Public Disapproves of Obama’s Health Care Plans
Wow, and this is from a historically liberal group.
Public disapproval of President Barack Obama’s handling of health care has jumped to 52 percent, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll released hours before he makes his case for overhaul in a prime-time address to Congress.
With his health revamp moving slowly and unemployment edging ever higher, Obama’s overall approval rating has also suffered a blow. The survey showed that 49 percent now disapprove of how he is handling his job as president, up from 42 percent who disapproved in July.
The grade people give Obama on health care also has worsened since July, when just 43 percent disapproved of his work on the issue.
disapproval of President Barack Obama’s handling of health care ? Disapproves of Obama’s Health Care Plans
I mean, I disapprove of how he’s handling the issue, and I generally like Dems’ plans.
Posted by folkbum on September 09, 2009 at 1747 hrs
Exactly. A lot of that disapproval is comprised of disappointed liberals. Do you want to satisfy them?
Chance are as of tonight that pretty well dissolved.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2009 at 2142 hrs
Loony Tunes proposal.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2009 at 2242 hrs
If Obama would launch a 1st rate war machine on a 2nd rate country because they have weapons of mass destruction, I mean they sponsor 9/11 terrorists, er, I mean they wanted to kill his dad, whoops, it’s because we are bringing democracy to the Middle East . . . Obama could really sink his ratings.
Dang, should have privatized social security before the economy tanked. He’d then be at 29% by now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2009 at 2250 hrs
Reading Keith’s and Folkbum’s response kind of reminds me of why Bush’s poll numbers were low. Same excuses. Maybe deja vu all over again?
Posted by Dan on September 10, 2009 at 0141 hrs
I wonder if Obama himself believes in his own plan or if just wants to pass a bill for the sake of saying he did something.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 0852 hrs
Ding, ding, ding…
Kelly is the big winner today.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 1027 hrs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc
I thought this was very well said.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 1137 hrs
Jason, thanks for that link. It was very well said, with heart and spoke to the true meaning of what nationalizing our health care would mean for our families.
I’m not willing to risk it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 1155 hrs
Risk what? Getting decent medical insurance for your family?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 1328 hrs
Joe Mamma - Should hit the road with that comedy routine.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 1359 hrs
Ignorance sure is bliss around here. The Titanic has hit the iceberg and is slowly sinking, making all of you think we are happily sailing onto New York.
The current system is unsustainable, health care increases are gobbling up your raises and preventing your companies from investing in other things, it is kicking up the cost of government and overshadowing our entire economy. Chances are you being asked by your company to pay more and more of your health care costs.
You have no way of knowing if you might loose your job and consequently your health insurance or your insurance may deny a claim or cap off coverage.
Doing nothing is not an option. It’s down right stupid. And so is making things up about the proposals.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 1802 hrs
Telling the truth that the proposals are going to make things worse is not making things up.
What I find really troubling is that the plans are to fund all these changes and improvements by cutting fraud and waste from the current Medicare system. Why do the two have to be linked? JUST FUCKING PASS THE PART THAT SAVES THE MONEY - we can then go from there. I’ll tell you why, because it’s a pipe dream, that’s all it is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 1916 hrs
“it’s a pipe dream.”
That’s an amazing example of defeatism bourn out of a vivid imagination.
So again, the choice is to do nothing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 2050 hrs
Fuck you Keith. Go ahead, pull out the miracle, and save the 1 Trillion dollars from Medicare reform. Why do you have to tie it to an extremely controversial public health insurance option?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 2118 hrs
Actually, that’s a good question for Keith. Obama told us last night that his $900 billion ‘plan’ would be funded primarily by cutting out waste, fraud, and inefficiencies from Medicare and Medicaid. There should be no controversy about that, as there obviously is with the other parts of his program. If he knows how to do savings already, and there is support for it, why didn’t he start working on that piece 9 months ago?
An answer, please, Keith? Or are you just going to construct another straw man about the other side wanting to do nothing?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 2154 hrs
Jason, how about a little respect? Come on Owen, you going to allow this kind of language on your blog?
