The lack of respect for our President

Jump to Last Post 1-26 of 26 discussions (150 posts)
  1. nina64 profile image69
    nina64posted 11 years ago
    I'm aware that this is an election year. I know that everyone is entitled to their opinions. But over the last year and a half, I've noticed some blatant forms of disrespect being directed at President Obama. Why? Is it because he is black? From highway billboards to other political figures pointing their fingers in his face. Is it too much for a person of color to have this much power. What is the GOP afraid of? What is the goal of The so called Tea Party? Every idea that the President has come up with, the Republicans strike it down. Let a Republican political figure come up with the same idea and everyone is all over it. What are your thoughts?

    1. profile image0
      Justsilvieposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you! The treatment has gone way above and beyond what the other side usually heaps on a president.


      What Has Obama Done? Here Are 200 Accomplishments! With Citations! … -2009.html

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Go over to Democratic Underground and browse their forums.

        Look at the hate and vitriol that is directed at Romney, Ryan, and Bush(to this day).

        Is that because of race?

        1. nina64 profile image69
          nina64posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I will look into that.

        2. profile image0
          Justsilvieposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Both sides get ugly during a race... and I hate it especially when they start picking of family... its like nothing is sacred... but... this has gone further...

          Before and after his election to the presidency, Barack Obama has been painted time and time again as subhuman in graphics, email transmissions and posters used to undermine him. While it’s nothing new for politicians to be turned into caricatures, the ones used to criticize Obama frequently have racial overtones. The president has been portrayed as a shoeshine man, an Islamic terrorist and a chimp, to name a few. The image of his altered face has been shown on a product called Obama Waffles in the manner of Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben. The depictions of Obama as ape-like have arguably sparked the most controversy, considering that blacks have been portrayed as monkey-like for centuries to suggest that they’re inferior to other groups. Still, when Marilyn Davenport, an elected official in the Republican Party of Orange County, Calif., circulated an email depicting Obama and his parents as chimps, she initially defended the image as political satire. Mike Luckovich, Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist for the Atlanta Journal Constitution, had a different take. He pointed out to National Public Radio that the image wasn’t a cartoon but Photoshopped.

          “And it was crude and it was racist,” he said. “And cartoonists are always sensitive. We want to make people think—we even want to tick people off occasionally, but we don’t want our symbolism to overwhelm our message. …I would never show Obama or an African American as a monkey. That’s just racist. And we know the history of that.”

    2. profile image0
      Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      More selective outrage. One is offensive but the other was no big deal. it simply depends on who is delivering the message.

    3. profile image0
      HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It's not because Obama's black - but that doesn't make it right, either. It started when Clinton was president and it exploded when GWB was president. The nation is now more divided than it's ever been, but I don't think race is a big factor.

      I don't like Obama's policies. I think they're detrimental to our nation. That has nothing to do with his race. I also don't like Romney's policies - and again, his race is not a factor.

      No matter who wins this election - America loses.

    4. Repairguy47 profile image60
      Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      This is a funny question coming from an obvious Obama supporter. Once again his race is brought up as a possible reason for the lack of respect. The real reason is because he is and will be a horrible president. He has done nothing but sqaunder money in hopes of spending us out of this mess. Bush attempted to do the same thing and look at the respect he received from democrats and even this failure of a president. Liars deserve no respect they deserve to be thrown out on their useless ass. Goodbye Obama and good riddance.

    5. Evan G Rogers profile image61
      Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Politicians don't "deserve" respect. They point guns at people and tell them what they can and can't do.

      They should be thrown under the bus as often as possible.

    6. profile image60
      logic,commonsenseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It's because he is an incompetent, arrogant, hypocrite and race has nothing to do with it.
      Just another Jimmy Carter, except he will do anything and say anything to get his way.  No moral compass, no real compassion, and no idea how to be President.
      As far as ideas go, the Dems have nixed every one of the Repubs ideas, so they are pretty even in that respect.

  2. profile image0
    SassySue1963posted 11 years ago

    No it is not because he is black. Get over the whole "oh it's race" thing. It is beyond old and worn out. It is because he is the sitting President and his Administration has not accomplished the great "hope and change" he promised and took a bad situation and did not make it better as promised. I love how everyone from the left tries to act like this is the first time anyone's disrespected a President. Do I really need to bring out all the vitriol, hate and disrespect that was heaped upon President Bush?

    1. Xenonlit profile image59
      Xenonlitposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      No. You are not going to get that.

      Racism is on the rise in America and racism is never going to go away. You are fully aware that the unprecedented levels of  disrespect  can only be attributed to his skin color.  Bullying people into joining you in your denial act  is not going to work. Think backlash against right wing lying and then I think you will finally get the idea. We are sick of the overt racism.

      1. profile image0
        SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

        @Xenon Unprecedented? Hardly. Bush was called a murder, a war criminal, stupid, pictures circulated with a noose around his neck. There is nothing unprecedented about it at all. That is the Great Lie and Scapegoat of the left. RACISM! If racism was so rampant, President Obama would still be a Senator from Illinois and not President. It is old, it is a cop-out. He failed. It is really that simple.

      2. profile image0
        HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        You're way off base, Xenon. No politician in recent history has been treated as poorly and with as much disrespect as Sarah Palin was.

        The race card doesn't work anymore because people know it's not true. The sad thing is that Obama could suffer a backlash simply because the race-baiters keep trying to form that imaginary link and regular folks are getting tired of it.

        Mia Love is a rising star in the GOP. She has more popular support than almost any new face on the scene.

      3. readytoescape profile image60
        readytoescapeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Racism may be on the rise, but it is not endemic of the entire nation. It appears to be only rampant within Liberal Progressives that need hate to stimulate the vote in their favor and blur the real issues.

        Racism is continually employed by the Left to lay blame at the feet of others, primarily the perception of a class known as “the Rich,” for the lot in life many they pander to experience. The left needs to generate class warfare between blacks, gays, atheists, women, the undocumented and the idealistic impressionable youth about social issues to sustain a power base otherwise they have nothing to offer.

        Have you noticed every current event, spanning from political criticism to a shooting always seems to contain an element of racism and class warfare whenever that event is addressed by the talking heads of the Liberal Progressives? 

        Need an example, re-read the original post, The first question asked is, “Is it because he is black?”
        Race baiting from the onset, schemed to bring racism to the forefront of a proposed discussion of respect for the Office of the President, yet the majority of the thread is about race.

        Enough already, stop feeding the hate, it was dead and you’re bringing it back to life like Frankenstein’s Monster.

      4. Repairguy47 profile image60
        Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Where is the proof racism is on the rise? I mean other than what you created in your mind. Most of the U.S. population is white Obama wouldn't even be president if whites hadn't voted for him. Your claim is baseless.

      5. JSChams profile image59
        JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
    2. Conservative Lady profile image72
      Conservative Ladyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      SassySue is right "Get over the whole "oh it's race" thing. It is beyond old and worn out" - we want a President that can get the job done regardless of race, religion, or sex.

      1. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        The left will always fall on the race card because they know the right does not want that fight. It is easier the right thinks, to let the left make their false statement and just ignore it.  Problem is by letting it go we now find ourselves in a situation racism is growing again. Time has come to confront those spreading the false statements and put an end to it

  3. JSChams profile image59
    JSChamsposted 11 years ago

    Tell us how you feel/felt about George Bush.
    Was there a one finger salute for him from you? Is there still?
    What's the difference in Barack and any other President?
    Because skin color isn't supposed to enter into it. I disagree with him over policy and ideology.
    That's plenty enough.

    1. nina64 profile image69
      nina64posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hello J SChams, Our former President Bush did some wrong and right things during his terms in the White House. If I pointed any fingers at any President, it was towards the voting machine to vote them out of office because their term was up!!! The GOP has made it a race issue by the constant bickering and negative comments made to our President. Just like our current President, mistakes have been made, our previous presidents have done the same. Every politician has their own opinions as to what policies and ideas are to be proposed for our country, whether we agree with them or not. Have a great day.

      1. profile image0
        SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

        The GOP made it a race issue? It is the Democratic Party that constantly cries racism. They are the ones bringing race into it no matter what the argument might be. You can get things done with an oppositional Congress. Clinton had a GOP held Congress for 6 of his 8 years. Reagan worked with a Democratic held Congress for most of his tenure as well. Both accomplished many things. Yet the only thing this President has accomplished is shoving through an unpopular "legacy" Law with a Congress in his first two years where he could have done anything he wanted. Reagan and Clinton were leaders. This President is a divider.

      2. JSChams profile image59
        JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Which GOP Senator or Congressman has made reference to his skin color?
        Specifically his skin color.

    2. theliz profile image61
      thelizposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Would you call Bush or any of the former presidents by their first name? He's the Commander in Chief and you call his name like he works at your local Starbucks!

      1. Conservative Lady profile image72
        Conservative Ladyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Many, Many folks including the media folks called Bush "W" - not even his full first or last name just "W"

  4. nina64 profile image69
    nina64posted 11 years ago

    Hello SassySue1963, I was asking this question in general because all the recent displays of negative comments made towards our President. Trust me, I'm way past the "race thing". If anyone really listened to the President's inaugural speech in 2009, he did state that he would not be able to solve all the problems in our country. What past president do you know that fulfilled all of their campaign promises? I'm not looking for 40 acres and a mule!!!!! I'm just like you, trying my best to help provide the basic necessities for me and my family. I'm pretty sure there has been forms of disrespect aimed at previous presidents in the past. I just thought it was more "out there" for our current President. Thank you for your comments.

    1. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, he said he'd cut the deficit in half. He said he'd have 6% unemployment or lower. He said give him 3 years and if it wasn't better, he'd be a one term President. I didn't expect him to keep all his promises. I expected him to concentrate on what the people needed, especially during those first two years, instead of worrying about his "legacy". Our GDP sits at 1.8% and this Administration claims that as an "accomplishment". That's scary. Unemployment is at 8.3% , and they are claiming they've created all these jobs. That's scary. So no, he didn't need to keep all his promises but he needed to make some progress and he hasn't. The hate and vitriol spewed at President Bush tops everything previous (well, in my adult life anyway) and what I've seen directed at President Obama doesn't yet come close to it either.

