Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1582847 comments on the Hampton Roads Daily Press story from Nov 5, 2008, titled Barack Obama, our next President. In it, Hampton Roads Daily Press reports that:

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hampton Roads Daily Press.

Realtime

Cape Canaveral, FL

#1061984 Jan 14, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text> But...but...but... didn't you hear? Electric rates aren't going to triple!!!! What are you crazy!! Actually I prefer biomass and wind but solar is a third choice backup.
But but but, there is not a lick of news about electric rates in Chesapeake Va increasing beyond a little blurb about Dominion raising a fee $1.30 in Sept. 2013.

Maybe you should take a minute away from your topix duties to call your power provider and learn what's going on.
M Stein

Jamaica, NY

#1061985 Jan 14, 2014
ObammyCare--the Gift that Keeps on Giving....

The worst is yet to come. Look for-

SKYROCKETING INSURANCE PRICES:

You think your insurance is expensive now? Well, just wait, because Obamacare is going to send the cost of medical care shooting into the sky like a rocket out of a trampoline factory. How could it be otherwise?

People are now forced to buy more insurance than they need. Are you an 60 year old woman? Sorry, but Barack Obama still thinks you need maternity care and that costs more money.

Moreover, it costs a lot of money to pay for the new regulations and massive federal bureaucracy that has been put in place for the law. After all, somebody has to pay the salary of the IRS agents who'll now be harassing you about your medical bills.

Furthermore, that alcoholic junky who needs a liver transplant and round the clock care after he got high on meth and slammed his head into a cement wall? He's paying the same rate as you are now, which means both of you pay a lot more. Guess who got the better of that deal? Hint: If you're reading this, there's about a 99.9% chance it's not you.

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1061986 Jan 14, 2014
34 states have decided against implementing some, or any, parts of Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges.

Six reasons why state legislators should resist the law based on Cato's Institute Health Policy Director, Michael Cannon:.

1. Neither the exchanges nor the Medicaid expansion are mandatory. Obamacare's exchanges are not mandatory because the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution does not allow the federal government to “commandeer” states into such actions.

2. The “deadlines” for choosing to implement the exchanges aren’t deadlines at all and states can create exchanges later if they choose to do so. States could get approval whenever they were ready.

3. Refusing to create an exchange potentially protects a state’s businesses from the law’s employer mandate. The text of Obamacare specifically states that those subsidies are only available in states that choose to create their own exchanges.

4. States have the power to protect as many as 12 million people from the law’s individual mandate - the “tax” charged to individuals for not carrying health insurance. Low and middle income individuals would have to pay more than 8 percent of their income to get health insurance (which is against the law).

5. Collectively, states have the power to reduce federal spending by $1.2 trillion if they reject Obamacare’s exchanges. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the exchanges will dole out $1.2 trillion in subsidies for private health insurance. No state exchanges would mean no subsidies for private insurance saving the entire $1.2 trillion.

6. States that agree to run their own exchanges will take the blame if they fail. The Act’s community-rating price controls punish health plans that provide the most attractive coverage to the sick. The Act thus forces health plans into a race to the bottom where insurers compete to avoid, mistreat, and dump the most vulnerable patients.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/17/6-reaso...

The Missouri state Senator (after Missourians voted down the exchanges in their state):“They don’t want it, so we are just following what our citizens want. It’s federalism. It’s the federal government trying to tell us whether we can go to the bathroom or not. It’s ridiculous.”

That will be the next law - telling us whether we can go to the bathroom or not and fining us if we go anyway.

