Where's the YES WE CAN, Mr President - Where is the fight for the people?

[debbierlus]

Months into the fight...and we have back room meetings with insurance companies & big pharm. These leeches are referred to as the 'health care stakeholders', a term I find so offensive, my blood boils every time I hear this propaganda put forth. The health care stakeholders are the AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Let's get one thing perfectly straight. The right wing nut balls may garner a lot of media attention with their hysterics, but it is crystal clear from the polls that Americans WANT universal guaranteed health care for every American. And, you were elected to represent those people, not the extremist fringe who would challenge ANY agenda you put forth, simply because you are a democrat.

You, Ms Pelosi, Harry Reid...you all took Single Payer off the table, completely breaking your campaign promise of allowing a robust debate of all the available options. The majority of doctors, nurses, health care providers of every kind, workers unions, and the AMERICAN PEOPLE want single payer. You dismissed it with five trite words at your first televised town hall on the health reform...

'It would be too disruptive'.

What the hell type of answer is that to the majority of doctors who advocate the system? What the hell type of debate & response is that by the President vowed who to openly debate all the options?

Disruptive to whom, Mr. Obama?

And, why is the term 'disruptive' even relevant to this debate?

ANY CHANGE BY DEFINITION IS DISRUPTIVE.

I can't believe that the liberals who worked their asses off campaigning for your election are not calling you out on this B.S. I have witnessed democrats reduced to defending pro-corporate private insurance simply because you advocate it.

And, the public option has been a brilliant diversion.

The public option was suppossed to be the left's concession for a full single payer system. But, you never have firmly held that line. I have yet to hear you come out and publicly demand that any health reform that you sign include a REAL public option and then define the parameters of what a real public option would look like....

No. You have place the public option on the negotiating table, and by doing so, you have betrayed the American people. There should be NO leeway or give on this issue. PERIOD. NONE.

It sickens me to watch this health care (insurance) reform 'debate' (if one could call a dialogue around health care reform a debate when it deliberately excludes the most sensible and feasible solution from the discussion).

This whole game has about ensuring how the insurance companies may continue to profiteer off our sickness. It is as despicable as the contractors who leech off war funds while troops have gone unprotected. It is the same equivalent.

As I have watched this debacle unfold, I have witnessed doctors & nurses arrested in Congress because they protested for just ONE representative of single payer to be included in the Senate Finance Hearings. I have witnessed the demcoratic chair call for more police while the participants (that would be the insurance reps who WERE invited in) chuckled. The sessions were then closed to the public. What I did not witness was any word from you on this outrage....No outrage about how this violated your promise that all the hearings be public. No mention of how this betrayed your promise everyone would be included.

Mandatory Private Health Insurance.

This is what you are going to blow your Presidency on. THIS is what you are risking a one term Presidency for?

The health care companies spent their 18 million dollars on your election, very well.

(And, to all those who will unrecommend this post for calling Obama out - SHAME ON YOU. Shame on you for allowing any politician to put insurance profits over the American citizen's health and not only get away with it, but be applauded for it. I can't believe you expect so little, will settle for so little. We need to start calling out our elected leadership DURING the political battle).

[babylonsister]

1. Can you do anything besides whine because you aren't getting

your way? We all know single payer is off the table. I'm still hoping for the public option. Even the progressives in the House know their limits and are also hoping for a strong public option.

Sorry, but your whining won't change a thing.

[debbierlus]

5. You are part of the problem Babylon - look in the mirror.

Your posts are about advocating for a politician instead of good policy.

Single Payer is not off the table. There is a bill HR676 that will be brought to the floor for a vote. And, I have blogged about how we all need to advocate and work for Congressional support of this bill.

That post did not even register on this board.

Just put me on ignore Babylon, I personally hold no respect for those who blindly support a politician and accuse those who call them to task 'whiners'.

We will have no true representative government of the people until we demand real representation and let our leaders know that our basic human rights are not bargaining chips.

Health care is a basic human right.

If you can't fight with me for true policy reform around this principle, just go the hell away.

[ProSense]

7. You're confusing yourself.

From your comment: Single Payer is not off the table. There is a bill HR676 that will be brought to the floor for a vote.