      1. MamaTschet profile image61
        MamaTschetposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Sue, I disagree with you.  I am one of the many fortunate people that many of his programs have helped.  No I am not on welfare.  I strongly agree with Obamacare.  The insurance companies in this country are literally raping all of us, not only Health Insurance, but auto, liability, etc.  These have been skyrocketing for years and years!  Someone had to do something!  And all the ignorant people who thought that this latest round of increasing Health Insurance premiums was due to Obamacare, didn't stop to read that it hasn't even gone into effect yet.  His help with our mortgage issue has kept us in our house.  And we lost our business thanks to Mr. Bush, not Mr. Obama.  Thanks to the banks who have turned this company upside down.  It is difficult to run a company, let alone a country when the people that are on your team or force are opposing parties and have only one agenda in mind, to bring him down.  I will not stand by and let people disrespect the President of the United States.  THAT IS WRONG! I don't care what you believe, the office deserves respect.  Maybe if everyone would work together we might actually make some headway.

        1. profile image0
          SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Actually, while the entire Law has not been implemented, much of it has. Those premium increases, both in Medicare and Private, are a direct result of the parts that HAVE been implemented. And it is not this great thing that is going to insure all these people either like it is hyped to be. Medicaid expansion, if it even happens since many states are opting out, only covers an individual up to $13000 annual income, $28,000 family of four. How are these others getting insured? Those between the cracks? They're not but the great ObamaCare is now going to penalize them with the mandate tax. Great idea. How did Bush directly lose your business? The Government does not run the Banks and most of those upside down loans were allowed not by Bush but during Clinton's term. True that during Bush nothing was done to curtail those loans but he is not the one who created the issue. This President had two years with a Congress that would have passed anything at all he wanted. Anything. If he had concentrated on jobs and the economy, and his policies worked, we would have seen a dramatic improvement by now. We have not.

          1. MamaTschet profile image61
            MamaTschetposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Our insurance rates have risen every year, despite no claims, or good health.  The banks and financial institutions were allowed to run crazy.  The economy was a disaster under Mr. Bush - that was my reference to to losing our company then.  We are builders, and no buyers means no houses.  No banks were lending, no buyers without funds to buy.  And they would not even consider lending on spec houses.

          2. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            "This President had two years with a Congress that would have passed anything at all he wanted."

            Just had to pop in to point out that, unlike modern-day Republicans, Democrats almost never vote in unanimous lockstep, so just because they had a slim majority does not mean that Obama could get anything and everything he wanted.

            1. phion profile image60
              phionposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Obama can't even get democrat senators to vote for him half the time. Instead of tackling the economy...he added exponentially to the debt with a health care bill that puts the power directly out of the citizen’s hands, and into government panels and insurance companies. Yeah free stuff sounds good, but guess what…there is no such thing as free when it comes to government programs.
              Maybe if he did his job, and united America he would get more respect. Instead I see an America more divided than any time I can remember, as a direct result of the BS propaganda he pushed to get elected.
              Is there any question that if he is reelected the great depression will look like a walk in the park, minus all the hard working Americans?

              Thanks Panther for bringing up an important topic.

              1. kathleenkat profile image85
                kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                I agree with this. We are so very divided, especially with how Obama down-talks the GOP. I truly wish the GOP were less 'extreme,' they would get a lot more votes that way. Obama has brought down the united front we gained when 9/11 happened. Anyone remember all the American flags everywhere? Now, we have forgotten. And instead of focusing on the economy, our president focuses on marriage rights and health care. Obama ignored the shootings that happened this year, and won't even touch on gun control "issues." I quote "issues" because gun control isn't even an issue; our president has chosen to ignore that in favor of less important things like healthcare and student loan debt. How about focusing on the economy? How about some incentives for businesses to hire? Naw, we'll just spend all that money on forcing a healthcare bill on everyone.

          3. Quilligrapher profile image74
            Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Howdy Sue. How do you do? Mind if I jump in?

            As of August 28th, only six Republican controlled states (Florida, Mississippi, Texas, Wisconsin, South Carolina and Louisiana) have opted out. These states now have the largest number of uninsured Americans. A full 25-percent of the 15.8 million citizens that can be helped by Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act resides in these states. Another five GOP governors are tilting in the same direction. An equal number of Democratic states have or are expected to opt in while 25 are still sitting on the fence. {1} Saying “if it happens” seems to be both premature and wishful thinking. But to answer your question, Sue, the expansion of Medicaid would provide healthcare coverage through insurance exchanges to all individuals with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty line. {2}
            Did you know, Sue, Republicans were the first to proposed a mandate? Gov. Romney’s Massachusetts version of the Affordable Care Act is so similar to President Obama’s PPACA he is reluctant to even talk about it. One of his campaign officials caught a firestorm of criticism from the GOP for just mentioning it in an interview. Both versions recognize the need for the individual mandate, a measure first published in "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans" in 1989 by conservative Stuart M. Butler of the Heritage Foundation. The proposal contained a provision to “mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.” {4} The language was revised and later included in two congressional bills introduced by Republicans in 1993 and the concept became the cornerstone of Gov. Romney’s 2006 CommonwealthCare Act in Massachusetts.

            The PPACA provides for access to need-based, affordable policies. Each American’s medical risk is shared among a pool of all insured Americans and that is what insurance is intended to do. The penalty provision of the mandate is designed for the greedy, self-serving individuals who can afford the premiums but refuse to join all the other insured Americans to spread all the risks over a larger pool. In fact, the so-called penalty turns out to be the largest insurance bargain ever conceived. Those refusing to insure themselves will love it!

            The $695 a year penalty, or the 2.5 percent of your annual family income, is actually ahellava lot less than the cost of a typical, respectable insurance policy. {4} For those who do not need much health care, it is the cheapest insurance policy ever invented. When they ultimately become ill and have a pre-existing condition, they can buy an insurance policy at a bargain basement price that was not even available to them before the mandate.  {5}

            Finally, data gather in Massachusetts indicates that the average citizen there wants to do the right thing and the number of insured citizens rose by more than 7% under that state’s individual mandate. Polls reveal an overwhelming majority of residents have voiced support for the law since it was enacted. Both Gov. Romney and Gov. Deval Patrick, the Democrat who succeeded him, praised the success of Mr. Romney’s version of Obamacare. {6}

            Opps. Sorry, Sue, my reply cup runneth over again. I hope you do not mind my injecting a few observations into the discussion.
            {1} … -expansion
            {2} … ?mobile=nc
            {3} … ered-past/
            {4} … ndate.html
            {5} … l-mandate/
            {6} … sachusetts

            1. profile image0
              SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Hi Quill,
              Actually, that is incorrect. Mitt Romney, Governor of Mass at the time, wanted a tax break for those who purchased insurance, not a mandate tax for those who did not, or a penalty whichever way you'd like to phrase it. However, he was overruled by a Democratic majority State Legislature. So, no, the Republicans were NOT the first ones, nor any ones for that matter, to propose a mandate. smile
              Do you know Quill that 133% of the poverty line is only equal to $15,000 for a single person and $30,000 for a family of four? Yeah, not that much when you consider the cost of insurance is it?
              You do realize the difference between anything at all implemented at a State level and a Federal level yes? That the state has control over such things as their own exchange etc etc etc. Their own VATs which helped to fund the Mass law? Are you proposing national VATs on everyone Quill? You do realize that Massachusetts as a state does not have to deal with Medicare? That even Medicaid is a much smaller part of the state variable because it is partially funded through the Federal government? Do you realize there is no Independent Counsel in the Mass. Law? It is much easier to implement anything on a small scale, control wise and cost wise and have it be successful. A successful state program does not make a successful Federal one. Do you know the start-up costs of that health care plan were off set because there was already a fund to cover the health care costs of the uninsured? Do we have such a thing at the Federal level? hmmm...nope.

              1. Quilligrapher profile image74
                Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Good Evening, Ms. Sue. It is nice to read your comments.

                You truly have me at a disadvantage, Sue, because I try so hard to confine my remarks to verifiable facts and to provide links to reliable sources. I informed you about the author at the Heritage Foundation who first proposed the mandate idea in 1989. He was a respected Conservative Republican in his day. I also informed you Republican legislators introduced two bills in Congress in 1993 containing features drawn from the 1989 mandate proposal. {1} Further, the same mandate mechanism was included in the 2006 RomneyCare Bill in Massachusetts. These are irrefutable facts available to any inquisitive mind. You could have verified them for yourself just by following the links in my endnotes. Instead you replied: “No, the Republicans were NOT the first ones, nor any ones for that matter, to propose a mandate.” The “NOT” in uppercase is how you wrote it. If you need to call me a liar, at least supply one link to a reliable source since your personal opinion on this point has no value.

                Unknown to you, Sue, Gov. Romney has always been in favor of a mandate because it is a necessary financial mechanism for driving healthcare reform. When he signed the bill, he vetoed several other provisions but left the mandate feature stand. In a speech at the US Chamber of Commerce, Gov. Romney defended the mandate provisions this way: "The key factor that some of my libertarian friends forget is that today, everybody who doesn't have insurance is getting free coverage from government. And the question is, do we want people to pay what they can afford, or do we want people to be able to ride free on everybody else. And when that's recognized as the choice, most conservatives come my way." {2} Please note, Sue, the governor said “my” way.

                I will not ask you for a reliable source for your claim the Democratic majority in the State Legislature and not Gov. Romney is responsible for the MA mandate. After reading the governor’s public statements, I do not really believe such a reliable source exists but feel free to provide one if you have it. 

                Personally, I respect your opposition to President Obama’s PPACA but I resist irrational, illogical, unsupported, bombastic rhetoric declaring it is 100% bad for this country. Providing adequate healthcare to the needy and spreading the cost evenly over an insurance pool of all Americans seems to me to be a step in the right direction. 

                Be well, Ms. Sue, and have a good evening.
                {1} … ered-past/
                {2} … ey-241.doc

            2. phion profile image60
              phionposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              The only reason there is any supposed reason for an "individual mandate" is because of the gross amount of people who have been raised from childhood to rely on the government for their livelihood, and vast number that get too comfortable receiving a check from uncle sam.

              The war on poverty has been a complete and utter failure, and the ACA is yet another multi trillion dollar waste in the name of said war.

