The President has failed us

The President has failed us

There are 381079 comments on the Times News story from Jun 9, 2012, titled The President has failed us. In it, Times News reports that:

This week, I decided to list the reasons I would not vote for Barack Obama in the next election.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Times News.

“Try Reuters.”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#61939 Nov 18, 2012
EAGLE EYE1 wrote:
<quoted text>
2009 data?? Ok let me know when the government plans to buy all the hospitals and hire all the docs and HC workers..
"In 2009, the U.S. spent $7,960 per person on health care, and the closest contenders were Switzerland ($5,144 per person) and Netherlands ($4,914)."
So at 8k a year what was your problem with Romney and Ryan on the 8k vouchers again??
Eagle
Vouchers are an ineffective substitute when health care is a "for profit" free market enterprise. We can't control costs with vouchers, and that would leave Medicare beneficiaries a very big hole to close over time. Competition does NOT drive costs down or keep them in check under the model. The article below is a really good window on the problems and speaks about the positive aspects of the model in Canada:

Why Healthcare Costs Trillions Less in Canada

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/QUA...

As always before a major election, there's the chorus of threats. "If so and so wins, I'm moving to Canada." (Groan.) "This country is broke, and out of control, and we're all going to hell in a hand-basket."

And so it went this year, except that in 2012, many a Twitter tirade blamed the healthcare reform law—aka Obamacare, aka the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—now on its way to full implementation, for the urge among the electorate to flee the country.

I paraphrase, but some of the unenlightened comments went like this: "I'm moving to Winnipeg. Don't want the government controlling my life or my healthcare."

Here's the irony: The Maple Leaf nation's government-paid healthcare system, which requires few if any co-payments or deductibles, may provide much higher quality of healthcare services at a fraction of the spending compared with the Medicare program in the United States.

In a research letter in the Archives of Internal Medicine Oct. 29, Harvard physicians and professors David Himmelstein, MD and Steffie Woolhandler, MD, put the comparison into perspective for people 65 and older.

They used U.S. Medicare actuarial data dating back 30 years. They excluded payments for the disabled and patients on dialysis under 65, but included Medicare Advantage, and compared it with comparable Canadian Medicare healthcare cost data from three sources.
Here's what they found:

Between 1980 and 2009, Medicare spending per beneficiary in the U.S. rose from $1,215 to $9,446, which was a 198% increase after adjusting for inflation. But in Canada, comparable spending rose from $2,141 to $9,292, or an inflation-adjusted rate of 73%. Think of it this way: for every $10 spent on services in the U.S., Canada spent $3.36.

In Canada, government healthcare spending paid for a greater offering of benefits (which is why Canada's 1980 spending was higher than that in America), covering 80% of total healthcare costs for seniors. In the United States, Medicare pays for about 50% of seniors' healthcare expenses.

If Medicare costs had risen at Canada's pace, projected savings would have totaled $154.2 billion in 2009 and $2.156 trillion from 1980 to 2009.

I know what you're thinking. These two idealists are notorious and unrepentant single-payer advocates who founded Physicians for a National Health Program. But like it or not, these are the numbers they got.

(cont.)
1 post removed

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#61941 Nov 18, 2012
---Wild Irish Rose--- wrote:
"The devotion to untruth serves right wing’s emotional needs as well. Movement conservatives take discomfort with the changing nation and channel it into a belief that everyone outside of the conservative tribe is out to get them. Everything else flows from that. If the real world is out to get you, reality-based knowledge — especially that mediated by perceived “liberal elites”— becomes suspect. So many urban legends in conservative circles center around the idea that the outside world is conspiring against them, such as fevered claims of “voter fraud” or Reagan-era claims of welfare cheats making three figures defrauding the taxpayer."
http://www.salon.com/2012/11/17/conservatives...
Salon??????????

Pffft!!!!!

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#61942 Nov 18, 2012
---Wild Irish Rose--- wrote:
And nothing highlights and confirms the truth of this article than many of the posts on these threads. All the lies, the conspiracy theories, the distorted misinformation is what the conservatives on this Forum promote. They have no interest in TRUTH or REALITY. It's only what they create or fantasize.
The article says it all. I highly recommend reading it.
"From characterizing everyone Not-Them as “moochers” to the persistent suspicion that Obama faked his birth certificate in an effort to take the presidency from someone who actually has a right to it, conservatives fantasize that the mostly older, white population moving further and further to the right is being oppressed by the various groups liberals have forced them to share power with. To give that up would be to completely reorder their world. As painful as it is to grasp the reality of Obama’s win, it’s safe to say they’re going to go right back to putting their faith in fantasy instead of the realities that the rest of us live in."
http://www.salon.com/2012/11/17/conservatives...
Salon??????