Tony, good question. Did ya happen to notice the crap load left at his door step by his predecessor? I am sure you were among the chorus that bellow and belched when The President rolled up his sleeves to tackle health care, “Obama is doing too much already?”
So what is it Tony? Even a fantastic president like this one can only do so much at one time. At least he’s going after it. What exactly did Bush do about health care over eight years?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 2228 hrs
Quick Keith, dodge some more! With your response to my question and Tony’s in 17, you get no respect.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 10, 2009 at 2238 hrs
Well said Jason. Apparently it’s okay to disrespect someone by calling their thoughts an amazing example of defeatism bourn out of a vivid imagination, but it’s not okay to tell someone to fornicate. Keith can go fuck himself…
Posted by Smeety on September 10, 2009 at 2255 hrs
If he knows how to do savings already, and there is support for it, why didn’t he start working on that piece 9 months ago?
Um, actually ...
Posted by folkbum on September 11, 2009 at 0506 hrs
The facts are nice Jay, but their question is BS. Obama is going to set up the Medicare commission to tackle the costs. Tell me. When did that or anything happen over the past eight years?
If that isn’t good enough for you than what can he do. But if you have to use profanity guess your question sucked anyways.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 11, 2009 at 0514 hrs
While you are still blaming GW for everything, Keith, please be reminded GW tried to do re-org Social Security but was pushed back by the liberals in Congress….
How quickly some people conveniently forget…
Posted by Smeety on September 11, 2009 at 0529 hrs
Folkbum,
Your reference was from July. Please deposit quarter, try again….
And we all know this is a financial turd frosted in lefty tax dollars and exploding deficits…
So, on Obama’s plan, if you are on welfare, are you still responsible for the penalty tax? Or is this just for people that are working, say minimum wage jobs and such? Why would you work at all if this were the case…
Posted by Smeety on September 11, 2009 at 0533 hrs
Folkbum, Your reference was from July. Please deposit quarter, try again….
What are you talking about? Someone above asked why the administration hasn’t been working on cutting Medicare costs all along and I offered evidence that they have. Asked and answered, no?
Also:
While you are still blaming GW for everything, Keith, please be reminded GW tried to do re-org Social Security but was pushed back by the liberals in Congress….
Bush’s Social Security plans would have added between two and three trillion in additional debt. (Even Mr. Fiscal Paul Ryan’s plan required hundreds of billions of borrowing.) Right now Social Security’s still producing a surplus!
Republicans were asking us to borrow an astoundingly gawdaful amount of money to start handing over to the very same investment bankers who, we learned last year, were busy lying to themselves and investors and nearly brought the entire planet’s economy to a shuddering halt. That was going to “save” Social Security, a program that is not now, and is not projected to be anytime soon, in crisis.
Posted by folkbum on September 11, 2009 at 0559 hrs
Right now Social Security’s still producing a surplus!
Thanks to me and the rest of the workers out there who will never see a dime of payback.
Are you suggesting that if something is running a surplus right now, but is just years away from bankruptcy, we do not need to address it?
Not to mention the rate of return on Social Security for many, many Americans is negative.
Your comments regarding the ‘investment bankers’ are completely and entirely FALSE. No one was mandating putting your money into the stock market. Per the plan, this was entirely at your own discretion. You could have just as easily put it into a savings-type account.
Social Security is a much bigger problem than health care…
Posted by Smeety on September 11, 2009 at 0720 hrs
If by “just years away from bankruptcy” you really mean “expected to be in surplus for the better part of the next decade, with trust funds available for another 30 years after that, following which it will still have the ability to pay between 75% and 80% of scheduled benefits, assuming we don’t make any minor tweaks between now and, say, 2040,” then your statement is indeed accurate.
To be clear: The Republican SS proposal, in broad terms, was to keep paying all current benefits and planned benefits for anyone over a certain age (55, I think it was), while giving current workers their own “personal” accounts. That equated to, as I said, borrowing literally trillions of dollars over 20 years or so to pay for both the new accounts and the retiree benefits. And the deficit hawks all loved it.
The current Dem health care proposals are not only much cheaper and address a much more immediately pressing need, they are also being scored as near deficit-neutral, because they do include funding mechanisms. In fact, the public option alone could save, according to the CBO, $150b in ten years!