From the OP: You, Ms Pelosi, Harry Reid...you all took Single Payer off the table

[babylonsister]

9. I listened to the President yesterday and he said it's not an option.

Compared to what is available now, a strong public option IS true policy reform.

I imagine you might be seeing the blowback from the crazies about any health care reform. Can you imagine if only single payer were on the table? It'd never fly.

You don't get the concept of small steps, do you.

And no, why don't you get lost. You criticize everything this admin has done. As I've said in previous posts, I did that for 8 years. Maybe working with this admin is part of the solution instead of the continual whining so many supposed liberals do.

[jannyk]

24. Small Steps??!!

Why the fuck should we be content with 'Small Steps'?? We lived under the large Jack Boots of the right wing for 8 years, yet when we control the House/Senate and WH, we can only be expected to toddle??!!

As for the 'Strong Public Option', that seems to have slipped Obama's mind. Certainly was evasive and wishy washy about it yesterday.

Wish I had your blind faith, but unfortunately, my eyes are wide open.

[LaydeeBug]

31. like small steps for women's suffrage? or small steps toward justice?

maybe if Lincoln had said, "Let's make a black man FOUR FIFTHS instead of three" so he could EASE cultural acceptance? Or "let's let a woman have a private decision with her doctor SOME OF THE TIME" so as not to "deepen cultural divides"?

He ran on change. We want change. Case closed. (I also secretly think he wants us to insist on this...if we can get single payer...I mean it, just delete "under the age of 65" from the Medicare plan...if we can defeat the meglocorporatehealthcareindustrythatwantsyourgrandmatoeatalpo he will go down as one of the best presidents EVAH! )

[babylonsister]

33. Maybe I'm just more realistic than you are.

Here's two people I've read recently. Despite everyone's criticism and sense of doom, I don't think all is lost.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6288411

Michael Moore In Current Issue Of Rolling Stone: “If a true public option is enacted -- and Obama knows this -- it will eventually bring about a single payer system, because the profit-making insurance companies won't be able to compete with a government run plan and make the profits they want to make … I probably shouldn't be saying this, but I'm counting on the fact that Republicans won't be reading this Rolling Stone.”


Valerie Jarrett today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6311453

Q: Will prez veto bill that does not contain public option?
A: Prez wants public option. He has made that clear. Competition is necessary. Doesn't want to fast forward and talk about what he will veto.

[debbierlus]

54. No, I think I am the one being realistic

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/debbierlus/289

I watched Obama as the Blue Dogs weakened the house bill, and he praised the deal that led to the initial legislation coming out of the house. The deal basically broke apart the public option so that it would not create any real competition to the insurance companies. Read the journal entry with the links to the story.

Now, fairly, the Blue Dogs & the Liberals did work out a 'compromise' to get the legislation out of committee, the next evening. However, that compromise was viewed by the majority of progressives (and Howard Dean) as unacceptable because it did not repair the damage to the public option, significantly denying tying the rates to Medicare, and making the plan universally available from Day 1. This compromise was again applauded by Obama.

Why should ANYONE believe that Obama would champion final legislation that would produce a real public option when he praises deals that make the option impotent and doesn't defend the most basic parameters that would make a public option truly competitive with the insurance companies?

I will ask you this final question - what will you do if Obama openly supports and advocates legislation that does not contain a REAL public option, only mandates private insurance?

Will you defend that? Or, will you praise it because he got 'something' done. Even, if that something, sells the American populace out to private insurance companies.

Let's wait and see.

I hope YOU are right, babylon. I would love to see a strong public option. But, I don't believe for one single minute we will get it.

[QC]

76. Or maybe you're just a starry-eyed fan. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

27. Your post reeks of the 'keep the powder dry' we heard for years

from Vichy Democrats.

[debbierlus]

36. Don't bother, she's a fan not a activist

[babylonsister]

39. And you're a whiner. Case closed. nt

[debbierlus]

32. And, what strong public option would that be, Babylon,

The only bill right now is the House version which stripped every key mandate necessary from the legislation that would make it strong.

The Senate is eyeing co-ops.

There is no indication that any REAL public option will be in the final legislation.

When a impotent political gesture of a 'public-option' is passed for political cover (or we could get coops or no public option at all), will you still be ranting at me about how fantastic Obama's health reform is?

