The con is Obama, though I didn't fall for him personally. Though I did not vote for him, I wanted him to succeed, but clearly the fears that I, and the smart Americans had, are coming true. He conned people into thinking that he was moving to the center, but has remained the liberal he is. He conned people into thinking his lack of experience was not an issue when he has shown himself to be a neophyte on the job. He conned people into thinking that healthcare for all Americans was something that could be done, when in reality it is nothing but an expensive disaster which will hurt all Americans healthcare. He conned people into thinking he would not raise taxes on the middle class when he in reality wants to do nothing other than tax and spend, a particularly stupid move in a recession (actually a depression). His idea of stimulus put the money in the wrong peoples hands and has created great bonuses for the fat cats of failing corporations who don't deserve the bonuses.

I hope for our sake that he does not destroy this country. At least he is consistent, he is a mess on both domestic and foreign policy. Say what you want about Bush, but at least crazy dictators were afraid of Bush, but they certainly have no fear of Obama. Does anyone think it is a coincidence that we have not heard of Khadafy until recently? He will be a one term mistake and I hope this country has come to the realization that Obama/Pelosi need to go and the faster the better. (And while I am at it Barney Frank needs to go too, the author of the housing crisis). That is, if we are still a democracy by the time we get this moron out of the White House. He is giving Jimmy Carter a real run for the worst President this country has ever had.

The really scary thing is that liberals are complaining he isnt nearly liberal enough!

Until his health care reform happens, you have no basis for saying it will be an expensive disaster. It's all an assumption you are making

Has free health care destroyed England and Canada? I don't think so. Ask most of them and they will laugh at the way our health insurance system is set up

Exactly

Or they migrate to America where they get to keep most of their hard earned money and forego what you might consider a great thing. Im only gathering this from a small pool of a hundred or so people that I know of that come from countries that have "free health care" and they seem pretty happy to be in America without "free health care".

It sure hasnt helped them.

Actually it is a laughingly easy assumption to make however the CBO has made the similar statements, at least until Herr Obama muzzled them.

Of course he forgets the inconvenient truth that there are 30 million people in Canada (and their system is mostly poor) as opposed to 300 million in the US. Hell there are probably close to the same amount of illegals in the US as the total number of people in Canada.

england is facing record deficits; their health care is one of the reasons for that. but they haven't found a way to control the ever-increasing costs of health care. nor can they get rid of it.

I don't think people should die because they can't afford health insurance.

People are denied health insurance all the time because greedy private companies won't insure someone with a pre-existing condition.

So if that someone dies because she couldn't get insurance in time and therefore could not afford quick treatment, that's not our problem right? As long as we keep that extra few dollars? Better someone else than me?

What if that someone with a pre existing condition had emergency surgery one day. Let's say it was for an appendix surgery, but she can't pay it off because the bill was in the $10,000s. All health insurance companies denied her previously and she had a crummy job that didn't pay much. Is that fair?

Are we to care more about saving money than a human life?

Should there even be public schools? Why not just make all of them private while we are at it. Did YOU go to a public school or college?

Should the government control our water supply? Why not make that private as well

Why have public protection? Think of all the money we could save with private police officers nationwide! I'm sure they'll have our best interests at heart if that were to happen.

Why have fire fighters? When cities are burning down because of wild brush fires, think of all the money we could save if private fire fighters did the job instead!

I've copied this from another forum.

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.

On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

If all schools were privatized, education in this country would be much better.

Police, water, fire fighters are all local govt, not federal. Big difference.

You really are a true democrat, don't let facts get in your way. First, why can't we consider the cost of what Obama is proposing? Here are some facts, 90% of Americans have health insurance. Of the 10% that do not have health insurance, 5% of those can afford to have health insurance and choose not to. That leaves 5% of Americans uninsured and our great President wants to spend over a trillion dollars with his proposal to insure those people. By the way, a large part of that 5% that are uninsured are young healthy individuals who are not in the workforce long enough to get healthcare. The point is that his proposals are unrealistic, too expensive and will be costly, and the costs will be passed onto the taxpayers.

What happened to Obama's transparency? He stated that he would release his proposals on his website for all to see, yet now he tries to shove it through Congress for no one to see, then tries to place much of the cost under other bills to claim that it costs less than it really does, and vastly underestimates the actual costs of his bill. He obviously thinks that people are stupid, but Americans are waking up in droves and a majority are now against his proposals.

The notion that people with life threatening conditions don't get healthcare is a fallacy. Emergency rooms cannot turn down treatment to people with life threatening conditions. Most public areas have a State or county run hospital which provides free services to those who are uninsured.

I don't think anyone here is saying that the healthcare system doesn't need reform, but many of us are against socializing medicine and don't believe the costs justify do so. Socializing healthcare will cost Americans one way or another in either increased premiums or increased taxes, and those taxes will fall on the middle class that Obama promised not to tax. Many of us do not believe that taxing and spending in this economy is a good move, but that is what the democrats want to do. Herbert Hoover tried this solution and look where it got this country.


As has already been pointed out, the States or local municipal governments, through our taxes, which we are already paying and are fine with, provide education, police, firefighters and even free medical care!

Oh yeah, those greedy insurance companies. Just another democratic lie. The actual facts are that they average approximately 2%, well below other industries. And those profits did not balloon during the Bush years as Obama/Pelosi would have you believe. Here is a link to the true facts:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

I guess we should socialize that greedy railroad industry, after all they are making a 12.6% profit a year! How about network and communications, those greedy bastards are making a 20.4% profit!

Obama is a disaster as is Pelosi. Only the truly stupid still defend Obama at this point.

