It's about getting people to understand what was being done

[Tiz]

http://videoshare.politico.com/singletitlevideo.php?bcpid=19407224001&bctid=660909542001

"And making an argument that people can understand." Obama

:confused::doh::banghead:

Dumb Americans.:(

[JackieB]

Count me in with them then, Tiz. As a small business owner, among the smallest who earns just enough to pay the bills every year and is happy doing to, I will benefit from the healthcare bill that passed (as an example). It will be indexed to my income and if I can't afford the high premiums, I'll get a subsidy.

Do I feel terrific about it? Not really. But I also don't see how that system will differ from me helping to pay for the Medicare that we are all (Republicans and Democrats) are swearing to protect with my taxes, the smokin' retirement health benefits that my retired family members and friends receive from the government with my taxes, and the unpaid medical bills that I help cover through my insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses on my health care bills.

I'm not dumb. You know I'm not and I know you're not. We are just looking at this very differently.

I'm glad that this new Republican leadership of the House will focus more attention on a balanced budget. I'm all for that and willing to join others in making sacrifices to bring it about. That's a good thing.

But I understand and identify with what the president is saying in that video and it's not because I'm dumb.

I saw John Boehner interviewed yesterday and was pretty impressed. I wish he wasn't dedicated to repealing healthcare, but I could identify with a lot of what he was saying. He comes from very humble roots and sounded like a nice guy who has no personal animosity toward the president. I left with a better feeling about him than I had before. I can see that he's trying to do what's best for the country, but just approaching that from a completely different perspective on the problem. I am confident that President Obama is doing the same. And President Bush did, too.

I just don't see why we (on both sides of the spectrum) have to vilify our leaders. It wasn't always that way.

[Tiz]

Yes, Jackie, I know you are in favor of the healthcare bill, and I think that could be because you're only considering a very narrow part of it that may benefit you. There's 2600 pages of muck in the bill, a gazillion new bureacracies, and a quadzillion new government wage and benefit earners to man them. So, a lot there that is horrendous for our economy.

But, for the President, the former Speaker, the press secretary to insist that up to 70% of our citizens weren't in favor of this bill because they didn't get their message across? You don't believe that, do you? Don't you think they are denying reality?

[JackieB]

I think that could be because you're only considering a very narrow part of it that may benefit you.

But, for the President, the former Speaker, the press secretary to insist that up to 70% of our citizens weren't in favor of this bill because they didn't get their message across? You don't believe that, do you? Don't you think they are denying reality?

Umm, you're going to think I'm a nutcase, but I do believe it. A couple of things:

-I don't dispute that there's junk in the bill that needs to come out. I think we'll see good modifications of it.

-I drew derisive laughter from RD for this, but I honestly believe that failing to pass any healthcare reform legislation would end up costing us more. We have needed to get started on that for a long time.

So while I gave an example of how the bill would benefit me and my wife, I didn't support it solely for that reason by any means. I think it will help contain costs, especially through the individual mandate. Keep in mind that the mandate was originally a Republican idea. It's been spun into "socialism", but the idea is to force people to take responsibility for themselves. Everyone gets healthcare, but only a portion pay for it for the rest.

[WashingtonBay]

I get irritated whenever anyone insinuates I'm just too stupid to understand the issue.

My dad pulls that crap with me sometimes... though for him it's a sexist thing. My *brother* might disagree with dad and just be called wrong. But if I disagree, I'm told I'm just not capable of understanding the issue.

I'd rather be wrong than stupid.

[Tiz]

Wow, Jackie, you are a typical liberal/progressive after all. The big, big, big failure of your mindset is that it relies on you, and those who agree with you, being the smartest people in the room.

The majority could see that the government couldn't force insurance companies to eliminate requiring a waiting period for preexisting conditions without raising the cost of insurance. The majority could see that a $800 billion dollar "plan" wasn't going to reduce the deficit. I could go on and on and on.

Contain costs? That's working well. Contained to the point that companies can't afford the coverage at all anymore. Not to worry though. The King is exempting some from the system already.

[natisha]

AARP announced it will be raising their rates health insurance rates 8-13%. They backed the HC bill.

[JackieB]

I get irritated whenever anyone insinuates I'm just too stupid to understand the issue.


Certainly you realize that he's not insinuating that. It's more that they didn't do a good job of explaining it.

Here are a couple of points that I believe to be true:

-The majority of the anger is because the economy hasn't turned around. Many/most Americans believe that the president wasted time on healthcare that he should have spent focusing on the economy. Healthcare is important, but not as important as jobs. Right or wrong, that's where a lot of the anger comes from.

-There was a lot of deal-making, which is pretty disgusting. Common, but no less distasteful.

-Scott what's his name's election brought a sense of urgency that made the president decide to push this through, which cost a lot more of his time, energy, and declining popularity.

-While some of the provisions kicked in immediately, most don't take effect until 2014. That's light years in the political spectrum. Citizens who will benefit from this legislation then are without jobs and angry now.

All of this said, I honestly believe that passing that bill was a step in the right direction. And you guys can (and certainly do) say that I'm wrong, but you can't suggest that I'm uninformed. I've been following healthcare closely for over 20 years now. I understand the issues.