I have stated again & again & again, I would support a real public option. It is clear that the public option is now nothing more then a political game played for the benefit of people such as yourself....political theatre to make the people believe that legislation dictated by private industry is actually for you. People who will champion mandated Private Insurance as some kind of reform for the people, when all it really does is ensure that we remain economically enslaved to corporations.

And, I stand behind every criticism of the administration I have made because those criticisms are VALID.

So, again. Put me on ignore. You can't rave back at me all you want - the truth is the truth and it will be laid bare very, very soon.

[salguine]

73. Just put her on "ignore". That's what I did, and now every day is Christmas!

[vaberella]

82. +100000. n/t

[Windy]

6. Agreed! and FYI...obama was never for single payer in the campaign

He knew that it would never pass congress. We are getting a hard enough push back on a public option which he wants and I hope is in the final bill when it emerges from congress.

[Bluenorthwest]

96. He was never for mandated purchase during the campaign

and clearly said that those against mandates should vote for him, as Clinton was in favor of mandates. How about if we hold him to that?
His word on the campaign trail was 'no mandates'.

[WinkyDink]

48. Why is opposing "whining"?

[IndianaGreen]

49. There is a cult of personality at play here.

To be fair, we have been so distracted by the rightwing crazies at the health reform fora, that we have failed to be diligent as to what Congress is doing in our name.

[dionysus]

57. another day, another tearful tantrum.

[earth mom]

61. Shame on you-you are one of the WORST offenders & defenders of the status quo here on DU!

:puke:

[polichick]

2. Well, for what it's worth, THIS liberal who worked my ass off campaigning...

...for his election HAS called him on it ~ my citizen volunteer work now is holding his feet to the fire.

[countingbluecars]

3. Have you noticed what he is up against? eom

[John Q. Citizen]

11. He's up against Republicans. The insurance industry has publicly endorsed the Obama "reforms"

that will give the insurance industry a trillion dollars a decade of new money from our tax dollars.

The AMA has publicly endorsed these "reforms" that will protect their high incomes,

Big pharma has endorsed these reforms.


Obama is up against Sarah Palin and the Repos in congress.

Why? What do you think he's up against?

[countingbluecars]

14. He is up against

a lot-frightened old people who are being misled, people afraid of change, bigots and supremacists, and some progressives who won't be happy unless they get exactly what they want immediately.

[John Q. Citizen]

29. the people demonstrating against Obama lost the election. The progressives opposed to

spending a trillion a decade in new tax money to subsidize the private insurance companies and big pharma are opposed to Romney Care. If we wanted Romney care we would have voted for Romney. But we didn't. We want better.

If you want Romney care, then you will be very happy indeed. Because it looks like you are going to get it.

However, don't expect liberal Democrats to show up at the polls in 2010 because they are giddy about Romney Care.

Perhaps the insurance industry, the AMA and big pharma will become new Democratic voters. But if they don't, don't blame us. Blame yourself. OK?

[Hippo_Tron]

85. A good many members of his own party, actually

Some of them (Max Baucus) holding key positions. Congress members, regardless of party, put special interests and local interests above national interests, end of story. If an insurance company is a major employer in a congressman's district there's not a chance in hell that they will support a bill that could mean job losses for that district.

The President and the Vice President are the only elected officials who represent the entire country. That's what he's up against.

[earth mom]

62. * didn't give a flying fuck what anyone thought or who he was "up against".

Obama needs to grow a set.

[dolphindance]

64. Obama didn't get to where he is by being a p*ssy. He knows which battles to fight.

And when he strikes, he strikes hard.

Really tired of all this emasculation talk.

[earth mom]

69. What a know it all for being here a month.

:eyes:

p.s. Here's a smilie for ya!

[countingbluecars]

72. And being here for years

gives you the right to be rude and crude?

[earth mom]

74. Where was a rude or crude? I used the word fuck. Big deal. At least I didn't use the p word

like the dude who replied to me did-which as a woman, I find to be far more rude and crude.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hippo_Tron]

87. Oh gee, all those dummies in the White House must have never thought of that one

Lets just have the President grow a set and all of our problems will be solved!!!!

:eyes:

[Tansy_Gold]

4. K & R

I'm sick of the betrayal, too.