              What does it matter if every man, woman, and child has health care, if we are borrowing or printing the money to pay for it? It may be nice for the selfish people who only care about themselves, but what about the next generation or the one after that? Shall we just add another “doomed to fail eventually” program to the long list that already exists? What world do people live in where they don’t have to work or earn their own livelihood? At the rate we are going another world war will come along soon to give us a gut check.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                The Affordable Health Care Act has a number of cost saving measures. More are needed. The health care non-system is very inefficient and doesn't produce very good results. A variety of measures will be needed to curb escalating health care costs. There are many good suggestions floating around. One is to quit paying for individual tests and procedures. This system provides an incentive for unnecessary tests and procedures, which run up the costs and sometimes are harmful to patients. Nobody wants to talk about it, but a limit will have to be put on Medicare payments costly, futile hail Mary end-of-life care which contributes disproportionately to health care costs.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Here's an excellent editorial on this point in this morning's NYTimes:

         … mp;emc=rss

                  "A new report from a panel of experts convened by the Institute of Medicine estimated that roughly 30 percent of health care spending in 2009 — around $750 billion — was wasted on unnecessary or poorly delivered services and other needless costs. Lack of coordination at every point in the health care system is a big culprit....

                  "What’s clear from this report is that the pilot projects in the Affordable Care Act to encourage better coordination of care, make medical prices transparent and accelerate the use of health information technology are only a modest start. These have to be expanded, not repealed, if the nation hopes to make a real dent in health care costs."

                  1. Mighty Mom profile image79
                    Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Thank you, Ralph.
                    The opponents here seem to focus exclusively on the individual side of Obamacare. And seem fixated on the "tax" (which as we know only applies if you don't choose to buy coverage or qualify for Medicaid).
                    Totally missing the bigger picture.
                    By design, I suspect.

                    Meanwhile, there are a few of us (Quillographer, you, me, probably others I can't remember at this moment) presenting the substantial benefits ACA provides to the care delivery side of the equation. Things that will improve efficiency and thus reduce costs, despite providing care to millions more Americans who will be insured under ACA.

                    Once again, let me state for the record:
                    The ACA provides funding to improve health care quality, access, care coordination (including information sharing through IT) and capacity building -- including funding for staff development. It provides funding for wellness programs to make citizens healthier, which of course will also reduce the need for more expensive health care (hospitals, ERs).
                    The actual implemention plans to take advantage of ACA funding are not dictated at the federal level. They are created locally.  There are already successful pilot projects out there.
                    The Medicaid funding flows through the state's low-income health insurance plan (Medi-Cal where I live). The insurance exhanges are state-run, not federal.

                    My region (4-counties surrounding Sacramento) will be publishing its market analysis and strategic plan at the end of this month. I have been privileged to be part of this project.
                    Once it is public, I will be happy to provide links.

              2. Quilligrapher profile image74
                Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Nice to chat with you, Phion. Thank you for your comments.

                You make your opinions very clear. However, these are your conclusions and you are welcome to them even though they have no basis in fact. Based upon your research, exactly how many Americans have you determined make up “the gross amount of people” and the “vast number” you alluded to in your opening sentence?

                I guess you have never lost a job in your lifetime and had to rely on an unemployment check to feed your family and to pay your bills. Perhaps you have never know any elderly folks who are managing to get by on a meager fixed income but can use a helping hand paying the heating bill in the throes of winter. Or, perhaps, you just do not have any empathy. 

                Your claim about the individual mandate is false. The mandate evolved out of the Conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989 as best financial mechanism available to drive healthcare reform using a non-government, free enterprise insurance model. {1} If you choose to use it as an excuse to bash social programs that help the needy, go right ahead but your statement still misrepresents the purpose and the function of the individual mandate. I recommend you do some more research.

                Furthermore, everyone knows that the “War on Poverty” will never end. More importantly, however, every society is judged on how well it treats the least fortunate.

                It is nice to have heard from you, Phion. I hope we get to share again soon.
                {1} … ered-past/

                1. phion profile image60
                  phionposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I’m skeptical of any hard numbers that the government gives us, but I’d like to hope they are in the ballpark somewhere.

                  Food stamp distributions are up 46%, with 15 million new recipients.  Over 97 million Americans now qualify as “low-income”. Over 49 million are below the poverty level, although poverty here in America equals rich in much of the rest of the world.  According to the last Census, well over 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one of the federal welfare programs; many are enrolled in more than one. That’s roughly 1/3 of the country. These figures don’t include Social Security or Medicare.

                  You guessed wrong about me, but I’m not going to justify my positions by proving that I have experienced every one of the things you would assume I haven’t, and more. I’ve become stronger for it, and it’s why I hold people to a higher standard.  I’d really like you to check out the forum…”Do the wealthy have an obligation (either legal or moral) to the poor?” And read what MarleneB and Tahoe Doc posted. I don’t think that we shouldn’t help people get on their feet, so please don’t take it that way. The thing I see happening, is that many people grow too comfortable and begin to rely too much upon government. These programs need reformed. I don’t believe I need the government to tell me how I will help the needy. I volunteer sweat and time every week to several different elderly people who live on fixed incomes, mowing yards, helping around the house, doing heavy lifting, just sitting and talking, or anything they may need. To me this is much more personal and rewarding than just send taxes to uncle sam. To be your brother’s keeper, you don’t have to be an enabler; in fact I think doing so makes you just the opposite. 

                  The fact about the healthcare bill is that none of us knows if it will ultimately help, or hurt in the long run. Social programs don’t have a very good track record of solving the problem they are instituted to fix. There will always be suffering, needy, and people who need help. I argue that the government isn’t the fix, but instead strong communities that helps their own.
                  Why is it always assumed that someone who is critical of something must never have had any personal experience with the matter?

        2. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image86
          TIMETRAVELER2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Amen to showing respect to our President.  Party and race aside, no standing president should constantly have to be required to prove that he was born in the United States.

      2. profile image0
        HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        SassySue nailed it.

        Obama's had his chance.

        It's time for a change.

        1. phion profile image60
          phionposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          No, you can't use his own words against him. He didn't realize how bad it was. Plus it's all President Bush's fault anyway. We owe him another chance, so we can prove again American’s aren’t racist as a whole. Sorry for the sarcasm, I’m just aggravated beyond words about the sheer number of people who don’t see as clearly as you.

    2. MamaTschet profile image61
      MamaTschetposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Nina, unfortunately there are still many people in this country who are racists. However, I don't think that is there sole purpose for "hating" our President.  What happens is that preaching hate, brings on more hate.  The opposition tends to fuel the fire, with little digs and that propels the hate.  I get sick reading the hate and disrespect.  And that hate for our President carries over to those of us who support him.  I am not black.  But I am proud that we elected a black President.  I hope someday it doesn't even become a topic of discussion what color or race our leaders are.  That would mean we have made progress, despite our economy.

      1. nina64 profile image69
        nina64posted 11 years agoin reply to this

        My whole purpose of this forum post was to get opinions from people who saw that highway billboard. I agree with you that hate begets hate. I too hope that someday that others can get past the color of one's skin and be able to focus on whatever issues are at hand.

    3. profile image0
      HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      If we are to believe that not voting for Obama because he is black is wrong (and I agree that it is wrong), then isn't it also wrong to vote for him just BECAUSE he is black?

      Yet Obama is still drawing black voters by a huge margin and most are quick to admit that they want a black man in the White House.

      Why can't we just pick our leaders based on their policies and their voting records? That's the only dependable way.

      Voting for or against someone based on their skin racist.

  5. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago

    You know what? I despise many of Obama's policies and actions. Has nothing to do with his race.

    You know what else? I despise many of Bush's actions. Has nothing to do with race.

    You can't be so narrow-minded to think that it's impossible to dislike Obama without it being because of race... Every president is disliked, has it always been simply because of race?

    Am I racist against blacks and whites?

    1. nina64 profile image69
      nina64posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hello JaxonRaine, I'm glad we all agree on some things and it's ok to disagree. I don't consider myself to being narrow minded at all. I too believe that all Presidents are disliked for whatever reason. Race is made an issue because some people make it an issue. No matter what nationality a politician is, it is up to us to vote for them for their beliefs in whatever policies and ideas that they may propose.

  6. innersmiff profile image66
    innersmiffposted 11 years ago

    Disrespecting the President is absolutely okay under our natural right to free speech, you know!

    1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image86
      TIMETRAVELER2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      If you think you can do a better job, go ahead and disrespect.  If you can't, then leave him alone so that he can do his job.  Free speech does not mean that you can say whatever you please whenever you please or that you have the right to make a scapegoat of a person.  Disliking is one thing, disrespecting is quite another.

  7. taburkett profile image59
    taburkettposted 11 years ago

    The democrats were in total charge of all 3 pillars during the first 2 years and they failed to restore and recover the nation.
    During the following 2 years, the democrats were in charge of 2 of the 3 pillars and still have gotten nothing started to restore and recover the nation.
    The blame game was wrong in the first year and it is even more wrong in the fourth year.
    Leadership failed - everyone knows it, but the President's followers do not want to believe it.
    The President has no skills or experience that will permit him to do anything but fail if he were reelected.
    The time for real change is here.
    Otherwise, the American Dream will become a much more flagrant Nightmare than it is today.

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
      Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You actually expected everything to be fixed in 2 years?

      1. taburkett profile image59
        taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        nothing is fixed.
        therefore, leadership failed.
        during the first 2 years, the democrats were in charge and only passed bills they never read.
        no foundation for recovery and restoration has been put into place and it has been 3 years and 8 full months now.
        it is obvious that Clint was right - the chair is empty.

        1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image86
          TIMETRAVELER2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Excuse me?  Nothing is fixed?  Have you been in a locked room for the past 4 years?

      2. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        everything that ails this country will not be fixed in 2 to 4 years. Whether the issue is the economy, immigration, to our foreign policy there needs to be progress. When Reagan was facing reelection the economy was not great, but there was improvement from the day he took office and were strong economic indicators that things were going to continue to get better. Under Obama things have not gotten better, or even improved and the economic indicators are grim to fair at best.

    2. phion profile image60
      phionposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      American View~
      Nail solidly hit on Head. Facts speak for themselves. How so many refuse to see them, who knows?

  8. taburkett profile image59
    taburkettposted 11 years ago

    OMG America your scores are filled with great pain.
    Vacant promises of politicians are a deceitful refrain.
    Whatever will you find in this devil demonic time.
    Radical demons express flagrant raging hate as refine.

    Your once calm shores are now full of blooming hate.
    Because deceiving politicians press it at every gate.
    The political oppression has cuckold the swelling few.
    With adulterous infidelity immoral citizens so grew.

    Blame and the blasphemy have reached a risky peak.
    Biased sham lies spread as politicians trickery speak.
    OMG America – just how distant will you fatally fall.
    Pray America’s patriots let’s recover and restore it all.