Pffft!!!!!

“Try Reuters.”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#61943 Nov 18, 2012
fishaholic wrote:
<quoted text>
We're talking about obama, not about Bush. You have no argument so you resort to what happened in the Bush admin. Classic (but tiresome) liberal tactic. That is water under the bridge. We're talking about 4 US citizens that lost their lives and the president "doesn't know nuthin''bout nuthin'." We're talking about 2 US LE officials murdered and several HUNDRED Mexican citizens that have lost their lives and the president "doesn't know nuthin''bout nuthin'." We're talking about the head of the CIA being investigated MONTHS ago and the president "doesn't know nuthin''bout nuthin'." He doesn't need to be president if he doesn't know what's going on with his own administration.
I think it's you who doesn't know nuthin''bout nothin'. The President has commented about the attacks on Susan Rice, and when the investigations are concluded, he will undoubtedly have more to say on the situation, what went wrong, and what is being put into place to prevent it happening again (if it could have been or can be prevented in the future).

The President doesn't control the war on drugs in Mexico, but we have done everything we can do to assist without direct military involvement, and we can't engage in that way and meddle in the affairs of a foreign nation who is our ally and trading partner wherein Billions of dollars of U.S. private investment sits. What do you expect him to do? Send armed soldiers across the border to wage war? Unless Mexico destabilizes completely (insurrection), that won't happen.

Please get it through your rock hard skull that the FBI conducts investigations at arm's length from whatever Administration is serving, and the Agency is not compelled to convey any ongoing investigation that doesn't demonstrate a possibility of compromise of classified intelligence or national security risk (spying, etc.). The Petraeus investigation (from all we know at the moment) didn't rise to that level. It was about crossing the line of ethics that might have set him up for blackmail. When enough facts were gathered, the White House was notified. The President could not have demanded what he didn't know even existed. That's how it works, and if you don't like it, lobby Congress to change the law again so that future Administrations can potentially strong arm our security agencies and prevent them from getting to the bottom of potential national security risks.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#61944 Nov 18, 2012
---Wild Irish Rose--- wrote:
SATURDAY, NOV 17, 2012 08:00 AM PST
Conservatives’ crisis of confidence
Weeks after the election, the right is still lashing out. Are Republicans doomed to their own echo chamber?
BY AMANDA MARCOTTE, THE AMERICAN PROSPECT
As Democrats continue to bask in the post-election schadenfreude of watching Republicans weep and gnash their teeth at losing the presidential election, the sense that conservatives are the architects of their own misery is only enhancing liberal glee. It seems the initial shock hasn’t warn off: In a conference call with his fundraising team, Mitt Romney is still blaming his loss on those freeloading Americans who wanted stuff.
Clearly, the only explanation for all this delusion is that conservative media and campaign consultants, steeped in years of confidently lying about everything from global warming to the causes of the deficit, got a little too bold about their ability to create their own realities. The only question is whether conservatives will learn their lesson and exhibit more skepticism about their self-selected news media in the future.
The answer is almost surely no, for a very good reason: Conservative credulousness is so baked into the culture of the right that it could well be considered a defining feature. This has been true for as long as movement conservatism as we know it has existed, and there’s no real reason to think conservatives are going to sharpen up about this now.
Before the election, historian Rick Perlstein published an essay examining the long history of intra-conservative con artistry in The Baffler, with a heavy focus on the way conservative publications and mail-order fundraisers exploit audience gullibility to sell people snake oil and convince them to give to “causes” that never see much, if any, of the money. Perlstein’s aim was to explain why it is that conservatives didn’t seem to mind Romney’s nonstop lying, even though his constantly changing positions made it unclear which lie he’d be backing if he ever made it to the presidency. Perlstein argued that after years of training themselves to enjoy the garbage shoveled out by their media outlets, conservatives have come to rely on lying as a kind of comfort blanket, a way to know that they are with their own people.
It’s time, in other words, to consider whether Romney’s fluidity with the truth is, in fact, a feature and not a bug: a constituent part of his appeal to conservatives. The point here is not just that he lies when he says conservative things, even if he believes something different in his heart of hearts — but that lying is what makes you sound the way a conservative is supposed to sound, in pretty much the same way that curlicuing all around the note makes you sound like a contestant on American Idol is supposed to sound.
There are post-election lessons to be learned from how movement conservatism has long housed weirder claims than run-of-the-mill climate-change denialism. Perlstein cites examples such as claiming naps cure cancer better than chemo or that grandmothers can trust their dollars are going to Bibles in Africa when they’re simply being pocketed by fundraisers. Stanley Kubrick mocked this tendency in Dr. Strangelove when a character repeats a popular ’60s-era right-wing urban legend about fluoridated water being communist mind control.(This fear still haunts the right, as demonstrated by Georgia state senators convening a meeting last month to discuss Obama’s supposed communist mind-control plot.) The lesson in all this for the rest of us: Right-wingers don’t really have the same relationship to the truth that we do. They aren’t just creating their own truth for comfort but also to mark themselves as members of the tribe....(cont.)
http://www.salon.com/2012/11/17/conservatives...
Salon is a progressive liberal online magazine, with content updated each weekday.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon.com