[Phx_Dem]

8. I think he's doing a great job. Obama never advocated for single-payer so

you obviously weren't paying attention during the campaign.

[IndianaGreen]

10. So you now blame Obama voters for holding him to a principled position?

Obama already let LGBTs down, and those of us that wanted real change in foreign policy. But you go ahead and ignore our warnings about Afghanistan.

[Phx_Dem]

13. No, I blame anyone for holding Obama to a position he never had.

[IndianaGreen]

20. Like his memo about torture, yet torture is still taking place today

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE51O3TB20090225

And it was Obama's State Department that threaten Britain with reprisals if it allowed torture information to come out.

Thursday July 30, 2009 05:31 EDT

British Foreign Secretary: Clinton threatened to cut-off intelligence-sharing if torture evidence is disclosed

I've written several times before about the amazing quest of Binyam Mohamed -- a British resident released from Guantanamo in February, 2009 after seven years in captivity -- to compel public disclosure of information in the possession of the British Government proving he was tortured while in U.S. custody. At the center of Mohamed's efforts lie the claims of high British government officials that the Obama administration has repeatedly threatened to cut off intelligence-sharing programs with the U.K. if the British High Court discloses information which British intelligence officials learned from the CIA about how Mohamed was tortured. New statements from the British Foreign Secretary yesterday -- claiming that Hillary Clinton personally re-iterated those threats in a May meeting -- highlight how extreme is this joint American/British effort to cover-up proof of Mohamed's torture.

In August 2008, the British High Court ruled in Mohamed's favor, concluding in a 75-page ruling (.pdf) that there was credible evidence in Britain's possession that Mohamed was brutally tortured and was therefore entitled to disclosure of that evidence under long-standing principles of British common law, international law (as established by the Nuremberg Trials and the war crimes trials of Yugoslav leaders, among others), and Britain's treaty obligations (under the Convention Against Torture). But as part of that ruling, the Court redacted from its public decision seven paragraphs which detailed the facts of Mohamed's torture -- facts which British intelligence agents learned from the CIA -- based on the British Government's representations that both the Bush and Obama administrations had threatened to cut off intelligence-sharing with Britain if those facts were disclosed, even as part of a court proceeding.

The British government's claims about these threats led the British High Court to conclude that it could not disclose those facts in good conscience because the U.S. was, in essence, threatening to put the lives of British citizens at risk by terminating intelligence-sharing over terrorist threats.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/30/mohamed/

[Phx_Dem]

28. Uh, Obama Admin isn't torturing anyone dude.

During the campaign Obama promised no more torturing. We're not.

[IndianaGreen]

37. So what happened at Bagram was not torture but some other stuff

Many allegations of ill-treatment appear repeatedly in the interviews: physical abuse, the use of stress positions, excessive heat or cold, unbearably loud noise, being forced to remove clothes in front of female soldiers.

<snip>

Ms Foster accuses the new administration of abandoning that position and "using the same arguments as the Bush White House".

In its legal submissions, the US justice department argues that because Afghanistan is an active combat zone it is not possible to conduct rigorous inquiries into individual cases and that it would divert precious military resources at a crucial time.

They also argue that granting legal rights to detainees could harm Mr Obama's "ability to succeed in armed conflict and to protect United States' forces" by limiting his powers to conduct military operations.

A US federal appeals court judge is expected to rule soon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8116046.stm

Amnesty International regrets that the new government has so far adopted wholesale the approach of its predecessor on the legal rights of the Bagram detainees. The organization has been calling on President Obama and his government to recognize the right of the detainees to challenge the lawfulness of their detention in an independent and impartial court.

In a letter last month, the Pentagon told Amnesty International that there were "approximately 565" detainees held in Bagram. Little is known about who they are, the circumstances of their arrests or their current treatment and conditions of detention. None has access to legal counsel or the courts.

In response to the organization's concerns about child detainees, the Pentagon stated that since 2002, U.S. forces had detained "approximately 100 juveniles in Afghanistan," of whom "fewer than five" were still held. The letter gave no other details on the Bagram detentions, saying that the information Amnesty International had requested was either classified or the subject of ongoing litigation in federal court.