Since: May 11

New Oxford, PA

#1061987 Jan 14, 2014
flack wrote:
WASHINGTON – Insurers have raised concerns that too few young people are signing up for heath insurance through the ObamaCare exchanges after newly released statistics showed that less than a quarter of people who have enrolled are between the ages of 18 and 34.
According to the numbers released Monday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, only 24 percent – or 489,460 – of the 2.2 million people who signed up for ACA were in the coveted 18-to-34 age range. That means the government has hit only 18 percent of its stated goal of registering 2.7 million adults in the 18-to-34 age range.
Experts have predicted that the program will need roughly 40 percent of enrollees to be in that prime demographic in order to be fiscally solvent. Adults ages 55 to 64 made up 33 percent of the total number of Americans who signed up, the largest group represented in the data.
ObamaCare needs so-called 'invincibles'-- healthy young adults -- to sign up in coming months to help offset the costs of older and less healthy enrollees. If that doesn’t happen, insurers could be forced to raise the rates, making the costs and future of ObamaCare uncertain.
........
Monday’s report was the first time the government has released demographic data on the performance of President Obama’s signature health care overhaul. In all, about 1.8 million people enrolled in new individual health plans through the law in December, bringing the total number of new enrollments between Oct. 1 and Dec.28 to about 2.2 million.
"There's no way to spin it: youth enrollment has been a bust so far," Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, said in a statement following the release. "When they see that ObamaCare offers high costs for limited access to doctors – if the enrollment goes through at all – it's no surprise that young people aren't rushing to sign up."
As analysts have told Fox News, insurance companies have said they may want to take advantage of the "risk pool" provisions -- which involve the federal government covering 80 percent of any losses associated with an older and unhealthier base of customers.
According to HHS, 79 percent of ObamaCare customers selected a plan with financial assistance. While only 2.2 million people have actually signed up, 44.5 million called or visited state and federal websites.
Of the 2.2 million who have signed up, 54 percent are female and 46 percent are male, HHS said.
Individuals and families are able to choose from four plans offered through the federal marketplace -- bronze, silver, gold and platinum.
Sixty percent selected a silver plan, while 20 percent selected a bronze plan, according to HHS.
FOX News
Older buyers are more likely to get a subsidy than younger buyers & this is why older buyers are taking advantage more than younger ones.
Say a couple is 60 making $60K. They would likely get a subsidy. A couple in their 30's making $60 would not. The higher costs of the policies for the 60 couple would surpass the maximum percentage where the lower cost for the younger couple would not.
Brendan Buck is a liar. There are plans available that offer wide PPO coverage even nationwide.
As for the risk pools: "The law appropriates $5 billion of federal funds to support the new temporary high risk pool program. It will be available beginning on July 1, the start of many state fiscal years, until the program ends on January 1, 2014. The program is funded entirely by the federal government."
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1061988 Jan 14, 2014
With the GOP's best hope for 2016 under siege, Fox News Channel's biggest ratings-getter rushed to defend the embattled Chris Christie on Monday.

As Bill O'Reilly sees it, Democrats wouldn't be investigating the politically motivated lane closures on the George Washington Bridge if Ted Cruz or Rand Paul were at the center of the scandal.

"No question some Democrats are trying to destroy New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie," O'Reilly said. "That's because they see him as a threat to Hillary Clinton in 216 (sic) in the presidential race."

O'Reilly said the scandal is "pretty bad" and that "lots of people were adversely affected by it" — but hey, Christie said he was unaware of the closures and that explanation passes muster in the "No Spin Zone."

"Fair-minded people should believe him until there is evidence to the contrary," O'Reilly said.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bill-or...

hey BillO....

Aide Fired by Christie Is Called Loyal Team Player, Not Rogue Operative

“She follows the chain of command,” said a friend who, like nearly everyone contacted for this story, insisted on anonymity to avoid being caught up in the continuing investigations.“She’s not a cowboy.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/nyregion/ai...
M Stein

Jamaica, NY

#1061989 Jan 14, 2014
ObammyCare--the Gift that Keeps on Giving....

The worst is yet to come. Look for-

SKYROCKETING INSURANCE PRICES, plus:

INSURANCE COMPANY BAILOUTS:

While Democrats were telling the Occupy Wall Street crowd to support Obamacare in order to stick it to the insurance companies, Obama was actually giving those same companies the sweetheart deal of a lifetime behind the scenes.

In return for supporting Obamacare, they got to charge more, Obama promised to use the IRS to force more Americans to sign up for their services, and best of all, he promised them a bailout if something goes wrong.

In other words, if they don't make a killing off of all the new customers Obama is forcing to buy their service, Obama will make up the difference with your tax dollars.

So now that Obamacare looks like a money loser for the insurance companies, Democrats are preparing to pay off the insurance companies directly with your tax dollars.

How did we end up in a world where the same liberals who incessantly complain about fatcat insurance companies are now demanding that we give them billions of dollars because they made bad business decisions?

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1061990 Jan 14, 2014
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>But but but, there is not a lick of news about electric rates in Chesapeake Va increasing beyond a little blurb about Dominion raising a fee $1.30 in Sept. 2013.
Maybe you should take a minute away from your topix duties to call your power provider and learn what's going on.
It wasn't from Chesapeake Va Mr. Peabody. It is however happening.
M Stein

Jamaica, NY

#1061991 Jan 14, 2014
ObammyCare--the Gift that Keeps on Giving....

