-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2009/08/wash-post-poll-very-bad-numbers-for.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
It will never dawn on them that people always get turned off by cowards.
" America’s disastrous health care system is responsible for incalculable amounts of illness, death, lost productivity and federal deficit — not to mention anxiety, anger and disgrace. And it’s not going to get fixed, writes Matt Taibbi in the new issue of Rolling Stone, because it’s encased in another failed system: the U.S. government. Rather than attempt to remedy the problem this summer, our government sat down and demonstrated its dizzying ineptitude. “We might look back on this summer someday and think of it as the moment when our government lost us for good,” writes Taibbi. “It was that bad.”
Taibbi breaks down the five steps Congress took to be sure no bill would pass — aiming low, gutting the public option, packing it with loopholes, providing no leadership and blowing the math — in his story, which is available on stands now. In a series of video interviews for RollingStone.com, Taibbi explores one of our system’s most severe flaws, explains how the government wedged itself into an awkwardly damning position, and looks at how the proposed bill would change the ordinary American’s life."
They will continue to blow it because it's not about left or right -- it's about the perception of leadership, or lack thereof.
President Obama seems to feel staying above the fray is the end-all be-all. But from the cheap seats it looks like nothing more than weakness. From one day to the next no one really knows where this administration stands on anything except bi-partisanship.
They say one thing, the opposition whines and they back off. They pick a position, someone (other than the left of the left) whines and they back off. It's pathetic. And it's getting harder to ignore--even for those not paying close attention.
Democrats always get slammed for not standing for anything -- this administration is on course to prove that adage because they seem determined to let those out of power and a handful of Blue Dogs direct the course. Polls say a majority want single payer or the public option -- this administration seems to be oblivious to that. Like the deals have been made and now they are clumsily scrambling to keep the deals intact.
Voters weren't voting for the fierce urgency of maintaining the status quo, they weren't voting for someone who determines where they stand based on the whining of the incompetents who spent the last eight years destroying this country. They voted for change. Either this administration provides it or they go down in a blaze of bipartisan failure. Which is exactly what the opposition wants.
The important question most people overlook is a simple one:
Where does President Obama stand? Given that this administration doesn't really seem to know from day to day, people lose faith.
It's about leadership -- this country loves leaders. It doesn't mean being an asshole like Bush, it means taking a firm stand and doing everything in your power to see it done -- negotiations, not capitulations. It means not staying above the fray, but commanding the fray and leading people out of it.
Either Obama will find his inner leader or he won't. The fate of the country lies in the balance of his success or failure in that endeavor. But it's quite obvious what he's doing now -- it's not working.
In oligarch world, everything is fine and going according to plan... why in hell would they want to change anything?
We are all up in arms about adding a public option in health care while the people in charge have determined that "entitlements" need to be eliminated. Neo-liberals in Europe and Neo-cons in the US (sorry, but little hussein is a neo-con) all are on the same page... Public education, public retirement and public healthcare are all on there way out.
What in the hell was I smokin' thinking that this was a democracy?
This is the impression I get. What would happen if Obama just -- gasp! -- chucked all prior deals and actually did what 77% of America wants? Will he get assassinated?
All the "wait-and-see" about what anyone gets by the end of his administration should be focused on a 2012 conclusion. Otherwise if the progressive constituency waits until his second term to get ANY progress, we may be looking to a ghost for the promise-of-a-hope of a something.
Gibbs says "If making tough decisions and getting important things done" means Obama will only be in the White House for just one term "he's quite comfortable with that." (12:04 p.m.) - Via Politico
Hey Barack! When people are still getting huge medical bills, declaring bankruptcy, and losing their houses, they will remember. That's personal, and Americans always remember personal.
I know it was good for me when I did it back in the pre stimulus package days.
We elected a Democratic president - or so I thought.
And something as important as health care reform, that affects so many, is in the hands of 3 Republicans and 3 Republican lites???
Mind boggling.
The only thing about these numbers that surprises me is that they're as high as they are.
I was just reading an old interview with Matt Gonzalez, who was Nader's V.P. running mate, and he listed a lot of Obama's senate votes on bills that went under the radar and never got reported. Obama is so conservative he might as well be a Republican. His pro-corporate votes on environmental/energy related bills were downright depressing.
I just think people didn't want to look into his record. It's easier just to pick out a "savior" and hope they will steer you to some promised land. This was probably especially true for younger voters, who perhaps operate on sound bites and window dressing more than older voters.
The other tired excuse is the "lesser of 2 evils" routine. People have been operating on that one for the last 50 years. "You have to vote for the Dem so we don't end up with (insert boogieman here: communism/fascism/totalitarianism/socialism/terra)."
