jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (70 posts)

With Obamacare and failed promises and social policies, who do YOU

  1. gmwilliams profile image85
    gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8410816.jpg
    believe would have made a more efficient president?  Why?

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      My 5 year old grandson.  We wouldn't have the abortion called Obamacare.

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Obamacare will seem to be QUITE a disaster.  I don't trust it at all.  Anytime government gets into something, it oftentimes spells trouble.   Nope, I am quite leery of Obamacare.  Government sponsored care is an oxymoron.  I know this and I am a Liberal.   Leave WELL enough alone!  Obamacare, I am afraid, is going to further BANKRUPT this nation.    I also believe that your 5 year old grandson and other brilliant children have better organization skills and innate intelligence than many of our "politicians".

        1. 60
          AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          We're going bankrupt. There's no way around it, there's no avoiding it.

          The only way we could turn our debt around would be if our economy to recover, but for it to recover enough, the global economy would have to recover. Unfortunately, if the global economy recovered, then interest rates would rise. Then when we issued new notes and bonds we would do so at higher rates than we are now, and we would drown in interest payments.

          If the global economy were suddenly doing very well again right now, we would probably end up with $1 trillion/year in interest payments very quickly, and there would be no chance of paying that.

          1. 59
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            One of the major reasons the global economy is still faltering is that it is inexorable and inextricable bound to our own.  Once American falls as far as leftists want it to the dollar will be replaced by a global currency as the global reserve currency and that will be the last straw.  Obama has done a wonderful job accomplishing his goals.  Can we re-elect him?

        2. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I don't know about intelligence; those same politicians have managed to fool 300 million people into thinking they are working for the good of the country!

          Organizational skills?  Probably.  Alex can put his shoes away in the closet each night...

          1. gmwilliams profile image85
            gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That's a start.   These politicians are totally amiss as to what is occurring in the United States.  Many are so far removed from everyday occurrences.  Many feel that the constituents do not matter in the least.  These politicians believe that THEY are the BE and END all and they can do as they please with our votes and taxes.   What they refuse to acknowledge that it is THE CONSTITUENTS who ELECT them!

            1. 59
              retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Which politicians are defending Obamacare with every fiber of their beings, Democrats or Republicans?  This is where there is a real difference.

            2. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I'm not sure we can actually say we elect them anymore.  They flat out buy the elections, whether by handouts through welfare, pork barrel projects benefiting their constituents or tax breaks to corporations.

        3. 59
          retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And yet Obamacare has been a staple of Obama's political plans long before he was a Presidential candidate. It is fun to watch all of this happen.  I can't wait to see how it all turns out.  America was bankrupt before Obama took office, he has merely dug the hole deeper.

        4. 0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I can only assume that at least some of those hostile to the Affordable Care Act have been fortunate people and have had no family members with a pre-existing medical conditions such as Type 1 Diabetes or asthma and have never had a child who required significant perinatal and/or lifelong medical care.

          For some people, life is very good isn't it.

          1. 84
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Supporters of Obamacare tout the benefits of universal healthcare and expound upon all of the successes in certain European countries that have such plans.  We, however, did not receive a plan that was modeled after any of these plans.  Supporters of Obamacare often mention how financially successful universal healthcare is in certain European countries.  We, however, do not have a country that is known for its efficient use taxpayer money in ANY endeavor.  We basically passed a program that is so poorly conceived that everybody knows it's doomed to fail unless it is overhauled right off the bad.  That's what I call great legislation!  What could go wrong with signing over another 1/6 of our total economy to a failed government that can't even pass a budget? 

            My insurance has skyrocketed, over the past four years, and plummeted in quality.  Wasn't Obamacare supposed to save the average family $2,500 a year?  The same people who informed President Bush that there were WMD's in Iraq must be informing President Obama about the cost/benefits of Obamacare.

