posted March 24, 2010 11:28 PM         

The reason was because the county was required to provide it even for retirees, and the retirees were on expensive medication. Because of this, more had to be charge and expenses cut or the plan would collapse.

Now she's terrified because we have a very irresponsible country, the boomers are increasingly getting on meds, the drug companies are big winners on this and advertise gleefully on TV, and it's being run from private insurance giants whose goal is to make money.

I tried comforting her as she's terrified of what's going to come of this, but I really couldn't think of much to say that was comforting.

posted March 24, 2010 11:43 PM         

Go to Global Unity 2.0 page 7. You posted an article calling Obama a Liberal Fascist. And how about this quote:

At least liberal entertainers are predictable, in a fog and foul mouthed

As for the reason entertainers tend towards liberalism, I would point out to you that the brain dead have to associate themselves with some group. Where else could they go but to others of like "mind".
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000762.html

See? You are impressionable. It took someone calling themselves "liberal" who then decided to switch sides to convince you that you, in fact, like Liberals. Still, most Liberals in this country identify themselves as Democrats.

As I said in my previous post, however, the point is moot. The singular person interested in your labels is you. No one else cares. No one cares that your label of Liberal doesn't match Liberals label of Liberal.

posted March 25, 2010 09:13 AM         

I know why they do so.

For the leftist fellow travelers in the so called MSM, it's done to give these radicals the cover they need to make everyone think they're part of the broad minded, considerate Liberal set but, they're not.

For those who are conservative writers or speakers, these Marxists radicals have been misidentified so long, by themselves and the MSM, that conservatives would need to insert a qualifier in every article or speech where they use Liberal to make it clear they're not talking about Marxist, Socialist, Progressives....or, visa versa.

In fact, Liberals should be exceedingly pi$sed that these radical leftist Marxist, Socialist Progressives have polluted their brand.

As for myself, I made that distinction very clear long ago when I found I was hurting the feelings of true Liberals here. True Liberals like LibraSparkle and some others.

I've written to some conservative writers and speakers on that subject. I've noticed that over time, they've started identifying O'Bomber and the hardcore leftist radical Marxist Socialist Progressive comrades with whom O'Bomber surrounds himself as exactly what they are.

Just so we're clear acoustic; you're not one of those true Liberals. You're one of the leftist extremists. Though you like to describe yourself as a middle of the road moderate, you're not. Well, perhaps you would be a middle of the road moderate in the former Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela or North Korea; but not here in the United States.

posted March 25, 2010 10:45 AM         

The rest of your post smells so much of conspiracy theory I'm amazed that you attempt to pull it off with a straight face.

Listen, the only person mislabelling things in these parts is you. You can't say that the majority, whom use liberal to mean Democrat, are the ones who are wrong about the use of the term. The guy using an alternate definition of the word is the one that's in the wrong.

And don't even try to imply that these people are more polite than anyone you'd deem to be outside that group. That's rather blatant manipulation, that in exchange for being nice to you (whilst you rant and rave in the most impolite fashion), you'll label a Democrat a Liberal rather than a Marxist/Socialist/Progressive whatever. I don't go for unreasoned ideas, and this one is quite a ways outside the realm of reason.

LibraSparkle called you out for your behavior, too. That she did so in a nicer way is only testament to her Libra-ness. Have you ever spoken to her away from this site? I have. And I bet she's still on my instand messenger list as well. She'd certainly side with me over you politically any day of the week.

posted March 25, 2010 11:00 AM         

i'm sorry but this is an oxymoron. liberalism (of ANY breed) and fascism do not sit in the same pew, magoo!! get your glasses fixed...

i am glad to hear that behind the vicious, petty, spiteful facade there is a heart that cares about whether SOME people's feelings are hurt. pity you can't see behind the labels and realize we are all human and what you are pushing is going to be a bloodbath if people don't get wise very soon.

you think you are going to end "the tyranny" but unless you are planning all out revolution, which will get most of us killed!! and i don't mean just lefties, but you, and everyone stuck in the middle too...you are going to have to VOTe and according to the last election there are quite a few people left of rush limbaugh in this country, and they all voted for the democrats.,

ever ask yourself why? could it be they are so disgusted and downright scared of the venom and malice spewing out of the "right" that they had no other choice? how many people didn't vote independent because they were afraid the republicans would win and rush's minions would get in?

posted March 25, 2010 11:38 AM         

Almost all the "regular old democrats" threw up on their shoes over the Socialist infestation in the former Democratic Party and left to become Republicans or Independents.

