Started By
Message
1
Posted on 1/13/17 at 9:30 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
Despite his best efforts, America is still great.
If he hadn't been so dedicated to wealth redistribution, I think he would be regarded by history as one of the better presidents. He raised America's status with the world's other nations, except for Russia. He reopened the Cuba market, emancipated the gays and had Osama bin Laden executed.
Except for that big wealth redistribution stinker, all in all not a bad job.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 9:48 pm to Kentucker
Greatest transfer of wealth in history -- to the 1%.
I'm sure you were thinking of it in those terms.
Wealth inequality increased. Poverty rose. The rich got richer.
I'm sure you were thinking of it in those terms.
Wealth inequality increased. Poverty rose. The rich got richer.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 10:42 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Greatest transfer of wealth in history -- to the 1%.
I'm sure you were thinking of it in those terms.
Wealth inequality increased. Poverty rose. The rich got richer.
The last 6 months Obama was telling me that he did a great job and the economy has been awesome under him and that I would be dumb if I didn't recognize what a great job he did.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 11:48 pm to Kentucker
quote:
He raised America's status with the world's other nations,
Except he did the opposite of this and weakened our military besides.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 11:49 pm to Sleeping Tiger
DP, dammit.
This post was edited on 1/13/17 at 11:51 pm
Posted on 1/13/17 at 11:50 pm to Sleeping Tiger
So you don't consider the Affordable Care Act to be wealth redistribution?
Posted on 1/14/17 at 12:37 am to Kentucker
quote:
So you don't consider the Affordable Care Act to be wealth redistribution?
The ACA is really only that in name. It's branding.
The act was always designed to benefit the big public health care companies and the banks and wall-street.
Profits have soared for the insurance companies thanks to their demand that bills to pursue ways to lower the cost of health care would be taken off the table.
Posted on 1/14/17 at 10:47 am to Sleeping Tiger
Okay, the big health companies benefit but who was to pay those companies? The intent of the ACA was to provide healthcare for those who could not afford it. It obviously wasn't meant to lower health costs. That left one group to pay the bills, taxpayers. It was essentially a wild expansion of Medicaid-type healthcare.
I think it's amusing that the Republicans think they can come up with a "better version" of
healthcare for the "poor." They have to set a path between one group who want something-for-nothing and another, very powerful, lobby that sees great opportunity at the expense of the taxpayer. Gosh, I wonder what the outcome will be?
I think it's amusing that the Republicans think they can come up with a "better version" of
healthcare for the "poor." They have to set a path between one group who want something-for-nothing and another, very powerful, lobby that sees great opportunity at the expense of the taxpayer. Gosh, I wonder what the outcome will be?
Posted on 1/14/17 at 12:27 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Okay, the big health companies benefit but who was to pay those companies? The intent of the ACA was to provide healthcare for those who could not afford it. It obviously wasn't meant to lower health costs.
“So this law means more choice, more competition, lower costs for millions of Americans.” -- October 1, 2013.
“[W]hatever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve and starting to reduce costs for families, businesses, and government, those elements are in this bill.” The White House, Office of the Press Secretary -- December 15, 2009.
“In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.” --Senator Obama, June 5, 2008.
“You should know that once we have fully implemented, you’re going to be able to buy insurance through a pool so that you can get the same good rates as a group that if you’re an employee at a big company you can get right now -- which means your premiums will go down." --President Obama, July 16, 2012.
I have no doubt in my mind that they believed their own bullshite, and all the concessions they made to the healthcare companies would be overridden by their optimism for how great of a system they believed they were implementing.
Posted on 1/14/17 at 12:33 pm to TeLeFaWx
i think it is crazy that the affordable healthcare act make healthcare more unaffordable for most people. it is soviety style propaganda for it be called the affordable healthcare act.
This post was edited on 1/14/17 at 12:34 pm
Posted on 1/14/17 at 1:07 pm to Tillman
quote:
i think it is crazy that the affordable healthcare act make healthcare more unaffordable for most people. it is soviety style propaganda for it be called the affordable healthcare act.
Lolz you'r a SJW.
Posted on 1/14/17 at 1:33 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Kentucker
Originally the act had intention to lower health care cost, there were bills on the table to do that but the health care companies demanded costs not be lowered in exchange for their support of the act.
The intent was to enrich the health care companies and all within that web/complex as well as make the public feel like a great humanitarian decision was made to give healthcare to all.
Another level: It was designed to hurt small business and traditional middle class people.
People have been fooled by 'wealth redistribution', thinking that the intent was to create more equality -- no. The intent was to grow the gap between the top and bottom, both on an individual level and business level.
Posted on 1/14/17 at 1:43 pm to Sleeping Tiger
pretty soon he will be gone. i can't wait. lol
Posted on 1/14/17 at 5:21 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
I have no doubt in my mind that they believed their own bullshite, and all the concessions they made to the healthcare companies would be overridden by their optimism for how great of a system they believed they were implementing
The obvious failure was underestimating involvement by the healthcare companies. It should also have been eviddnt that they would manipulate the market to their advantage. It's what they do. It's their nature. They're businesses, after all, not welfare agencies or nonprofits.