Posted by folkbum on September 11, 2009 at 0756 hrs
So, Folkbum, I’ll assume you feel Social Security is doing just fine, despite the fact that your comments warrant that people my age and younger will not receive ‘full’ benefits (the term full benefits is laughable). I’ll also assume that you are okay with many Americans receive negative returns on this extremely poor investment.
If by ‘borrowing literally trillions of dollars over 20 years or so to pay for both the new accounts and the retiree benefits’ you mean that payers into social security could keep their own money instead of giving it to the government in the form of social security taxes then your statement is indeed accurate.
And if by ‘deficit neutral’ you mean adding an additional 900 billion dollars, by incredibly conservative estimates which have almost never been even close with regard to medicare and social security, to the federal budget then your statement is indeed accurate…
Thanks for motivating me to call Rusty Feingold and Herb Kohl again today…
Posted by Smeety on September 11, 2009 at 0820 hrs
This is a good micro chasm of liberal vs. conservative:
Conservative: This has the potential to bankrupt our country in 20-30 years. We need to fix it now while it costs less.
Smarmy lib: What? A problem? It’s 20 years away minimum…let’s double down and add every single American on to the gov’t dole…
Posted by Smeety on September 11, 2009 at 0848 hrs
folkbum,
From what I read from that article, and what I can find on Baucus, he’s also tied the potential $155 Billion in savings to much larger health care changes. Again, why isn’t our leadership driving to save the costs, cut the waste and fraud, without tying it to a bunch of other controversial rhetoric? My firm belief is they are not because the money really isn’t there, or not nearly as much as they’re stating.
Oh, and Keith, stop acting like a tool. We all know you’re smart enough to understand the question. All you’re doing is redirecting rather than answer the hard question. I know that I for one am very disappointed that our previous administrationS did nothing. What do you say now? My guess is that you’ll disappear and not post a reply, because you’re a coward.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 11, 2009 at 0853 hrs
Or Smeety, you could have put this money into Wall Street and the pockets of guys like Bernie Madoff and watch a lot of it disappear at lot fast than 30/40 year out—which it won’t.
Don’t know. Maybe you are an articulate 10 year old and retirement is way far off. But I know a lot of people who have had to park their buts in their collective office chairs for a few more years because of their melting retirement accounts.
Looks like the “empowerment” of individual retirement accounts isn’t working out so well for folks—http://tinyurl.com/my2mkk which, is essentially was the prescription of Bush and the right.
Of course with this bunch you always have to wonder who they are looking out for. If it is you, buzzzz. Wrong answer, play again.
With what is happening with IRA, the past is prolong when it comes to HSAs. This is an even more complex proposition and to expect bette results puts you firmly in the Fantasyland zip code.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 11, 2009 at 0858 hrs
If the Bush’s SS proposal had passed there would be significantly fewer Republicans in Congress than there are today. Hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars would have evaporated when the market crashed. The geniuses that supported the politicians that proposed such a foolish proposal would have asked for the GOP’s head on a platter after being left with an even bigger mountain of debt to repay and little to show for it.
You should be happy Bush’s SS proposal died and undignified death Smeety. If it had gone forward the ranks of the GOP would have been decimated in the last election.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 11, 2009 at 1301 hrs
Keith, While Madoff is to blame there is plenty of blame to go around. Bleeding heart liberals, that instituted policy to make sure loans were given to those who they knew could not pay it back. This is what started this entire mess.
Now the government is handing out money with out care for inflation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 11, 2009 at 1948 hrs
Bush endorsed that policy as well and that argument doesn’t over come the fact that leading up to the crisis the GOP was in control of practically all of government for a pretty long time.
More than enough books and papers written about how credit swaps and other financial games led to paper assets which collapsed like a house of cards once the economy weakened, greatly accelerating the process and along the way, wiping out the banks and other financial institutions.
But no matter how you slice it, if this money would have been our social security money it would have evaporated, and as 3rd Way pointed out a lot of GOP heads would have rolled.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 11, 2009 at 2256 hrs
last time I checked the DJIA was @ 9605…
Posted by Smeety on September 12, 2009 at 1135 hrs
Last time I checked 9605 is about 25% lower than when Bush’s S.S. proposal was being discussed.
