a writer who writes on economics and has been a finalist for the Pulitizer...NONE of that means much except he is NOT a poltical hack and he definetly understands what is happening health care...the writer, Robert J Samuelson says...

"Obama is telling people what they want to hear about health care, not what they need to know."

It speaks to all those things our President likes to tout...emergency room and the costs to us for that care, etc.

"A study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that the insured accounted for 83 percent of emergency-room visits, reflecting their share of the population. After Massachusetts adopted universal insurance, emergency-room use remained higher than the national average, an Urban Institute study found. More than two-fifths of visits represented non-emergencies. Of those, a majority of adult respondents to a survey said it was "more convenient" to go to the emergency room or they couldn't "get [a doctor's] appointment as soon as needed." If universal coverage makes appointments harder to get, emergency-room use may increase"

And I think most importantly...

"Though it seems compelling, covering the uninsured is not the health-care system's major problem. The big problem is uncontrolled spending, which prices people out of the market and burdens government budgets. Obama claims his proposal checks spending. Just the opposite. When people get insurance, they use more health services. Spending rises. By the government's latest forecast, health spending goes from 17 percent of the economy in 2009 to 19 percent in 2019. Health "reform" would probably increase that.

Unless we change the fee-for-service system, costs will remain hard to control because providers are paid more for doing more. Obama might have attempted that by proposing health-care vouchers (limited amounts to be spent on insurance), which would force a restructuring of delivery systems to compete on quality and cost. Doctors, hospitals and drug companies would have to reorganize care. Obama refrained from that fight and instead cast insurance companies as the villains."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/234953?GT1=43002

Even aside from this specific issue this President is the biggest con artist I have ever seen in Washington. He has been on big con since he arrived..from the transparency to the lack of poitics he promised and did exactly the opposite. And he is surrounded by a congress that is simply not on the same wave length as the general public.

I am not an accountant....actually have trouble understanding a lot of the budget talk that goes on, however I DO KNOW ONE THING.....we cannot afford this bill !

I just have to ask. I did some reading in TV's archives going back two years. Where are all the Obama supporters?

Originally Posted by Donna2

I just have to ask. I did some reading in TV's archives going back two years. Where are all the Obama supporters?

I will give you my opinion and it is only my opinion....

Most of the Dems who posted here were originally supporters of Clinton and even called Obama some names like "empty suit" and then when he became the nominee, as good party folks, they got in line and adored at his feet.

Most of the dialogue on here was pretty much aimed at Sarah Palin...she and her family were simply taken apart. Many were sincere in thinking that this Obama really could bring change and had no time for hearing or reading about his background and training..they just refused to believe any of it and some were simply anti Bush and thus pro Obama.

In any case, they pretty much have disappeared and post very rarely and it seems ONLY when they have a personal "shot" to take...not much on any substance.

THEN, there are those who are smart intelligent folks and still post here...VK supported Obama and has given his reasons a number of times but the most prolific of the posters were not into depth and just wanted to slam Palin or other posters.

This is just my opinion...not very well written but how I saw it !

With his lies, empty promises, business as usual politics he was able to fool enough folks to get elected.

Then we all thought with a Dem, so called populist POTUS and control of the house and senate there would be no stopping him from making his changes.

However that has not turned out to be the case. Our so called representatives in Washington never have done the will of the people.....but they are also not doing the will of this POTUS (mostly trying to save their butts vs anything else).

And now his so called "signature" piece of legislation....health care reform has not won the approval of the people...nor the senate...nor congress itself. Need proof? That the dems would need to consider reconciliation to pass it was enough to rile we the people and some of it's representatives certainly did not sway Obama and Pelosi to reconsider. To add insult to the injury now that it appears they may not have the votes for the reconciliation, another little know ploy is coming into play that does not require a vote from anybody for passage:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...503742_pf.html

They are sinking lower and lower into the depths of dirty politics to achieve their agenda (which is what by the way?). If in Obama's word after his health care summit, he recognized how unpopular the reconciliation process was that he commented about the impact of coming elections....but was going to do it anyway. And now that the end run is not going to work, they are obviously going to try to get it passed any way possible...LIKE IT OR NOT.

In the face of over whelming adversity and looming election losses...WHY????

