Problem is, many of the reforms that are being put in place, once installed, will be VERY difficult to remove, similar to the mistakes made with Medicare, and going back further, Social Security (which has admittedly has evolved into something totally different than what was initially intended). They can be changed, but if you screw this up from the beginning--and there are a number of areas of concern, coupled with a number of areas that weren't adequately addressed (tort reform and reliance on mid-level providers being up at the top of the list), it snowballs. The whole process was flawed from the beginning. Obama and Pelosi tried to ram through a program unilaterally, literally not giving people enough time to read the bill in entirety, not wanting to go through what the Clinton's went through with health reform (despite promises of making this bipartisan program). That failed, and he subsequently staked his presidency on getting SOMETHING through. It is not bipartisan, it has not been reasoned out, and we will pay for it. Very few physicians have any input on this; the one physician who brought up valid concerns was marginalized. The other physician (one of Obama's poster boys) who did support it is well known to me; he's from my area--he does not have the backing of his colleagues, and doesn't accept medicare or poorly paying insurance--a luxury he has given his specialty. Basically, he's a hypocrite. It's amazing to me that people who know so little are able to make far reaching decisions that have so much impact....
"You care to back that name calling with some facts? I call B.S." The same BS the libs were saying about the last admin "Were you as concerned about lies concerning the Iraq war?" Can you give that a rest? Lies :lol: The following is from CNN on Friday, October 11, 2002: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133. Looks like a vote to me.
I agree with 98% of your posts, but there are problems with this one... That vote was taken after congress was given misinformation, or at best a half-truth. The White House was working on an assumption backed by circumstantial evidence, but presented it as fact. There is no other way to spin it--I was initially for going into Iraq, but now I'm not so sure. We've set a dangerous precedent, not just for how we act, but how other countries may act in the future, holding our invasion of Iraq up as justification. It would have made more sense to finish things in Afghanistan (which probably isn't possible without at the very least dumping in massive amounts of money to improve infrastructure--schools, roads, industry, etc., basically a cultural revolution which Afghanistan, with all it's warring tribes, frankly might not be ready for), before going into Iraq on shaky premises.
opcorn:opcorn:opcorn: Boy this is great. I really enjoy reading debates between patriotic,constitutional,conservative,true Americans and Marxist,Leninist,socialist Americans who can't remember that the USSR failed because; citizen's need to be rewarded for their labor and slackers need to be given employment rather than welfare..Remember that Mediocrity is the goal of socialists and communists.Instead of 48% of all Americans paying no taxes, let's shoot for 75%. Say, have y'all heard that new smash hit song:'Barrack Around The Congress' by Nutjob Nancy and The Commies?(played to the tune of 'Rock Around The Clock' by Bill Haley and the Comets):frown2:ut: Jason
It was clear from before the election that Obama was going to push hard for healthcare reform. However it worked out, no matter what was in it, if it had any substance there were going to be people who were unhappy about it. It appears to me that the Republicans made a political decision to be against it, no matter what it was. Some of the ideas in the bill were Republican ideas from the Clinton era, but now they are against them. Obama did his best to incorporate Republican ideas, but the Republicans thought it more important to their political careers to make a big show of being against it. Looks like it is going to pay off for them. People complain about Congress, but vote for cynical politicians who can tap into their anger with snappy sound bytes. We get the government we deserve. If it sucks, we are to blame.
You're a bit confused there Jason. It was a patriotic liberal who was reminding a reactionary conservative that the USSR failed because workers need incentives (aka, rewards) for initiative and hard work.
Of course there are going to be people unhappy about it. But there were legitimate, serious concerns that were brushed aside. As for the Republicans being offered significant involvement in constructing the plan, that's simply not true. Obama/Pelosi tried to push the bill through BEFORE EVERYONE COULD EVEN READ IT (even members of their own party), and the rationale was that debate killed Hillary Clinton's healthcare proposal during Bill's administration. This, by the way, was a good thing.... Obama/Pelosi made it clear from the start that Republican input was not wanted, that they were going to pass something with or without their support--and they were condescending about it, especially Pelosi. THEY threw the gauntlet down from the beginning (Despite Obama's playing to middle during the election, and promising bipartisan cooperation. It was all lip service. How does Obama, with the most liberal voting record in Congress before the election save one, all the sudden get away with portraying himself as a cooperative moderate?) . The one physician (a republican) who dared to make constructive criticism was quickly shown the door. It was made very clear from the beginning that this was the democratic party's baby; it's more political at this point then it is about health care reform. Obama hung his presidency on it, and made it clear that if you're a democratic Senator/Representative, you either vote for this or else. He handcuffed his own party--it will cost many of them their seats--but they had no choice; to be blackballed in your own party is political suicide as well. There was never any serious thought given to mediation--this was political retaliation, pure and simple, and a certain arrogance reared it's ugly head during the process. We all will suffer for the shortsightedness of what happened, and what was implemented. Thank god the democrats lost their super majority; things would have been much worse had the original House bill gone through. It's why Pelosi's approval rating is, well, undetectable, and why Obama's headed south in a hurry--even in the face of the economy stablilizing.