Agree or disagree, it's really refreshing to me to see all you guys finally remembering how to pay attention to what the President is doing and actually caring what he's up to.

Thought you had all forgotten. Or maybe the ability to pay attention and think critically just goes in 8-year cycles.

A+!

Blame Bush. That is one finger down. liberal fastball.

It's almost the same as when Republicans blamed Clinton for everything. Only this time it's extra douchier.

Um, no. That's not "blame Bush," although the way you invoke that saying even when nobody is blaming Bush makes me think that you really believe that just saying "Blame Bush" gets you out of anything.

To be more succinct, it's not "Blaming Bush" to blame YOU for not giving a $hit about what the President is doing unless a Democrat is in office.

That's your inconsistency, which we've covered in great detail here in the past, so I need not do it again - but if it serves you well to consider an entirely inaccurate use of "Blame Bush" as your get out of jail free card for not having to be responsible for your own glaring hypocrisy, then by all means, carry on.

can i be your timmi?

I'm still searching for all the right wing posts from pre..umm..8 months ago. I know they are there somewhere because Repubilicans care about THEIR country so much more than anyone else so I'm sure they were busy posting before a Democrat became President but I keep looking for the Republican posts before a Dem became President but all I can find is...


nothing

So lets all be disingenuous from now on (in other words fair and balanced) and make negative posts in the future about a politician we actually tolerate because they fall in our respected party just to save face on a god damn message board.

See you two are bringing this bulls.hit up because your boy (and no not in the old school sense of the word) is a f.ucking disaster only 9 months into his Presidency.

No man...just care as much when your "boy" was f.u.c.k.i.n up as much as when you think our "boy" is.

And if Obama and his cabinet hadn't done what they did, the RIGHT would have a whole lot more to whine about than they already do, which is hard to believe because there ain't any bigger crybabies now than the Republicans.

No, it's just that all of this smacks of intellectual dishonesty. The problem with Chuck is that it's all "We care about spending money, we're fiscally conservative....unless it's our guy. We care about transparency....unless it's our guy."

We'll see if "our" boy turns out to be a disaster. The guy before has already been spoken for as an overwhelming disaster, at least Obama still has time to salvage the ship.

Me, like I've said all along, I'll continue to wait and see how things turn out and take responsibility for my vote then, and it should be easy, considering the wildly unmitigated obvious disaster you all claim we're heading into. Time will tell.

At least I'm consistent. I make no qualms about how liberal I'd like him to be and what I'd like to see happen. I don't pretend I give a $hit about money and about morals etc, when your guy is President but then stop when my guy's President. It's not my consistency that's up for debate here.

i was intrigued by the juxtaposition of "don't let facts get in your way" and spectacularly round numbers. so i did 30 seconds of websearch.

69% of americans have some form of private insurance. 60% provided by their employer and 9% individual.

84% of american have any form of insurance including government provided.

27% of americans have government provided insurance.

the figures add up to over 100% because of overlap. many medicare recipients also have a supplemental private policy.

but absent government provided insurance, 31% of americans would not have any.

and 16% have none regardless of current government provided insurance.

don't let facts get in your way.

BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME!!11!!!Z!!

Let's be fair here, Democrats had no problem voicing their dissent during the entire 8 years Bush was President, those of us who are not satisfied with the current President's decisions certainly have a right to express it.

No, let's actually be fair -- this is a total straw man that intentionally misrepresents the position Bob is taking here.

I never voted for George Bush so you can't lump me in either party because I don't fall for the bulls.hit like the majority of this country. I blame all of you for being brainwashed into believing we're stuck permanently in a two-party system.

The democrats and republicans are equally responsible for this mess.

At least you're consistent. And you always have been on politics. So if I don't agree, I at least don't think you're being intentionally dishonest and hypocritical.

No snark at all -- I mean it.

that wasn't his point.

i publicly voiced my dissent with the current admin's decision to freeze out fox news a few days ago.

like bob, i've been wondering where all the this manufactured "dissent" from the right was earlier.

you can't really expect that no one noticed, can you?

When I said "your", I was going to * it, but I got lazy..but.."You're" right.

But "Your" over, which is now "my" over..needs help

No doubt about it.

I'm blaming it on Collinsworth for mushing it to hell.

I certainly won't. Nice try

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...cJA9hKmHRPxJ8H

Really there is no hope for change in this country. (See what I did there?)

Judging from the poll results to this thread the majority of us are conditioned to the two-party system. That system has prohibited you from having the choice to marry. How you could be a supporter of it is beyond me. You, out of all people, should abhor it as much as I do.

umm..Census..as in..US Census?..The one before 9-11...almost 10 years ago?

and how do you get these quotes from the Post in between all the sh+t stains on it from wiping asses?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance

The United States mixed economy health care system relies heavily on private (for profit) and not-for-profit health insurance, which is the primary source of coverage for most Americans. According to the United States Census Bureau, approximately 84% of Americans have health insurance; some 60% obtain it through an employer, while about 9% purchase it directly.[33] Various government agencies provide coverage to about 27% of Americans (there is some overlap in these figures).[34]

my 30 seconds of research.

Well this Jeffrey H. Anderson guy sure seems like a decent, honest, fair-minded son of a gun.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=jeffrey+h.+anderson

Fail #2.

You are kidding, right? These are the same figures that the proponants of government healthcare are using. Obviously, they are recent figures.

i'm not sure who to believe.

the last random idiot on wikipedia (though what was written is vetted by the entire wiki) or the guy at the fox newspaper who ignored the 27% government insured component in his "90% insured" argument against government insurance.