historically have high levels of unemployment following them. This is because as in this case for the US, consumers have overspent and must spend years rebuilding their savings levels. As they rebuild them, demand is low, the demand for employees is low, and there is relatively higher unemployment.

This is historically accurate for Latin America's debt crisis in 1982, the 1990 asset bubble bust in Japan and so far entirely consistent for the financial crisis in the US.

The way you label fiscal stimulus as Obamanomics leads me to believe you think that his policies are idiosynchractic and unique. They are not. Virtually every country in the world hit by the global financial crisis has enacted the same combination of direct spending, lower taxes and looser monetary policy. You would be well advised to be aware of this.

Also, despite what you may claim, the fact that unemployment is high and has risen under Obama is not evidence that his policies have not worked. In fact again there is historical evidence to suggest the US has fared better than other countries. See the first graph below:

http://www.economist.com/node/17041738

Unemployment is measured by virtually all countries as the number of unemployed out of the proportion actively seeking work. Yes, this is not an accurate measure when previous employees have been discouraged from looking for work and have dropped out, but it is consistent with most measures used internationally.

---
Though the government obviously denies it, the origins of this financial crisis were largely the fault of government policies and meddling.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

----Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury

Keynesian economic theory does not work. It mistakes action for results. Despite enormous spending (which began as Bush was sunsetting) Obamanomics hasn't created any jobs, unless you count the temporary kick of the useless Census.

The American people have the wealth and are indeed holding onto it. There are 2 trillion dollars in assets waiting to rejoin the economy. So why don't people jump in again?

No sane business is going to invest heavily or hire workers with our leftists in power, threatening to tax everything in sight and "punish" profits. This current govt--even with the coming Republicans in January--also offers no stability or confidence, and I don't expect this to change anytime soon.

The current US Secretary of the Treasury is a tax cheat, and well before they installed the SOB they knew he was a tax cheat. Does it get any more obvious the lack of integrity and disdain for the public harbored by the crew in DC.
---

I agree that the financial crisis has much to do with government meddling. Policymakers in the US have historically encouraged the quintessential notion of homeownership frivolously and irresponsibly. At the other end equally though, predatory lending exacerbated the issue. Left to their own devices, banks knew full well that they could generate huge returns by lending, and then selling off those financial assets to wipe themselves clean of risk. They also knew that if worst came to worst, the government would bail them out as they were too integral to the functioning of the world economy. Both less intervention and more regulation was necessary to prevent what happened.

Either of these 2 factors in and of itself would have led to a crisis sooner than later, would you not agree?

I can't take a quote seriously that skips over text 3 times in 4 lines. For all you know, the original intent has been completely manipulated. For all you know (based on previous experience) this wasn't even SAID by who it's claimed to have been said by.

Besides, there is no evidence there. It is someone's opinion, without any facts, without any figures. Nothing to substantiate what is being said. I genuinely hope you don't rely on people's pure opinions as gospel and factcheck what you read.

Again, you are simply wrong the stimulus has not created jobs. It has created both permanent jobs by giving subsidies to industries, and temporary jobs to prevent skills loss from unemployed workers:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm

Read the title of the article above.

Frankly, how is it POSSIBLE that you think it hasn't created any jobs? Where do you think the money goes? Do you think it's laundered into people's bank accounts and shipped overseas? How can you possibly think that a stimulus has not created any jobs? That the only jobs it has created are for the census is a typical right wing talking point from what I hear. Again, I implore you to consult some less idealogical sources without absolutist views.

Not to go on a tangent here, but how often have these sources you rely on information for actually lauded something that Obama has done? Do you really think it is possible that Obama has done nothing good, or let alone nothing that ideologically they would agree on? Take for example the increased drone strikes in Pakistan, relative to even Bush. This seems like a clear cut policy that right wing pundits and blogs would laud. Why is there no one mentioning this?

