General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBefore getting all steamed up about Obama's not vetoing the bill, ask yourself,
"Do I know everything that's in the bill?"
I certainly don't. And I have no intention of reading hundreds of pages
of legalese!
I was bitten once, and I've learned my lesson. I was mad at the weakness
of the Healthcare Reform. True, it has its weaknesses, but only lately did I
learn that it does carry a big bite. Among other things, 80% of the premiums
collected by health insurance companies (85% for the large ins. cos.) must be
spent for medical expenses. This is being overseen by the Dep't of Health and
Human Services. Insurance companies have already tried to influence HHS to
consider monies paid by them for the recruitment of new clients as a "medical
expense." HHS said, "No."
Another important item is that "pre-existing conditions" can no longer be used
by health insurance companies as a pretext for non-payment. The Healthcare
Reform bill turned out to be not too bad after all.
So, this time around, I'm not going to make any judgment until I learn more
about this bill in the days ahead. Does that sound reasonable enough?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)That is how I came to my judgment on this bill.
And the Health Insurance Reform bill still sucks pretty bad.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)been out in its final form? There have been quite a few last minute changes. We
don't know if ACLU might have made its public statement before the last changes.
You're right about the Healthcare Reform bill. I like the single-payer system so much
more. It will come some day. Someone noted that the Healthcare Reform is built so
that insurance companies will be earning less and less, until they (the big ones, at
least) will choose to drop out and go into some other business. But the small insurance
companies will be happy to pick up the crumbs.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Like me, they think this is a terrible thing.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/content/president-obama-should-listen-american-people-not-his-advisors-ndaa
treestar
(82,383 posts)What would be the answer?
dogknob
(2,431 posts)I suppose there are some media sources that might help you, at least until SOPA passes, but I can't think of any just now.
If you find a good source, do let me know.
Cheers.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)If I should come across one, I'll let you know.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)First it was that the republicans made me keep it open and now it's going to be law to keep it open. What?
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)I'm not saying I support passing this bill. I think it needs to resolve any questionable language and clear up any confusions before it should be passed.
However, this bill does more clearly define Presidential authority in regards to detainees and it give the President a lot more leeway in terms of resolving detainee cases and its the exact kind of leeway President Obama needs to get the rest of the prisoners left in Gitmo out of there whether it be via release or trial.
piratefish08
(3,133 posts)continue the spin.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Try reading some thoughtful analysis that isn't emotionally driven shark jumping.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/defense-bill-passed-so-what-does-it-do
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/the-ndaa-and-us-citizen-detention/
Anatos
(179 posts)prepare to be pummeled.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)It's right here... http://www.democraticunderground.com/100219309
I suggest working on the parts of the bill that cover the "War On Drugs" "Missile Defense" and the "War On Terror", they are not hard to find....
Cal33
(7,018 posts)and got nothing. Thanks anyway.
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)...you can google "library of congress thomas [bill name or number]" and get just about anything - including the same current versions the lawmakers will be working with, if things are in progress.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)On the right, the effort is to make Obama seem WEAK ... make right wingers hate him and VOTE.
On the left, the effort is to make Obama seem evil ... and get democrats to NOT VOTE.
The media is constantly pushing BOTH "Obama Bad memes".
Why ??
Because to keep ratings UP, they need the election to be close.
The GOP candidates are a F**king joke. Obama should win in an epic landslide, but that's bad for ratings.
And so ... as we leave Iraq, which should be cheered, the left needs to be inflamed on a narrow point of law that congress is debating.
flamingdem
(40,881 posts)and a good description of business as usual for the networks and their masters.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I am referring to the same thing.
There is an effort to tell the right wing that Obama is "Bad".
And there is a parallel effort to tell the left that Obama is "Bad".
The arguments used are seperated by 180 degrees ... but that is irrelevant. The goal is to get YOU to accept one, or the other ... the media does not care WHICH version you agree with ... just so long as you agree with one of them.
That keeps the race close.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)its self.
I count 93 totally fucking unAmerican traitors +1 and a majority in the House.
We'll put you down for one Indefinite Detention GOOD, you can hang with the rest of the treasonous lot.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)The bill's statement of policies clearly states that it doesn't apply to US citizens or legal residents, and that it is not intended to increase or decrease the powers of the military to detain anyone.
FDR had 400,000 people in indefinite detention by the end of WWII - the most critical thing is that it ended. I think we should be focusing on getting a plan to end this war, rather than having knife-fights amongst each other over how far the exact wordings and interpretations of definitions might be stretched when legislating the disposition of detainees of the war.
Modern_Matthew
(1,604 posts)Anatos
(179 posts)Other than Presidenting While Black, I mean? Is it his competence, or his lack of partisanship that does it?
Cal33
(7,018 posts)students in college are taught something about journalistic ethics -- all of
which is for naught. Are there any large news media that can adhere to
the principles of ethical journalism and still survive financially?
