meazza Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 The media will turn on him in the end. Incompetence this deep can not be ignored. Look at Ron Fournier's piece today here. A devout Obamabot unable to sit still any longer. The talking heads consider themselves very smart...too smart to pretend any more than Barack Obama is smart. Fournier an obamabot? News to me.
B-Large Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 (edited) http://www.hulu.com/watch/546379 ah, a little humor... Edited October 17, 2013 by B-Large
B-Man Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 The media will turn on him in the end. Incompetence this deep can not be ignored. MSNBC’s Finney: Someone Should Get Fired over Obamacare Rollout The Abysmal, Pathetic Obamacare Rollout: It’s a colossal, expensive failure that projects a 1970s-era DMV experience into cyberspace. So, which newspaper’s going to file the first “WH quietly thinking about delaying ObamaCare” story?
Doc Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 I think the most likely backlash is "Between a community organizier and teabaggers, it's time to put professionals who know how to lead and govern back in the White House. Hillary Clinton '16!" I'll even put $5 on it: Hillary runs on "Maintain the course we're on, but as an experienced politician I can rein in Congress." And wins. Edit: because people are idiots. Sigh. Sadly this will likely be the deciding factor...again. I'd agree if we didn't do this dog and pony show every few months.... the fact that we do keeps this fresh in people's minds.... We'll see. And again, gerrymandering will likely make any talk of Dems getting the majority in both houses a pipe dream. i was speaking of election results re objective measures. but for health care i'd point to infant mortality, life expectency, hospital readmission rates etc. the WHO has a scoring system in place already. I'll have to read the ACA again, I'm a bit hazy on the sections that increased life expectancy and lowered infant mortality rates... I'm sure they'll change the definition of "live birth" to make infant mortality look better, which is the reason why the US allegedly looks worse. As for life expectancy, good luck.
birdog1960 Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 "But Al Gore won the popular vote!" Sure, objective. I'll have to read the ACA again, I'm a bit hazy on the sections that increased life expectancy and lowered infant mortality rates... look at the parts where insurance is provided or subsidized to those without it. give it 5-7 years. there will be improvement and it will be measurable.
B-Man Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 Gowdy Confronts NPS Director over Vet Memorial Closings vs OWS Encampments on National Mall Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) challenged the Director of the National Park Service Wednesday, asking him why it took him over 100 days in 2011 to enforce federal regulations with Occupy Wall Street group encampments in McPherson Square on the National Mall but, while veterans' memorials were closed on the first day of the government shutdown. Director Jonathan Jarvis could not cite even one federal regulation requiring him to erect barricades to close down the veterans' memorials. Yet, as Gowdy reminded him, he told a congressional committee in 2011 that he had a great deal of discretion in how and when to enforce the law when it came to the Occupy protesters, and that he was working with the protesters to “gain compliance.” . Gowdy previously sent a letter to Jarvis, calling upon his agency to provide a legal justification for closing the World War II Memorial to veterans in light of the government shut down, yet still allowing an immigration rally on the National Mall. “I am concerned about recent reports of the National Park Service’s (NPS) selective enforcement of policy and regulations in the name of the First Amendment,” Gowdy wrote. “Reminiscent of last year’s lack of enforcement of camping in McPherson Square, the NPS justified special accommodations for a rally on the National Mall attended by Democratic Members of Congress based on First Amendment interpretations.” “However, World War II veterans faced government barriers when attempting to visit a memorial commemorating their service,” Gowdy wrote. Gowdy said he was most troubled by the fact that NPS has been acting as an “arbiter of what is constitutionally permissible speech rather than applying a content neutral policy and regulations equally and fairly to everyone.” http://www.breitbart...lly-Vs-Veterans
B-Large Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 Both sides want it that way right now, because they each think it's giving them an advantage in the mid-terms. Too bad for the Republicans that they're idiots - it's hurting them far more than the Democrats. Its interesting. Yes it hurts Republicans, but if you think about overall it hurts Obama and his legacy. If Obama really wanted to cement what seems to be a shaky legacy right now, use time between now and the next showdown to hammer out a long-term agreement with Conservatives in Welfare, Medicare and SS.....its goign to happen at some point, why no now? if a long trrm deal was in the place and private industry saw the Governments ability to tackle problems, you'd think the Economcy would improve at a much faster rate.. in a really good economy, who gets the most credit.. POTUS.... to me, this is where I see Obama sitting in a nice cold chair in Clinton's shadow...