Amnesty International is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning grassroots activist organization with more than 2.2 million supporters, activists and volunteers in more than 150 countries campaigning for human rights worldwide. The organization investigates and exposes abuses, educates and mobilizes the public, and works to protect people wherever justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGUSA20090624003&lang=e

US Withholds Information About Bagram Detainees

by Danielle Kurtzleben

WASHINGTON - The U.S. government continues to withhold even the most basic information about prisoners in the Bagram detention facility in Afghanistan, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a New York-based legal rights organization.

An April 2009 ACLU Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents and information about the detainment of prisoners at Bagram has yielded dead ends with both the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

The ACLU wants the Obama Administration to make these records public, including information about "the number of people currently detained at Bagram, their names, citizenship, place of capture and length of detention, as well as records pertaining to the process afforded those prisoners to challenge their detention and designation as ‘enemy combatants.'"

The Bagram detention facility, located on an air base north of Kabul, reportedly houses around 600 detainees. These detainees comprise a mixture of suspected terrorists from outside Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as Afghanis captured while fighting American soldiers.

In a letter responding to the ACLU's FOIA request, the CIA said it could "neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence" of records containing the information requested by the ACLU.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/08/15-2

We voted for change, not a light version of what went on before.

[pecwae]

44. How would you know?

Abu Ghraib came out only because of the behavior of those involved in the photos.

[vaberella]

83. So you're implying it is going on? Provide the proof please. n/t

[LaydeeBug]

26. Really? Facts are stubborn things, and you're either lying, delusional, or misinformed, but you are

WRONG about that.

From his own freaking website:
http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obama_consistent_in.php


Since change is what he ran on, why is single payer touted as the 'ultimate goal" albeit not "politically expedient" right now?
http://www.vernonbroadcaster.com/articles/2009/08/14/opinion/01storyop.txt

Change isn't always politically expedient, and it can sometimes be daunting. It is our job to hold his feet to the fire.

Citing political inexpedience, or even cultural adjustment is mealy mouthed, and you should damn well know it. Who the hell would have stood for, "let's not allow women the right to vote right now", or "let's not prohibit a slave trade" because of a culture not accepting it? It's bullshit. Same as any other lame excuse. He has work to do. And it is our job as the American People to see to it that it gets done, and he gets rewarded for it with re-election. No more fear. No more bullshit. No more excuses. We have our work to do. Holding his feet to the fire FOR WHAT HE DAMN WELL SAYS IS HIS GOAL is part of the task that WE have at hand.

[John Q. Citizen]

43. Very well put. There are many people who would abdicate their

responsibilities as free citizens to their employees.

But that is of course nothing more than the abdication of responsibility.

[LaydeeBug]

51. Thank you.

I am sure it would be *easier* to just let Baucus and Conrad have their way. But I think we can BE the change, and I don't think it is unfair to hold him to account for the sake of ALL of us.

[John Q. Citizen]

17. Obama promised open debate. He lied. All we wanted was a seat next to the insurance industry, big

pharma, and the AMA, all who got multiple seats and who are the big winners from this so called "reform. Just a seat at the table to be able to join into the debate.

Obama never advocated mandates during the election. In fact he ran against them. You obviously will fall for anything you are told to fall for.


I paid attention during the campaign when Obama promised that all ideas, regardless of ideology, would be allowed consideration.

Obama lied to the millions of Americans who support a single payer solution, and we won't forget. Lies have consequences.

[debbierlus]

19. You would think people would be outraged at the legislation being written for (and by)

Private Health Insurance companies...

But, apparently, keeping their blinders on about Obama trumps truth and good reform.

It is disgusting.

Very Bushian

[IndianaGreen]

23. People are so distracted by the rightwing crazies

that they are not paying attention to what is happening on our side.

[jannyk]

40. And I believe that is intentional. Which is why...

... the vote never happened before recess. We're supposed to be riled up and united against the crackpots outside the town halls. Then we're supposed to feel 'victorious' when they pass a piece of shit Health Reform bill because the right wing is against it.

[QC]

78. As long as he looks nice in a bathing suit, a lot of the loudest, most active people around here

will be happy. No need to get into boring things like health care and wars when there are pinups to be ogled.