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)Anatos
(179 posts)I'm not so sure an epic landslide wouldn't be a big plus for the media. I think the reason we get bad memes from both sides is because we are, largely, a nation of cowards when it comes to race.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)If Obama gets up by says 10 or 20%, the 24 hour political news cycle dies. The pundits won't have much to do.
Agree completely on your second point.
Anatos
(179 posts)they would be required in any way to report such numbers. Hell, they can spend 23 1/2 of those hours attacking anyone who would promote such "propaganda" from the "left wing socialist indoctrinators". Ahem. 
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)see polls that don't support the meme.
But because there are now so many polls, and the internet, they need to manipulate the electorate, so that the polls stay close.
In 2008, if you went to RealClear and looked at the average of the polls, Obama beat McCain in most polls, but the FOX and Rasmussen polls would always suggest that the race was closer than it was.
I think we have reached a point where polls are not used to understand voter opinion, but to manipulate it. And the media will definitely try to do anything they can to do so.
Anatos
(179 posts)As you point out, they have been for years. But your explanation of why is a little off, in my opinion.
I have trouble with an analysis that paints all media as a single tremendous vast powerful will intent on 'manipulating the electorate'...
that then fails to successfully do that. What is the point of such a world view?
The media don't refuse to say nice things about President Obama because of any vast conspiracy or any conscious goal of manipulating the electorate. They are simply the American media, and so they are infected with the same cultural racism as any other American institution. Granted, some of it is largely that he is not conservative/Republican, and they would attack him, ruthlessly and baselessly, regardless. (Cf. Clinton, Bill) But it is the issue of black/white racial attitudes which account for the general nature of the coverage you see. They cannot not talk about him, but they cannot possibly say anything positive about him.
The word "manipulation" indicates a wholesale misrepresentation of what is actually going on. Polls cannot be used to understand voter opinion. Who ever told you that was possible? All you can do is construct a hypothetical fantasy about some imaginary super-averaged voter. And you will always magically find that this 'typical person' perfectly reflects whatever you want them to.
redqueen
(115,186 posts)I'm unhappy about the bill. I think he should veto it.
BUT... the senate would just turn around and pass it over his veto, so... I don't know. I just don't understand the point of repeating the Obama is a failure/is bush III/deserves to be dumped stuff. I don't know how it's supposed to help at all.
Anatos
(179 posts)giving them that feeling of deep inner savvy when they get to exercise their self-righteousness in public.
roseBudd
(8,718 posts)
Robb
(39,665 posts)
Ship of Fools
(1,453 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)will last. Nothing stays forever in this world of ours. There always will be changes -- ups
followed by downs.
provis99
(13,062 posts)
karynnj
(60,953 posts)This is a must pass bill. He also can see that the votes for the Udall amendment and the two stronger Feinstein did not come close to 60 votes. The question is whether he is willing to veto the defense spending bill over the civil rights issue. Now, Bush vetoed a defense spending bill in 2007, because it included a resolution that he should set a time line on Iraq (Reid/Feingold - though it was a variation on Kerry/Feingold.) So, vetoing it would not be unprecedented.
I wonder if he could sign it and address the issue in a signing statement.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)How do you figure putting whatever you want in THIS one is going to last beyond the next budget cycle?
Anatos
(179 posts)to take into account the past and all that. Obviously you would give up all of your freedoms to a dictator at the drop of a hat out of loyalty, right? [/sarcasm]
The only thing that prevents your post from sounding reasonable is the last sentence (other than where you ask if it sounds reasonable) where you mention something about 'learn more about this bill in the days ahead'. It is almost as if you believe there will be further factual information, rather than repetition of the already-established talking points. When has that ever happened?
Cal33
(7,018 posts)against Obama in a primary, I'd vote for Sanders. But if Sanders should lose, I'd
still vote for Obama in Nov. 2012. I wouldn't vote for anyone of the present group
of sickos on the other side of the aisle. How's that for "loyalty" to a "dictator?"
I think the dictators are on the side of the right-wingers. You should worry more
about them than about Obama on this score.
I was thinking of the last-minute changes made to this bill (of which there were
said to be quite a few), that may contain information few people know about
at this point. I know nothing of the content of these changes, and I doubt it
that you do either.
Anatos
(179 posts)with anyone saying they would vote against Obama in a primary. I have a huge problem with anyone saying they want someone to primary him.
A lot of people have accused me of 'loyalty to a dictator' levels of deference to teh Prezdents judgement. I doubt you really think that dictators are only on the side of the right-wingers, do you? You've never heard of communism? Oh, but they officially become right wing when they act despotically? Yeah, no. Dictators come in every political flavor available.
And I have absolutely nothing to worry about from the right wing. Mr. Obama has quite effectively broken the back of the Grand Old Party. Largely just by being black, which makes it extra entertaining. No, all the political problems I have right now are from Democrats who are idealistic in their principles and purists in their politics.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)the ones who are capable of becoming dictators. Stalin and Hitler were more alike than different.
They can be looked upon as the two sides of a cracked ring. They are so close. Both are mass
killers and murderers. The Communists never did have a chance to play any significant role in
this country of ours. The Fascists, however, have succeeded in gaining a great deal of power.