Ok thats cool but, you do agree that Iraq had used WMD's before? And that they did find evidence that they did have access to WMD before? They did a great job in hiding them as they also tried to hide jets buried in the ground also. But as Bush did say, "The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq," Bush told ABC television in an interview scheduled for broadcast last night. "I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess." But he followed that moment of candour with an attempt to try to deflect charges that the White House misled Congress and the public to build a case for war, arguing that there had been widespread belief that Saddam had a nuclear arsenal. "It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington DC, during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world, were all looking at the same intelligence." Here are some of those, "people". Sen. Levin And Other Democrats Previously Said That Iraq Was A Part Of The War On Terror. * Sen. Levin: "The War Against Terrorism Will Not Be Finished As Long As [Saddam Hussein] Is In Power." (CNN's "Late Edition," 12/16/01) * Sen. Levin: "We Begin With The Common Belief That Saddam Hussein Is A Tyrant And A Threat To The Peace And Stability Of The Region." (Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 9/19/02) * Sen. Clinton (D-NY): "[Saddam] Has Also Given Aid, Comfort, And Sanctuary To Terrorists, Including Al-Qaida Members, Though There Is Apparently No Evidence Of His Involvement In The Terrible Events Of September 11, 2001. ... This Much Is Undisputed." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10288) * Sen. Kerry (D-MA) Says Saddam Hussein Is Part Of The "Global Menace" Of Terrorism. CNN'S LARRY KING: "What about enhancing this war, Senator Kerry. What are your thoughts on going further than Afghanistan, all terrorist places ..." KERRY: "Oh, I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/14/01) Sen. Levin Admits That Democrats Also Believed That Saddam Hussein Had Weapons Of Mass Destruction (WMD). SEN. LEVIN: "You know, the administration continues to talk about everybody believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That is true, but that isn't the issue." (CNN's "American Morning," 11/14/05) * Sen. Clinton: "In The Four Years Since The Inspectors, Intelligence Reports Show That Saddam Hussein Has Worked To Rebuild His Chemical And Biological Weapons Stock, His Missile Delivery Capability, And His Nuclear Program. ... It Is Clear, However, That If Left Unchecked, Saddam Hussein Will Continue To Increase His Capability To Wage Biological And Chemical Warfare And Will Keep Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10288) * Sen. Rockefeller (D-WV): "There Is Unmistakable Evidence That Saddam Hussein Is Working Aggressively To Develop Nuclear Weapons. And Will Likely Have Nuclear Weapons Within The Next Five Years. And Then Could Have It Earlier If He's Able To Obtain Materials On The Outside Market Which Is Possible. Difficult But Possible." (Sen. John Rockefeller, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, Pg.S10306) * Sen. Kerry: "According To The CIA's Report, All U.S. Intelligence Experts Agree That Iraq Is Seeking Nuclear Weapons. There Is Little Question That Saddam Hussein Wants To Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, pp. S10172-10173) And the Big Queen herself: * * Rep. Pelosi (D-CA): "Saddam Hussein Certainly Has Chemical And Biological Weapons. There's No Question About That." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 11/17/02) Here is an interesting comment by Dr. David A. Kay, best known for heading the Iraq Survey Group. He had an interview with Tom Brokaw of NBC news. In a January 26, 2004 interview with Tom Brokaw of NBC news, Mr. Kay described Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs as being in a "rudimentary" stage. He also stated that "What we did find, and as others are investigating it, we found a lot of terrorist groups and individuals that passed through Iraq."[99] In responding to a question by Mr. Brokaw as to whether Iraq was a "gathering threat" as President Bush had asserted before the invasion, Mr. Kay answered: Tom, an imminent threat is a political judgment. It’s not a technical judgment. I think Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized. Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened. I think the point is, being President of the United States of America, is the HARDEST job ever!
The main issue was the presence/absence of nuclear weapons. The evidence was iffy (You do remember the "Is that all you've got" quote from Bush?). Biological weapons and chemical weapons represent a different argument. Half the world has those, including a number of our enemies. We can't police the world. If you read those quotes you posted, you'll notice a lot of ifs. Ifs are like statistics, they can be manipulated to make any argument.... The fact remains that at the time, North Korea was a much bigger threat to us than Iraq was or ever will be. Why, do you think, we didn't go after North Korea? The answer to that question is why it's futile for us to go after every indirect or possible threat that's out there. Established threats, yes, but not conjectural threats. If we are using the excuse that Iraq shielded/aided Al-Qaida for the invasion (and no one has really pushed that as the main reason, just as a minor factor), we'd have to take on a big chunk of the middle east by that line of reasoning. I'm not up for that... Bush's best moment was his immediate response to 911. His worst moment was getting blinded in his personal crusade against terrorism, resulting in a poorly conceived policy of a pre-emptive war with long-lasting ramifications. I'm all for keeping a strong military, and intervening when provoked or attacked. This, however, was something different, and the consequences may come back to haunt us. A weak Iraq, with a belligerent Iran on it's doorstep, is not necessarily in our best interests....
The USA has been virtually free from terrorist attacks since 911, obviously something is working. Yes one day we "may" be attacked, but so far so good. Can I ask what you think would have happened after 911 if say Obama would have been President at that time? Better? Worse?
GOOD DISCUSSION Thanks Robin. Always 2 sides to a discussion:cornut: Jason No not (intentionally) trolling. We have a good thing in M/A.Just my point of view as an old Soldier who has literally fought the former USSR and Communism.I don't want to see it happen in the USA. Jason
That has nothing to do with invading Iraq. I'm not a fan of Obama. It would have been a double-edged sword. Less money would have gone for the fight against terrorism, and the potential for another attack would definitely have been higher. On the other hand, we probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq, and subsequently would have a higher standing and more cooperation with our allies. On the whole, IMHO OVERALL we would have been worse off with Obama post-911. But that does not justify the war in Iraq. Like I said, by the line of reasoning Bush used, we should have done something pre-emptive in North Korea. They were/are a much bigger threat, and have thumbed their noses at us much the same way Iraq did with the weapons inspectors.