            1. gmwilliams profile image85
              gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              +1,000,000,000,000,000,000-any right thinking person would be against this health care fiasco.  America is going to be THE WORSE for accepting this monstrosity called Obamacare!   Education, these people who tout Obamacare will realize WHEN IT'S TOO LATE how these "health care" will be detrimental to the American family.  People are going to be impoverished because of this Obama"care". I have said IT before, leave our health care THE WAY it is.

    2. 59
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Does anyone seriously believe that Romney would have been worse - still???

      1. Zelkiiro profile image84
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Even if Obama snapped and ran around doing nothing but shanking people in the face with school scissors for the next 3 years, he'd still be a better president than Mitt Romney.

        A used wad of toilet paper would be a better president than Mitt Romney.

        Achmed the Dead Terrorist would be a better president than Mitt Romney.

        Cookie Monster would be a better president than Mitt Romney.

        1. Seth Winter profile image85
          Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well if the President Obama were in Washington DC doing that, the stabbings might actually get something accomplished thats on a positive note...instead Obama's decided to be the typical immature President he always has been and tells America that if he won't play his game, then nobody gets to play (reference to Obamacare).

          However, I think the cookie monster would make a great President. I'm sure they democrats will try to get the cookie monsters to run for them under the platform of change or 1st party to elect a Monster. Afterwards they will spend the next four years reminded everyone that he's in fact a cookie monster and that your racist if you believe he's door a poor job.

          1. 84
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What a great, great testimonial for President Obama; your guy was so bad that my guy looks good.

      2. aliasis profile image96
        aliasisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Um... YES. As in, over 50% of American citizens, myself included.

        1. 59
          retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Do you have a poll to verify that over 50% claim.  Currently Obama's favorable rating is below 50%.  Let's see how that looks in another 6 months as he further stumbles and bumbles his way along.

          1. aliasis profile image96
            aliasisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            lol compare Obama to Romney and you won't find numbers much changed from the original election. Romney can stay far, far away from office, thank you very much.

            Plus, I believe Obama is overall doing a great job. I am VERY supportive of the Affordable Care Act and most of Obama's policies.

            1. 60
              AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Why are you supportive of forcing the average insurance premium in the country to double?

              Are your premiums going up, or are you one of the people getting subsidized by the rest of us who have to carry the burden?

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                There is NO evidence whatsoever that the "average" insurance premium is going to double. None. In fact, many people will be able to opt OUT of their current insurance plans and, in fact, pay less for year for their insurance premiums.

                The cost of insurance of each person's or family's insurance premium is a complicated formula based on several variables including choice of plans, place of residence. income, size of household.

                It is time to stop watching FoxNews and reading townhall.com and start dealing with facts.

                And as for the subsidized: I don't see Ted Cruz buying his insurance in the private marketplace. I see that he and his family are going to continue with his Senate heath insurance plan which under the Affordable Care Act will, in fact, be subsidized by taxpayers.

                1. 60
                  AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Haha, try Forbes. Try CNN. Try business and economic websites.

                  My premiums are going to more than double for worse coverage. Unless you're poor, that's just what is going to happen. There is plenty of evidence, all you have to do is open your eyes.

                  And, Ted Cruz did buy his insurance in the private market! Lol politics cause people to spew absolute drivel with no thought whatsoever. He doesn't use the federal health insurance that he qualifies for.

                  Still some people think you can give free healthcare to a bunch of people, without it costing anything.

                  1. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually, Ted Cruz get his health insurance from his wife's employer who pays the entire premium of $40,000/year. That employer: Goldman-Sachs. Mr Cruz is paying ZERO dollars for his health insurance.

                    And if opting-in to the Affordable Care Act doubles your premiums, perhaps you should opt-out. Go into the private marketplace of health insurance---and there is a lively private market, and get a better deal.

                  2. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Lol.......yea, and pink aliens are invading the moon tomorrow.

                    You can't be serious right now

    3. Dr Billy Kidd profile image92
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The question sounds a little like a troll trap. The assumptions is that things are not working. One could equally say they're working the best that can be expected following a war-crazy president, who deregulated Wall Street (by lack of the enforcement of the law) and who brought on the Great Recession, and allowed bin Laden to attack.