Or do you think that possibly, just possibly, they have an agenda or an absolutist view with which they perceive the Democrats and the left-wing that blinds them to anything that doesn't conform to their predisposed views that Democrats = bad?

Why would you want to emulate and follow the opinions of someone who cannot look at things at face value?

For your comment on why investors are not investing, they are not investing because of the debt which will worsen if taxes fall - this is historically proven as fact. But let's say for argument that taxes were drastically reduced. Demand is still low in the US though. People are still rebuilding their balance sheets. What will the multinational and wealthy corporations do with this excess revenue?

They will invest it overseas in developing markets with high growth rates. Lower taxes will be paying for growth in foreign countries. Since the money will be invested elsewhere, even less of it will be reaped back in tax revenue. Growth overseas will be rising while the US is falling further and further into debt default.

I am curious where exactly you don't agree with this logic.

I have nothing cogent to say against your notion that Democrats want to punish profits.

It does not make sense.

The buy-up of bank and auto industry stocks is being relinquished. Citibank recently bought back some of these shares, and the government made a profit. The auto industry is making a profit. There is simply no evidence that Obama wants to nationalize anything. There is no public option. The independent review committee to trim Medicare will MINIMIZE government involvement, something the right quite hypocritically, is against.

How is it not obvious that punishing profits would be bad politics? How is it not obvious that doing this would not win votes? Where is your evidence that he intends to do this? The health care plan is deficit neutral. Financial reform will reduce risk.

Will taxes have to rise? Sure, because without that, the budget will never return to neutral. This is fact. Cutting social policies by that much is not feasible. Why do you blame Obama for this and not Bush who allowed this to fester during prolonged periods of economic growth? Would you rather the problem fester while taxes are kept low and imperil the whole economy in the process? There are only those two options.

Also, I think I laid out, what is a pretty simple and logical explaining of fiscal policy, and why it works.

Where do you disagree with it?

---
Well, like you or anyone else, I'm just as likely to vote to stop the other side as promote my own. Where you live, govt is seen as a benevolent force for good. And as you can probably attest, you pay through the nose for the government services provided.

Individual > State = America

State > Individual = everywhere else

If the Republicans don't repeal or de-fund obamacare they are finished.
---

The funny this is, if I were making the same as I am not in the US, I would be paying nearly the same in taxes.

I'm a recent university grad and make 60K/year.

I pay 15% between 6-35k, and 30% between 35-60k. (4350 + 7500 = $11850)

The US income brackets are very similar.

For me they would be, 10% between 0 - $8375, 15% between $8376 - $34,000 and 25% between $34,000 - $60,000. (838 + 3844 + 6500 = 11182)

So let's see. I'm paying roughly $700 more (a bit more actually, say $1000 for argument considering the exchange rate of 0.95, but close enough) for free universal access to hospital treatment and subsidized out of hospital expenses; for generous unemployment benefits if I ever lose my job. For university cost assistance, despite the fact that I could easily pay off my university debt if I lived at home with minimal expenses in one year (It's ~25k from 5 years of study with nothing paid back yet). I hear that in the US for Ivy league schools it can be 20-30K US A YEAR. I mean that last point alone MORE THAN makes up for the difference. Frankly any of those do by themselves. I also have great job prospects being in an economy that never officially went into recession (only one quarter of negative growth) with a private sector one lined up for next year.

To sum up, I'm actually paying only 1.7% more in taxes for a WHOLE HEAP of benefits.

How is that a bad deal?

Incidentally much of our (Australia's) economic success can be attributed to good bank regulation than anything else. If you are curious I can elaborate on this.

i like what she says.
the health care bill that was passed is a band-aid, not a cure.

i wanted universal healthcare like in most other industrialized nations, or at the very least a public option.

but, i do feel that unless the political system is changed (the money flow from corporate interests to policy makers at all levels), i don't know how realistic that is...

well, we can always move to canada or europe =)

It is a commentary on his lack of experience...