[Phx_Dem]

22. We are having an open debate, and he promised to bring everyone to the table,

which is exactly what he is doing. The only liar is you -- Obama never supported or promised a single-payer system during the campaign -- he always advocated a public option.

You can take your "consequences" and shove them up your ass. No one gives a shit about your dumb threats. Next time vote for Ralph Nader and see where that gets you.

[John Q. Citizen]

42. Obama shut out single payer from the start by not inviting single payer advocates to his

meetings.

Obama campaigned against mandates. Specifically and by name, he campaigned against them. So don't try to divert what this OP is about with the stupid and diversionary, "he never ran on single payer" gambit.

It is as intellectually dishonest as it gets, since no one on this thread or any other has ever attempted to argue that Obama ran on single payer.

It is this dishonesty which marks Obama and his supporters. If your idea of a debate is to be as dishonest as the teabaggers, then you should be ashamed of yourself.

i highly doubt Nader will be running in the 2010 mid terms. But when the Dem turnout takes a big plunge, at least you will know why it did. You can thank your self for your part in it.

I would advise you to look at voter turn out in the 1994 mid-terms. The most salient feature was the big failure of Dems to come out and vote. Their numbers fell way off from the 1990 mid term. Repo numbers remained the same in both 1990 and 1994. And Nader wasn't even running, if you can get your mind around that!

But i doubt you are interested in facts or in history. No, you can pretend that when Dems promote market driven Republican ideas that it is really good for the party. Go ahead, pretend away!

[slipslidingaway]

52. Exactly..."All we wanted was a seat next to the insurance industry..."

it is amazing the number of people who cannot grasp this fact.

"I paid attention during the campaign when Obama promised that all ideas, regardless of ideology, would be allowed consideration."

I paid attention as well and agree with your statements.

[tritsofme]

12. If single payer enjoys majority support in the House, then HR 676 will pass on the floor.

Put up or shut up.

Where are the votes?

President Obama and the Congressional Leadership are producing the best bill that has the best chance of clearing all legislative hurdles.

But surely the incredibly popular single payer bill will win, as Leadership has cleared the way for a floor vote.

[IndianaGreen]

25. Who is getting paid by the health industry, that is the question!

Evan Bayh's wife is a corporate lawyer for Wellpoint. Evan gets money from Lilly, Wellpoint and Anthem. You can bet where Bayh's vote is going to go.

[debbierlus]

34. Obama received 18 million from health insurance lobbyists and big pharm

There are six lobbyists for every political representative in Washington.

They are spending 1.5 million a day to influence the language and debate of the health insurance reform

And, what are they up against?

People who won't even rail against it. People who will support any legislation as long as Obama touts it.

It is pathetic.

[John Q. Citizen]

45. It would win it the people who are content to accept Romney Care would only demand the best instead

just taking what the insurance companies will give you.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LaydeeBug]

16. On the title alone, I've rec'd this. But NOT because Obama is capitulating...

but because it highlights that IT IS OUR DUTY TO HOLD HIM TO HIS VISION NOW THAT THERE ARE SPECIAL INTERESTS BLURRING HIS VISION.

We need a wake up call here...NOT because Obama has done something awful, but because he works for US, so it is our DUTY to make sure he knows what we expect.

[jannyk]

18. K&R I for one didn't vote for Obama...

...just to get a Black Man elected. I voted for the Democrat to get a Democratic Agenda put in place. So far completely I'm underwhelmed.

[ProSense]

21. "...just to get a Black Man elected" WTF? n/t

[babylonsister]

35. Are you sure you're on the right board? If you think that's why

I voted for this president, you are very sadly misinformed.

You also sound like you have 'issues'.

[John Q. Citizen]

46. How do you figure into what the person replied to the OP?

He wasn't posting to you, and he didn't mention you.

[jannyk]

50. Hell yes! I have Issues...

...fucking Health Issues which I can't afford the $5,000 per year deductible for. You apparently are sitting pretty 'cause you don't seem too concerned that the rest of us don't have access to affordable Health Care.

Who rang your bell anyway?

[ProSense]

53. Oh, please. Your comment was racist.

A lot of people have problems, and a lot of people with problems voted for Obama fully understanding what he promised he would fight to change.

[DevonRex]

55. OMG. "just to get a black man elected?" Good lord.

[dionysus]

58. telling.