Yeah, that plan has worked out so well!
We had to take what we could get.
America has had third parties, and in some cases, the 3rd party even won the presidency. (Didn't Teddy Roosevelt win on a 3rd party?) But it never lasted long. And, even in my time, a 3rd party made a difference. (Perot)
What is the difference between our form of govt. and, say, Europe's? In Europe, it seems that two parties win all the time anyway, but the 3rd parties are listened to more than here. I used to watch Prime Minister's Questions (A great thing -- I wish they had it here!) and there were a lot of parties represented in parliament. It seems they can group with other parties to change what the major parties do.
This mindset will see the failure of his only goal.
That's why what they have been doing seems like political suicide.
It's just not good to be on the defensive, and Ob is on the defensive CONSTANTLY. Good goddess, this country is on really shaky ground. We're in a shambles economically, environmentally, and militarily, and Obama's hands-off approach isn't inspiring confidence.
This is about little hussein. He is fucking us.
How can Fox "News" have good ratings?
More than anyone else, I can see that Americans are pretty stupid, and just like Obama because they are hurting -- that when things are fixed (IF they are), they will revert to their GOP roots. That's why it is so important to get things done NOW.
What was it like in FDR's days? How did he get SS passed? How did LBJ get Medicare passed? Were people smarter then? Were the GOPers less crazy?
They didn't care about being nice and they definitely didn't bother with bipartisanship.
Stupid. But, he is FAMOUS! He is in DC! Most Americans will believe that imbecile.
tragic because it is too easy. Has nothing at all to do with the president and everything to do with superficial, distracted, preoccupied, lazy bastards who answered the polls. The polls are window dressing on a media who shapes the putty of public opinion. But you know all this stuff. Why should any reasonable, moderately informed person ever think it different than the usual?
I suspect these polls are of old people, who still use their landlines. They look like it.
Enjoy your constant kvetching.
p.s. What have you actually done to make a POSITIVE change on this issue?
However, did we really expect him to tackle all of our problems so quickly based on the mess that has been handed to him? And did we really think that Obama was uber liberal like we are? I didn't...and America isn't a progressive majority right now. We are still a nation where the centrist views prevail.
As progressives we need to also get our positive messages out and bring more to the fold.
If he was simply proceeding to do what he said he would do in his campaign, it would be relatively simple. The problem seems to be that since being sworn in he has decided to move away from his campaign promises and do something else.
Also by January 1, 2010 his window of opportunity is mostly closed.
I think they call that denial.
One where you can pretend Mr.Prez is doing something--other than praising Grassley and caving!!!!!!!!!
As much as I have hated this August with the health care town hall nonsense, I am a little overwhelmed by this constant barrage of daily polls and the like.
The man isn't even out of his first year yet and folks are already sounding the horn that signals Armageddon.
I have to wonder, is he the entire problem or is it this need to constantly predict based on weekly and daily polls. Did we think any type of change is going to be easy?
It's not over yet, folks. Hell, it hasn't even begun yet. Ease up just a little.
*eyeroll*
Yeah, it has been less than a year, which means if President Obama wakes up and realizes he's on the wrong path, there's still time to change course. Unfortunately, he's been on the same downward spiral for a while and seems rather obstinate about doing anything to rectify that.
When do people stop making excuses and start holding the administration accountable for their actions? Before you know it, it'll be 2012. Excuses won't necessarily translate to votes.
The point is that the Obama supporters that feel slighted do something ... call/write/donate progressive members of Congress. Tell them to whip Obama into shape. Let's turn this into an opportunity -- and some other liberal blogs are doing just that -- but, here it's post after post of negativity ... I'm done with it. I'll check back in a couple of months.
1) pen (or type) thoughtful, well-reasoned letter
2) send letter via mail or e-mail
3) receive form letter written by staff member that talks in circles, dismisses your arguments, makes it very clear that your views do not matter to this person - yet wishes you the best - sincerely, of course.
4) rip response into a thousand pieces while cursing a blue streak
5) spend half a day mourning the fact that our "winner take all" style of "democracy" is a sham
No thanks, honey - been there, done that.
Also, you should point out that his approval rating is 57% in that poll...
Now they want to create a new entitlement program for the uninsured or underinsured and they haven't told us how they plan to pay for it.
It's time for the folks in Washington DC to slow down their spending, tell the truth about how they plan to pay for their wild binge, and create a plan to get this country on a solid and sustaninable fiscal path.
Compare the spending on our citizens (healthcare, education, housing, etc) to spending on the oligarchs (a military base in almost every country on the planet, 2 wars, FOMC, nationalization of FHLMC and FNMA).