Sure Winstonfield, sure.

In the last 18 months these RADICALS...

Have you ever considered that you are the radical (or reactionary)? Is it possible that paranoid gubmint hating god fearing folks are the nutjobs? Any objective view Obama suggests he is still very much right of center, even if it doesn't fit into your worldview. It takes a certain kind of true-believer to suggest Obama is nearing communist territory - and a healthy disregard for political scaling or measurement. Ask anyone who isn't a partisan or teabagger. Better yet, ask anyone from a different country. They'll tell you. Hyperbole is so much more fun though, right?

doubling down on leftist economics, europe in shambles, right-wing economics to the rescue

Even Britain's Conservatives are wild-eyed radicals in your mind. Federal money for kid's hospices? Communist!!!

Please...
Lousy polling?

45.7% after a months-long oil spill....this man is clearly hated by the country and 'Real Americans'TM are clearly lined up against him.

I guess in your mind the following numbers are proof positive of a complete outrage on behalf of 'Real Americans'TM? Or does this suggest that maybe Americans enjoy government intervention?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/140981/Verdict-Healthcare-Reform-Bill-Divided.aspx

And what's this? Majority of Americans support the creation of a public option? Heresy!

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/185853.asp

I can't tell if you really believe all this, or just like to fuck with people. I don't know which scenario I dislike more.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

gotta love the understated racism (man-child)
Incorrect. It is a commentary on his lack of experience, his spoiled & selfish behavior, and his general lack of any ability to actually deal with opposing ideas with any degree of maturity. But false accusations of racism when faced with opposition is a tradition on the left - as we've seen all too often lately.
the hyperbole (radicals)
In the last 18 months these radicals have implemented a plan to ration health care, quadrupled the national debt, established huge unconstitutional increases in federal power over finance and other industries - all against the will of the people. Bailouts, industry takeovers, tax increases, cap & tax, amnesty, health care reform, and on and on and on - all things solidly opposed by a 2/3 majority of the people (or higher). This administration and congress is the most left-wing, radical, out of step clot of extremists that this nation has ever seen in positions of power. The only people that 'like' what they're doing is the 25-30% or so of the country that occupies the far left. Conservatives, Repubicans, and Independents are roundly rejecting everything these radicals are doing - and they make up 65-70% of America.
the blanket portrayals of Europeans as poverty-stricken communists
While Obama & the other radicals are doubling down with leftist economics - Europe is doing the opposite. Greece, Italy, Spain, Britain, Germany - day after day the stories pile up about how they are turning to 'privitization' in order to save themselves from fiscal disasters. It isn't that they're poverty-stricken communists. It is that they have followed the misguided principles of leftist economics, and now they turning to capitalism to pull themselves out of the hole... All while the Man-Child is doing the opposite and putting American further in debt in a time of economic turmoil & trouble. Says something, don't it?
And the rhetorical attacks on Obama (how's his polling these days?
Pretty lousy - actually...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_ob
ama_job_approval-1044.html
Isn't there majority support for Health Care reform? Isn't there still majority support for a Public Option?
In NeoLib-Lala-Land maybe, but not on planet Earth. The only thing there is 'majority support' for is for repealing the bill.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_conten
t/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20010453-503544.html
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/2
8/poll-finds-low-enthusiasm-high-skepticism-for-health-care-overh/
Folks on the left need to learn a lesson quickly. YOU ARE THE FRINGE. The left likes to walk around thinking they are mainstream and popular. You aren't. Leftist policy and philosophy is radical and unpopular. And when you try to ram it down people's throats it makes you even more radical and unpopular. Leftism isn't compassion. It is cruel. Leftism doesn't lead to prosperity or tolerance. It leads to poverty and balkanization.

