I love Barack Obama... 's writers. He needs to get some of those Jon Stewart "Boom!" actions in there.

Don't worry, Mitt.
It's covered under Obamacare.

5 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

*talks *politics

Adding video to channels (Politics, Talks) - requested by xxovercastxx.

I didn't know Obama is working for the juvenile vote. I bet it'll be just as effective as him defending Big Bird.

>> ^Trancecoach:

Don't worry, Mitt.
It's covered under Obamacare.


Pre-romnesia Romney must have really been thinking ahead when he invented Obamacare.

Thing is, most people who know Mitt would say that the new centrist is the real Mitt, and the republican primary hardliner was the act. That doesn't make him less of a panderer, but I haven't seen either party put forward a principled nominee in my lifetime.

The Obama campaign seems to be running out of steam. If they don't have an October surprise up their sleeves, I think they've had it.

You don't think that Obama's focus on getting some kind of health care reform was a principled act?

He isn't dictator, he had to compromise to get the votes.

But he spent a lot of time and political capital, doing so in the face of many people hating him for it.

I think Obama is a very principled human being. I don't agree with him 100% on all issues, but I also don't have the knowledge he has nor the responsibility he has.




>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

Thing is, most people who know Mitt would say that the new centrist is the real Mitt, and the republican primary hardliner was the act. That doesn't make him less of a panderer, but I haven't seen either party put forward a principled nominee in my lifetime.

>> ^bareboards2:

You don't think that Obama's focus on getting some kind of health care reform was a principled act?
He isn't dictator, he had to compromise to get the votes.
But he spent a lot of time and political capital, doing so in the face of many people hating him for it.
I think Obama is a very principled human being. I don't agree with him 100% on all issues, but I also don't have the knowledge he has nor the responsibility he has.


>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:
Thing is, most people who know Mitt would say that the new centrist is the real Mitt, and the republican primary hardliner was the act. That doesn't make him less of a panderer, but I haven't seen either party put forward a principled nominee in my lifetime.



Actually he didn't compromise at all on healthcare. There was no negotiation; he passed Obamacare when he still had a super majority in congress, and he didn't get a single republican vote for it.

@shinyblurry, have you heard of "Blue Dog Democrats"? They are conservative Dems not much different from right of center Republicans. Obama had to get his own party together.

And the whole "individual mandate" thing came from Heritage Foundation ideas for how it could be done.

Obama started with single payer and ended up with this pastiche of ideas that is somewhat painful.

That is compromise and that is principle.

Republicans gutting the "death panels" from Medicare to make political points, when those "death panels" have been proven to 1) provide comfort to the family and the patient 2) after the patient dies, the survivors have much better mental health because they knew they were following their loved ones' wishes and 3) saves a buttload of money spent on unwanted-by-the-patient extraordinary measures. That is unprincipled.

I'm still mad about the "death panels." Putting political points before what is best for American citizens and American taxpayers. Shameful. Full on shameful.

>> ^bareboards2:

@shinyblurry, have you heard of "Blue Dog Democrats"? They are conservative Dems not much different from right of center Republicans. Obama had to get his own party together.
And the whole "individual mandate" thing came from Heritage Foundation ideas for how it could be done.
Obama started with single payer and ended up with this pastiche of ideas that is somewhat painful.
That is compromise and that is principle.
Republicans gutting the "death panels" from Medicare to make political points, when those "death panels" have been proven to 1) provide comfort to the family and the patient 2) after the patient dies, the survivors have much better mental health because they knew they were following their loved ones' wishes and 3) saves a buttload of money spent on unwanted-by-the-patient extraordinary measures. That is unprincipled.
I'm still mad about the "death panels." Putting political points before what is best for American citizens and American taxpayers. Shameful. Full on shameful.


So, basically what you're saying is, it was okay for Obama to leave the republicans out of the negotiation process, and that he is still a hero because he had to negotiate within his own party? Come on. That's not real compromise, and it certainly isn't real leadership. You have to remember that he promised to bring people together and reach across the aisle; yet when it came to his signature legislation, he took the low road, and that because he could. He was more than happy to leave the republicans out of the loop.