The worst is yet to come. Look for-

SKYROCKETING INSURANCE PRICES
INSURANCE COMPANY BAILOUTS, plus:

THE EMPLOYER MANDATE:

There's a reason Barack Obama delayed the employer mandate and will probably delay it again next year.

Depending on the estimates you believe, somewhere between 25-80 million Americans are going to lose the health insurance they have through their employer once it goes into effect.

Now you're probably saying, "Holy 'if you like your plan, you can keep it,’ Batman, that's horrible,” but to liberals, that's ultimately a feature of the plan, not a bug. The more people who lose their health care, the more people who will want to sign up for the Obamacare exchanges and the more likely it is that the law is to be viable long term.

Ultimately, Barack Obama is fine with lying to the American people; he just doesn't want them to find out they were deceived right before an election.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

Gauley Bridge WV

#1061992 Jan 14, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
Older buyers are more likely to get a subsidy than younger buyers & this is why older buyers are taking advantage more than younger ones.
Say a couple is 60 making $60K. They would likely get a subsidy. A couple in their 30's making $60 would not. The higher costs of the policies for the 60 couple would surpass the maximum percentage where the lower cost for the younger couple would not.
Brendan Buck is a liar. There are plans available that offer wide PPO coverage even nationwide.
As for the risk pools: "The law appropriates $5 billion of federal funds to support the new temporary high risk pool program. It will be available beginning on July 1, the start of many state fiscal years, until the program ends on January 1, 2014. The program is funded entirely by the federal government."
Last I looked it was January 14 2014. You're a moran!
M Stein

Jamaica, NY

#1061993 Jan 14, 2014
ObammyCare--the Gift that Keeps on Giving....

The worst is yet to come. Look for-

SKYROCKETING INSURANCE PRICES
INSURANCE COMPANY BAILOUTS
THE EMPLOYER MANDATE, plus

DOCTOR SHORTAGES:

According to a survey done by the Doctor Patient Medical Association, 83% of doctors, "have considered leaving their practices over President Barack Obama’s health care reform law." Some of them are going to quit while others will merely cut back their hours or refuse to see new patients.

Whatever the case may be, it means that even if you have health care, it may be difficult to find a doctor to treat you.

If and when you do, you're going to find:
doctors who have even less time to spend per patient,

nurses doing tasks doctors used to handle,

foreign doctors with inferior training who've been brought in to fill the
gap,

and dramatically increased waits for surgeries.

There will be people who would get surgery for painful, but non-life threatening injuries within a week today who will spend months waiting in agony down the road.

If there were any justice, they would all be people who voted for Obama, but unfortunately the rest of us will have to pay the same excruciating price for their gullibility.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1061995 Jan 14, 2014
sonicfilter wrote:
With the GOP's best hope for 2016 under siege, Fox News Channel's biggest ratings-getter rushed to defend the embattled Chris Christie on Monday.
As Bill O'Reilly sees it, Democrats wouldn't be investigating the politically motivated lane closures on the George Washington Bridge if Ted Cruz or Rand Paul were at the center of the scandal.
"No question some Democrats are trying to destroy New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie," O'Reilly said. "That's because they see him as a threat to Hillary Clinton in 216 (sic) in the presidential race."
O'Reilly said the scandal is "pretty bad" and that "lots of people were adversely affected by it" — but hey, Christie said he was unaware of the closures and that explanation passes muster in the "No Spin Zone."
"Fair-minded people should believe him until there is evidence to the contrary," O'Reilly said.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bill-or...
hey BillO....
Aide Fired by Christie Is Called Loyal Team Player, Not Rogue Operative
“She follows the chain of command,” said a friend who, like nearly everyone contacted for this story, insisted on anonymity to avoid being caught up in the continuing investigations.“She’s not a cowboy.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/nyregion/ai...
so there are no republicans investigating this according to o reiley? no independent agencies?

Since: May 11

New Oxford, PA

#1061996 Jan 14, 2014
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Last I looked it was January 14 2014. You're a moran!
Have the temporary high risk pools in the ACA been extended??

http://www.hhs.gov/cciio/initiative/hi_risk_p...
Buroc Millhouse Obama

Hamden, CT

#1061997 Jan 14, 2014
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is in Tampa today, Monday, January 13, for an ObamaCare outreach event, and she owes Floridians an answer. Why should taxpayers have to bail out health insurance companies in the increasingly likely event that ObamaCare leaves them with financial losses?