    As patriots worked days gone by to see a justice rod.
    Now we must restructure things to again love GOD.
    Before slaughter of freedoms befall the moral citizen.
    Restore Constitution strong and make us whole again.

    GOD bless the United States of America

    Many in current government leadership positions are causing grave damage to the nation’s citizens by generating a large tyrannical conglomerate that diminishes the ability for hard-working citizens to seek the American Dream.  Every aspect of the American lifestyle is being threatened as big-government establishes big-brother policy that dictates the substance of thought and deed. 
    This is true in the educational system, economic arena, healthcare decrees, selective bailouts, crushing debt, and corrupt political machine.  The vision of the American landscape is being plowed as if all personal desires are to be directed by the federal government.  While security and stability support by government is a desire for all citizens; personal choice of career, healthcare, substance, housing, enterprise, and economic condition are still considered as a person’s private choice.   

    While it is easy to see that these internal clandestine operations are being thrust upon the USA citizenry, it is difficult to abate their actions due to the abnormal immoral attitudes of some of the citizens.  The crackpot decadent agendas also produce a stealthy wall-of-deceit that is not easily penetrated due to the level of socialist propaganda being deployed.  Therefore, it is imperative that this detrimental political madness must end, or it will surely be the end of the USA.

    “It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.” George Washington

    “The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself.” Benjamin Franklin

  9. Mighty Mom profile image79
    Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

    ACA is implemented at the state level .
    Each region within the state can apply the funding according to their specific population's demographics and health needs. It's not not intended to be a one-size-fits-all Americans plan.
    It is not assumed that ACA implementation will look the same in Santa Fe, New Mexico as it does in the San Francisco Bay Area or rural Indiana.

    1. Jean Bakula profile image94
      Jean Bakulaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I never wanted to believe many people dislked President Obama because of race, I live in a diversified state, and am open minded. On the morning after the election, an old friend I had since HS said, "We are so upset that a black person is President)! "We" being her and her boyfriend. We had been friends for over 30 years, and although I knew she was not comfortable with people too much different from her, it shocked me. We got together a few more times, and since she had divorced out of my husband's side of the family, I just stopped bothering with her. I don't understand hate directed at people of color or with a disability or the LGBT community, or anyone different. In the D Convention tonight, I was struck by how many speakers mentioned the word "love." As Americans, we used to want to help our neighbors get back on their feet, or help them when they were sick or had a death in the family. The Republican Party has been hijacked by a bunch of people so ultra conservatve, they only like those that are cookie cutter images of them. What do they do for recreation? Count their money every night? I'd rather having caring people in charge who want to lift others up. I don't believe success is measured in money.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image79
        Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        At least she was honest about it.
        Just rewatched Obama's speech.
        How fitting to end with Springsteen singing "We take care of our own."

  10. taburkett profile image59
    taburkettposted 11 years ago

    Regardless of position held, individuals EARN respect through their service deeds that affect others.
    Individuals that operate through open honest society where their actions have little impact on others are shown great respect.
    Individuals that operate covertly through society where their actions have an enormaous affect on other are shown little respect.
    Every individual through cognitive efforts formulates their own impression of another individuals affect on them.
    Every individuals cognitive formulation is biased due to family circumstances, personal beliefs, impact of affects, perception of honesty and deceit, morals, and personal expectations.
    When evaluating an individual, the position of the individual within society takes on more precedence as that position rises higher on the power chain within society.

    For the position of President, one expects the individual in that position:
    1) to honor and sustain the highest morals, honesty, beliefs, support for law, and ethics of all people in society.
    2) would support the Constitution of the United States, and not circumvent it through covert actions.
    3) would conform to a labor that would sustain the office through highest morals, honesty, beliefs, support for law, and ethics  of the society that placed them into the position.
    4) would not create chaos through use of minority influence to justify reactance that threatens or eliminates specific behavioral freedoms.
    5) would not utilize a bait and switch methodology to circumvent the underlying principles and rules of the nation or society.
    6) would not condone deceitful methods or clandestine operations to hide the truth.
    7) would not generate angst within the nation by chanting racism, class-warfare, and deceit rhetoric.
    8) would not tollerate others who chanted racism, class-warfare, and deceit rhetoric that generated angst within the nation.
    9) would not proclaim self-fulfilling prophecies declaing them truths.
    10) would not spend more than the country earns.
    11) would not declare immoral to be moral.
    12) would not proclaim deviate concepts as duty and loyalty.
    13) would not demand a citizen to sacrifice something for someone other than themselves.
    14) would not promote hatred in the nation by proclaiming nationwide racism to enrage the minorities.
    15) would not tolerate others that promote hatred in the nation by proclaiming nationwide racism to enrage the minorities.
    16) would not promote a fairness doctrine that is not fair to all citizens of the nation.
    17) wound not protect the citizens of the nation by embracing illegal immigrants who have not properly followed the laws of the nation.
    18) would not permit the citizens of the nation to protect themselves from criminals committing crimes against them or the nation.
    19) would not oppose ehtical egoism by immoral agents acting in their own self-interest.
    20) would not operate using misleading and fraudulent propaganda
    21) would not tolerate others who use misleading and fraudulent propaganda
    22) would not impose their personal immoral conduct beliefs upon the moral society.
    23) would not condemn the use or practice of vigorous militant activism as a means of achieving political goals
    24) would not participate in partisan wild spending that increased the nations debt by 64%
    25) would not refuse to accept responsibiilty for failure.

  11. Mulqueen profile image59
    Mulqueenposted 11 years ago

    Thanks President Obama for preventing America and, by default, the rest of the world from slipping into another Depression following the economic chaos created by the previous Republican administrations. I can't see Mitt Romney being a strong supporter of public programs for schools and how many paychecks has he been responsible for terminating through Bain Capital?

  12. Wayne Brown profile image82
    Wayne Brownposted 11 years ago

    That economic chaos which Mulqueen refers to came straight through via Bill Clinton and his push for changes in the Fair Housing Act.  The Bush administration warned Congress many times over only to have it fall on deaf ears. The Democrats had the last two years of the Bush Administration and the first two years of the Obama Administration with total majority control over the Congress and what did they do with it....Obamacare.  Everything else was left laying around...oh sorry....I forgot about the almost $900 billion dollars that disappeared into thin air under the name of economic stimulus...300 billion of which still seems to be unaccounted for and forgotten per se.  I do not care for public display of political laundry from either side but at the same time, I am gettin very tired of the excuses and the lies coming out of the current White House.  Washington is currently devoid of leadership in all places. The only progress being made is the continual addition of yet another socialist or communist to the growning government payroll.  It is beyond time for hope and change...far beyond. ~WB

  13. taburkett profile image59
    taburkettposted 11 years ago

    The magic math currently utilized to depict a salvation success for the nation is despicable.
    The nation currently borders the same depression spot of 1929 when the stock market crashed and the great depression began.
    While the current financial magicians in the Administration keep floating dollars to finance the distressed debt, it follows the same financial pattern of the 1920's.
    The depression of the 1930's then identifed the proper factors that would provide safe operations to keep such mistakes of the past from surfacing again.
    However, irresponsible political activity over the past 6 years has relegated most of the strategic processes for averting such disaster.
    This activity is basically a partisan effort on the part of both parties as they irresponsibly barter without regard to the rights or needs of the citizens.
    While many people declare this a problem generated by Congress, in truth it is actually the ineptness of the executive in charge who is supposed to provide a solid bipartisan effort while running the nation.
    However, during the last 6 years many partisan rather than bi-partisan actions have cost the citzens dearly as the unemployment rose and theactual number of working force diminished.
    The biggest contributing factor in this area came from the financial debacle generated by quick spin-master spending on partisan paper-valuing of financial debt.
    This led to the purchase of over-priced family housing and small business where the debtor could not cover the inflated costs when a small depression began.
    This same activity occurred in 1929 prior to the great depression.
    The financial charge that was described to have been orchestrated to fix this problem just generated a larger problem as the national debt rose to 16 trillion with no solution in sight.
    This fiancial fantasy fix was nothing more than a political chain of kicking the can down the road.
    It also only covered very few distressed people beacuse the rules applied to the objective created a monster of double talk that led to deadend operations.
    In economics when one modifies a charge within the transaction system, another transaction must offset it.
    When moving funds from one support class to another for negative reasons, this results in a loss to all because the movement eliminates further positive action from occurring.
    Additinoally, when moving funds that do not exisrt, this presents a magic math formula that results in more borrowing and thus more loss for all in the future.
    Incompetent leadership always results in irresponsible financial operations.
    That is why leaders must be replaced for recovery to actually occur.

    1. theliz profile image61
      thelizposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      When you have a cut, does it heal as soon as you put the bandage on it? When that cut is a deep open wound that has been unchecked for eight years, will it magically be healed once the cure is finally administered? Cleaning up the irresponsible financial operations of 2000-2008 is going to be taking place for years to come.

      1. Repairguy47 profile image60
        Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

        According to the windbag in chief he could heal that wound in 4 years or it would be a one term proposition. That's the only truth that has passed his lips.

        1. theliz profile image61
          thelizposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          No candidate, regardless of party affiliation would have said anything less.  That's what the vote was about.  I don't think it's right that it went down like that, but the public wanted to hear that everything was going to go back to normal economically without admitting that that will take more than four or eight or ten years. You can't fault a man for giving the people what they want.

    2. taburkett profile image59
      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      the intelligent individual normally knows that to drive a penny nail they do not want to use a 5 pound sledge hammer that would cause him to lose a finger or 2 when pounding that nail, so they take appropriate action to use the appropriate tool.
      the Administration has been using a 5 pound sledge on the American citizen daily for the last 3 years, 8 months, and 7 days when what they should have done is reel in the wild spending and stop harassing the citizen.
      now they want 4 more to keep using the sledge on the citizens.
      when will the insanity be fixed?
      my guess is when we replace the o-dumble-one with someone who knows what tools need to be used.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image79
        Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        RIght. So pick the one who doesn't even see citizens as people.
        He only recognizes corporations as people.
        Probably because most of his circle ARE corporations.

        That's a really smart plan.

        1. kathleenkat profile image85
          kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Do you have any sources to prove this? Or this just propaganda intended to provoke the Republicans on this forum?

          1. Mighty Mom profile image79
            Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Does the person I was responding to, which was not you, have sources to back up calling the president "o-dumble one" and that he is hitting citizens with sledge hammers?