DC Tom Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 look at the parts where insurance is provided or subsidized to those without it. give it 5-7 years. there will be improvement and it will be measurable. Why wait 7 years? Look over the past 10 years (or 20, or 40, however many you want), and look at the correlation between insurance coverage and life expectancy or infant mortality. If the insurance provisions of the ACA are going to increase life expectancy by increasing insurance participation, then logically that same correlation should be evident in historical data. Conversely, if there is no such correlation - if insurance coverage is irrelevant to life expectancy - then the ACA's useless and wasteful. Or, if you see such a correlation, and life expectancy has been increasing along with insurance coverage...then the ACA is still useless, because it's meant to address a problem that doesn't exist. The only way the ACA is worth anything by that measure is if life expectancy and infant mortality were getting worse despite increased insurance coverage. So basically, you've identified two "objective measures" that demonstrate by any measure that the ACA is objectively ****. And once again demonstrated the fatal fallacy in almost every supporters' support of the ACA: HEALTH INSURANCE IS NOT HEALTH CARE. Its interesting. Yes it hurts Republicans, but if you think about overall it hurts Obama and his legacy. If Obama really wanted to cement what seems to be a shaky legacy right now, use time between now and the next showdown to hammer out a long-term agreement with Conservatives in Welfare, Medicare and SS.....its goign to happen at some point, why no now? if a long trrm deal was in the place and private industry saw the Governments ability to tackle problems, you'd think the Economcy would improve at a much faster rate.. in a really good economy, who gets the most credit.. POTUS.... to me, this is where I see Obama sitting in a nice cold chair in Clinton's shadow... While I don't disagree...you're thinking rationally. Think about how, if he doesn't do any of that and continues fomenting partisan divide, how it's reported in the press. Now think about how the average American gets their information and interprets it (hint: people are idiots). Yes, it's an overtly cynical position I'm subscribing to. Don't let that divert you from the fact that it's right more often than wrong.
birdog1960 Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 Why wait 7 years? Look over the past 10 years (or 20, or 40, however many you want), and look at the correlation between insurance coverage and life expectancy or infant mortality. If the insurance provisions of the ACA are going to increase life expectancy by increasing insurance participation, then logically that same correlation should be evident in historical data. Conversely, if there is no such correlation - if insurance coverage is irrelevant to life expectancy - then the ACA's useless and wasteful. Or, if you see such a correlation, and life expectancy has been increasing along with insurance coverage...then the ACA is still useless, because it's meant to address a problem that doesn't exist. The only way the ACA is worth anything by that measure is if life expectancy and infant mortality were getting worse despite increased insurance coverage. So basically, you've identified two "objective measures" that demonstrate by any measure that the ACA is objectively ****. And once again demonstrated the fatal fallacy in almost every supporters' support of the ACA: HEALTH INSURANCE IS NOT HEALTH CARE. the biggest problem with your argument is that those historical numbers don't exist for the population of the us. over the last 10,20 or 40 years the number of uninsured has increased steadily...and in comparison to the rest of the world, especially those with universal health insurance, the us has worsend in those measures and most others. look at the life expectancy for various demographic groups in the us and you see very wide discrepancies with some groups (hmmm, guess what economic group does the worst) doing abysmally. many in those groups will be newly insured and many our the reason for the embarrisingly low numbers. is this all do to care access? very likely not. but some of it is. SO WHY DON'T WE WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE NUMBERS SHOW? and then you all can find flaws if they look good for the aca and say why they don't matter. While I don't disagree...you're thinking rationally. Think about how, if he doesn't do any of that and continues fomenting partisan divide, how it's reported in the press. Now think about how the average American gets their information and interprets it (hint: people are idiots). Yes, it's an overtly cynical position I'm subscribing to. Don't let that divert you from the fact that it's right more often than wrong. the biggest problem with your argument is that those historical numbers don't exist for the population of the us. over the last 10,20 or 40 years the number of uninsured has increased steadily...and in comparison to the rest of the world, especially those with universal health insurance, the us has worsend in those outcomes and most others. therefore the converse of your argument has been shown: lowering the percent of insured population results in worse outcomes, comparatively. look at the life expectancy for various demographic groups in the us and you see very wide discrepancies with some groups (hmmm, guess what economic groups do the worst?) doing abysmally. many in those groups will be newly insured and many are the reason for the embarrasingly low numbers. is this all due to care access? very likely not. but some of it is. SO WHY DON'T WE WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE NUMBERS SHOW? and then you all can find methodology flaws if they look good for the aca and argue how they don't matter.
