Rate Obama's Success on a scale of 1 to 10!

Too early to say for me.

I was not a fan but saw him as the best alternative [although I didn't vote for him].
I don't like some of the things he is doing BUT I think McCain would have been far worse. Palin.

 

Damn you people, stop believing every statistic you see

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter...ups-claim-overwhelming-support-public-option/

 

Okay, the poll your article refers to is NOT the one that I referenced and linked to. Your article clearly indicates it's concerning an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll from June 12-15. It questions the poll because other polls taken at the same time show much lower numbers. My poll is from SurveyUSA on August 19. A lot can happen in two months.

Damn you people, stop believing every headline you see. Actually read the articles.

 

I'm so please this is still a hot topic.

 

It's Cool..... If Barack and the Dems believe that 77% of the American public want to wait in line for Post Office / DMV-style healthcare.....go ahead and ram it down America's throat.

They have the numbers in the House and the Senate. They don't need any independents, republicans or libertarians to support them......Just Do It and stop screwing around !!!

 

I don't think they do.

 

You know that the public option is merely insurance, right? There's no proposal to take over administration of hospitals and clinics. It won't change the way they work any more than any of the insurance companies that already exist do.

With more people being insured, hospitals and clinics will be busier, since there will be more people able to get care. But that'll result in more jobs, and then we've got economic stimulus, too!

 

And besides, why would you think it'd be like the Post Office or the DMV, anyway? It's not like there's not government health care already. Comparing it to Medicare is perfect. Hell, there's even full on single payer government health insurance AND service... the Veterans Administration. Everybody fucking loves Medicare and the VA.

 

It makes one wonder why it took a bill of over 1100 pages to explain that.

Couldn't that be more simply accomplished by allowing any unemployed, or uninsured person needing medical care to state they are uninsured therefore send my bills to the government, and the government could then apply tax increases on those who pay taxes to make necessary adjustments when more is being spent than is being received? Oh, but I guess that's close to what is being done now.

 

20!

 

It's dumb, but hardly unusual. So, what are you saying? There's no way of knowing what's really in there? I've read thousand-page books in a couple or three days, and it wasn't even my job to.

 

I agree that it's dumb, and I made no comment that it was unusual. I was responding to your extremely simplified explanation of the Health care bill being proposed, and if it can be explained in such simple words, it should be written so. I've not found anything contained in it which states anything it will not, nor can not do, and as such it leaves much to the individuals among us to try and interpret what it may allow to be done. As I posted, "It makes one wonder why it took a bill of over 1100 pages to explain that."

I constantly read books or other printed matter, hundreds of pages, and occasionally over one thousand pages long, but seldom do they have direct effect on my life, except when they relate to my tax return. Congress passes laws, and as a Nation of laws, the citizens must abide by and obey them. When laws are not written clearly, or written in ways that allow for variation of interpretation, it allows for the law to be applied inconsistently based on the prevailing interpretation. Laws are essentially a form of contract, and as such such be written in a way that allows for as near universal interpretation as possible.

You don't agree?

 

7.

 

I think that when something matters to a person, there's no way to state it that will be clear enough for them if they don't agree with it or don't want what's going to happen to them if they just stand aside. It's kind of the entire reason we have a judicial system. Not to mention religion.

How clear is this?

A well-armed militia being necessary, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Pretty straight-forward, right? Yet in another thread, I've been arguing whether need (necessity) for guns matters in the argument about gun control. Or why the gun enthusiasts who tout the 2nd amendment stand aside for or support the control of many arms, but when it's guns there's no such thing as reasonable limitations.

 

Well, arms control is important because if anyone with enough money could buy a battleship or an stealth bomber that could be bad.

 

pch. But guns don't count. Unbelievable.

 

Guns can easily be made or obtained even if illegal, and have many practical purposes. Someone snaps and goes to a park with an AK and opens fire 10-15 people die, someone snaps with an F2 or a battleship and thousands of people die

 

Though it should be noted until the 1930's it was perfectly legal for a person to own a tank, a cruiser, whatever, but I don't think anyone ever exercised that freedom

 

Well, now we're getting somewhere. Curbing rights to own stuff that can kill 10-15 people instantly and isn't useful for anything else is A-OK, but thousands would be bad.

At least the line is somewhere...

 

But today even the gun ethusiasts think that it's okay for the only country that's used nuclear weapons to say that they can have them, but no one else can. Hypocricy reaching beyond borders and to the other side of the world.