Within House of House Health Care Legislation Passing, President Thanks Supporters, Asks for Money

Insurance companies are NOT the reason for high premiums. Their profit margin runs lower than Taco bell.

listen carefully:

DEFENSIVE MEDICINE, PRACTICED TO AVOID OVER ZEALOUS LAWSUITS ARE THE REASON. FRIVOLOUS LAW SUITS ARE THE REASON, MALPRACTICE INSURANCE IN THE REASON.

Will O address ANY of these issues? NO
Why? Because lowering costs is NOT THE GOAL. POWER GRAB IS THE GOAL.

Second graders could see this, second graders...come on people, wake up.

tierra...Obama is the President not a blogger...People look toward him for leadership in guiding this country in unifying all opinions in a respectful manner.....Just a thought...

Seems to me we, as a country, are already divisive enough without adding fuel to the fire.

Posted by: Parallex View | Nov 9, 2009 1:56:37 PM
_________________________________

The right wing post some of the most mean spirited, most demonizing, most divisive comments against the President (and Democrats) ever seen on these blogs - they do it consistently and repeatedly.

So now we know, they're not only damaging the unity of the country, they're complete hypocrites.

JUST WATCH the juvenile insults, name calling and demonizing done to the President (and the Democrats) on these blogs - and you'll know.

tierra. pot meet kettle.

Insurance companies are NOT the reason for high premiums. Their profit margin runs lower than Taco bell.

listen carefully:

DEFENSIVE MEDICINE, PRACTICED TO AVOID OVER ZEALOUS LAWSUITS ARE THE REASON. FRIVOLOUS LAW SUITS ARE THE REASON, MALPRACTICE INSURANCE IN THE REASON.

Will O address ANY of these issues? NO
Why? Because lowering costs is NOT THE GOAL. POWER GRAB IS THE GOAL.

Second graders could see this, second graders...come on people, wake up.

I protested, my friends and neighbors protested, my work mates protested....Lydia, what are you talking about?

Folks, keep in mind that people protesting the health care reform here can very well be profiting from the system as it stands. There are a lot of health insurance execs, people who own stock in these companies, etc. that want thing to stay the same for their own profits, despite the fact things as they are now are so bad for Americans. (those who can't afford insurance and those who struggle to meet the every higher premiums and those who face bankruptcy after a serious illness when the medical bills pour in that their insurance just doesn't cover.)

Seems to me we, as a country, are already divisive enough without adding fuel to the fire.
_________________________________

The right wing post some of the most mean spirited, most demonizing, most divisive comments against the President (and Democrats) ever seen on these blogs - they do it consistently and repeatedly.

So now we know, they're not only damaging the unity of the country, they're complete hypocrites.

My dear...No, I do not believe Obama uses the term fight in a threatening physical way; however, he is using the term in "us vs. them" and who knows what may result..Seems to me we, as a country, are already divisive enough without adding fuel to the fire..He is the President of the United States and needs to conduct himself in a professional manner..He is now labeling tea party rally participants as "anti-government." This does give me pause for concern................

I'm all for "fighting" back. But I realize if you're on the same side as the insurance industry and status quo, one would feel differently about it.
Posted by: Alyson | Nov 9, 2009 9:39:19 AM

Don't misinterpret what I'm saying; I'm fine with a fight. And if the President is going to push his agenda with strong rhetoric, the least the "diluters" could do on this blog is recognize it for what it is and stop making excuses for it. Instead I heard this as a response:
__________________________________

fight (one's way) through (something)
1. to struggle to get through something; to struggle to penetrate something.
2. to struggle to work through all of something.
___________________________________

Please. This is a man who came through the Chicago political machine and all that it entails. It's a street fight, make no mistake.

Others said he refers to the "fight" more ore less as the "struggle." I believe it is more than that.

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | Nov 9, 2009 9:25:29 AM

***

Ah. Well, I think "fight" can be a pretty broad term. Usually when you want to change things, or press for reform , one with any experience in such things expects a "fight." I was just reading in FT (Financial Times) about the insurance lobby ratcheting up efforts to shape the debate and slow down or derail reform. And fight language was used in the article. "Karen Ignagni, head of AHIP, warned that it would be a much tougher battle to push reform through the Senate in the weeks ahead." Having worked for the insurance and managed care industries-- with a boss that flew to DC every weekend when Hillary was working on health care reform in the 90s-- to "battle", spending tons of money, I'm all for "fighting" back. But I realize if you're on the same side as the insurance industry and status quo, one would feel differently about it.