:eyes:

[Baltoman991]

30. No no,

the shame is on you and your ilk who continue to berate, piss, whine and moan over things Obama never said he'd do. The shame is you and your ilk are allowing Congress to sit on their asses and do nothing while slamming Obama at every turn.

The shame is you and your ilk who continue to come here day after day telling us Obama has done nothing.

No, the real shame is you and your ilk aren't getting your asses kissed and until that day comes, Obama will be nothing to you. He never was anything to many here. Since his election night win, the nay sayers have been bringing forth any and every right wing talking point they can find right down to calling his supporters cultists.

It's ok though, those who listened to the man for 2 years know that he's on our side and we know he said he's going to piss us off from time to time. But we also know that he's not just sitting on his ass and that he's accomplished much in 7 months. To bad you folks who didn't support him have to come and spew the lies about him doing nothing at all. If thats the new progressive attitude then I think I'll pass.

[babylonsister]

38. Great post. Thank you. nt

[countingbluecars]

41. Amen! n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

47. Obama said he opposed mandates. Where were you during the campaign?

[boppers]

56. Nobody has to have health insurance.

They can pay taxes to cover their share, and get zero benefits, if they choose.

:evilgrin:

[earth mom]

63. Obama has a fucking excuse for everything he doesn't do and all his empty promises.

Wake up and smell the corruption in Washington DC!

SHAME on YOU! People are dying or don't you fucking get that?! :puke:

[Name removed]

68. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

70. "SHAME on YOU! People are dying or don't you fucking get that?!"

You don't seem to get that covering the uninsured, among the other benefits of the bill, is better than nothing.

[crazy_vanilla]

59. it is wonderful to have a one-payer

When we lived abroad we got to fully enjoy the peace that comes with the knowledge that no matter what happens your medical needs will be met. The quality of care was equal if not better than what we have here with private insurance. And no fear that treatments will be declined by insurance company bureaucrats in favor of their profits.

[earth mom]

60. Bravo! Well Said! There is a shitload of DUers that should be ashamed of themselves

especially on GD-P! :puke:

I don't recognize DU any more and the only reason I stay is to support posts like this one. :applause:

[dolphindance]

65. Nah, you only stay cause you love to post vomit smileys. (n/t)

[earth mom]

67. Who the fuck are you? nt

[Baltoman991]

71. Exactly!!!

You stay to praise any post that slams Obama or to post as many right wing talking points as you possibly can.

As I said in a previous post, if this is the new progressive attitude, I'll pass. I'm not one who needs his ass kissed and I pay attention.

[earth mom]

77. FYI-I don't listen to right wing bullshit & don't have a clue what their talking points are.

We don't have cable t.v./satellite at our house and I rarely, if ever watch the local news plus I don't get the newspaper.

I get my news & info online here on DU and at various LEFT leaning websites/forums.

I stay here on DU because I care this country and planet and I care about the truth.

If you don't like that too damn bad.

But it probably won't be long for people like you make sure I'm silenced and TSed-so start planning your party. :eyes:

[BlooInBloo]

75. I want a schnozzberry NOW DADDY!!!!!!

[vaberella]

84. +infinity. And it's like that scene is on permit repeat with this poster. n/t

[donheld]

79. Can't you just go away? Kick and heartily Unrecommend.

[bridgit]

80. Anyone that thought Obama was going to just *snap* his fingers and the clouds would part...

Is, or has been living in LaLa Land

[firedupdem]

81. And his inauguration should have been cancelled because it

cost too much. :eyes:

[Hippo_Tron]

86. Okay, name 218 in the House and 51 in the Senate that will vote for it

And how you think the President should go about getting those votes. And I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that we could do this through reconciliation in the Senate requiring only 51 and not 60.

[ima_sinnic]

88. gee, how did LBJ get Medicare--the way he wanted it--to pass, in the face of similar opposition?

He did it by using the power of his office to pressure legislators. He didn't sit around all wishy washy, letting the insurance company lobbyists and corrupt politicians like Max Baucus determine our futures. If corpo lobbyists don't like it, it ain't gonna happen, because Obama never saw a lobbyist he didn't love. Those campaign donations from insurance companies and big pharma are a lot more important than any health care you or I will get.