I've said what I said I said about the differences between Liberals and radical leftist Socialist Progressives. What I said is true and I've said it many times here.

So now, if you who are those radical leftists posing as Liberals wish to contest this issue, I'll happily rub your leftist noses in your own bullshiiit.

Liberal position:

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Leftist position:

"You can't say that, shut up."

In fact, leftists are forever attempting to shut up all who disagree with them.

posted March 25, 2010 12:33 PM         

i wish i could say i wholeheartedly support this administration, but i don't. however they WERE elected and short of instigating numerous "assassinations" they will be there for awhile. i don't understand the refusal to work WITH instead of placing the innocent population in jeopardy. you are not following this to its logical conclusion - especially given the looming astrological configurations - OR you don't care about the rank and file citizen.

posted March 25, 2010 12:47 PM         

quote:

---

They proved that when DNC and radical leftists manipulated the primary vote to deprive Hillary of the nomination.

---

The DNC did no such thing. There were rules put in place that Hillary agreed to. You're 100% wrong on this. We've been over this.

quote:

---

I've said what I said I said about the differences between Liberals and radical leftist Socialist Progressives. What I said is true and I've said it many times here.

---

It's not true. Your declaration of something being true does NOT make it true. What's true is what's observable. What I've said all along is observable. Anyone could do a search of the news for the term Liberal, and in all cases where it's used in reference to a person it'll always be a Democrat.

quote:

---

That's you acoustic. Remind us acoustic. How many times did you...and other leftists here run to Randall attempting to shut those up with whom you disagreed?

---

posted March 25, 2010 01:40 PM         

makes sense

Political repercussions

President Johnson speaks to a television camera at the signing of the Civil Rights Act.

The bill divided and engendered a long-term change in the demographics of both parties. President Johnson realized that supporting this bill would risk losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party. Both Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Vice President Johnson had pushed for the introduction of the civil rights legislation. Johnson told Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway."[18] Senator Richard Russell, Jr. warned President Johnson that his strong support for the civil rights bill "will not only cost you the South, it will cost you the election."[19] The South indeed started to vote increasingly Republican after 1964. However, political scientists Richard Johnston and Byron Schafer have argued that this development was based more on economics than on race.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Raymond

------------------
"Nothing matters absolutely;
the truth is it only matters relatively"

posted March 25, 2010 06:27 PM         

a summary of the bill.

i heard on the radio that there is an opt-out clause for the states if they wish to do so. bye bye those protests about states rights in this matter. i haven't found the online "proof" but i'm still looking!!

oh and that dastardly fine for not getting on a plan? $55/mo. a lot less than my car insurance. you may say why should you have to pay? because the insurance companies need EVERYONE"S money to make it worth their while!! and THAT is the reason for the mandate in the first place, to keep the lobbyists down to a quiet roar over this whole thing.

__________________________________

posted March 25, 2010 07:40 PM         

"Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has a message for all the attorneys general and Republican lawmakers who are threatening lawsuits and claiming that an individual mandate for insurance coverage is unconstitutional: You don't have to abide by it -- just set up your own plan.

The Oregon Democrat isn't inviting opponents to defy the newly-enacted health care law. Instead, he's pointing out a provision in the bill that makes moot the argument over the legality of the individual mandate.

Speaking to the Huffington Post on Tuesday, Wyden discussed -- for one of the first times in public -- legislative language he authored which "allows a state to go out and do its own bill, including having no individual mandate."

It's called the "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment. And it would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system -- with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option -- provided that, as Wyden puts it, "they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill."

"Why don't you use the waiver provision to let you go set up your own plan?" the senator asked those who threaten health-care-related lawsuits. "Why would you just say you are going to sue everybody, when this bill gives you the authority and the legal counsel is on record as saying you can do it without an individual mandate?"

The provision actually was taken directly from Wyden's Healthy Americans Act -- the far-more innovative health care reform legislation he authored with Republican co-sponsors. In that bill there is also an individual mandate that would require Americans to purchase insurance coverage. But states that found the mandate objectionable could simply create and insert a new system in its place. All it would require is applying for a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services, which has a 180-day window to confirm or deny such a waiver.

That language has been inserted, almost verbatim, into the bill Obama signed into law on Tuesday. And if there is any confusion about how much leverage it gives states to drop the mandate, Wyden cleared it up months ago during a hearing at the Senate Finance Committee.