Chef Jim Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 The media will turn on him in the end. Incompetence this deep can not be ignored. Look at Ron Fournier's piece today here. A devout Obamabot unable to sit still any longer. The talking heads consider themselves very smart...too smart to pretend any more than Barack Obama is smart. I talked to my dad yesterday. He's an 85 year old NY Democrat and said he doesn't like Obama. He said he has no balls.
Koko78 Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 (edited) I talked to my dad yesterday. He's an 85 year old NY Democrat and said he doesn't like Obama. He said he has no balls. I'm sure he does have them. He probably gets to see them on the rare occasions that Mrs. Obama (and/or Nancy Pelosi) pulls them out and rests them on Harry Reid's chin. Edited October 17, 2013 by Koko78
Doc Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 the biggest problem with your argument is that those historical numbers don't exist for the population of the us. over the last 10,20 or 40 years the number of uninsured has increased steadily...and in comparison to the rest of the world, especially those with universal health insurance, the us has worsend in those outcomes and most others. therefore the converse of your argument has been shown: lowering the percent of insured population results in worse outcomes, comparatively. look at the life expectancy for various demographic groups in the us and you see very wide discrepancies with some groups (hmmm, guess what economic groups do the worst?) doing abysmally. many in those groups will be newly insured and many are the reason for the embarrasingly low numbers. is this all due to care access? very likely not. but some of it is. SO WHY DON'T WE WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE NUMBERS SHOW? and then you all can find methodology flaws if they look good for the aca and argue how they don't matter. And if the numbers show no difference, as I suspect, and it costs us $2T+ to find that out, what then?
birdog1960 Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 And if the numbers show no difference, as I suspect, and it costs us $2T+ to find that out, what then? then we will have tried and failed but i don't believe that will happen for an instant. alternatively, we can be certain that the status quo won't improve things. i don't believe that the aca will look much like it does now by then. it will evolve. the aca is a vehicle to begin fundamental change in health care delivery that i'm very confident will occur. it has to.
Doc Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 then we will have tried and failed but i don't believe that will happen for an instant. alternatively, we can be certain that the status quo won't improve things. i don't believe that the aca will look much like it does now by then. it will evolve. the aca is a vehicle to begin fundamental change in health care delivery that i'm very confident will occur. it has to. Methinks you'll find the "fundamental change" is that medicine goes to hell. But hey, at least they did something.
Chef Jim Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 then we will have tried and failed but i don't believe that will happen for an instant. alternatively, we can be certain that the status quo won't improve things. i don't believe that the aca will look much like it does now by then. it will evolve. the aca is a vehicle to begin fundamental change in health care delivery that i'm very confident will occur. it has to. So this massive bill is just a vehicle to begin fundamental change?? WTF man.