I don't have any comment on death panels because I haven't really researched the issue. By default, I don't trust the government to manage anything right, and certainly not my health care. I agree with the principle of small government, because big government is exponentially more corrupt than small government. In any human institution you will have corruption, because mans nature is inherently sinful. The more power you give, the more corrupt it will be.

shinyblurry, no, that is not "basically" what I am saying. But there is no need to go on with this.

Thank you for a non-inflammatory exchange, however much we did not change each others position.

FYI -- the "death panels" are nothing more than an advanced health directive. Everyone should have an advanced health directive -- I have one that I signed when I created my will. Medicare was going to pay for patients to sit with their care providers, BEFORE they got sick, and go through the choices offered by a standard, normal, common sense advanced health directive. Do you want a feeding tube? What extraordinary measures do you want taken on your behalf if you are unable to make decisions?

A hospital in the Midwest made it their policy for all patients to have one and the benefits that I mentioned were dccumented there over time. The most telling was the peace of mind of the family -- that they knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that these were the wishes of their aged parents, because the questions were asked BEFORE they got so sick they couldn't answer.

Medicare was going to include the consultation as a reimbursable expense under Medicare, rather than do it for free and not get paid for providing good care.

If that sounds like good common sense to you, you might ask yourself why you didn't know these very simple facts about "death panels" when they were in the news so much. Who labelled the process with such an inflammatory phrase? What was gained from that phrase?

And how much heartache, worry, and the coin of the realm has been wasted because these simple facts weren't shared with you from your news source?

And yes, the idea of "death panels" was first put forward by some Republicans. None of whom defended it when other Republicans threw it under the bus for political points.

@shinyblurry, see above. I typed your name wrong.

It's amusing that Obama get's criticism for "pushing it down the throats" of Americans, for not "working across the isle" when the only agenda of those on the right side of the isle was to obstruct progress and then blame his administration for the lack of it. Why are congressional republicans not held to the same standard?

So answer this: what exactly is the government supposed to do when there is a democratically elected majority in all three branches?

Put another way, if we somehow tragically got a republican super majority next month, do you think they would hesitate to write a constitutional amendment repealing Roe v. Wade? Affordable Care Act? Would they hold back because a little less than half of Americans disagree with them? No, of course they wouldn't. They would merrily "push it down our throats" and call it a mandate.

@bareboards2

I'm also glad that we can discuss these issues like reasonable people. I apologize if I've come off as unreasonable in the past. The truth is that I'm always willing to talk things out.

I've heard the rhetoric about death panels from both sides; I just haven't put in the effort to separate fact from fiction. Now that I've looked into it, this is what I've found. What you're describing (end of life consultations) is not the same thing as what are now being called death panels in Obamacare. Yes, it is true that the provision you are speaking about was demonized by republicans and ultimately removed from Medicare. I'm actually not sure how I feel about it, because it is a form of assisted suicide, and it could be abused. Some seniors may feel pressured into forgoing care, just as you hear of some people receiving substandard care because they are organ donors.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/dad-rescues-brain-dead-son-from-doctors-wishing-to-harvest-his-organs-boy-r

In any case, the conversation has evolved, and we are no longer talking about these end of life consultations when we are talking about death panels. The death panel in Obamacare is an unelected board of 15 "health care experts" (the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB) who will make critical decisions on what services within Medicare are financially viable, and which aren't. Here is a quote from President Obama in the first debate acknowledging this:

"It — when Gov. Romney talks about this board, for example, unelected board that we’ve created, what this is, is a group of health care experts, doctors, et cetera, to figure out, how can we reduce the cost of care in the system overall?” Obama said.

“Now, so what this board does is basically identifies best practices and says, let’s use the purchasing power of Medicare and Medicaid to help to institutionalize all these good things that we do,” Obama added.

This is also acknowledged by a senior adviser to Obama:

"WE need death panels. Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=2

So call it death panels, or rationing, the principle is still the same. The recommendations this board makes will become law unless it is overridden by a 2/3's majority vote in congress. Here is a good example of how this type of legislative oversight is making health care "better" (penalizing hospitals for readmitting patients within 30 days):

"Beginning Monday, the hospitals will receive lower reimbursements on Medicare claims filed with the government for each admitted patient. Over the year, the total amount of those reductions will vary from $1.2 million for MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Northwest Washington, the region’s largest private hospital, to about $12,000 for Reston Hospital Center in Virginia. Of 16 hospitals in the District and Northern Virginia, all but three will get paid less."