            1. kathleenkat profile image85
              kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              I have no idea. But that was just a nick-name. And the "sledge hammer" was clearly symbolic of something, likely Obama force-pushing a healthcare bill that the majority of people did not want. However, your claim doesn't ring any bells for me. I can't even begin to guess how you would draw that conclusion. Anyone running for president obviously loves this country. So,saying that Romney doesn't view citizens as people is a very harsh claim, which, I am curious as to how you drew that conclusion. So, I ask for your sources, because, quite frankly, your speculation isn't cutting it for me.

            2. taburkett profile image59
              taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              typical irrational response.
              the o-dumble-one is whoever you would like it to be in the current administration.
              maybe it was for the individual who just resigned because she was using her sledge hammer on the boys of the office.

  14. SpanStar profile image62
    SpanStarposted 11 years ago

    America has come a long way since the days of Bull Connor and his tactics against African-Americans. As far as we have come however we are kidding ourselves if we do believe that a racial hatred has been diminished in this country.

    If one still questions that racial hatred is an issue one need only compare what has taken place with this president and compare that to the racial treatments in the past of African-Americans.  Military Blacks And Whites were segregated And Blacks were thought to be inferior especially when compared to Whites. Practically anything a Black ocouldn't do  amamounted to nothing  in the yes of Caucasians. African-Americans were often considered incompetent, lazy, shiftless etc. starting to see a comparison now?

    1. Mighty Mom profile image79
      Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Are you at all aware of what the Koch brothers are funding?
      A return to segregated schools by infiltrating school boards with their bought-and-paid for "I'll spout the party line even though everyone around me sees it's wrong" candidates.
      Yeah. We've come a long way.
      Let's not go back there.

      1. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this


        I am not defending the Koch brothers, but you do realize what George Soros has been funding don't you? Not to mention the obscene amounts of money he spends compared to the Koch brothers.

        1. JSChams profile image59
          JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          George Soros? Who is that? What does he have to do with anything?
          We are talking about the evil Republicans here, not the Great Steersman.

  15. Jean Bakula profile image94
    Jean Bakulaposted 11 years ago

    Many people have made interesting comments on this thread, among them Howard B Thiname. There does seem to be a lack of respect to the office of the Presidency no matter who it is in the last 3 or 4 Election cycles. I don't know why that is. I can recall President Obama's first State of the Union Address, when that person yelled out, "You Lie!" If that was any white President, I don't believe that would have been tolerated. I would have had security escort that person out of the room (and it's been 4 yrs. + so I really don't recall the name of the person). I have posted about my old friend, who did, as MM said, at least admit she and her boyfriend were upset we had a black President. So there is much more of a racial issue in this country than people want to admit. I have a friend who grew up in SC, and she was surprised that when she moved to NJ, there was so much racial intolerance. It's there in some people, but they keep it well hidden. But respect is also something which needs to be earned, and different people have different values. Now that I am older, 4 yrs. doesn't seem like much time to solve problems as intricate as the ones that face our country. I just think Obama needs more time. But I realize many feel he's had enough time. People are all entitled to their opinions, but we need to respect views that do not mirror our own. These threads get nasty lately.

    1. profile image0
      HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I remember that "you lie" incident, Jean, and it was disrespectful. But, remember when GWB had to actually dodge the shoes the person through at his head? That was also bad.

      I agree that we need to be respectful of others opinions on these threads. I just think that things get so heated just before an election that it brings out the worst in all of us.

      Thanks for reminding us to mind our manners.

      1. Jean Bakula profile image94
        Jean Bakulaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I forgot that incident where a shoe was thrown at President Bush. That wasn't right. The Office of the President should be respected, even if we do not personally like the person. I sure wouldn't want the job. Look at how much they age in those 4 or 8 years. I remember last year on Super Bowl Sunday, I watched Bill O'Reilly interview President Obama. Yes, I am a D, but I can find qualities I like in Bill. Anyway, The President explained how by the time any problem got to his desk, it was because nobody else could or would try to solve it. No matter who wins this time, I hope they all stop being so difficult and remember that they are elected to work for the good of our country.

        1. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this


          When you said " you forgot that incident" , don't take this as him singling you out, but the left has selective memory. They do not remember anything at of all the disrespectful things they did under President Bush. One of the things the Democrats love to bring up is that on the day Obama was being sworn in there were secret meetings planning to make sure Obama was a one and done President. How soon they forget how they were screaming that from the rafters after the Supreme Court decision and the Bush victory over Gore. How soon they forget after the reelection of Bush they called him lame duck from day one and and swore he would get nothing done.

          Honestly, I am not sure if it is people being disrespectful to the president as so much as people being disrespectful to each other. For example, while I respect the President I disagree with many of his policies like Obama care. But when you come to places like here in these forums and discuss my side of the issue I get called racist, Nazi and more. Until people stop taking things to the abstract, it'll never improve. Should Romney win in November, remember this thread when the Democrats will be saying the same things under a Republican President. I wonder if they will think it is disrespectful then.

          1. Quilligrapher profile image74
            Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Hi AV.  How are things in your neck of the woods? Mostly rain all this past week up here in the Northeast thanks to Isaac.

            I hope you don’t mind my saying there is a lot of wobble in the spin you put in your reply to Ms. Bakula. Tsk! Tsk! I certainly hope you are not trying to place this shoe incident at the feet of the evil left because it was not a “left” shoe.

            The shoes thrown, a left and a right, belonged to Muntadhar al-Zaidi, an Iraqi broadcast journalist. He flung them at President Bush during a press conference in Baghdad while shouting "This is a farewell kiss from the Iraqi people, you dog." Do you have any ideas, AV, as to why an Iraqi might feel such contempt for our benevolent President? {1}

            On the other hand, in Sept. 2009, South Carolina’s Rep. Addison Graves (Joe) Wilson interrupted a speech by President Obama to a joint session of the Congress (not a State of the Union Address) by shouting, “You lie.” The incident resulted in a formal rebuke by the House of Representatives. Wilson’s breach of decorum occurred while the President was explaining his proposal for healthcare reforms, "There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." It has since been determined that President Obama’s statement was indeed true.  Rep. Wilson has a long history of “foot-in-mouth” disease. {2}

            Have a great weekend, AV.

            1. American View profile image60
              American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this


              How are you and hope all is well. Wonder if you could send some of that rain down here, we sure could use. You know how it is in Texas it's summer it's hot and it's dry.

              I think you misinterpret my response to Jean. There is no spinning involves because I agree with her. Heck, I didn't even mentionthat disgusting shoe incident. I was merely giving my perspective on the lack of respect.

              Joe Wilson has the right to disagree with any and every policy of President Obama. To say you line on the floor of Congress is disrespectful and it never should have occurred under any circumstance.

              People today have lost view of what respect really means. Somehow people have forgotten that everybody has their right to their own opinion. They get incensed if somebody doesn't agree with them, first they will be irate, and then the name calling will begin. Some people think they can force you to respect them. Look at gangs, they think shoving a revolver in-your-face will make you respect them. Long forgotten of the days of you have to give respect to earn respect.

              It's no wonder how we got here, all one has to do is just reflect on what the kids grow up and who they believe their heroes are. Rappers who are admitted him so and drug dealers, openly spit on the law and act like he can do anything they want to anybody they want. Kids grow up wanting to be like that. Movies that glorify gangsters and illegal activities and turn i then into heroes for doing so. I could go on with the whole is more I think you understand where I'm going with this.Long gone are the days for John Wayne was a hero, when kids addressed adults as Mr. and Mrs.

              Take journalism, in all forms and medium from the cable, the local news, to newspapers, to the Internet, the language of the reporting has become adversarial is best. There's a lot of disrespect the way on news is brought to us now. The Rachel Maddows, the Ed Schultz , the Bill O'Reilly's, the Sean Hannity's, and many more are emboldened was the way they report and the way they interview. The so worried about trying to make people look bad that they forget about the issue the trying to report about and inform us the public. Over the last two weeks of the conventions one word was prevalent in almost every article written in many shows on the air in the word was lie.

              Respect is not a left or right issue, is an issue that faces everyone in this country. If lack of respect continues at the pace it is I can't imagine or country will be even 10 years from now.

     … vindicated

              1. Jean Bakula profile image94
                Jean Bakulaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Thank you Quilligrapher,
                I truly forgot who threw the shoe, so thanks for the reminder. I did not take offense at AV's comment, because I am getting to know how certain hubbers react on the forums, and I didn't feel I was treated disrepspectfully. As far as the news, certain reporters state up front their shows are opinion based, as opposed to a straight up fact filled report. Bill O'Reilly's show is one where he makes it clear that the opinions and "talking points" are his own. As far as racism, I have heard so many "jokes" told at the expense of President Obama's being half black, that it's disgusting to even repeat them. So for those who think racism has no part to play in people's dislike of Obama, they need to wake up and just listen to some of the talk around them. It's not everyone, but it's definitely there, as some people of the U.S. are not as used to living in communities with diverse populations. The U.S. South and the Midwest come to mind. All you could see at the R convention were old, white, men. There were few ethnic groups, young people, and women represented.

                1. American View profile image60
                  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this


                  I specifically put in my response above that I was not singling you out see would not take offense or think I was attacking you. I can see by the response from Quill your comment about how certain hubbers react, you think I attack you anyway.

                  I agreed with you and was expanding of thought as to why why people are disrespectful today. I was also just trying to say by using the example of the election how these politicians have selective memory. I understand that you forgot about the shoe incident. Let's face it, there's been so much crap over the last 12 years from both sides who can remember it all.

                  By the way, when I found out UnitedWriter that you got suspended for three days, I wrote an e-mail to HP and your behalf.

                  1. Jean Bakula profile image94
                    Jean Bakulaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Hello AV,
                    Honest, I wasn't offended by your comment. I re-read what I wrote, and maybe my response wasn't well worded, so I'm sorry for that. I really did not think you were being mean spirited, the shoe incident was pretty long ago, and I often can't remember what I did yesterday! I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, that was not my intent at all. Some people do respond to posts on these political forums ready to fight, and with ten sources for their remarks. I thought forums are just about different people's opinions, a place to discuss. I don't know why we all get so touchy, Peace? And I really appreciate your defense, thanks for telling me that. The whole matter of being banned really upset me, nothing like that ever happened to me before. I think I better just write and stay off the forums smile.

                2. Quilligrapher profile image74
                  Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I totally agree, Jean.

          2. Connie Smith profile image82
            Connie Smithposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I should think that the shoe incident thrown at Bush was selective memory if all forget that it happened in IRAQ, not in America.