“ON THE PROWL”

Since: May 08

Ocala, FL

#61945 Nov 18, 2012
The Notorious Rico wrote:
<quoted text>
8k is an "average" cost per person. Your medial condition obviously cost more than that. So would you be fine with taking a cut and having to fork out the extra cash from your little pot of gold the next time you're ambulanced into the ER for another quadruple bypass heart surgery?
I never had bypass and you missed the whole point of the discussion.. NTR's first point was more docs per 10,000 patients in socialized nations.. Now it is the cost with our current system compared to socialist countries.. The level of care time and time again the USA has the best care in the world.. If you or anyone wants to give up those standards for socialized care I really don't know what to say..

Eagle

“ON THE PROWL”

Since: May 08

Ocala, FL

#61946 Nov 18, 2012
Republican Honey wrote:
<quoted text>
Good information. Thank you!!!
Anytime RH..

Eagle
whatthehey

Austin, TX

#61947 Nov 18, 2012
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>
....took care of the BS on that great HC !
No Left Winger

Rochester, MN

#61948 Nov 18, 2012
Republican Honey wrote:
<quoted text>
Salon??????????
Pffft!!!!!
I say to all of those free thinking folks who push back against these Communistic liberals ..I say to you what Oliver Cromwell said to his troops before entering battle: "Put your trust in God...and keep your powder dry."

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/a...

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Trump 2016 and beyond

#61949 Nov 18, 2012
---Wild Irish Rose--- wrote:
Thanks for the judge its, POSEY. Hahhahahha!
Brilliant, touching, funny, prop. You may now bow and genuflect. POSEYness is next to godliness. A wise person knows this. Why don't you? Hahahahahahahahahahahah
whatthehey

Austin, TX

#61950 Nov 18, 2012
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>I think it's you who doesn't know nuthin''bout nothin'. of potential national security risks.
....that be YOU! YOU think the FBI does not investigate TLSC!
PROLETARIATE

Canyon Country, CA

#61951 Nov 18, 2012
No Left Winger wrote:
<quoted text>
I say to all of those free thinking folks who push back against these Communistic liberals ..I say to you what Oliver Cromwell said to his troops before entering battle: "Put your trust in God...and keep your powder dry."
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/a...
No surprises there, you think just like Cromwell, a Monarch loving Torey.
whatthehey