      Who could do better following that last train wreck?  The American people. They could stop grazing like cows and get some information in their heads.

    4. 0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      For comment regarding the claim that women in the US were "never" denied birth control---learn some history.

      Composed primarily of Protestant moral reformers and middle-class women a Victorian-era moral purity campaign attacked contraception, which it viewed as an immoral practice that promoted prostitution and venereal disease. Anthony Comstock, a postal inspector and leader in the purity movement, successfully lobbied for the passage of the 1873 Comstock Act---a federal law prohibiting mailing of "any article or thing designed or intended for the prevention of conception or procuring of abortion" as well as any form of contraceptive information. Many states also passed similar state laws (collectively known as the Comstock laws), sometimes extending the federal law by outlawing the use of contraceptives, as well as their distribution.

      These laws persisted (though there was a strong post-World War II underground market for contraceptives) and by 1965 millions of unmarried women in 26 states and millions of married women in some states---including Connecticut and Massachusetts, were denied birth control.

      It was not until 1972 when a Supreme Court case---Eisenstadt v. Baird, legalized birth control for all American women.

      Of course, I am sure that you will deny of veracity of this post; claim that none of this is true; claim that I am uninformed and clueless and need to learn some history.

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I never said that women were never denied birth control.We all know that in some areas of America, women were denied reproductive freedom.   I know this, I have read this.  Not only Protestant authorities in Viictorian England.  When Margaret Sanger advocated contraception in America, religious authorities,  Protestant and particularly Catholic, were against birth control, claiming that it will cause "the destruction" of the family.  I am for reproductive freedom for women.  I AM A WOMAN and a STAUNCH FEMINIST.  I would be a gender traitor if I weren't for reproductive freedom.  No woman should have to endure an unwanted pregnancy.  I am pro-choice and support Planned Parenthood.   I also have my NARAL card.  I know about what you have stated.

        1. 0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I know you did not say that. I cannot imagine ANY women or man who knows anything about US history [no matter what their politics....wink] to believe that there was never any prohibitions regarding access to birth control in the US.

          I was challenged by someone posting to this forum who said the following:

          "Also when in history were women denied birth control? Or is that another fact you decided to conjure out of thin air?"

          1. gmwilliams profile image85
            gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It's good to have these discourses.

            1. 0
              mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It is...I enjoy them---when people are, like you, informed. We can debate "spin" all day---so long as we agree on the basic facts...wink

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                lol

        2. 59
          retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Margaret Sanger advocated birth control for those she saw as undesirable to American society.  She was a racist and a eugenicist.

          1. 0
            mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            With that, I must agree.

          2. Zelkiiro profile image84
            Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Corn Flakes were advocated as a cure for masturbation.

            What's your point?

  2. 84
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    Let's allow a government that hasn't been able to balance its budget more than five times in the past fifty years to control ANOTHER 1/6 of the economy.  Our government, regardless of the party in control, has been such a bastion of economic responsibility!  What could go wrong?

    Let's penalize healthy young people with mandatory health insurance or tax penalties, so we can afford greater healthcare for more people.  It's not like our young people are going to be cheated out of social security.  It's not like our young people are going to have to, somehow, figure out how to repay or default on seventeen trillion dollars worth of borrowing.  It's not like record numbers of young people are living with their parents, because their economic future is in jeopardy.  Let's stick it to our children.  What could go wrong?

  3. Sychophantastic profile image82
    Sychophantasticposted 3 years ago

    Government sponsored health care? The basic premise of Obamacare is a health care exchange where consumers buy health care from private insurers. This basic idea was taken from conservatives, who proposed it as an alternative to Hillarycare. Then Romney took it and made it work in Massachusetts. Now, because Obama is using the idea, conservatives suddenly hate it.

    1. 0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly!

      And the ROMNEY plan (which was the blueprint for the Affordable Care Act/"Obamacare") is a success in Massachusetts where some 99% of residents have health insurance and where costs have steadily declined.