"Some of the hardest-hit facilities are inner-city hospitals that tend to treat sicker, poorer patients. These patients sometimes end up being readmitted because they have a harder time getting medication and follow-up doctors’ appointments, often because they lack transportation, hospital officials said.

“Not only do we have the very sick patients, they also have very significant social needs,” said Kamaljit Sethi, who heads quality and safety at Providence Hospital in Northeast, where officials estimate they will lose about $320,000 in the coming year."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/hospitals-in-dc-va-to-lose-millions-from-medicare/2012/09/30/2fe0f96c-08ca-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83b
f_story.html

What this means is that patients with the greatest needs will lose the most services, because the hospitals will no longer be able to serve them because of this penalty. This outcome could turn out to be deadly for thousands of people, ultimately, all in the name of efficiency. This is a perfect illustration as to why Government should have as little power over your health care as possible. Here is testimony from the front lines:

" Today while working my shift in the emergency room, an old lady was brought in very sick and in fact near death. I did my usual workup and evaluation and attempted to administer life saving treatment. It was my plan to admit this woman to the hospital. I found out a little later that this same woman had been a patient here just slightly more than 2 weeks ago with a DIFFERENT DIAGNOSIS. I was told that if this woman was admitted, the hospital would not be paid.

The new Medicare rule now is that if the same Medicare patient is re-admitted to the hospital within 30 days, the hospital will not be paid. When they first started this nonsense they said this only applied to patients with the same diagnosis. Now they have "expanded" the rule to include re-admissions for any reason. So if you're in the hospital for pneumonia, and 3 weeks later, you break your leg.......too bad. Medicare will not pay the hospital to fix your leg."

http://grouchatrighttruth.blogspot.com/2012/10/death-panels-are-here.html

This is completely outrageous, I think you will be forced to agree. Personally, I think we need to have a national conversation about this issue, and both sides need to come together to hammer out this issue. Obamacare is clearly not ready for primetime, and as it stands it is going to hurt people.

As far as your other comments, I'm not limiting myself to any particular news source. I am a political independent and I will share with you that I won't be voting for either candidate this year. I will still participate in the local elections but I cannot vote for either candidate in good conscience. While I am socially and fiscally conservative on many issues, I am liberal on others, such as helping the poor, the environment (within reason), and immigration. I don't fit into a polical cookie cutter and I don't automatically support a candidate because they give God lip service.

@KnivesOut

What's amusing about it? It is something that Obama made a signature promise of his campaign, to heal the bitter partisan divide in Washington. He said he would be a unifier, that he would reach across the aisle and forge consensus. Instead, armed with a supermajority in congress, he did exactly the opposite. He rammed whatever contentious programs he wanted through congress, and ignored all dissent. He was punished for this when the house flipped in 2010. The value of his promise was tested when he was put in a situation where he didn't have to actually live up to it, and his actions proved that its value wasn't worth one red cent. That's why scripture says, you know a tree by its fruit. So I think it is a worthy and relevant criticism considering what he promised, and if it isn't, I'm open to hearing why not.

@shinyblurry Obama compromised significantly on the final state of the Affordable Care Act. If he hadn't, we'd have had the single payer public option that would have actually forced real competition into a market dominated by private insurers colluding with each other to fix prices.

He's only the most polarizing president in history because he's the first black one. Were he a white guy named Steve Smith he'd be the most conservative democrat to ever hold office.

Again I ask you, if your party holds the majority, and the minority simply refuses to compromise or meet with you on ANY issue, then what else can your party do?

Obama compromised significantly on the final state of the Affordable Care Act. If he hadn't, we'd have had the single payer public option that would have actually forced real competition into a market dominated by private insurers colluding with each other to fix prices.

It wasn't a compromise, it is a trojan horse for the single payer system. The architect of Obamacare admitted that publicly:



The reason he changed it is because his plan was too radical even for a democratically controlled congress to vote for. Also, the original point is that he didn't negotiate with the republicans at all.

He's only the most polarizing president in history because he's the first black one. Were he a white guy named Steve Smith he'd be the most conservative democrat to ever hold office.