Turn off Rush and pick up a newspaper.
However, when stupid people repeat oligarch bullshit telling me that black is white, I get a tad irritable. So if I offended you, then phone a WAAHHHHmbulance.
Did you care about the wild binge as Bush grew the government more than any previous President?
Were you just as concerned then?
While he was dealt a rotten financial hand, the President still has to deal with the financial realities he inherited. And with those he created in trying to steer the country through the recession. You may not like it. He may not like it. Nobody may like it but it is what it is. And it has to be done.
So man up, you progressives and help him govern responsibly. That means paying for your dreams, not putting the cost onto future generations.
I have no problem with people receiving government benefits. I do have a problem with people cursing the government while they receive benefits... like they have no idea where the money is coming from.
Ex-military are the worst offenders. I just passed a guy with a veteran license plate and a bumper sticker that said "I love my country but fear my government." What exactly to morons like this think our country is? Geography?
So why don't you "man up" do a little research, and help Obama govern yourself.
He's your president too.
It's funny how people like you didn't say "boo" when Bush was raping the treasury and creating the mess we are in though.
Shorter version of you: "Why can't Obama fix in eight months what took Bush eight years to destroy?!!?!!?"
All I'm suggesting is: we need to pay for that increased spending with increased taxes. Don't depend on some kind of theoretical savings to fund the new entitlement. Economists debunk the notion that you can depend on the savings in the current system to fund those entitlements. Two economists on C-Span yesterday, including one from the New America Foundation echoed that.
Let's find a way for progressives and independents to hold a civil and respectful conversation about these issues. They're important for all of us and for our country's future.
I apologize for any incivility or disrespect y'all have discerned in my postings.
1. We leave Iraq and give that money to Health Care instead (which will actually cost us more than 1 trillion over the next ten years).
Unfortunately, Obama doesn't seem too focused on doing this at the moment.
2. We adopt a plan like the one in France, or even the one in Canada, and we watch as the amount of taxes spent per person DECREASES.
In France, they pay 40% per person in taxes what the U.S. spends now, and we don't even have coverage for everyone - yet they do - and to top it off, they are ranked #1 in the world for health care.
Unfortunately, again, I don't think Obama is focused on this either.
Doctors will still have to charge high fees to cover the costs of potential lawsuits.
I'm kind of amazed you wrote this, having read your other comments.
The amount of money that goes to malpractice suits is somewhere around 1-2% of what you pay in insurance.
They use that as the boogy man, to scare people into thinking they should get rid of malpractice suits, to further nickle and dime us, and at the same time remove any chance of calling a really bad doctor out for actually being negligent at their job.
I've read all kinds of conflicting information about TORT reform, but if you talk to actual doctors, they tell you their insurance is high to cover the threats of lawsuits. That cost is passed down to us. I could be wrong, but I haven't read enough clear data to support your reviews.
AND, I refuse to be uber snarky and call people names in here.
And as noble as it might be for you to claim that you won't be uber snarky and call people names, you called me 'obnoxious' - as obnoxious, according to you, as someone posting over at freerepublic.
Responding in your own words "Please..." lol
The doctors might have to pay crazy premiums which their insurers (and the GOP) blame on those crazy gaddamn money grubbin folks!
But the fact is, the amount of money that goes to paying for malpractice suits is a joke.
It's a very small fraction of the overall amount of money spent on health care in the U.S.
In other words, the doctors are getting fucked by the insurance companies as much as we are.
The problem isn't people suing, it's the gross amount of profit the insurance companies make, and how little they provide for the money they take in.
LOL
EDIT: Or 57% lol I can't remember. But it's high.
It also creates trauma and drama where there shouldn't be.
When Clinton was president we got all drama, but it was about Clinton.
We're still getting drama, but it's about issues.
The election was the debate. After that, we should have gotten decisive action.
Months pass with no action. Action today? No, but soon, he promised. Then soon became someday, and that meant not some particular day, but definitely by the end of his term.
Your term is ending, will you act now? No, I cannot act with this election on the line. Then he wins again. Action now? Not today, I need to finish what we've already started, but I will act.
Months pass with no action. Action today? No, but soon, he promised. Then soon became someday, which meant no particular day, but definitely by the end of his term, he promised...
Here's my promise of action: if I, as a gay citizen, am not meaningfully closer to legal equality* at the conclusion of his first term, I will not vote for Obama or any other DNC candidate. I played my part in giving the DNC the executive and a majority in both houses, and goddam it, if they squander this much advantage and refuse to help me, I'm not going to help them again.
("Meaningfully closer to legal equality" doesn't mean permitting reimbursements for state department employee moving expenses.)