    2. taburkett profile image59
      taburkettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Corrupt leadership of the nation continues to support wicked immoral acts by claiming that modern times require a society change.   This places a tremendous strain upon honorable individuals of our moral society because they now must provide an equality to immoral satanic acts that directly oppose honorable age old moral principles.  While some apathetic moral individuals believe that any attempt to oppose this immoral attempt is a useless operation, many moral individuals know that it is a vital challenge that must be persisted.
      The leaders that follow the immoral path will always be challenged for their support of the immoral activities.
      Lying has been the largest sporadic class that has risen to an incredible wicked level over several of the last elections.   
      when a person doesnot do the job, then the blast of criticism is proof of the need to replace the incompetent immoral individual.

    3. JSChams profile image59
      JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I grew up in the hills of East Tennessee and I don't care if he's a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater.....
      HE IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      You can visit my page if you care to discern my attitude on race. There's a hub there.....

  16. kathleenkat profile image85
    kathleenkatposted 11 years ago

    From Obama's official Facebook page:

    This exists on both sides. One of the beautiful things about this country is you are allowed to openly voice your opinion (think about Putin and sending Pussy Riot to jail in Russia).

    1. profile image0
      HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I wish I knew how to post pictures. I tried but it was just blank.

      1. kathleenkat profile image85
        kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Remove the "."  (there so it shows up)


  17. taburkett profile image59
    taburkettposted 11 years ago

  18. brown073 profile image61
    brown073posted 11 years ago

    Nina I think the disrespect that we're seeing has come about because of a "win by any means" approach that is being used by the GOP. The narrative that has been used to defeat President Obama has had a couple of significant effects. First, it has made uninformed people fearful of him; and secondly, it has placed GOP legislators in an ackward position of not being able to cooperate with the President of the United States because their base is convinced that he is out to destroy this country and working with him could be seen as colluding with an enemy of this country. I take a closer look at how the GOP has exploited their base here:  <link snipped - no promotional links>

  19. quatrain profile image58
    quatrainposted 11 years ago

    Listen up. I have no love lost for George W. Bush but I distinctly remember the New York Village Voice in 2000 put out a magazine cover of President Bush as a chimp. Following that cover, other publications picked up on the theme of the Presiudent as a monkey or chimp. No one complained then about hurtful images.  Then, there were open suggestions from almost all liberal-leaning publications that President Bush was dumb, that he couldn't speak. He was constantly ridiculed, despite having graduated from Yale with higher grades than John Kerry, his opponent in 2004. And, despite the fact that he was the first President to appoint not one but two Black people as Secretaries of State, he was also called racist. Those appointments paved the way for the election of one Barack Obama, by the way.

    So, what are we to make of the persistent opposition to President Obama? Perhaps some of that political opposition is racially motivated. But if it is, then how do you account for his election in the first place in 2008? He won 42to 43% of the white vote. On the other hand, Blacks voted overwhelmingly for him, some 97 to 98%. Given that unanimity is rare on any political issue, might it be said that these Black voters were themselves voting for Obama in large part becuase he is Black (half-Black)? If so, is that not also a racist vote?

    America supposedly became post-racial in 2008 when it elected its first Black President. Now, we cannot require that all Americans continue to prove that they are not racist by voting for a minority person for every election for the rest of their lives. Fair is fair.

    Time to stop the one-sided coddling of Barack Obama.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this



    2. SpanStar profile image62
      SpanStarposted 11 years agoin reply to this


      Voting for a minority president for the first time in history I would not call that racial voting.

      When one is denied something for so many years then finally seeing an opportunity to get their foot in the door by voting for something/someone they are in favor of does not lend itself to racism for if that were the case then voting for candidates we favor has been racist from the beginning.

  20. Brownie83 profile image92
    Brownie83posted 11 years ago

    Politics makes me ill. The millions of dollars raised to campaign and broadcast smear campaigns are not my idea of providing for the greater good of the public. One day, I'd like to see a presidential candidate that joined the race simply through word of mouth, social networking and grassroots campaigns. I would like this candidate to show those corrupt politicians that it doesn't take millions of dollars to convince U.S. citizens to vote for them. Citizens will vote because this candidate isn't being swayed with money from any contributor, they are simply doing what they believe will be best for their country. I hope for a candidate that is middle of the road and is able to listen to the left and the right with an open mind and heart. Too many times, people make the wrong assumptions when they hear the word Republican or Democrat and then bars are raised, ears are closed, and the entire U.S. population suffers. As for the President; it takes more than one person to run a country and educated citizens to vote for what they believe will be best for our future. And that's all I'll say about that.

    1. Emanate Presence profile image71
      Emanate Presenceposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Brownie, thankfully yours was the last post I read in this thread. As a high school friend said to me more than 40 years ago, "Gary, you have an ignorant view of politics." I do, and there is nothing I can say in hard facts. All I have are feelings about the subject. You sum them up well. Until your candidate appears, I have little interest in politics.

      1. Emanate Presence profile image71
        Emanate Presenceposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Sorry, something else comes to mind. Four years ago, I was living in Germany during the election campaigns. I don't read Deutsch but got the newspaper headline: "Obama: the next world leader?" It carried a tone of hope and admiration - from the German people! We returned to America, then moved back to Germany this summer. The next headline I read this summer was "Obama: War Lord?" It was better in Spain during the campaign between Gore and Bush. There was no news at all, as though America did not exist to the people of Andalucia. I had another experience with politics, in a way, in New Zealand. I was standing in line and an American was ahead of me at the counter. He was all flustered and upset - about the New Zealand roads. He shouted, "Someone should have told me about driving on the wrong side of the road! I almost ran over two people coming here?" A person in line said quietly, "There are books on driving in New Zealand." He shouted, "I will just put up a sign in the motorhome - 'I voted for Bush!' - then people will know I am an American!"

        Sometimes stories say more than facts.

  21. profile image0
    SassySue1963posted 11 years ago

    And while running for President, Obama had this to say about the mandate:
    ""She’d have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it," Obama said. "So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn't."

    Once again Quill, you simply leave out such interesting facts. This is from your own source btw.  So, perhaps over the last 20 years, the Conservatives had a change of heart over the mandate. Perhaps they simply took another look at it. There are many things I've changed my mind about over 20 years. It only took the President six months to do the same thing.

    1. Quilligrapher profile image74
      Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I am sorry, Sue, but a quote with no source makes checking for accuracy a tad difficult.

      Oh yes. Thank you for mentioning Conservatives changing their minds about the individual mandate "over the last twenty years," also without a source. Let us not forget that Conservative banner bearer, Mitt Romney, signed RomneyCare, which includes an individual mandate, into MA law six years ago and before President Obama was elected. Today, the former governor is unwilling to discuss that his version and Obamacare are so similar!

      Have a great night, Sue.

  22. profile image0
    SassySue1963posted 11 years ago

    All information came from YOUR sources Quill. As I already stated.
    He signed the reform Law in Mass. after he lost the battle to keep out the mandate and include tax breaks instead. I'll even use the HuffingtonPost for you as a source. Romney was against the mandate and was pressured by Dems in the legislature to include it. Either way, I really do not have an issue with the Mass Law being somehow hypocritical. I can see the difference between State Law and Federal Law and how that changes the mechanics of the Law drastically. What I might be alright with if my State were to implement something, I would not be comfortable with the Federal Government attempting. … 37882.html
    Here is a link to the President himself while running for election, speaking out against the mandate.
    The conservative group you credit for creating the idea of a mandate changed its view four years later. That also comes from your own sources. In 1993, there were two Bills presented that included the mandate. Two GOP members who sponsored those Bills are now against the mandate, that is true but as I stated 1993 was a long time ago. It is entirely possible to change one's opinion over such a period of time, and reasonable even. The President did a full circle in less than 6 months.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The fact is the principal features of the health care reform bill simply won't work without a mandate of some sort. Have you heard of "adverse selection?" The system won't work if people wait until they are sick before getting insurance. There can be no promise of insurance without regard to pre-existing conditions without a mandate. The whole principle of an effective and fair insurance system relies on everyone participating.

      1. profile image0
        SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

        @Ralph That's because it is a TAX on the very people who can least afford it. And a hefty one I might add that they cannot possibly avoid because they cannot afford insurance. 133% of the poverty line only comes to $13,000 for an individual and $28,000 for a family of four. Those above those amounts are left to crash and burn. A tax break at the end of the year is not going to help them meet the monthly pay out needed for health insurance. So they will be paying this tax. Another broken promise. Look out for the middle class my butt. Your funding issue was precisely my point. This Law is going to raise the deficit by huge amounts just for implementation, something Mass. did not have to deal with because they had a fund for uninsured people that was used. We have no such thing on the Federal Level so they have "borrowed" $716 billion from Medicare that is never getting paid back. This Law does not deal with costs at all which are the real issue. We need reform but we need the right reform and this Law is not it.

        1. kathleenkat profile image85
          kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          $13,000. All throughout college, I had a part-time job, where I ended up with usually between $15,000 and $21,000 per year. If I worked Full Time, it would be $28,000. I could never afford insurance. Most companies do not even offer insurance plans to part-time employees. Of those that make $13,000 or less, I can pretty much guarentee that they are part time employees. Why? Because with federal minimum wage at $7.25, working Full Time would get you $15,000. Now, with me making more than $13,000 throughout college (which really isn't that much), that means, I would have to pay out of my own pocket for insurance. Wasn't going to happen with me paying college and rent on top of that. Luckily, one good thing Obama did was let those under 26 remain on their parent's insurance. That's what saved my butt. But for the majority of independent Americans, they don't have their parents to fall back on, and they aren't all under 26.

          1. Mighty Mom profile image79
            Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            You raise excellent points here.
            Glad to see you appreciate the provision that lets parents keep their kids on their insurace to age 26.
            Not something most young people (college age, right out of college) really
            think about.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          The $700 billion will come from providers. The Affordable Care Act does include many features designed to rein in health care cost increases in a number of ways, for example, by eliminating payments for demonstrably ineffective procedures and unnecessary tests. More will be needed, but it is a good start. In the end some form of rationing of Medicare payments for heroic but futile health care procedures in the final period before death which are the largest single item in Medicare expenditures. These procedures will still be available for those who want them and can afford to pay for them.

          "This paper profiles Medicare beneficiaries’ costs for care in the last year of life. About one-quarter of Medicare outlays are for the last year of life, unchanged from twenty years ago. Costs reflect care for multiple severe illnesses typically present near death."