Austin, TX

#61952 Nov 18, 2012
higgans wrote:
<quoted text>
sshhh. we don't want to disturb the sleeping ducks and wake them from their dream.
I've been called much worse by real people but never have I had my weracity attacked so often by so many people sharing the same POV.
only on Topix have I ever heard so many people speak as if they know EVERYTHING about EVRYTHING and EVERYBODY.
we have never shared barracks, cities, work places, schools, etc. but they know my life better than I do.LOL
I've had similar people/ducks doubt my identity, age, service, marriage, education level, job, etc... because of some words I used, my current job vs college degree (Assoc, in Acctg), YOU NAME IT.
all I said was that people/family I know TOLD me and my wife that people ID'ing themselves (with wallet ID and/or badges) AS THE FBI came around and asked THEM questions during the time I/we were stationed overseas and awaiting my additional security clearance vetting process. I've never knowingly talked to anybody of a security agency EXCEPT an ASA recruiter, a Navy CIS agent regarding a neighbor's possible security breach and the spooks from the Embassy either at my ComCenter or when me and another courier delivered messages to them in their little building on the Embassy grounds (NOT in the Embassy itself).
I do not/will not reveal my overseas duty station for only one reason: there was another Know-it-all poster on a diff thread that swore up and down that I could NOT possibly spent 3 1/2 years stationed ANYWHERE in the Middle East because he KNEW all of the bases, detachments, units, etc. OUR military had EVERYWHERE.
his authority? he spent a few years (4-6?) in the Air Force, stationed in England during the 80s! we never served together or even during the same Branch or years (mine were 1/73-10/78) BUT HE KNEW what I did and didn't experience better than I!LOL
Jack and Mother are NO different than any other such poster, IMO.
hell, Jack couldn't even remember a 'conversation' we had about his gay-ness and Service and that just happened in the past 4-6 weeks!!
oh, well... MY Life will go on irregardless.
Yes sir! Read you loud and clear! Let them sleep! Hey, I got papers with all this you know.........confirming the TLSC and all the you know! Still proudly have them! Earned that level with integrity...we all have one common bond from back then REMEMBER it? Well actually I know/read you do.........you speak it!

Since: Jun 10

San Jose, CA

#61953 Nov 18, 2012
Republican Honey wrote:
<quoted text>
Salon??????????
Pffft!!!!!
Your opinion, HONEY!!!!

Fox News?
World Net Daily?

Hogwash!!!! LOL!

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#61954 Nov 18, 2012
---Wild Irish Rose--- wrote:
Part of the problem is the word “believe.” In many cases,“believe” can be used interchangeably with words like “know,”“understand” and “accept.” I believe that my dinner will be a burrito. I believe in the theory of evolution. But the word also stands in for ideological stances. Then there are “beliefs” that serve to align individuals with other conservatives. Believing that climate change is a hoax, that Obama is a foreign national, or that ACORN stole the 2008 election: These beliefs have more symbolic than literal meaning to those who hold them. They are to being a conservative what believing in the Virgin Birth is to being a Christian.
The mind set of reaffirming core principles in every conversation has become the dominant way of communicating in conservative circles. Some of this stems from the heavy overlap with evangelical Christianity, where evangelical-specific urban legends run rampant. Religion blogger Fred Clark used as an example of the Christian myth that Proctor & Gamble was run by Satanists, pointing out that people who share this story do so to prop up their identity as loyal evangelicals more than to make a factual observation about the world.
Liberals understand very well how conservative nonsense serves political ends — by rationalizing attacks on reproductive rights or stalling regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse emissions — but equally important is the way that bullshit plays this role in establishing that the bullshit-believer belongs to the conservative club.
The devotion to untruth serves right wing’s emotional needs as well. Movement conservatives take discomfort with the changing nation and channel it into a belief that everyone outside of the conservative tribe is out to get them. Everything else flows from that. If the real world is out to get you, reality-based knowledge
http://www.salon.com/2012/11/17/conservatives...
Had to remove some of your post.

Liberalism creates a feedback loop. It is usually impossible for a non-liberal to change a liberal's mind about political issues because liberalism works like so: only liberals are credible sources of information. How do you know someone's liberal? He espouses liberal doctrine. So, no matter how plausible what you say may be, it will be ignored if you're not a liberal and if you are a liberal, of course, you probably agree with liberal views. This sort of close-mindedness makes liberals nearly impervious to any information which is different than their views.

Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. For liberals, it's not what a program does in the real world; it's about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.

Liberals take a dim view of personal responsibility. Who's at fault if a criminal commits a crime? The criminal or society? If someone creates a business and becomes a millionaire, is that the result of hard work and talent or luck? If you're dirt poor, starving, and haven't worked in 5 years, is that a personal failing or a failure of the state? Conservatives would tend to say the former in each case, while liberals would tend to say the latter. But when you disconnect what an individual does from the results that happen in his life, it's very difficult to understand cause and effect in people's lives.

Liberals give themselves far too much credit just for being liberal. To many liberals, all one needs to do to be wise, intelligent, compassionate, open minded, and sensitive is to BE LIBERAL. In other words, many of the good things about a person spring not from his actions, but from the ideology he holds.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/20 ...
whatthehey

Austin, TX

#61955 Nov 18, 2012
No Left Winger wrote:
<quoted text>
I say to all of those free thinking folks who push back against these Communistic liberals ..I say to you what Oliver Cromwell said to his troops before entering battle: "Put your trust in God...and keep your powder dry."
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/a...
ABSOLUTELY! March bravely into the battle with heads held HIGH in the truth!