If your advisor (Bush & Assoc.) urges you to borrow money to invest, then you lose 25% of that investment and you don’t fire the advisor that urged you to borrow you are a complete moron.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 12, 2009 at 1610 hrs
... and up over 1300 per cent since I started putting money into social security.
3rd way, I’m not going to attempt to teach you economics on this thread. I will reiterate that no one was forcing or even urging people to put their own money into the stock market in that plan. You or I could have just as easily put money into non-stock funds. But you can’t hear if you don’t listen.
You do exasperate fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals. I believe my money is just that, social security, medicare, whatever it may be… You appear to believe the gov’t has inherent dibs on the money of it’s citizens. I will win this debate I promise.
Once again, no solutions offered from liberals regarding this, just blaming Bush. Kind of funny…
Posted by Smeety on September 12, 2009 at 1820 hrs
Smeety, I hate to go to the well too often, but they’re all a bunch of fucking cowards. 3rd Tard’s act of bitching about the Dow Jones is just over-the-top ridiculous.
I still recall my first introduction to a 401k, back in my first ‘real’ career job…. “Stocks go up and down based on the market, REMEMBER THAT.” Some people forget - boo-fucking-hoo.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 12, 2009 at 2018 hrs
I will reiterate that no one was forcing or even urging people to put their own money into the stock market in that plan
And you will be flat out lying if you reiterate that. The whole argument for privatizing S.S. was that the open market would provide a better return than S.S. can. Denying that is simply revisionist. Of course the open market historically provides a better return than S.S. can, but that better return comes with a whole heap of increased risk.
My initial point was that if Bush’s S.S. proposal had passed the GOP would have paid dearly after some foolish Americans followed their advice and lost a big portion of their S.S. contributions. Go ahead and try to deny that… You know it’s true.
Who is bitching about the Dow Jason? I haven’t lost a dime in the last few years. The smart money got out when the writing on the wall clearly showed the house of cards was teetering.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 12, 2009 at 2159 hrs
And you will be flat out lying if you reiterate that.
Again, NO ONE WAS PROPOSING FORCING PEOPLE’S MONEY INTO THE STOCK MARKET.
I hate being told I’m wrong. I really hate being told I’m wrong when I’m right.
3rd way, you obviously have no knowledge of the topic. People who read your material are more ignorant than they were before reading it…
This is the kind of lies and fear mongering that led to the quick dismissal of the bill. And it’s too bad. 1300 percent growth is a lot… and we’re worse off every day…
Posted by Smeety on September 13, 2009 at 1457 hrs
Whatever Smeety. You still haven’t refuted anything from my initial assertion except with a blatant mistruth.
I will reiterate that no one was forcing or even urging people to put their own money into the stock market in that plan
From Bush’s State of the Union address.
Here’s why the personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver—and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security… We’ll make sure the money can only go into a conservative mix of bonds and stock funds.
You can deny that is urging people to put borrowed money into the market, but you will be lying. I certainly never said they would FORCE anything, as you said I did.
Read this http://www.factcheck.org/article305.html and pay close attention to the administration’s own progected cost of this program, ironically it is extremely close to the cost of the stimulus package.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 13, 2009 at 1838 hrs
Well, then I guess we agree that people were encouraged but not required to put their money into stocks.
To say Social Security is running a surplus is a LIE!!! My social security tax is not being put into an account for me, it is IMMEDIATELY being passed out to recipients. ECON 101.
3, are you trying to say social security is a better investment than the stock market? (time for you to back off) ECON101
Give me a break…
Posted by Smeety on September 13, 2009 at 1953 hrs
We are going in circles so I am done…
from my comment #38 Of course the open market historically provides a better return than S.S. can, but that better return comes with a whole heap of increased risk.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 13, 2009 at 2039 hrs
... so then I struggle to see your point…
Are you saying social security is better than the stock market or not? You infer social security is better…
You can deny that is urging people to put borrowed money into the market, but you will be lying.