  23. fosginger profile image60
    fosgingerposted 11 years ago

    Wow, I can't believe how many of you are using the race card. I mean WOW. Army brat didn't even see it. I think Obama inherited a disaster and is slowly getting it put back together. President Clinton was a great President, while some of you may disagree, I really don't care. He wasn't screwed over as bad as Obama was. Americas demand immediate results, doesn't work that way. I've said enough.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      True. They've just gotta get that black guy out of the White House!

  24. profile image0
    SassySue1963posted 11 years ago

    And what do you think taking money from providers will do Ralph? You seem like an intelligent person. If you're a doctor, and medicare already does not cover your costs and now cuts even more of your payment, what are you going to do? If you're a hospital and Medicare already does not even cover your costs for care, what do you think will happen?
    Thank you for admitting that there will indeed be those death panels. It is nice to know that some unelected officials will be deciding what is "futile" and who is considered close enough to death that they are not worth spending money on.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It will cause them to be more efficient, stop performing useless tests and procedures, practice more preventive care, less expensive emergency room care. Many hospitals are making record profits. For example,

      "Nashville, Tenn.-based Hospital Corporation of America recorded a net income of $1.94 billion in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011, a significant increase from the $283 million net income recorded in the fourth quarter of 2010, according to an HCA news release." … ition.html

      Moreover, doctors aren't forced to participate in Medicare. They can drop out any time they wish.

      1. JSChams profile image59
        JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Ralph can you give me one concrete example of a government program that made ANYTHING more efficient?

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I have had no personal experience, but I've heard from friends and read that VA hospitals are quite good. Seems to me you are prejudiced against the government.

          The Navy Seals did a pretty efficient job getting Bin Laden which we failed to do in an 11-year war which has cost trillions and many lives, for what?

          1. profile image0
            SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            lol@VA hospitals. They are besieged with issues and problems and waste.
            Google it and research it Ralph. Here are just a few in two seconds of Google:

   … 51143216/1
   … view_N.htm
   … r3YJQ.cspx

    2. Mighty Mom profile image79
      Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      When you say "the law does not deal with costs at all, which are the real issue" which "costs" are you most concerned about?
      I dont' want to assume you mean care delivery when you mean insurance costs or vice versa.

      Providers actually stand to benefit greatly from the Affordable Care Act.
      It rewards, or I should say, incents, more efficient, coordinated care, and increases capacity so that there are more providers able to deliver more quality care to more patients who are now covered by insurance. This means means that our Emergency Rooms will no longer be the "provider of choice" for non-emergency care for people who have no insurance, many of whom pay nothing, thus shifting the cost of their care onto those with insurance.
      You seem to perceive it as a punishment on providers.
      It is not.

      But perhaps I am misunderstanding your concern.

      1. profile image0
        SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

        It will not increase the availability of care. Medicare's own team has already said that Obama's Law will force 15% of hospitals to close. Doctors will simply not accept Medicare like Ralph said. Seniors will just not be able to find care anywhere close to them.
        Yes it provides incentives to "curb" care. Oh you might need an MRI but we won't get reimbursed for it so we're not going to do one at this time. We think you should have an ultrasound but it's near the end of the quarter and we've already met the quota allowed so if we do one, well, we won't get that incentive. It will not be quality care.
        As for costs, I was referring to the cost of care itself.
        I keep posting the numbers and everyone keeps ignoring them. Those who cannot afford insurance, still will not be able to afford it. Even if you think those rolls for Medicaid are going to expand, 133% of the poverty line is not that much. Tax breaks at the end of the year do not help anyone pay for a monthly bill during the year. They will still be uninsured, still use the ERs and now they will pay through the nose at tax time as well. This isn't rocket science and you can easily check the poverty lines and that 130% number. It does not matter if you perceive it as a punishment on providers or not, facts are facts. It will limit care options and therefore, limit care. It is the government stepping between you and your care provider.

        1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image86
          TIMETRAVELER2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          So, I guess it's better for those of us who have some financial wherewithal to continue paying for those who can't or won't?  And it's better for the insurance companies to keep raping us?  You should sit down some time with a trauma center medical person and listen to the stories they tell of addicts who keep coming back for free care in the tens of thousands of dollars but who can't "afford" to pay for their care...they can afford Cocaine, though!  Personally, I'm sick of paying for everybody else and I'm glad they will now have to pay their own way.  It's about time!

          1. kathleenkat profile image85
            kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            133% of poverty line is not much.

            As I have said before, those who make more than $13,000 (133%) but less than $15,000 (federal minimum wage), are part time workers. PT workers are very rarely offered health insurance through their employers. Some companies do 100 hours per month, but not all. Since you seem to know everything about the ACA, I am curious where you suggest that this group of people obtain health care? Or should they just pay out of pocket? Or should they pay that yearly fee for not having healthcare (even though they really can't afford it).

            TIMETRAVELER2, have you ever had to live off of $250 dollars per week? I have. And I have already stated, if not for me having employed parents and being under 26, I would not have been able to afford healthcare while in college. Myself, and others, have raised valid points and concerns here. Assuming that everyone who falls within that income range are "addicts" is just plane ridiculous. I am fully aware that there are some people who abuse the program. I agree that this benefits those in poverty, but what I'm talking about are those in the 'upper' lower-class; those who work part time jobs because they have to. In what way does ACA help them?

          2. profile image0
            SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            @timetraveller You really think that the only people who fall into that income category are addicts? I guess whatever lie you need to tell yourself to help you sleep at night while you continue to support a Law that is going to hurt millions of people. Oh have news bro too. All those lovely people with pre-existing conditions that the insurance companies now HAVE to take and cannot classify as "high risk". You're going to be paying for them now with your rising insurance premium.

            1. Quilligrapher profile image74
              Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Hi Sue. One more quick statement before I sleep.

              Your statement above highlights one of the sterling benefits of Obamacare using the insurance model: sharing the risks among all Americans in the insurance pool. In addition, it further proves a need to have a firm grasp on the dynamics of the bill.

              Before Obamacare, we were all, collectively, going to pay for this uninsured person’s treatment any way. However, now his new affordable insurance premiums plus the huge amount of premiums being paid by those previously uninsured, will, in effect, REDUCE the long term cost for his pre-existing condition that would have fallen on both you and me. Voila! A win – win situation.

              Peace, Sue, and good night.

        2. Mighty Mom profile image79
          Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I marvel at your ability to take disparate bits and pieces of things and weave them together to justify a conclusion that is actually the polar opposite of the truth.

          There are simply too many in inaccuracies added together in your arguments. Every time someone (Quill, Ralph) call you on one, you deflect, then go back and reshuffle your deck of "facts," and repackage them in a slightly different way to come up with yet another incorrect conclusion.

          You haven't by chance studied with the great master blaster Limbaugh, have you?

          1. profile image0
            SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Lots of words with no facts to back them up there Mighty Mom. Name one fact there that is inaccurate. You don't think that hospitals are going to be watching that incentive line very closely? Then you haven't worked in a hospital. It is not a non-profit organization. I've reshuffled nothing. Been stating it pretty much continually. You've gotten called on your misconception of what this Law does and doesn't do. You're lost in your utopian fantasy that suddenly everyone can afford healthcare and no one but the deserving will have to pay the mandate tax. And that these cuts will always be waste cutting. Sorry, that is not the truth.
            As for Ralph, he is the one who said about cutting "futile" heroic efforts for those close to death. Who exactly decides someone is close to death? How close do they have to be before it is decided any effort to keep them alive is not cost effective? yeah, you don't like to mention that part of the Law I notice.
            As for Quill, he is very good with facts. He is also very good at omitting certain parts of those facts. Are you going to deny a video of a debate with the President and Hillary Clinton where he denounces the mandate? Really? That isn't fact? Carefully omitted by Quill as he tried to make a point about conservatives originally coming up with the mandate and then changing their minds. You know, over 20 years but ignoring the fact that it took Obama less than 6 months. That's right. I'll call the propaganda where I see it and I did, providing links, sources and facts all along the way.

            1. Mighty Mom profile image79
              Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              "You don't think that hospitals are going to be watching that incentive line very closely? Then you haven't worked in a hospital. It is not a non-profit organization"

              You see, this is a perfect example of what I mean. You make a statement like that -- which is easily verifiably incorrect (or being generous, incomplete), and the rest of your argument flows from that incorrect or incomplete information.

              The truth is, many hopsitals are nonprofit. Some are for-profit.
              Some are government owned.Here's some interesting reading on the differences and similarities. Enjoy!

              You further mention that I've gotten called on my misconception of what this law does and doesn't do.
              Really? By whom?

              My so-called "utopian fantasy" is not a regurgitation of Democrat talking points.
              It is based on being part of a detailed market analysis and strategic plan. The plan is being produced to prepare my region (4 counties in California) for ACA implementation.

              While you are correct that I myself have not worked in a hospital, this study, which has been several months in the making, incorporates input from the region's health systems, hospitals, health clinics and physicians.
              This is the plan they -- the ones on the frontlines of care delivery now, the ones who will deliver care to more than a quarter million new patients (regional number) under ACA -- are putting in place for themselves.

              But I'm sure you know better than any of them how they are going to respond to ACA.

              1. profile image0
                SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Firstly, non-profit hospitals (not all, that's true, but most) are not truly non-profit. You might check this out:
       … ve-on.html

                And that is only one region.  There are some actual Government hospitals that are truly non-profit but they are about 1% of the total of hospitals. While some hospitals do get the tax breaks and perks of being labeled non-profit, they are not truly non-profit.
                I'm happy your particular region is being so proactive. I wonder, have you actually seen this plan? I would suspect (though since you are being rather vague, I can't be certain) that the new patients actually come from opening new facilities, not actual numbers of the newly insured. I'd be happy to take a look at any links you have that says otherwise. Further, they will not exactly be newly insured per se, they will be newly attached to the government teat, as in Medicaid. While there is an argument to be made that all these Medicaid rolls will not be expanded, that was not the purpose of showing the numbers. Please provide any evidence at all that those above that extremely low 133% poverty line will suddenly be able to afford insurance. It was these unfortunate folks that you keep overlooking. Please answer the questions that have been asked instead of plugging your "great plan" for your region. Where are these folks supposed to get their insurance? How are they being helped? What are they to do?
                It also completely, as usual, ignores those nice unelected counsels that are going to be deciding what is being cut when these imaginary savings do not occur. Because you know, that IS part of the Law. There is a required savings that must be met and if it is not, the ax will fall.
                I find it odd that you speak of those at the front lines when all reports, from both sides, express extreme concern about this Law and what it means for patient care. How lucky for you that your region seems to be exempt of this concern. Please peruse the following.
       … 32135.html
       … 690390.php
       … emityn.www

                I find this little tidbit uniquely disturbing:
                "The policy thrust in health care financing, private as well as public, is to abandon reimbursements to hospitals according to the number of days patients spend in a bed, in favor of models that use a fixed sum per patient or set of patients over time, regardless of where care is delivered or how little it costs. "

                Hmm..hope you don't have anything serious that would find you needing to spend some time in a hospital. They will kick you out just like they currently do with new mothers when insurances stopped paying for their care after 24 hours.