"So let us review how the waiver language works now, because my reading of what we have in the bill now is, if a state can demonstrate that they can meet the criteria -- particularly on cost containment, improving the delivery system -- they can do it without an individual mandate," the senator said at the time. "And can I ask counsel, is that a correct reading of the Waiver Amendment that I offered the chairman has accepted at this point?"

and yes its from huffypost but it directly quotes the man who wrote it...
_______________________________________

and from the christian forum:

Your State Can Opt Out of Healthcare

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's called the "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment. And it would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system -- with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option -- provided that "they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill."

Under the above amendment, your state has the option to not require everyone to purchase heathcare.

The attorney generals sueing the government really need to read the bill before wasting money. Then again, it is publicity on a national scale. that would be hard to pay for normally.
_______________________________________

the christians aptly point out how much money is going to be wasted suing on this point just to make themselves look "more constitutional than the government" AND how it demonstrates that these folks haven't READ the bill they are so afraid of. what a turn-up!!

posted March 26, 2010 04:45 AM         

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/315813,fidel-castro-salutes-obamas-health-care-reform-as-success.html

Havana - Historic Cuban leader Fidel Castro saluted the US health care reform promoted by US President Barack Obama, and described its approval as a "success" - if a somewhat belated one.

In an article under Castro's name that Cuban state media published Thursday, the elderly communist leader said the political wrangling that preceded the approval of the bill late Sunday in the House of Representatives was "an important battle."

However, Castro, 83, under whose leadership Cuba lays claim to having developed a model system for training doctors and delivering health care to all, chided the United States for taking so long to get around to it.

"It seems like something really unheard of that (the US) government has approved medical attention for the immense majority of its citizens 234 years after the declaration of independence, in Philadelphia in the year 1776," Castro said.

Cuba already reached that feat "half-a-century ago despite the cruel and inhumane blockade that is still in place and was imposed on it by the most powerful country there ever was," he added.

Not one to deliver unqualified praise of the US, Castro used the opportunity to up the stakes. He called for the US to pay attention to climate change and reform its immigration rules.

Obama was "an unquestionably intelligent and sufficiently well-informed person," Castro wrote. But the US leader also needed to "see how far his country is from the model it preaches for humanity."

Castro did not mention the comments that Obama made Wednesday, describing the Cuban government's recent actions against political dissidents as "deeply disturbing."

"Today, I join my voice with brave individuals across Cuba and a growing chorus around the world in calling for an end to the repression, for the immediate, unconditional release of all political prisoners in Cuba, and for respect for the basic rights of the Cuban people," Obama said.

posted March 26, 2010 12:18 PM         

i'm not going to tell you how much better it is over "there" wherever that is. but i have said and probably will again, that life in those countries we might consider socialist, or more so than ourselves, is not uniformly depressing, restricted or any of the fearful things they are often painted on this board and in the conservative chatrooms around the country.

posted March 26, 2010 01:01 PM         

Obama's healthcare win could boost foreign policy
1:05am EDT
By Jeff Mason - Analysis

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's domestic success on healthcare reform may pay dividends abroad as the strengthened U.S. leader taps his momentum to take on international issues with allies and adversaries.

More than a dozen foreign leaders have congratulated Obama on the new healthcare law in letters and phone calls, a sign of how much attention the fight for his top domestic policy priority received in capitals around the world.

Analysts and administration officials were cautious about the bump Obama could get from such a win: Iran is not going to rethink its nuclear program and North Korea is not going to return to the negotiating table simply because more Americans will get health insurance in the coming years, they said.

But the perception of increased clout, after a rocky first year that produced few major domestic or foreign policy victories, could generate momentum for Obama's agenda at home and in his talks on a host of issues abroad.

"It helps him domestically and I also think it helps him internationally that he was able to win and get through a major piece of legislation," said Stephen Hadley, former national security adviser to Republican President George W. Bush.

"It shows political strength, and that counts when dealing with foreign leaders."

Obama's deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said the Democratic president's persistence in the long healthcare battle added credibility to his rhetoric on climate change, nuclear nonproliferation and other foreign policy goals.

"It sends a very important message about President Obama as a leader," Rhodes told Reuters during an interview in his West Wing office.

"The criticism has been: (He) sets big goals but doesn't close the deal. So, there's no more affirmative answer to that criticism than closing the biggest deal you have going."

Foreign policy dividends have been minimal in the short amount of time since he signed the healthcare bill into law on Tuesday.

Exhibit A: a one-on-one meeting this week between Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, a country that closely tracks U.S. domestic policy, yielded little sign of a breakthrough in a dispute over Jewish housing construction on occupied land in Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem.