You think he's polarizing because everyone is racist? Do you seriously believe that? I think he is polarizing because he actively works to divide people across political, economic and racial lines. From his extensive class warfare rhetoric, to comments from his mouthpieces like "theyre gonna put y’all back in chains", Obama has worked supremely hard to divide the country.

Again I ask you, if your party holds the majority, and the minority simply refuses to compromise or meet with you on ANY issue, then what else can your party do?

I don't have a party; I'm an independent. And are you trying to tell me that President Obama tried to negotiate with the republicans and was holding out an olive branch to them in those first two years but they wouldn't listen so he had no choice but to act unilaterally? Do you also have a bridge you want to sell me?

@shinyblurry "I think he is polarizing because he actively works to divide people across political, economic and racial lines." Citation needed.

"And are you trying to tell me that President Obama tried to negotiate with the republicans and was holding out an olive branch to them in those first two years but they wouldn't listen so he had no choice but to act unilaterally?" Yes, exactly.

Whether you have a party or not is irrelevant. You still won't answer the question that I've asked.

Don't you think the Republicans would do exactly the same thing in the same situation? Three branches of government, voted into control of all three branches... Jeopardy theme song... Seriously?

@KnivesOut

@shinyblurry "I think he is polarizing because he actively works to divide people across political, economic and racial lines." Citation needed.

Here is Obama demagoging the wealthy in a speech he made in Kansas in late 2011:

"The free market has never been a license to take whatever you can from whomever you can,” and “Their philosophy is simple. We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules"

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/11/opinion/la-oe-mcmanus-column-obama-kansas-speech-20111211

Here is Obama saying republicans don't care about their neighbors or communities:



Here is Joe Biden telling people that Mitt Romney was going to put them back in chains:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/joe-biden-supporters-mitt-romney-put-back-chains-195904387.html

Don't you think the Republicans would do exactly the same thing in the same situation? Three branches of government, voted into control of all three branches... Jeopardy theme song... Seriously?

I have no doubt that the republicans would do the same thing. It isn't a question of what the republicans would do though, it is a question of the personal integrity of President Obama. It was President Obama who made it a major theme of his campaign that he wouldn't act unilaterally, but rather he would reach across the aisle and heal the bitter partisan divide in Washington. You seem to think it's okay that President Obama got elected under false pretenses, by misleading the American people about the type of president he would be. Because you hate the republicans, you don't seem to mind that he broke that promise; apparently in your eyes it is justified. Perhaps you view it as a necessary evil, something a candidate has to say to get elected. But this goes back to your original commentary, that it's amusing to you that someone would call President Obama on his promises. I think a man should live up this word; perhaps you feel differently.

@shinyblurry so you're being divisive by disagreeing with Obama. You should stop being so divisive. You're being divisive by disagreeing with me. You should stop being so divisive.

It's pretty simple: the President said he would work to defuse the partisan politics that were/are tearing our country apart. The Republicans said "No" and took their ball and went home. So he was left with an unfulfilled "promise". It's ridiculous to hold him singularly accountable for attempting to negotiate with religious zealots and morons, and failing to break their dead-lock of stupidity.

Yes, it's amusing that simpletons like yourself can't comprehend the actual nuances of bipartisanship in government.

>> ^KnivesOut:

@shinyblurry so you're being divisive by disagreeing with Obama. You should stop being so divisive. You're being divisive by disagreeing with me. You should stop being so divisive.
It's pretty simple: the President said he would work to defuse the partisan politics that were/are tearing our country apart. The Republicans said "No" and took their ball and went home. So he was left with an unfulfilled "promise". It's ridiculous to hold him singularly accountable for attempting to negotiate with religious zealots and morons, and failing to break their dead-lock of stupidity.
Yes, it's amusing that simpletons like yourself can't comprehend the actual nuances of bipartisanship in government.


The fact is, he didn't even try. He used the supermajority in congress to do whatever he wanted, in direct contradiction to his promises. It's a character issue, but you handwave it because you hate republicans and it doesn't matter to you how he treats them. I also wonder if it's possible for you to go more than one post without using abusive ad hominem attacks.

@shinyblurry no, when you're involved, I can't resist. It's just too much fucking fun.