I see no urging. You, sir, are the liar.
Classic argument between lib and conservative.
Lib: ‘blah blah blah risky stock market. Bush is bad, blah blah blah’...
Conservative: ‘Let’s add some common sense to the discussion’
Lib: ‘I’ll back off now’.....
Posted by Smeety on September 13, 2009 at 2045 hrs
Are you honestly trying to claim the GOP would go through all that trouble to forward a major initiative, then not urge anyone to participate?
... so then I struggle to see your point…
You do realize this program would have caused the government to borrow TRILLIONS of dollars… right?
For the record… in theory I don’t think Bush’s plan is a terrible idea, but only if there is a surplus to draw from. Borrowing billions so anyone can invest in the market is an absolutely terrible idea.
You never addressed my initial argument BTW. Do you deny that if Bush’s S.S. proposal had passed the GOP would have paid dearly after Americans followed their advice and lost a big portion of their S.S. contributions?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 13, 2009 at 2137 hrs
We can argue back and forth, but the fact still remains that most United States Citizens have health care of some kind. Those that do no have it choose not to. Most of them are happy with what they have.
Obama is forcing a bill on us that WE do not want.
What part of “we don’t want it” does Obama not understand?
This goes to show that Obama just wants to say he passed something…doesn’t matter what it is. He, himself stated that they are going to pass something. Really? Even if most of America doesn’t want it? He pretty much gave the majority of us the finger.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 14, 2009 at 0947 hrs
If you analyze the uninsured you find out that it is a “tempest in a teapot”, whatever that means. Out of the 47 million supposed uninsured there are: 12 million illegals, 12 million Invincibles that do not buy insurance cause they are young and never sick. Pay their own bills. 10-15 million small business, wealthy people that are self-insured for major medical, religious zealots that don’t believe in medicine and the rest compromise a group of drifters, mostly Male that have very little in the way of roots but drift the country plus a bunch that actually qualify for welfare by don’t bother.
It would be very simple to let the others buy into Medicare temporarily between jobs if they don’t have COBRAPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 14, 2009 at 1000 hrs
Are you honestly trying to claim the GOP would go through all that trouble to forward a major initiative, then not urge anyone to participate?
Participate, yes. Urge people to put their $$$ in the stock market, no. We both know this not to be true.
Your quote from GW’s address:
We’ll make sure the money can only go into a conservative mix of bonds and stock funds.
There is no urging. Although you would not have to urge me to take my money out of the bottomless pit that is Social Security.
A bond fund is not the stock market, thank you very much. Point. Set. Match.
It is twisting and lying to say anything different. This is what you are doing. Lying.
And your theory about Republicans losing more seats, may or may not have been significant. So what, it can’t get much worse… your theory has really no purpose…
Posted by Smeety on September 14, 2009 at 1155 hrs
Wouldn’t it be much easier, like Donhal stated in post #46 to insure those who currently fall into that gap of people who are between jobs?
Seems to me everyone would be happy then.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 14, 2009 at 1417 hrs
A bond fund is not the stock market, thank you very much. Point. Set. Match.
The phrase is “game, set, match” genius.
I am fully aware that the bond market is different than the stock market. I don’t really understand what victory you are claiming, but go ahead and claim it… I am done here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 14, 2009 at 1417 hrs
Of course you don’t understand. That’s been my contention all along.
Please read your statements above. How many times did you claim the awful George W. Bush and the Republicans were ‘urging’ people to put there money into the hell that is the stock market.
Your argument is proven unfounded with your own quote, genius…
Posted by Smeety on September 14, 2009 at 1930 hrs
... and yes, you are done here.
Posted by Smeety on September 14, 2009 at 1931 hrs
Ah, yes. The evil stock market…
Posted by Smeety on September 18, 2009 at 2245 hrs
Mindblowing news for ones who are intersted in medical healthcare services, as due to new healthcare reformation being passed now people had made their move in medical careers due to lot of career and job oppurtunities if you are searching for medical jobs australia you could check the link for more information http://fastmed.org
Posted by Medical Jobs Australia on October 09, 2009 at 0924 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 117
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 07:25 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).