Posted by: Alyson | Nov 9, 2009 1:41:52 AM

We were discussing the use and nuances of the word "fight" and how he uses it. Just adding some context from the man himself. The discussion started with my mentioning his divisive speech in Minnesota about HC and I didn't think as President he should be employing us vs them rhetoric. He should make more of an effort to represent all Americans - not just the ones who agree with him. Others said he refers to the "fight" more ore less as the "struggle." I believe it is more than that.

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | Nov 9, 2009 12:47:41 AM

_________

Most progressives, and populists, conservative and liberal, complain about the entrenched special interests and want the government to fight against being in their pocket. Or they give such things lip service. I'm not sure what your problem is with that, unless you work for one of the entrenched special interests.

Both sides campaigned on it in the Presidential election. So continuing the fight is in keeping with campaign promises.

If you'd prefer our politicians to be in the pockets of sugar daddies, that's fine-- but most Americans don't seem to share that view. And if you later complain that the admin isn't doing enough about lobbyists and transparency, you'll come across as a raging hypocrite (which is certainly your perogative and likely not a first.)

Pardon a slight digression but the only fellow I ever met who refused to pay income taxes and didn't end up in jail did so by claiming that he never accepted a SS number.
Posted by Skip
********
Ever hear the name Tim Geithner??

Posted by: wheresmymoney | Nov 9, 2009 12:25:06 AM

Sweeeeet!

"In other words, I know these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak.

"My message to them is this: So am I."

Just plucked this quote out of Jake's archives from Feb. Fighting words from the President in weekly radio address - from the same one who told his supporters to "get in their faces." So keep arguing semantics. I'll keep quoting the man himself.

Pardon a slight digression but the only fellow I ever met who refused to pay income taxes and didn't end up in jail did so by claiming that he never accepted a SS number.
Posted by Skip
********
Ever hear the name Tim Geithner??

Where in our original documents does it say this is constitutionally legal?

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | Nov 8, 2009 9:39:53 PM

***

I'm always curious about this: Where in our original documents does it limit the legislative branch in such a way as to suggest that it is not legal for the Congress to create acts such as the Social Security Administration act, or the Medicare Act, or a health care reform act. I'm always rather gobsmacked by the conservative necassumption that unless explicit text directly authorizes a legislative enactment, then Congress lacks the power to pass the law. It strikes me a an absurdly unsupportable view of the Constitution-- which isn't a very long document. On purpose.

More specifically, Article I of the Constitution contains the "necessary and proper" clause, which endows Congress with unenumerated powers that are needed to carry out its expressly delegated powers. In McCulloch v. Maryland, the first case interpreting this provision, the Supreme Court rejected the narrow interpretation offered by anti-federalists.

NOTHING in the history of the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Supreme Court's interpretation of it suggests an exclusively narrow interpretation.

"In your opinion, does SSI circumvent the Constitution or not?"

Pardon a slight digression but the only fellow I ever met who refused to pay income taxes and didn't end up in jail did so by claiming that he never accepted a SS number. The IRS gave him quite a fight but last I heard he was still a free man. He used to give seminars about how income taxes and SS are linked and are both completely unconstitutional. Apparently you waive your right to challenge paying income taxes when you accept a SS number. As for me I never claimed to be a lawyer so while I am aware that there are those who say SS is not constitutional I have no reason to believe so.

So you not only lack the integrity to be able to back up allegations . . . you're also respond by behaving in a juvenile fashion.

Posted by: tierra | Nov 8, 2009 9:46:09 PM
_____________________________________

Making allegations against somebody and not having the class to back up those allegations . . . shameful and morally weak.

fight could also allude to a an attempt to gain power or to harm through blows, verbal or physical, and or weapons...

Posted by: Parallex View | Nov 8, 2009 9:37:22 PM

Parallex View, it "could" allude to that, but does it? Do you really deep down think so? If so, we deeply and dramatically disagree. Back in my cheerleading days we used to yell out cheers about "fighting" but we actually just wanted to win a football game. I've "fought" to stay awake and it had nothing to do with physical harm. In fact, if I happened to be driving at the time, the fight to stay awake was intended to do just the opposite. In this case, many of us are fighting to do what we believe with all our hearts is the right, the good, the noble, the compassionate and caring thing to do for all Americans. We understand that others think differently, but we think they're wrong-- not "bad" but wrong.