      In New York State we've had a health care exchange similar to the Affordable Care Act for some time and it works great.  The Affordable Care Act will expand New York's "Health Plus" program as it will allow many New Yorkers who could not participate in "Health Plus" (because of things like home ownership, modest but approaching middle-class earned incomes, and/or modest retirement account savings plans) buy low-cost health insurance.

      In addition, the Affordable Care Act will allow young people to either stay on their parents' policies (until age 26) or purchase very low-cost insurance on their own as well as enable people with pre-existing health problems (like Type 1 Diabetes, asthma, etc.) to get insurance; will allow people whose insurance coverage has lapsed (due, for example, to unemployment and who were as a matter of routine denied access to health insurance upon re-employment) to buy health insurance.

  4. Paul Wingert profile image78
    Paul Wingertposted 3 years ago

    Obama is doing just fine as president. I would rather vote for a sock puppet than a Republican.

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Wow,what a smart and logical answer-NOT!  Inverse logic is in operation!  There are good Republicans as well as incompetent, inane Democrats. Sad to say that President Obama is becoming a disaster........more and more people are losing respect for him!
      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8418680_f248.jpg

      1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
        Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That's a lot of hyperbole....

        Apparently if a Tea Party member says that the Democrats won't negotiate, it must be because the Democrats are just mean and stubborn. It couldn't possibly be that the House GOP isn't offering up anything worth negotiating?

        1. Seth Winter profile image85
          Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I seem to be remember a house bill that failed because the Republicans wants to delay the individual mandate and prohibit lawmakers from receiving government subsides for their health care...your right Cody that seems perfectly unreasonable.

          People should be fine for living in America and deciding not to buy health insurance..it's not like this is a free country or anything.

          1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
            Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            More hyperbole......thanks for proving my point

          2. 0
            mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Whether you or anyone else likes it or not:

            The Affordable Care Act passed BOTH Houses of Congress almost 3 years ago and with bipartisan support;

            In 2012 conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote an opinion on the fundamental constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act;

            On Day #1 of the implementation of the Act, some 2.8 million Americans went online to enroll in the new health care exchanges.

            And, whether you or anyone else doesn't like it: Extending access to health insurance coverage to more Americans is NOT a marker of some deluded notion that we no longer live in a free country. The only markers of  erosion of American freedom are Tea Party and right-wing Christian conservative efforts to deny basic human rights to all Americans---gay and lesbian, female, disabled, and in need of health insurance and health care.

            1. 60
              AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No it didn't. Every Republican in the Senate voted against it. In the house, every Republican and 34 Democrats voted against it.

              So don't say it was bi-partisan. It was only shoved through the Senate because they managed to get the vote done before Scott Brown got in.

              The whole thing was a lie. Passing bills on Christmas eve, without anyone having read it, without any discussion on it like the President promised.

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Republican Congressman Anh "Joseph" Quang Cao voted for the bill and Republican Senator Jim Bunning abstained from the vote.

                That said, do you really think that support for a bill in Congress is measured by the PUBLIC vote of its members?

                1. 60
                  AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Anh Quang Cao didn't vote for the final version of the bill, he voted for a different draft.

                  I really think that saying it passed with bipartisan support, when not a single R voted for it in either branch, is a lie.

                  1. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    If you think that bills are passed in Congress without bipartisan support---even if covert and not public in terms of voting with the cameras on and the media watching, then you to do a little research about not only Congressional history (past and present), but also a little research about the essential political culture of Washington, DC.

                    If you listen carefully to the current Washington, DC chatter---including that of the Republican Party and its Tea Party caucus, then you would hear the complaints that nothing is being negotiated "behind the scenes"; deals are not being made---even behind the scenes deals.

  5. 60
    AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago

    Yeah, there are negotiations off camera.

    That doesn't mean that a bill that passes without a single Republican vote is 'bipartisan'. That's just silly, there's a reason why the Democrats lost so much ground in 2010.

 
working