[JackieB]

Wow, Jackie, you are a typical liberal/progressive after all. The big, big, big failure of your mindset is that it relies on you, and those who agree with you, being the smartest people in the room.

The majority could see that the government couldn't force insurance companies to eliminate requiring a waiting period for preexisting conditions without raising the cost of insurance. The majority could see that a $800 billion dollar "plan" wasn't going to reduce the deficit. I could go on and on and on.

Contain costs? That's working well. Contained to the point that companies can't afford the coverage at all anymore. Not to worry though. The King is exempting some from the system already.

I don't shy away from the liberal label in some areas. I'm probably a bit harder to define than that overall, though.

On cost containment, not many provisions have gone into effect yet. We'll really have to see. The fact is that healthcare costs absolutely will continue to increase. The idea is that the won't increase as much as they would have without such provisions as the individual mandate. This is the type of thing that causes RD to laugh and shake his head at me, but I do believe it's true.

[Tiz]

It appears you are denying reality to me, J. Kind of like still believing the President when he says his huge "stimulus" bill kept the economy from going off a cliff after you know about all the horrendous examples of how it was actually spent. Or after you find out that much of it isn't spent at all yet.

About people and unemployment, the economy and anger. I know two people on unemployment. They are getting $480 a week, and are loving it! Manicures, massages, swimnastics are but a few of their recent and regular activities. One of them has turned down at least one job which pays $8.45 an hour, and why not? They both intend to use the full 99 months, of course.

Yes, people are angry about the state of the economy and the lack of jobs. It's because they see the policies of this administration further damaging the job market. More crippling regulation, more taxes, more payroll expense in the form of higher health insurance premiums. All of these things add up to not hiring new people, or rehiring former employees.

The policies of this government are so bad it seems as if they are intentionally destroying the wealth of this country.

[JackieB]

It appears you are denying reality to me, J.

Well, I don't think I am. Certainly not intentionally, like ignoring a gut feeling that I'm wrong or something.

I don't ascribe any particular level of success to the Obama Administration's stimulus package. I do believe that President Bush deserves credit for TARP. I think history will show that it helped prevent such a massive collapse of financial markets that it would have taken years to get them working again.

I am prepared to give the Obama Administration credit for forcing GM to get on with changing itself from a healthcare provider to an auto manufacturer. I didn't see any indication from within GM that they were willing to acknowledge what needed to be done.

I don't think that excessive regulations are holding off growth and hiring. I think this recession, like all others, just has to run its course. I'm optimistic that 2011 will see good progress.

If Boehner et al have a better plan for healthcare, I'll gladly support it. As it stands right now, a person without health insurance is only one serious injury or illness from having to file for bankruptcy. That disrupts their life, to say the least, and leaves the bill for those of us who are paying for insurance. Happens all the time.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Obama and his cronies know exactly what they're doing. There's too much wealth left that hasn't been drained and redistributed yet. He's not done. Not even close. I think Dinesh D'souza was correct when he assessed Obama as "antiemperialist". It fits exactly with his worldview. It's why he has such disdain for Britain. It's why he wants the U.S. to become a follower in the world, not a leader.

TARP may have served a useful superficial purpose, keeping a widespread panic from spreading, but it's pretty clear that it wasn't actually necessary, since most of the TARP money remains unspent and the banking system did not collapse. But staving off a panic is what keeps banking systems from collapsing... so it's difficult to say for sure. It'd be nice now, though, if they'd give back the rest of the money.

[JackieB]

TARP may have served a useful superficial purpose, keeping a widespread panic from spreading, but it's pretty clear that it wasn't actually necessary, since most of the TARP money remains unspent and the banking system did not collapse. But staving off a panic is what keeps banking systems from collapsing... so it's difficult to say for sure. It'd be nice now, though, if they'd give back the rest of the money.

I don't think you would win very many arguments with experts who understand how financial markets work and are connected to one another. While a lot of authorized TARP money wasn't spent, the total still ended up at something like $260 billion. It's hard for me to imagine that painful, protracted bankruptcies from those monster institutions would have been less expensive than what we did.

If I ever got to meet President Bush, I'd thank him for doing that. I really believe that he helped me out.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I'm not really griping about the TARP itself. I do tend to agree that it was useful. I grudgingly agreed to it at the time. The big problem is that nobody really understood the problem at the time and it was all a bunch of guesswork. In the end, they exaggerated the size of the problem by about three times. But yes... it was the best guess they had.

I think we could have withstood a banking hit on the order of 260B. But we didn't know it was only going to be that-- and I'll grant that it might have been bigger without the commitment of TARP funds to calm everything down. I really do grok all that.

I suppose I'm mostly bitter that it needed to happen at all. The main criminals responsible for it: Frank, Reid, Dodd, Pelosi... all breezed through keeping their jobs (not to mention... not a single night in jail).

[JackieB]

The main criminals responsible for it: Frank, Reid, Dodd, Pelosi...

Unbelievably powerful politicians. No Republicans and nobody on Wall Street were any kind of match for those four. Capable of overpowering and outsmarting everyone in authority within the entire US financial system.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Well, powerful anyway...

[Tiz]

"...outsmarting..."

An ability to look one straight the eye and tell the most obvious lies imaginable.