The idea of another entitlement program for taxpayers to support was horrifying enough but to make it dependent upon the input and influence of healthcare corporations was just plain stupid. Now Republicans think they can "correct" it. Better, I think, to just axe it and go back to the way it was before.
This post was edited on 1/14/17 at 5:35 pm
Posted on 1/14/17 at 5:36 pm to TeLeFaWx
Frick that pos.
Posted on 1/14/17 at 10:34 pm to wartiger2004
My 401k has done very well during the Obama years.
Posted on 1/16/17 at 9:39 am to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Originally the act had intention to lower health care cost
Not really. It was to designed to make it more affordable, especially for those in the coverage gap between Medicaid and private insurance. The hope was for the rate of costs increase to slow, and in some states that has occurred.
ACA was written to be an "all hands on deck" bill, meaning for it to fully work it needed all of its components working together to be successful. The Supreme Court doomed it to failure when they ruled the Medicaid expansion unconstitutional. When state were given the option to opt out of the Medicaid expansion, it left those states vulnerable. And when you look at ACA on a state-by-state level, the states seeing positive results are the states that expanded Medicaid, set up their own exchanges, and embraced the law. The states seeing the negative impacts, did not. Obviously that is not absolute, as there are some states that expanded Medicaid, etc. that are seeing the negatives. New York is one example.
None of that is to say ACA would have been successful with full Medicaid expansion and cooperation from all the states. It is to say it would have been more successful with that though, and there was a concerted effort by Republicans at all levels to stymie the law every chance they got. That's also not to say there weren't bad things about the bill. It did leave too much control/power with the health insurance companies, and I've never been an advocate of the individual mandate. Unfortunately the individual mandate was needed to make the pre-existing condition and coverage for children until 26 viable, absent a huge tax increase for the middle class.
Posted on 1/16/17 at 10:06 am to TeLeFaWx
It was a vintage Obama speech. Long on hope, and a call to Americans to take control of their democracy. It's a message that should resonate with all Americans, but because it's Obama and because he interjects progressive ideals into it, a large many tune out. It's amazing he can still hold such hope for this country given the vitriol and opposition he faced in his 8 years, but that's what makes him who he is.
As for his legacy, I'll remember for a few things. One, he got the ball rolling on healthcare reform. His signature legislation will surely be dismantled, and hopefully there will be an adequate replacement. So going forward, while it won't be Obamacare, I'll give him the credit on triggering the reforms needed in our healthcare industry.
Second, I'll remember him for mostly stating positive and hopeful in the face of nearly unprecedented opposition and partisanship. That really started the last couple of years of Bush's presidency, but was exasperated upon his election. Did he contribute to that? Maybe a little, but it was the GOP that met the night of his 2009 inauguration and forged a strategy to block his agenda, and it was Mitch McConnell in 2010 who publicly stated it was his job to ensure Obama wasn't re-elected in 2012.
Third, I'll remember him for his failure to galavanize the Democratic party. The losses in Congress and across the statehouses will be his legacy.
As for race relations, I'll never understand the criticism of him being divisive. I think he had a difficult burden as the first black president, and he struggled at times with it. Many white people expected his election to maybe put a rest the notion that there was still racism in this country. Many black people expected him to be a voice for the discrimination and racism they still experience today. And to many on both sides, he failed them. I just don't see how a black giving his perspective on a racial issue is divisive just because that perspective is counter to the white man's perspective.
Overall, I think he was an average president, but I'll always respect him for the grace and dignity he carried himself with, and for the grace and dignity his family carried themselves with. In contrast to the incoming president, I'm going to miss him.
As for his legacy, I'll remember for a few things. One, he got the ball rolling on healthcare reform. His signature legislation will surely be dismantled, and hopefully there will be an adequate replacement. So going forward, while it won't be Obamacare, I'll give him the credit on triggering the reforms needed in our healthcare industry.
Second, I'll remember him for mostly stating positive and hopeful in the face of nearly unprecedented opposition and partisanship. That really started the last couple of years of Bush's presidency, but was exasperated upon his election. Did he contribute to that? Maybe a little, but it was the GOP that met the night of his 2009 inauguration and forged a strategy to block his agenda, and it was Mitch McConnell in 2010 who publicly stated it was his job to ensure Obama wasn't re-elected in 2012.
Third, I'll remember him for his failure to galavanize the Democratic party. The losses in Congress and across the statehouses will be his legacy.
As for race relations, I'll never understand the criticism of him being divisive. I think he had a difficult burden as the first black president, and he struggled at times with it. Many white people expected his election to maybe put a rest the notion that there was still racism in this country. Many black people expected him to be a voice for the discrimination and racism they still experience today. And to many on both sides, he failed them. I just don't see how a black giving his perspective on a racial issue is divisive just because that perspective is counter to the white man's perspective.
Overall, I think he was an average president, but I'll always respect him for the grace and dignity he carried himself with, and for the grace and dignity his family carried themselves with. In contrast to the incoming president, I'm going to miss him.
Posted on 1/16/17 at 11:11 am to The Spleen
^10/10. 
Page 10 of 29
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News