There is no TRUTH coming from this White House on TOO many levels!

Since: Jun 10

San Jose, CA

#61956 Nov 18, 2012
Republican Honey wrote:
<quoted text>
Salon is a progressive liberal online magazine, with content updated each weekday.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salon.com
So what? Just because YOU don't like the information, articles or opinions on a certain site does not make them any less valid.

YOU are not the barometer of everything that is truthful and intelligent no matter how arrogant and condescending you are.

Anyone of us could just as easily dispute the ultra-conservative news sites that YOU favor, so just what is your point?

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#61957 Nov 18, 2012
---Wild Irish Rose--- wrote:
<quoted text>
Your opinion, HONEY!!!!
Fox News?
World Net Daily?
Hogwash!!!! LOL!
That is why I won't accept your Salon information. It is clearly a liberal news site and you hard-core liberals refuse to recognize any of the more conservative sites we utilize. Double standard???????
UIdiotRaceMAkeWo rldPeace

United States

#61958 Nov 18, 2012
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>I think it's you who doesn't know nuthin''bout nothin'. The President has commented about the attacks on Susan Rice, and when the investigations are concluded, he will undoubtedly have more to say on the situation, what went wrong, and what is being put into place to prevent it happening again (if it could have been or can be prevented in the future).
The President doesn't control the war on drugs in Mexico, but we have done everything we can do to assist without direct military involvement, and we can't engage in that way and meddle in the affairs of a foreign nation who is our ally and trading partner wherein Billions of dollars of U.S. private investment sits. What do you expect him to do? Send armed soldiers across the border to wage war? Unless Mexico destabilizes completely (insurrection), that won't happen.
Please get it through your rock hard skull that the FBI conducts investigations at arm's length from whatever Administration is serving, and the Agency is not compelled to convey any ongoing investigation that doesn't demonstrate a possibility of compromise of classified intelligence or national security risk (spying, etc.). The Petraeus investigation (from all we know at the moment) didn't rise to that level. It was about crossing the line of ethics that might have set him up for blackmail. When enough facts were gathered, the White House was notified. The President could not have demanded what he didn't know even existed. That's how it works, and if you don't like it, lobby Congress to change the law again so that future Administrations can potentially strong arm our security agencies and prevent them from getting to the bottom of potential national security risks.
Narco-Dollars For Beginners
How The Money Works In The Illicit Drug Trade

According to the CIA's own Inspector General, the government has been facilitating drug trafficking. Indeed, according to the CIA and DOJ (Dept. of Justice), the CIA and DOJ created a memorandum of understanding that permitted the CIA to help its allies and assets to traffic in drugs and not have to report it.

“ON THE PROWL”

Since: May 08

Ocala, FL

#61959 Nov 18, 2012
Face the Facts wrote:
Those Union workers that you refer to as the "middle class" or the "working class" don't need any help destroying themselves, they are doing a great job of it already.
Those Union's don't seem to feel bad about destroying the lower income people.
I have a fact for those "working class/middle class" union folks. > They aren't the only people who work for a living and if they feel they are being cheated or being treated unfairly they should step aside and let some of the real men get the job done.
I agree and more states ought to become"Right to work" states like FL.. The unions have outlived their usefulness..

Eagle

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Obama out: US President delivers last White Hou... 3 min Three Days 17
News Republicans downplay Trump rally unrest in Cali... 4 min Chilli J 197
News Black Lives Matter* (Oct '15) 5 min slick willie expl... 1,914
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 10 min Earthling-1 58,800
News U.S. President Obama to visit Hiroshima in late... 13 min slick willie expl... 88
News Americans' confidence in economy at 2016 low 15 min Mothra 38
News Voters have trust issues with Hillary Clinton? ... (Jul '15) 23 min True Judgment 5,484
News North Carolina's rush to bigotry 39 min An NFL Fan 1,843
News US currency to feature an African-American for ... 1 hr serfs up 224
News Violence follows California Trump rally, about ... 1 hr cathy1691823 127
Barack Obama, our next president 1 hr Nos TROLL is Waxman 42
More from around the web