[Hippo_Tron]

90. There were 68 Democratic Senators in the 89th Congress

The GOP was not nearly as right wing crazy as they are now, the insurance lobby was not nearly as powerful and entrenched, Johnson was elected with 60% of the vote, and all of this took place before the Reagan era of greed.

You can pretend all you want that if only Obama would use the famous "Johnson treatment" that he could get this done. The fact is that it had jack shit to do with the Johnson treatment. Johnson had good circumstances and governed in an era when people weren't as unbelievably selfish as they are today.

Oh yea and by the way if Johnson was so good at it, then why could he only get Medicare passed for people over 65 and not for everybody?

[ima_sinnic]

92. oh, use whatever excuses make you happy

So we have "only" 60 (61?) "Democratic" senators. There are also Republicans who might be persuaded, if only the leadership was there to persuade them. And of course Obama is not Johnson, and of course "times are different." Therefore Obama should make no real effort to get his agenda passed. :sarcasm:

[Hippo_Tron]

98. Democrats have been trying since Truman to get this done

And nobody has yet been successful. Obama isn't making "no real effort" he's proposing a plan that will pass this congress. If you really think single-payer can get through this congress, you don't understand this congress.

[ima_sinnic]

89. I did recommend, but the Obama cheerleaders, as well as fringers & trolls, are out in force

the fact that a "public option," let alone universal single payer, is dying CAN'T be Obama's fault!
It's all those legislators who for some reason or other, just won't respect his agenda and plans. :sarcasm:

If a leader can't promote an agenda to those under him/her and get them to support it, where is the "leadership"?
Perhaps, though, the problem is that single payer or publicly funded health care never really was Obama's agenda. Insurance reform is really what he's pushing, with a few token bones thrown to We The People to make us think otherwise.

Has he responded to the criticisms of We The People that we're locked out of those "discussions" he pimped so falsely?
I didn't think so. He really hasn't said shit about it. He could be using the power of his office a lot more effectively -- IF he wanted to.

[akbacchus_BC]

93. Aw, I feel so sorry for you! The darn President only in there for just

over six months, what you want him to do? I have an idea, message him and tell him he needs to get you what you want!

[ima_sinnic]

94. um, some strong responding to the shitbagger "protestors" would be good, for a start

remember his "lightning response teams" during his campaign?
where are the rumor-squelchers now? He doesn't seem to care very much that his plans have been railroaded by the righties or compromised by Democrats, with barely a squeak from him.
He hasn't said jack about Baucus's "hearings," which Obama "promised" would "include everybody."
And what in hell does being "in there for just over six months" have to do with anything?
If this was "too early" to put "publicly available health care" on the table, why did he do it? Does he always start projects he "hasn't had time" to fully develop?
In 2012, when he is defeated, you'll be here saying, gee what did you want, he was in there for only 4 years.

[akbacchus_BC]

95. Sorry, am not reading you? President Obama inherited a shitload

of Bush's policies and if you think he is a magician to turn things around in 6 months, then stay in your basement!

[ima_sinnic]

97. what "Bush's policies" in relation to health care?

I think you have your "praise Obama no matter what he does or doesn't do" talking points mixed up.
Turn to the ones regarding his empty promises about "no mandated health insurance" and "a strong public option" and "a seat at the table for EVERYBODY." What are the responses you are supposed to spew? Because the excuse of "inheriting Bush's policies" is getting quite thin, and it doesn't even apply to this issue.

[countingbluecars]

99. Your choice of words

leads me to believe that you fall into one of the categories listed in your subject line.

[ima_sinnic]

101. you are free to believe whatever you want.

I voted for Obama and am also free to criticize him when I feel it is warranted.

[akbacchus_BC]

91. You just love to whine don't you? Want some cheese! You are tiresome!

[MasonJar]

100. Send your letter to Obama. We all need to keep the pressure on him.

It is for his own good. He is going to lose us in the next election, if he does not bring about real change. He promised it. That promise is so far unfulfilled. It cost Hillary the election and we know she is for a strong public option. So live up to your campaign slogan, Barack. This is not Congress's baby. It is Obama's. If he wants a strong public option, he will get it. If it's not there, he didn't sell it to the people (who by the way already want it) or the Congress.