                The Law has some good things and the GOP has already pledged to keep those things. The pre-existing, leaving kids on insurance until 26, those types of things. Otherwise, it is heading down a dangerous path and taking the doctor out of the care.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  A recent independent study concluded that 30 percent of medical expenses are unnecessary and wasteful. That would leave plenty of room to squeeze providers and insurers. Romney's experience in private equity might equip him well for this task.

                  1. profile image0
                    SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Hi Ralph,
                    Forgive me if I left the impression that I believe there is no waste in hospitals. Of course there is waste. The law is not going to assess waste however. It is going to say "we need to cut government output by X amount of dollars so we are cutting payment for Y services by Z amount". Further, it is going to offer incentives. Incentives for less hospital time per patient. Less returns to hospital per patient. Now, what do you think is going to happen when the hospital is up against the wall for those incentives? They are not going to admit patients that should be admitted because some Law, that does not know the situation, has said they only get compensated by less time per stay and less re-admissions. If you think that isn't going to happen, well, you're naive. What needs addressed is costs. $100 for a box of tissues? $25 per tylenol tablet?  But that has not been addressed. It is too sweeping and does not allow discretion on the part of doctors, which will reduce the quality of care not increase it. I worked in a hospital. You can not finalize an admission without approval from the Business Department. It simply will not happen for some people that SHOULD be admitted.

        3. Quilligrapher profile image74
          Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Good evening again, Sue.  I hope you are feeling well today.

          I must tell you that I regard your opinions about the benefits contained in Obamacare as highly as I regard my own.  Each of us has reached our own individual conclusions based upon our own particular analytical prowess. Therefore, I do not challenge your opinions, only the facts that you use to support them. For that reason alone, I would like to address the first sentence from your post to MM.
          “Medicare's own team has already said that Obama's Law will force 15% of hospitals to close.”

          This statement begs several questions. What team? Who said? Why should we believe this is true without seeing the source? Did you personally check to see if this true?

          Here is exactly what one of Medicare’s “own team” said over two years ago. “In the Office of the Actuary’s April 22, 2010 memorandum on the estimated financial effects of the Affordable Care Act, we noted that by 2019 the update reductions would result in negative total facility margins for about 15 percent of hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies.”  {1} Negative total facility margins means “being unprofitable”, “loosing money”, and operating “in the red” but not “forced to close.”

          Now we are getting closer to the cost savings aspects of Obamacare. The features that so many opponents like to ignore. If you look at why only 15% will be loosing money, and not 100%, you will find that the larger 85% have higher revenue to cost ratios. In other words they are more productive. Case in point, look at a more recent assessment of nursing home facilities: “According to a March 2012 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) report, ‘In prior years, the (nursing home) industry as a whole has been adept at modifying their practices to mitigate the impact of policy change.’ Mitigating strategies include lowering administrative and supply expenses, examining the terms of contracts with therapy providers and compensation packages, reducing the use of overtime and contract labor, and expanding the company’s mix of private pay patients.” {2} In short, they become more efficient!

          If this 15% projection proves to be close to reality then those facilities would, most likely, merge with more productive provider groups or cut costs. In either case, these resources will continue to serve the growing healthcare market. Some may even go out of business, as they should.

          CNN summed up the value added benefits of Obamacare in this way: “The value-based purchasing program, for example, will change the way Medicare pays hospitals for inpatient care. Instead of paying hospitals for the amount of care they provide, Medicare payments will now also depend on the quality of care provided. The idea is that by following best practices, hospitals will forgo unnecessary care, help patients recover faster and spend less.” {3}

          Now, none of this is intended to change your opinion about Obamacare or its benefits. It only points out that your statement is not accurate. I would welcome the opportunity to review your source that says, “Obama's Law will force 15% of hospitals to close.”

          {1} … enario.pdf
          {2} … obamacare'
          {3} … index.html

          1. profile image0
            SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Hi Quill,
            Actually, I mistyped that part and meant to say Medicare's Actuary. Typing too fast as usual. As to the losing money, he actually said that 40% of hospitals would lose money as a result of the new Law and 15% would stop accepting Medicare altogether. This was in his testimony before Congress. The Actuary Report did say that 15% or more physicians would become unprofitable.

   … eir-lives/
   … acare.html

            The second link also includes a video of part of his testimony.  This of course, is only the portion that involves Medicare. There is some interesting facts regarding the effects of that Independent Counsel in there as well.

            1. Quilligrapher profile image74
              Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Back att cha, Sue. Many thanks for your rapid reply.

              I accept your admission that your statement, “Obama's Law will force 15% of hospitals to close,” was in fact false but certainly not for the excuses you give.

              Typing to fast?  Funny, I do not see one typing error, only misleading and outright erroneous statements.

              I also accept your source in spite your rude request yesterday, “please refrain from using sources like the huffingtonpost. We both know that it is extremely left and biased.”

              Your second reference links to a January 2011 blog post discussing the same 2010 report I quoted in my reply to you.  It is the same report you tried to distort by saying, “It [Obamacare] will not increase the availability of care. Medicare's own team has already said that Obama's Law will force 15% of hospitals to close.” Had you read the report first, you may not have been prone to distort its contents.

              The foxnews article, btw, does not say, “Obama's Law will force 15% of hospitals to close.” So, in the final analysis, these are, apparently, your words, you own them, and they are false.

              None of which reflects on your opinions about Obamacare, Sue, but it all emphasizes firm and accurate facts are more important then our shifting opinions. If we do not show a sincere respect for maintaining an open mind, exercising critical thinking, conducting careful research, or gathering accurate facts, then why would any one respect our opinions?

              Thank you, Sue.  Do stay well and always follow your bliss. 

  25. Xenonlit profile image59
    Xenonlitposted 11 years ago

    The bottom line is that, as expected, the tea party and the extreme right are now the ones who are not getting any respect. The empty chair bit, not mentioning the troops at the republican convention and then saying they weren't an important issue just about put the last nail in their coffin of respect.

  26. Mighty Mom profile image79
    Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

    What part of "I have been privileged to be part of" or " I'm getting cover credit as a writer/editor" went over your head?

    I'm going to go nail some jello to a tree now.
    Ralph, she's all yours.

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      smile. I said something a couple of months ago about...was it ladylove? I forget now! lol

      1. Quilligrapher profile image74
        Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Lady In Red perhaps? big_smile

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
          Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this


    2. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes I got that part MM. What part of answer the questions rather than plugging the plan you are a part of went over your head?  They are simple questions. Are they newly insured? Are they new patients because the capacity of the hospitals have increased? Are they new Medicaid patients? What about those making more than the measly amounts covered by 133% above the poverty line? Ignoring them and trying to act like something was not understood by someone else does not answer the questions. It merely seems like you do not have the answers. Which is fine if you do not but please spare me the eye rolling and such like you've already provided the information.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image79
        Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Sorry, Sue.
        I got lost there for a minute. Seemed like you were expecting to debate the business models of various hospitals.
        That's a side issue and really not germaine.
        Although in point of fact, ACA does addresses funding for health care providers.
        There's a classification called a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) that offers financial incentives. But that's a side issue, too.  We're not talking about that right now.

        Now, in answer to your question:
        The newly insured  are called newly insured because they currently do not have health insurance coverage and under ACA they will.
        The region currenly has a little more than 1 in 4 citizens (27 percent) who do not have insurance.
        That is a lot of people. Some are not using health care services, putting off needed care. Others are accessing care but overusing expensive emergency departments. The uninsured who use EDs get "free" care, but the costs have to get covered somewhere, right? We all pay for that through cost shifting.

        Under ACA, an estimated 227,000 people in the region will gain health insurance.
        It's almost a 50-50 split between those who will be now be eligible for Medicaid (52 percent) and those eligible to purchase insurance through the state's health benefit exchange (48 percent).

        The new patients are not the result of the  increased capacity of the health care system. Rather, the capacity of the region's health care system will need to increase to handle increased demand of so many newly insured people.

        I'm not plugging our plan other than the fact that we have one. Your region may address things differently and probably will. Your population mix is likely different from ours. Your mix of health providers will of course not be the same as ours.

        When the plan is publicly released on September 27th I will, as offered previously, be happy to provide links to the entire market study and strategic plan and/or specific components.
        But as it is not yet in the public domain, I cannot.

        Final comment here. The group that put this plan together is nonpartisan. Their concern is that the care system here is badly strained and inefficient and unsustainable NOW.  They are concerned that too many providers are not covering their costs NOW.
        These issues must be addressed regardless.
        ACA is serving as a catalyst, a rallying point, to bring providers together to work on the problems together. The ACA funding that will come through is a nice bonus. Without it, they'd also have figure out how to pay for the infrastructure upgrades.

        1. profile image0
          SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          No MM I'm not going to debate the different business models but I worked for a hospital, both in the Business side and the care side, that was designated non-profit and received such benefits, but did not operate as non-profit. It is another issue, that's true, but will certainly affect how hospitals deal with the provider cuts.
          Thank you for the numbers. I completely understand that no links are available at this time. I am confused as to how the 48% of newly insured was arrived at however, when the exchanges are not designed to set prices. They are merely a collection unit really, a one stop shopping place where consumers can easily compare pricing. While there will be a year end tax break offered that can be applied for here, it will not affect the monthly pay out for insurance. This was the point I was trying to make really. That there is no guaranteed newly insured brought about other than those that will qualify under the expanded Medicaid. Further, I fail to see how lumping healthy with those less healthy will drive costs down rather than up when previously what helped keep premiums down was the adverse selection of insurance companies.

          1. Mighty Mom profile image79
            Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this


            Words are futile. I'm resorting to posters.


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)