Desperation is Always Cloaked in Manufactured Crisis
The easiest way to tell a political figure is in freefall is when he creates generational crisis out of whole cloth.
Apparently Obama is not above this silly and frankly embarassingly juvenile technique.
Once again addressing students…
WASHINGTON – Calling health insurance reform a “defining struggle of this generation,” President Barack Obama told thousands of college students Thursday that Congress must resist scare tactics and false accusations to do a makeover.
Health insurance/care reform is not exactly a defining struggle for the over 70% of Americans who are totally content with the healthcare they already have. The same healthcare that will become exponentially more expensive if available at all under Obama’s plan.
The original house bill is dead on arrival; the latest Senate version is a black hole of taxes and restrictive regulation. The Progressives swear to block anything short of a public option and the Blue Dogs vow to block anything close to a public option.
This isn’t a crisis for the American people but it is certainly a crisis for the Democrat party and naturally it is 100% one of their own making. Pelosi is crumbling because she knows she can’t bring a nationalized system home to San Francisco and Harry Ried is already on record against even the greatly diluted current Senate Bill.
All that said, the real crisis is the pressure on Obama. Most Presidents start looking at their legacy in their second term not in their first 9 months but then again most Presidents didn’t write two autobiographies before they had accomplished anything more valuable than a boot full of piss.
Everytime Obama says “this isn’t about me” just reinforces how much it is truly about him.
Obama is a far left Socialist at heart and the economy will always suffer under such policies. He is not a war President and obviously doesn’t want to be. He is beginning to be exposed correctly as weak on foreign policy at least certainly in places like Poland and the Czech Republic.
Cap and Trade was never much more than a scheme to suck up to the enviro-wackos and make friends like Al Gore insanely wealthy. Obama won’t fight hard for it because there isn’t anything in it for him.
Nationalizing healthcare allows him to put a stamp on history. Far more important than the history of the United States is his view of the history of Barack Obama.
Obama knows that he will lose seats next year and possibly enough to cripple his administration’s radical agenda. It’s now or never for Obama to leave his mark.
And honestly that isn’t looking even as salvagable as Jimmy Carter right now.
Category: Politics
When you have nothing left to lose, LIE… THAT is the Obama agenda…
Oops… Does that make me a racist?? 😕
Obama seems to know he’s lost anyone of maturity as he seems to be targeting college students. He has another appearance with students scheduled here:
[On Monday, September 21, 2009, President Barack Obama will visit the Hudson Valley Community College in Troy, New York to tour an emerging technology classroom and give a speech on the economy]
He goes to college so much it would be nice to at least see his grades?
Of course you’ve completely ignored the 45,000 people, some of them hard working, middle class, and yes, white, because I know that matters to some of you, people who died because they couldn’t get the treatment they needed. Almost twice the number killed by drunk drivers. And if one of you loses the genetic lottery, you could be next. But what the hell, 70% of the people are fat and happy. Screw the other 30%…..
Joe–you must be citing stats from Canada for people who can’t get treatment, right?
No, Sparky, I’m quoting recently released study by Harvard. 45,000 dead Americans per year who would have otherwise lived if they had received appropriate health care. But what the heck, dead people tell no tales, right?
That is a very subjective study, Joe. You cannot soley blame lack of healtcare as the cause of death.
Unless, that is what the coronor reported.
As opposed to the 100,000 who die from opportunistic infections while in hospital care, Joe? C’mon–quit cherry-picking your stats. Skye is right.
Skye, I agree to some extent, and am reminded of what George E.P. Box said – “All models are false – some are useful”. The study isn’t perfect, some assuptions were made as is common when doing a study of this magnitude, but it is useful. The basic findings are accurate – many, many thousands of Americans die each year because they can’t afford health care. Would, say, 20,000 dead be acceptable but not 45,000? How would the editors of this website respond if 45,0000 soldiers died unneccessarily each year? Where do you draw the line? BTW, I have a good job and good health insurance, but the idea of a thousand innocent little kids dying who would not otherwise die because we’ve become so self-centered and selfish, well, that’s hard to swallow.
Joe: So, you would insteadlike to see those same 45,000 dead because the government decided their care was too expensive? We have a federal law that states no one will be turned away from receiving care, no matter their ability to pay. You might also want to look at programs that exist for those who can’t afford health insurance, which is Medicaid, or the elderly, which is Medicare. Now,there are also State programs to help, plus, if you’re a kid, there is S-CHIP, which has been getting a lot of funding. So; tell me again why we need the gummint to control health insurance for the rest of us?