Jauronimo Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 Methinks you'll find the "fundamental change" is that medicine goes to hell. But hey, at least they did something. Change is inherently good because those who seek change are well intentioned. Once you understand that shaking things up is always the best move, even if it ends in catastrophe, thats still good because change, as I already proved, is inherently good. Do you see? Once you get this lesson down, the rest of birdog's ideology is a breeze. Lets say its the goal of a community to build a new hospital. Birdog and co decide the best way to build this hospital is by emptying the city's coffers and giving the money to the homeless who will in turn spend this money thereby growing tax receipts. Clearly, this is a terrible idea, but if you tell him that then you're an obstructionist and you've declared war on healthcare. If you let him proceed with his plan and it bankrupts the city, which reasonable people knew was the only real possibility from the start, well at least he tried and he meant well. Even though we're all now destitute, somehow this stupid action was better than doing nothing for some reason. Problem is, as an adult you can't ever let them see the error of their ways as the cost is too great. So until the children among us are allowed to sink the ship, we'll have endless debate. And even when the ship rests on the ocean floor, they'll still tell you how it was a failing of capitalism or it was inevitable, and !@#$ results, at least they tried.
Alaska Darin Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 then we will have tried and failed but i don't believe that will happen for an instant. alternatively, we can be certain that the status quo won't improve things. i don't believe that the aca will look much like it does now by then. it will evolve. the aca is a vehicle to begin fundamental change in health care delivery that i'm very confident will occur. it has to. Don't worry, the numbers will get cooked enough so you idiots can dance around patting yourselves on the back while the rest of the country burns around you. Infant mortality has little to do with health insurance and much to do with how the numbers are calculated with a side of "idiots who have no business reproducing bringing multiple children into the world that they can't care for at any level". We spend countless money on poverty and the needle hasn't moved measurably in 100 years. Instead you and your ilk have created a voting class and lifestyle choice! Your solution will be to throw more taxpayer money at the problems, because that's all you "informed voters" know how to do. Because you're not really informed, you're simpletons who are enamored with aluminum foil shining in the sun. The American poor are an absolute embarrassment to other poor people around the world.
Chef Jim Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 The American poor are an absolute embarrassment to other poor people around the world. This is so true. It pisses me off when people say we aren't doing enough for the "poor". Are you !@#$ing kidding me? Our "poor" live like !@#$ing kings and queens compared to the rest of the world.
Doc Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 Here is a good article on the chicanery involving infant mortality rates and life expectancy as the reason we need Obamacare/nationalized care: http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2009/08/life-expectancy-and-infant-mortality.html
B-Man Posted October 17, 2013 Posted October 17, 2013 Leadership ? Former official: Admin refused to bring in outside help for ObamaCare website for fear GOP would subpoena them This is the rare Hot Air item that might actually make liberals angrier at the White House than conservatives. If you’d staked your party’s credibility on realizing the utopian dream of universal health care only to have Obama deliver this BS, you’d be furious. Why anyone on either side still wants Sebelius in charge, I have no idea. Facing such intense opposition from congressional Republicans, the administration was in a bunker mentality as it built the enrollment system, one former administration official said. Officials feared that if they called on outsiders to help with the technical details of how to run a commerce website, those companies could be subpoenaed by Hill Republicans, the former aide said. So the task fell to trusted campaign tech experts. Very important to understand: Between this and the fact that HHS deliberately hid the price of insurance behind a reg wall on Healthcare.gov to reduce “rate shock,” the grand takeaway about the website’s failure is that O and his team made it much worse than it needed to be because they were terrified of transparency. And the reason they were terrified of transparency, both in the case of hiding the cost of the premiums from web users and hiding the site’s architectural problems from contractors who might be hauled before Congress, is because they know they’ve delivered a bad product. Put the premiums on the front page and the public, expecting “affordable care,” would recoil at the truth. Put the contractors at the witness table before Issa’s committee and the public, expecting that the government would “fix” health care, would recoil upon discovering that they can’t even build a website with three years’ lead time. I don’t know what’s more amazing, that they’d place their own political comfort above creating a smoother user experience for the uninsured or that they somehow didn’t realize that a botched rollout on October 1 would be far more embarrassing than contractors talking to Republicans under oath. Or … would it? What was HHS so worried that outside contractors would tell the GOP that they preferred to risk total chaos on the exchanges during launch month instead? http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/17/former-official-admin-refused-to-bring-in-outside-help-for-obamacare-website-for-fear-gop-would-subpoena-them/
Recommended Posts