A FOREIGN POLICY SUCCESS, TOO

Still, some specific foreign policy successes are looming.

U.S. and Russian officials say Washington and Moscow are close to announcing an agreement on a nuclear arms reduction treaty, which would require a two-thirds majority in the U.S. Senate for ratification.

Some analysts said Russia was watching Obama's domestic successes and failures throughout the process.

"I think there were some in the Kremlin saying, 'how strong is he? If he can't get some of these things through, does that give us more leverage to push him on arms control?'" said Steven Pifer, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and now a senior fellow at the Washington-based Brookings Institution.

Administration officials played down a connection between healthcare and talks with Russia on the START nuclear arms treaty, though Rhodes said the processes that led to success on both issues were similar.

"Like healthcare, the START treaty has been a negotiation where at times we seemed very close to getting a deal done and then there were huge roadblocks," Rhodes said, crediting Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for sticking it out.

"So, it was a similar narrative of persistence, of refusing to throw in the towel at times when he could have."

Foreign leaders have noted the persistence.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown were among the leaders who congratulated Obama, and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak said the healthcare win would have a positive impact abroad, according to White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.

Analysts said the bill's passage showed Obama could deliver votes for domestic legislation with foreign policy components, such as rules to fight climate change, currently stalled in the Senate, which European leaders are eager to see advance.

James Lindsay, senior vice president at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, who was skeptical that Obama's healthcare win would have a huge foreign policy benefit, said the law did free up the president to focus less on purely domestic issues.

"If the president had lost on healthcare, it would have further sapped his popularity as president, requiring him to spend even more time on domestic affairs and left him with less time to devote to foreign policy," he said.

"That's not the same as saying that because the healthcare bill has passed that the Iranians are going to be more pliable in their nuclear program, that the Israelis are going to rethink their settlement policy or the Chinese are going to become more agreeable on currency issues."

(Editing by Xavier Briand)

posted March 26, 2010 04:23 PM         

President Obama can be very stubborn with Sun,Mercury in Leo along with Aquarius Ascendant whose ruler Uranus is in Leo. His Lunar Nodes are in Leo/Aquarius.

He has Mars trine Saturn and Venus contraparallel Saturn, and that can indicate the ability to be disciplined to the point of persevering.

He has Mercury parallel Pluto,and that can indicate the focus greatly on something.
Jupiter contraparallels the Mercury-Pluto parallel, and so expands that ability to focus. It can be great for being optimistic that leads to be focused. I think it's a great configuration for a politician.

if you look at his aspects and midpoints, he was born to be a reformer

He has Uranus conjunct/oppose Lunar Nodes, and so associations involve making changes. Midheaven squares all that. Aim of life involve being associated with change.

Uranus conjunct Sun/Pluto midpoint and Ascendant oppose Sun/Uranus midpoint are good for reform.

He has Sun trine/contraparallel Eris.

in the dictionary, reformer is a synonym for eristic.

Raymond

------------------
"Nothing matters absolutely;
the truth is it only matters relatively"

posted March 27, 2010 08:39 AM         

quote:

---

Why don't you ask Randall, idiot? I've never asked Randall to do anything about you. Not a single time...acoustic

---

Imbecile!

I never said you asked Randall to do anything about me...but you sure did join in when others were sucking their thumbs and whining to Randall about Pid and others here, asking for them to be banned.

From memory acoustic. You said if so and so got banned..for overt racial or gender remarks...then so should others. But, those others were not making those kinds of remarks.

I understand the angst of leftists here.

It was so much more fun when leftists had the field to themselves and were getting high fives for posting pictures of Bush dressed up like Hitler, dressed up like Satan, Bush in a dunce cap, attacking Bush on the essence of his being...instead of commenting on his political and policy decisions.

Then, some conservatives and rational people showed up here and delivered some biattch slaps to some leftist heads and the whining and thumb sucking began.

I know leftists long for the return of the good old days. It's not happening acoustic.

Btw, it was you acoustic who called Bush a "murderer".

posted March 27, 2010 12:22 PM         

I also don't know how you think you've delivered any bitchslapping here over the years. Ranting and raving like a lunatic while misunderstanding the causes and effects of things never put you in a real powerful position. Your attempts at bullying were occasionally successful here and there, but trying to be a bully only really garners animosity. Your attempts at being an "authority" figure here have been somewhat successful with Conservative minds, but still most people see through your tactics and lack of logic.

posted March 28, 2010 04:20 AM         

Obama health insurance requirement taken from GOP

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – Sat Mar 27, 7:49 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed.