>> ^Throbbin:
Oh WInstonfield - gotta love the understated racism (man-child), the hyperbole (radicals), the blanket portrayals of Europeans as poverty-stricken communists (aren't they happier, healthier, and better educated than Americans?), and the rhetorical attacks on Obama (how's his polling these days? Isn't there majority support for Health Care reform? Isn't there still majority support for a Public Option?).
Talk about hardcore dyed-in-the-wool partisans and ideologues eh?>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I think ridicule is the best way to destroy nonsensical groups like the Tea Party
Ah yes. A page right out of the Man Child's favorite neolib catechism, "Rules for Radicals".
It is hard to tell if the neolib left is being incredibly devious or incredibly stupid when it comes to the Tea Party. The TP is just a large group of regular folks who believe that the largest obstacle to American prosperity is America's own government. And they have a solid point. Big Government, Big Labor, Big Pensions have castrated the European economy for decades. Even Britain has come to realize that it can't keep the gravy train rolling. But at the time Europe is pulling back on leftist economics, the Man-Child and the neolib left are desperately trying to double-down on it. And the vast majority of the American public don't like it and don't want it.
Poll after poll shows that the neolib agenda is rejected wholesale by all but the most leftist, dyed-in-the-wool groups of hardcore Democrats. The agenda is totally out of step with the public. The Tea Party is nothing more than a group of people who protest the neolib left's advancement of their unpopular agenda against the will of the people. It's that simple.
And the neolibs know all too well they are on the losing side of the vote. The data is clear as a bell. The more they push their radicalism, the more the people object. And so comes the sideshow & circus of accusing the TP of racism, and all the other Rules for Radicals tactics that the Man-Child learned at teats of his communist & totalitarian mentors.
But - like GWB - when you try to advance an agenda against the will of the people then you WILL lose. I still have faith in that. Bush pushed Iraq when the people didn't understand it and didn't like it. He lost the PR war, and then Congress. Obama is pushing radical leftist policy when the people don't like it. He is losing the PR war, and then he'll lose Congress. And then he'll get tossed out of office. Hopefully someone with Tea Party mentality replaces him and undoes everything the Man-Child accomplished. Nothing would make America happier than to repeal every law passed by this out of step, radical congress of neolib idiots.



Hey Throbin, the funny part, we two did not have at it. In fact I was speaking to everyone. But while you and Winston have at it, have fun.

gotta love the understated racism (man-child)

Incorrect. It is a commentary on his lack of experience, his spoiled & selfish behavior, and his general lack of any ability to actually deal with opposing ideas with any degree of maturity. But false accusations of racism when faced with opposition is a tradition on the left - as we've seen all too often lately.

the hyperbole (radicals)

In the last 18 months these radicals have implemented a plan to ration health care, quadrupled the national debt, established huge unconstitutional increases in federal power over finance and other industries - all against the will of the people. Bailouts, industry takeovers, tax increases, cap & tax, amnesty, health care reform, and on and on and on - all things solidly opposed by a 2/3 majority of the people (or higher). This administration and congress is the most left-wing, radical, out of step clot of extremists that this nation has ever seen in positions of power. The only people that 'like' what they're doing is the 25-30% or so of the country that occupies the far left. Conservatives, Repubicans, and Independents are roundly rejecting everything these radicals are doing - and they make up 65-70% of America.

the blanket portrayals of Europeans as poverty-stricken communists

While Obama & the other radicals are doubling down with leftist economics - Europe is doing the opposite. Greece, Italy, Spain, Britain, Germany - day after day the stories pile up about how they are turning to 'privitization' in order to save themselves from fiscal disasters. It isn't that they're poverty-stricken communists. It is that they have followed the misguided principles of leftist economics, and now they turning to capitalism to pull themselves out of the hole... All while the Man-Child is doing the opposite and putting American further in debt in a time of economic turmoil & trouble. Says something, don't it?

And the rhetorical attacks on Obama (how's his polling these days?

Pretty lousy - actually...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Isn't there majority support for Health Care reform? Isn't there still majority support for a Public Option?