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

Some old dead white guy said this many generations ago. If Obamacare is passed, what do you think is on their agenda next? Make all the illegal aliens citizens so they can enjoy this new entitlement too? Cap and tax bill to further kill capitalism?
The next 7 months should be interesting.

to deliver benefits for "peoples of color". It was stated in one of the news casts yesterday that the largest group to benefit from health care reform are "people of color".

In the event that all the above were true it would not be a bad agenda, if it was stated as such. However, Obama and Pelosi's seemingly desperate need to pass the bill no matter what would not support the above. I don't think they are that stupid.

The agenda thus far is not financially viable, is not supported by we the people, is not supported by the members of both houses....So the question remains just what is the agenda???

btk

By BTK: "The agenda thus far is not financially viable, is not supported by we the people, is not supported by the members of both houses....So the question remains just what is the agenda???"

In their own words:

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index....k=b&ItemID=562

http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/al...ve-promise.php

http://www.pdamerica.org/tools/issues/cpc-pr.pdf

I would argue that Obama did not "fool enough folks to get elected". Those who believed His Every Word were probably predisposed to do it anyway.

Obama, IMO, didn't "win" the election nearly as much as McCain "lost" it. What we're seeing now is that the cover has been pulled off of the results - there's not great Democrat mandate, otherwise elections would have continued going all Blue-y. Scott Brown wouldn't be Senator Brown, it would be Senator Coakley.

When Congress is at something like a 15% approval rating, THAT is telling. But in a national election with only two major candidates, SOMEone has to win.

It was like when Hillary was elected to the Senate. People hailed a 'great victory'. But other knew that she managed to beat, by a not very large margin, the THIRD STRING last-minute replacement Republican after previous candidates were "scandaled" out of the race.

The same can be said for Obama. McCain/Palin couldn't beat a FRESHMAN Senator with NO national experience of ANY kind.

Originally Posted by djplong

I would argue that Obama did not "fool enough folks to get elected". Those who believed His Every Word were probably predisposed to do it anyway.

Obama, IMO, didn't "win" the election nearly as much as McCain "lost" it. What we're seeing now is that the cover has been pulled off of the results - there's not great Democrat mandate, otherwise elections would have continued going all Blue-y. Scott Brown wouldn't be Senator Brown, it would be Senator Coakley.

When Congress is at something like a 15% approval rating, THAT is telling. But in a national election with only two major candidates, SOMEone has to win.

It was like when Hillary was elected to the Senate. People hailed a 'great victory'. But other knew that she managed to beat, by a not very large margin, the THIRD STRING last-minute replacement Republican after previous candidates were "scandaled" out of the race.

The same can be said for Obama. McCain/Palin couldn't beat a FRESHMAN Senator with NO national experience of ANY kind.

There is some truth to your "McCain lost" arguement....that I will give you but our President DID con this nation with his sweet talk. He has been NOTHING he said he would be and in fact in most cases is just the opposite.

PS....AND as with all of his other associations and training and background, he still gets a pass from the media !!!

McCain/Palin couldn't beat a FRESHMAN Senator with NO national experience of ANY kin

Wrong. McCain/Palin couldn't beat a Freshman Senator and a Media that refused to do any real reporting.(Imagine McCain and Palin having close relations with a Jew hating, white hating American hating Minister or a members of a militant gang that used bombs)

Donna2, don't forget, also, the media picked the republican candidate. They were in love with him until he got the nomination. They knew he would be weak and if he did happen to win he would be the closest to their ideology.

Originally Posted by Sally Jo

Donna2, don't forget, also, the media picked the republican candidate. They were in love with him until he got the nomination. They knew he would be weak and if he did happen to win he would be the closest to their ideology.

That is true. They knew that McCain was a weak candidate. The day he was nominated, I predicted an Obama win.

From my point of view it was a one-two punch. After coming across as "Bush, Part 3", that was what brought him within striking distance from Obama. After the Palin pick, that was the knockout punch.

djplong-- In my opinion if McPain hadn't picked Palin he would have lost by a lot more. The media has really done a hatchet job on her, though.

Originally Posted by Sally Jo

djplong-- In my opinion if McPain hadn't picked Palin he would have lost by a lot more. The media has really done a hatchet job on her, though.

Sally Jo is right. Palin was an asset whether you liked her or not. She still demands huge crowds when she speaks. Anyways, I would not exactly call "gaffe a minute" Biden a great running mate.