Republicans say Obama and the Democrats co-opted their original concept, minus a mechanism they proposed for controlling costs. More than a dozen GOP attorneys general are determined to challenge the requirement in federal court as unconstitutional.

Starting in 2014, the new law will require nearly all Americans to have health insurance through an employer, a government program or by buying it directly. That year, new insurance markets will open for business, health plans will be required to accept all applicants and tax credits will start flowing to millions of people, helping them pay the premiums.

Those who continue to go without coverage will have to pay a penalty to the IRS, except in cases of financial hardship. Fines vary by income and family size. For example, a single person making $45,000 would pay an extra $1,125 in taxes when the penalty is fully phased in, in 2016.

Conservatives today say that's unacceptable. Not long ago, many of them saw a national mandate as a free-market route to guarantee coverage for all Americans — the answer to liberal ambitions for a government-run entitlement like Medicare. Most experts agree some kind of requirement is needed in a reformed system because health insurance doesn't work if people can put off joining the risk pool until they get sick.

In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon favored a mandate that employers provide insurance. In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement. Not anymore.

"The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea," said health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. In 1991, he published a paper that explained how a mandate could be combined with tax credits — two ideas that are now part of Obama's law. Pauly's paper was well-received — by the George H.W. Bush administration.

"It could have been the basis for a bipartisan compromise, but it wasn't," said Pauly. "Because the Democrats were in favor, the Republicans more or less had to be against it."

Obama rejected a key part of Pauly's proposal: doing away with the tax-free status of employer-sponsored health care and replacing it with a standard tax credit for all Americans. Labor strongly opposes that approach because union members usually have better-than-average coverage and suddenly would have to pay taxes on it. But many economists believe it's a rational solution to America's health care dilemma since it would raise enough money to cover the uninsured and nudge people with coverage into cost-conscious plans.

Romney's success in Massachusetts with a bipartisan health plan that featured a mandate put the idea on the table for the 2008 presidential candidates.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who failed in the 1990s to require employers to offer coverage, embraced the individual requirement, an idea advocated by her Republican opponents in the earlier health care debate.

"Hillary Clinton believed strongly in universal coverage," said Neera Tanden, her top health care adviser in the 2008 Democratic campaign. "I said to her, 'You are not going to be able to say it's universal coverage unless you have a mandate.' She said, 'I don't want to run unless it's universal coverage.'"

Obama was not prepared to go that far. His health care proposal in the campaign required coverage for children, not adults. Clinton hammered him because his plan didn't guarantee coverage for all. He shot back that health insurance is too expensive to force people to buy it.

Obama remained cool to an individual requirement even once in office. But Tanden, who went on to serve in the Obama administration, said the first sign of a shift came in a letter to congressional leaders last summer in which Obama said he'd be open to the idea if it included a hardship waiver. Obama openly endorsed a mandate in his speech to a joint session of Congress in September.

It remains one of the most unpopular parts of his plan. Even the insurance industry is unhappy. Although the federal government will be requiring Americans to buy their products — and providing subsidies worth billions — insurers don't think the penalties are high enough.

Tanden, now at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, says she's confident the mandate will work. In Massachusetts, coverage has gone up and only a tiny fraction of residents have been hit with fines.

Brown, whose election to replace the late Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy almost led to the collapse of Obama's plan, said his opposition to the new law is over tax increases, Medicare cuts and federal overreach on a matter that should be left up to states. Not so much the requirement, which he voted for as a state lawmaker.

posted March 29, 2010 09:34 PM         

quote:

---

so the fact that fidel castro approves means we are now living in cuba?does not compute i'm afraid...

---

katatonic

Perhaps it doesn't compute because you are putting words in my mouth; and a rather poor interpretation, at that.

Personally, I find it interesting on multiple levels that Castro would praise this plan ... but I never hollered about the U.S. becoming communists. Please refrain from projecting your own assumptions about others onto me. There is no way to have a civilized discussion without trying to ACTUALLY understand what someone else is saying. And if you don't know, ask.

BTW, I know plenty of Brits who are sorely disappointed with the direction of their healthcare system. Guess what? A handful of people doesn't account for a thorough perspective or understanding EITHER way.

And I can't imagine how simplistic a mindset one must have in order to assume that anyone who doesn't back this PARTICULAR plan does not support healthcare reform at all. The world is not black and white; forgive me for assuming that fact to be common knowledge.

AG

posted March 29, 2010 11:49 PM         

*whisper* but your premiums will be more expensive.