WTF?

Obamacare is barely implemented and Kathen Sebi-Lie-To-Us is alreay talking about bailouts?

Democrats need to pay for this by being voted out of office.

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1061998 Jan 14, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
What rubbish, do you expect the US to be there forever when it should not have gone in the first place. Why make a mistake worse by sacrificing more and more innocent lives for what purpose. So you will feel better about it ???
Iraq kept Iran in check, Saddam kept all that tribal crap in check. Regardless of how ruthless he was, the US can't play by the same rules. So the war machine think tankers (Colin Powell being one) said it was a bad idea yet was stood over by Cheney and Rumsfield. This President knew it was a waste of time trying to bring democracy over tribal cultures that date back 1000's of years. It was America's second Vietnam and the same for Afghanistan no military purpose can be gained unless a culture is wiped out. Just as the tea baggers represent the same distorted view of the world as the Taliban. You just have to wait until they die off and lose support. It will happen eventually, but not in this decade
It doesn't matter what you think and if you thought we shouldn't have been there in the first place. We lost valuable blood and treasure there. Iraq had become an ally in that region, but Obama has undone every single one of those sacrifices and Iraq has been lost to al Qaeda.

Residual troops are still in South Korea and around the world to sustain the peace that was paid at a high price. Leaving 30,000 residual troops in Iraq to sustain the peace and continue training Iraqis to protect themselves is a given and a standard procedure after any war won with our own blood and treasure.

Obama also lost the Saudis who have been our allies for decades in that region. Obama naively trusted Iran and they took advantage of that naivety and are pursuing a nuclear weapons program right under his nose. The Saudis are scared s---less of Iran having a nuclear weapon and will crawl to Iran on their hands and knees and denounce the U.S. for self-preservation.

Obama has succeeded in destabilized the middle east; perhaps, to the point of no return.

What you think is totally irrelevant.

If Obamacare fails and Iran produces a nuclear weapon, Obama's resignation should immediately follow.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1061999 Jan 14, 2014
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>so there are no republicans investigating this according to o reiley? no independent agencies?
i'm sure BillO has no idea.
M Stein

Jamaica, NY

#1062000 Jan 14, 2014
ObammyCare--the Gift that Keeps on Giving....

The worst is yet to come. Look for-

SKYROCKETING INSURANCE PRICES
INSURANCE COMPANY BAILOUTS
THE EMPLOYER MANDATE
DOCTOR SHORTAGES, plus

DEATH PANELS:

Liberals have moved from claiming that death panels don't exist to admitting that they're built into the law and saying that they're a good thing.

As Time Magazine's senior political analyst Mark Halperin admitted, "It's built into the plan. It's NOT like a guess or like a judgment. That's going to be part of how costs are controlled."

So, yes, there are going to be Americans who die because it's cheaper than spending the money needed to save them.

What was it Barack Obama said again? Oh, yes, "Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

The scary thing about that is UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS who are indifferent to whether you live or die -- not you or your doctor-- will be the ones deciding whether an expensive treatment makes you "better off."

This is how one doctor sees ObamaCare dictating treatment:

"You are wrong in assuming that you will find any evidence of a “death panel”. I have been in medicine for 40 years and can assure you that doctors and their lawyers would never, ever put together such a concept. It is far too direct. Instead, you will see terms like quality care and what is best for the patients. Whenever you see those terms, you know you are screwed.

Here is the way quality of care works to reduce cost. Lets say I see a patient with a really bad heart muscle who has triple vessel CV disease. He clearly needs bypass to improve his quality of life, but also, he is the prime patient to have a really good long term prognosis, that is after an initial increased risk of the surgery. I present this to the surgeon and he will not operate as the short term risk is higher than the average and thus would reflect badly on his stats and he will be penalized by the overseers. Thus the patient loses and dies an early death. That is good for the insurance as they avoided a costly surgery and the patient in dying early reduced their life time outlay.

This was frowned upon when insurance was free of the government, now that insurance is the government, we are getting rules and regulations that are pointing us to this ultimate scenario.

This is only one situation, there are multiple areas where we will be restricted.

I will not be able to order a stress test as it might find a problem and finding the problem could lead to hospitalization and thus count against me.

I will be restricted in offering cardiac caths for multiple reasons. I will have to follow cardiac guidelines, which might sound prudent, but these are not the standard of care and are only “guidelines” but it I vary I will be punished and if I vary my patients will benefit more than strict adherence.