I wouldn't trust either one of them.
It's not apparent to me that Mr. Obama has quite effectively broken the back of the GOP. Not by a
long shot. In fact, many think that politicians of both parties are heavily influenced by Corporate
America, and the present-day GOP seems to be owned by Corporate America -- lock, stock and
barrel. Sometime ago a writer in this forum said, "Today, it's not blue vs. red, or Dem. vs. Pub.
Today it's corporations vs. you and me." This seems more accurate to me.
Mr. Obama, being black, does attract more minority votes to the Dem. Party. That is to be expected.
The Right-wingers have been waging the most ferocious attacks and telling lies about him in all the
disgusting ways one can think of, but they had done the same thing to Mr. Clinton, didn't they?
I remember a billionaire banker of PA, Mellon, had paid out of his own pocket the expenses involved
in sending private detectives to Arkansas in order to dig up dirt, any kind of dirt, on him. They could
find nothing until some woman showed up, claiming Clinton had had sexual affairs with her. I think
the Right-wingers would do the same thing to any president or presidential candidate who wasn't one
of their own.
Let me muse a bit about political parties and dictatorships: Those people who tend to be attracted to
have things cut and dried, because they become anxiety-ridden when facing situations with no definite
answers as to which is the right way -- these are the ones who tend to choose professions like the
military. They take orders from above and pass them along to those below. Have you noticed that
most military officers are Republicans? The only high-ranking military Democrat I know of is Gen. Clark.
I doubt it that more than one in ten officers is a Democrat. The same thing is true of the
personalities of those who join religious orders, priests and nuns, where obedience is heavily stressed.
(As always, there will be exceptions). With these, it is easier to have a few people with power at the
top. They have a ready-made army of followers quite willing to do as they are told.
On the other hand, Democrats tend to go, each his own way. Sometimes it's hard to get them to stick
together, even when there is a real need for them to unite. A dictatorship won't rise easily from this
group.
I think fanatics don't belong to either of the groups mentioned above. They form a group of their own.
And sociopathy, narcissism, egomania...etc...probably play an important role in their personality
make-up. These are the ones who become the dictators.
From the above, I'd say that the possibility of the Republicans forming a dictatorship is greater than that
of the Democrats. There are more obedient followers among the Republicans. Democrats tend to prefer
going their own separate ways.
Now, Cain was briefly a front-runner among the Repub. candidates. Just imagine, if he hadn't loused
himself up, and if he should have won the Repub. nomination, there would be two black men running
for president in 2012. That would have been really interesting, wouldn't it?
Hey, Anatos, there is an extremely interesting thread with great replies titled "I'm not sure how to ask
this, but, is anybody feeling a great nauseous foreboding about..." The very first response brings up
another highly interesting topic. I'm sure you'd enjoy reading them. It's in this same forum. There are
over 170 replies.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Um, I don't think that's a good argument. 
Cal33
(7,018 posts)right from the beginning, and didn't know there were any good points until much, much later.
So, just don't be too hasty at makng judgments this time, too. A little patience until we
have more definitive information -- especially since last-minute changes were said to have
been made.
If you've read carefully, you'll see that I've made no judgment at all. I've said nothing about
things being okay or not okay.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)means has it "worked out in the end". So your point eludes me.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)because of the initial furor against it, I didn't know there were any good points in it
until much later. I pointed out there are both weaknesses and strengths in this
bill. I initially thought that it was all bad -- Which isn't the case.
My point is not to jump to judgments too hastily. We could spare ourselves some
unnecessary grief. In this world of ours, few things are all bad, or all good.
Back to the HCR bill: My preference actually would be the single-payer system. Someone
had written that the Healthcare Reform bill is so written that insurance companies will
be making less and less profits, and they (at least, the big ones) might eventually leave
the field altogether and go into some other business. The small ins. cos., of course,
will be glad to take over the crumbs. I wouldn't be surprised if the single-payer system
should win out in the end. I'd like to see our present corporate system, much of which is
criminal in nature, reformed from top to bottom, and from inside out.
comipinko
(541 posts)But I actually read and understood the posts I'm discussing, so I'm one up on you in that respect. Have a nice day.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)I can see that you agree enough with that sentiment to express your inane comments in her defense. 
Anatos
(179 posts)and until you stop lying about what she said, I don't see any reason to discuss what you said. Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Anatos
(179 posts)It is a good thing it was done away with. Ya'll are obviously more than happy to use it to exclude any opinion that differs from your own. I had brief hopes this wasn't Yet Another Progressive Site Ruined By Purists. Very brief.
comipinko
(541 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)your time and not to jump to conclusions too hastily. I had already done that
with the Healthcare Reform bill, and I'm not going to make the same mistake
again.
derby378
(30,262 posts)Sorry, but when Obama works against what the Democratic Party stands for, I get a little miffed, whether it's NDAA or the healthcare "reform" bill.
Modern_Matthew
(1,604 posts)With everything else added, it should've been an easy veto.