In NeoLib-Lala-Land maybe, but not on planet Earth. The only thing there is 'majority support' for is for repealing the bill.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20010453-503544.html
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/28/poll-finds-low-enthusiasm-high-skepticism-for-health-care-overh/

Folks on the left need to learn a lesson quickly. YOU ARE THE FRINGE. The left likes to walk around thinking they are mainstream and popular. You aren't. Leftist policy and philosophy is radical and unpopular. And when you try to ram it down people's throats it makes you even more radical and unpopular. Leftism isn't compassion. It is cruel. Leftism doesn't lead to prosperity or tolerance. It leads to poverty and balkanization.

Oh WInstonfield - gotta love the understated racism (man-child), the hyperbole (radicals), the blanket portrayals of Europeans as poverty-stricken communists (aren't they happier, healthier, and better educated than Americans?), and the rhetorical attacks on Obama (how's his polling these days? Isn't there majority support for Health Care reform? Isn't there still majority support for a Public Option?).

Talk about hardcore dyed-in-the-wool partisans and ideologues eh?>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I think ridicule is the best way to destroy nonsensical groups like the Tea Party
Ah yes. A page right out of the Man Child's favorite neolib catechism, "Rules for Radicals".
It is hard to tell if the neolib left is being incredibly devious or incredibly stupid when it comes to the Tea Party. The TP is just a large group of regular folks who believe that the largest obstacle to American prosperity is America's own government. And they have a solid point. Big Government, Big Labor, Big Pensions have castrated the European economy for decades. Even Britain has come to realize that it can't keep the gravy train rolling. But at the time Europe is pulling back on leftist economics, the Man-Child and the neolib left are desperately trying to double-down on it. And the vast majority of the American public don't like it and don't want it.
Poll after poll shows that the neolib agenda is rejected wholesale by all but the most leftist, dyed-in-the-wool groups of hardcore Democrats. The agenda is totally out of step with the public. The Tea Party is nothing more than a group of people who protest the neolib left's advancement of their unpopular agenda against the will of the people. It's that simple.
And the neolibs know all too well they are on the losing side of the vote. The data is clear as a bell. The more they push their radicalism, the more the people object. And so comes the sideshow & circus of accusing the TP of racism, and all the other Rules for Radicals tactics that the Man-Child learned at teats of his communist & totalitarian mentors.
But - like GWB - when you try to advance an agenda against the will of the people then you WILL lose. I still have faith in that. Bush pushed Iraq when the people didn't understand it and didn't like it. He lost the PR war, and then Congress. Obama is pushing radical leftist policy when the people don't like it. He is losing the PR war, and then he'll lose Congress. And then he'll get tossed out of office. Hopefully someone with Tea Party mentality replaces him and undoes everything the Man-Child accomplished. Nothing would make America happier than to repeal every law passed by this out of step, radical congress of neolib idiots.

>> ^quantumushroom:

"While the majority of the tax cuts, passed last February, affected 95 percent of working families, when they took affect by April of 2009, the monetary value was not too large -- most families saw about $70 more in take home pay every month. Individual workers saw about $13 more a week."
WOW! $13 more A WEEK!
If you don't count the raising of tobacco taxes and obama's coming commiecare, massive expansion of the federal gov. and his plan to let those evil Bush tax cuts expire while restoring the estate (death) tax, then yeah, The Marxist Messiah has thrown all of us a crumb. Oh, and of course, 18% of working Americans got a tax cut by being unemployed.
Can't wait for November!
>> ^Yogi:
Haven't taxes been lowered?


I keep hearing that "oh noes they COULD raise taxes because of OBAMACARE!" Look, there is no "Obamacare." There was going to be a public option but that was gutted from the bill. The only socialized medical programs we have are medicare and medicaid and it'll be a cold day in hell before the old republicans give that up.

And side note:
"Death Tax" only applies if your estate is worth over a million dollars. Something tells me it won't apply to you.