Come back after you have looked at all the numbers, not just one picked out of one study by Harvard (which I look at with suspicion since they produced someone like Obama).
Old Trooper,
Here’s one number you can’t argue with – we spend fully 31% of every health care dollar on administrative costs. That’s money going to paper pushers and lawyers. Canada spends 1% of every health care dollar on administrative costs. That is a lot of frickin’ wasted money on our part. Get rid of the crazy quilt of inscrutable programs and just give us universal health care. And by the way Old Trooper, in Canada they do not have “government run” health care, they have universal government-paid insurance – big difference. The doctors are still in private practice, they don’t work for or take orders from the government, and they can do what they do best – take care of people and honor their hippocratic oath, instead of filling out paperwork, and then they send the bill to the government. The government doesn’t “run” health care, it just pays to keep its citizens healthy – all of them.
Joe–two words: tort reform.
You don’t have to attempt to sell me on Canadian healthcare. I have witnessed it in action, personally. First off, you obviously are a Canadien that is on here defending your healthcare system. If you want to keep yours, fine, but then tell the rest of your folks to stay on their side of the border and bask in the glorious healthcare system that you love. I don’t need to see anymore Canada license plates at clinics on my side of the border, mmmmkay? As for all that top rate care…….Well, like I said, I have witnessed it personally. I especially liked when I heard the Canadian healthcare worker say to the person I was standing with “just go back home and have your arm fixed, because we can’t look at it this week”. That was because funds were tight. Also, talking with a nurse and Doctor, who came here to do their jobs, instead of staying in the Canadian system. They didn’t paint as rosey of a picture as you. I wonder why? As for taking orders from the government? Oh, they most certainly do. I don’t know where you get your information, but everything you are saying goes against everything I have seen and heard. Now; who should I believe? You, or my lying eyes and ears?
Maybe you can explain to me, if their system is so rotten, why was Tommy Douglas, the founding father of the modern Canadian health care system, voted the “Greatest Canadian” in a survey by the CBC?
Joe Says: “Maybe you can explain to me, if their system is so rotten, why was Tommy Douglas, the founding father of the modern Canadian health care system, voted the “Greatest Canadian” in a survey by the CBC?”
The statement above brings up a couple of questions/observations.
1. Is founding modern Canadian health care the only achievement of this Tommy Douglas? Or has he done other things to bring his popularity to the fore?
2. You say that the CBC did the survey? Among their liberal audience?
It is simple- Canucks that can afford to come across the border for any major healthcare when possible.
Still drinking that spoiled Kool-ade, eh?
“Learned all I need to know about Islam on 9/11?
That’s like Barack Obama being voted “Man of the Year” in a survey by the New York Times/CNN/MSNBC. What’s your point?
“He is beginning to be exposed correctly as weak on foreign policy at least certainly in places like Poland and the Czech Republic.”
LOL. I heard on FOX today that when Hillary called to Poland, nobody would take the call …
Assuming the study Joe is quoting has valid numbers (which is a shaky assumption), there is one major question that is unasked. How many of those 45000 would have done and received healthcare if it was available? That would mean none were drug addicts, alcoholics, homeless, or in any other way likely to not get treated anyway. As to the thousands of children that die every year, how many come from a supportive home that care enough to make sure they receive care? Let’s trim these groups from your 45,000 and see how many we have left.
Reading all these posts, debating whether it’s OK for 45,000 people to die for having no affordable insurance, or maybe only 20,000, or even a mere 10,000, I guess I have a hard time understanding how a bunch of guys and women who would unselfishly risk, or even sacrifice, their lives for Americans, all Americans, can be so unsympathetic towards the medical and financial plight of those same Americans. It would seem that protecting Americans from harm while serving is different than caring about their welfare once you’re back over here. Back on these shores, it’s every man (family?) for himself, kind of like a war without the guns. A very effective form of Social Darwinism – just wait long enough and the poor will die off, as they so richly deserve.
I’ve read quotes from number of Canadian citizens – one unanticipated benefit of their universal health care system is a sense of national unity, a sense that we’re all in this together, that we’re big enough to take care of our brothers (yeah, even if they’re drug addicts). We’ll never have to worry about that happening down here – in fact at this point I think a civil war is more likely than any kind of empathy or cooperation……
Once again, Joe–how many Canadians, Brits, et al, die every year from shoddy or inadequate medical care in those countries? What’s the cancer survial rates in those countries compared to the US? (Hint: lower.) And the only reason a “civil war” would be more likely to occur is that those who do are getting sick and tired of those not who can’t, but who are too lazy to get off their asses and do for themselves.