The issue is complicated, but I assure you that we are facing a major shift in the way medicine is practiced.

Then there are the preventative measures. There is not such thing as preventative medical care. I can do nothing to significantly effect your prognosis if you don’t have disease.

But the academic doctors think you can and they are arranging that preventative care is mandatory and that if you don’t follow the prescribed agenda, you get fined.

So you will be fined for being over weight, not eating right (does nothing), keeping your bp under control, etc.

In short, there will not be a death panel, only now you will be killed by mandatory quality.'
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#1062001 Jan 14, 2014
USAsince1680 wrote:
<quoted text>
IMO, she lied by claiming her source was the "Maui Times" and is now digging a dipper hole by trying to blame her sister-in-law. It's one lie after another with her.
lol! It really doesn't matter. Fetchie (and cohorts like whatever) like to offer some facts sprinkled with a heavy dose of their personal opinions to convolute and confuse reality.

It's probably done as a matter of convenience, fear or both!

Since: May 11

New Oxford, PA

#1062002 Jan 14, 2014
LoisLane59 wrote:
34 states have decided against implementing some, or any, parts of Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges.
Six reasons why state legislators should resist the law based on Cato's Institute Health Policy Director, Michael Cannon:.
1. Neither the exchanges nor the Medicaid expansion are mandatory. Obamacare's exchanges are not mandatory because the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution does not allow the federal government to “commandeer” states into such actions.
2. The “deadlines” for choosing to implement the exchanges aren’t deadlines at all and states can create exchanges later if they choose to do so. States could get approval whenever they were ready.
3. Refusing to create an exchange potentially protects a state’s businesses from the law’s employer mandate. The text of Obamacare specifically states that those subsidies are only available in states that choose to create their own exchanges.
4. States have the power to protect as many as 12 million people from the law’s individual mandate - the “tax” charged to individuals for not carrying health insurance. Low and middle income individuals would have to pay more than 8 percent of their income to get health insurance (which is against the law).
5. Collectively, states have the power to reduce federal spending by $1.2 trillion if they reject Obamacare’s exchanges. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the exchanges will dole out $1.2 trillion in subsidies for private health insurance. No state exchanges would mean no subsidies for private insurance saving the entire $1.2 trillion.
6. States that agree to run their own exchanges will take the blame if they fail. The Act’s community-rating price controls punish health plans that provide the most attractive coverage to the sick. The Act thus forces health plans into a race to the bottom where insurers compete to avoid, mistreat, and dump the most vulnerable patients.
http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/17/6-reaso...
The Missouri state Senator (after Missourians voted down the exchanges in their state):“They don’t want it, so we are just following what our citizens want. It’s federalism. It’s the federal government trying to tell us whether we can go to the bathroom or not. It’s ridiculous.”
That will be the next law - telling us whether we can go to the bathroom or not and fining us if we go anyway.
Yep, screw your constituents for political gain is obviously a trait of the Republican party.

Republicans lie about the ACA so people don't know what it involves & then claim these duped people are an excuse to play politics meanwhile millions of their constituents remain without health insurance.

Furthermore, they turn down billions of dollars to their state's economy.

Republicans at their best.
Lily Boca Raton FL

Boca Raton, FL

#1062003 Jan 14, 2014
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
Smart shoppers. Found a Calvin Klein shirt for $6, looks brand new, a Stone Mountain leather purse for $6 that looks great and a myriad of other expensive brand name items that would have cost ten times more in an "expensive" store.
But my thrift store is unique. I love my thrift store. Don't be dissing my thrift store.
I have a friend who buys all her clothes in thrift stores and yard sales; but I just can't bring myself to wear someone elses clothes; mostly they are the clothing that belonged to someone who died. There's a particular smell to them; don't you find?
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#1062004 Jan 14, 2014
USAprior2008 wrote:
<quoted text> MSNBC parrot wanna cracker?
lol! you are a bird brain after all!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Awww Melrose diner closed! 1 hr Out of Potty Expe... 3
Please 1 hr Out of Potty Expe... 5
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr SweLL GirL 11,178
What's the real story about Charlottsville? 2 hr ThomasA 26
The Party of Racism. 2 hr Definitely Democruds 5
OVERALL CDST of electric autos. 2 hr STARfukinFascists 23
News 2 dead, 6 others wounded during city shootings (Aug '16) 3 hr Fordian hesterdam 4

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages