Obama '08?

The Obama admin pulls another Bush like tactic, where is the outrage from the left?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/10/obama-administration-invokes-state-secrets-privilegeagain.html






So where was the review and the oversight on this case?




If it was wrong when Bush did it, why isnt it wrong when Obama does it?

You mean to tell us you can't decipher the difference between Bush and Obama on what is right or wrong? You are confused!

Good evening to yall. Watch out for zombies tonight.

Representative John Boehner (R-OH) today discussed the various health care reform ideas the Republicans have suggested in the last 6 months or so. My perception has been that they have been spending most of their time trashing the Democrats' ideas, but if he says they have been contributing positively, I can live with that.
Mr Boehner said:
"* number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines..."
That certainly seemed to make sense to me but...like a wool sweater with a loose thread that you pull on, you end up with a pile of thread and no sweater.
Is anyone here able to rationally discuss that one concept?

I agree that people should be able to purchase health insurance across state lines; that will increase competition.

I must admit that I made a whirlwin tour through Google on this one issue. I didn't keep track of links but I could probably reconstruct it. I think I googled "health care reform insurance state lines."
And I most certainly may have some of the facts wrong. But here is a 1st whack at this.
* Back a few decades credit cards could only be issued by banks in your home state. In order to "foster competition" that was changed. Guess what happened? The credit card companies set up shop in South Dakota, which had the most lax rules regarding fees and interest rates. Those outfits had huge marketing budgets and snuffed the "local" issuers.
* The laws prohibiting interstate sales of health insurance are state laws. It seems odd that the Republicans would apparently want to tear down those state laws and replace them with something else.
* States, or at least some folks from some states, fear that rates would be set simply by gender and how old you are and not by "where you live." That idea of "one price fits all" would penalize some and subsidize others.

Again, I am tossing this one issue out that seems to be obvious. It turns out not, perhaps, to be a "no-brainer."

One factor I would like to consider is the number of health insurers operating solely in one state, or in a small number of contiguous states. My unproven suspicion is that most of them are pretty much nationwide anyway, though incorporating in thirty or even fifty states. There could be efficiencies gained by compliance of only one set of regulations. Sometimes the compliance effort costs more than the compliance itself, if you can follow a sentence like that. I have certainly seen it work out that way with New Mexico wage law.

But no, I wouldn't want all locating in the state with the most lienient regulations.

It's how they open up open competition; most people already understand the pros and cons of any issue that has to do with national rules and regulations for consumer protections.

Even the UHC in Massachusetts has been established without the correct rules and regulations for people to abuse it. Since it's an "open" system, people purchased insurance to care for expensive health care, and then dropped it once they received the services.

Abuse happens both ways, and the people who plan for open health insurance programs should investigate and establish rules that protects the consumer as well as the insurance companies.

It's the only way efficiencies can be built into the system to save cost.

Totally predictable and unsurprising, mm. It is just another government boondoggle. Obamacare, if rammed through somehow in the dead of night without the American people being able to properly vet the thing, it will be another boondoggle, a very very big one that every one of us will pay dearly for with our health care, and with our pocketbooks, for the rest of our lives, and then our children and grandchildren will have be saddled with it.

Obama promised an open and adequate process of vetting all legislation, but does anyone believe this now? He promised the same with each and every appointment in the administration, and how many have had to take their name out of consideration or resign after appointment, plus how many are still there that cheated on their taxes or other things, or have had really weird beliefs as proven by their quotes and actions that have been dug up? Of course, why should we worry, they are only communist sympathizers and so forth?

And how, pray-tell, did you arrive at your conclusions? Please explain how you arrived at your conclusion about the jobs saved or made?

You arrived at your conclusions, not by studies or investigation, but by your meely brain that understands nothing!

Oversimplify much?

Your quote indicates it was $250 to 54 million people. Pulling up "calculator" and plugging in the numbers... $13,500,000,000.

I don't know. How many jobs did $13.5 billion dollars save?

Take your time. It seems math isn't your strong suit.

DrewDad, I like your math abilities. It seems mm and okie are clueless.

A pretty good video of the Wallace interview of Limbaugh, touching on most all the pressing issues surrounding the country and Obama, such as the economy, the stimulus, national security, the inexperience of Obama, Afghanistan, Obama care, and so forth. I think Limbaugh does a fairly good job of answering all the questions and is pretty close to right on in regard to most of it.

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=11197194&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/

okie still hasn't a clue, because he'd rather listen to Limbaugh.

Perhaps this will help some of better understand racism.

Mysteryman, I think teeny is speaking from her experience.

What about, say, the cartoons that include Obama eating watermellon, or being a character in the Red Foxx show, etc.? Are those, and there are many, who send them out racists?

Mysteryman,

Since you have decided that:

"You can only speak about things that have actually happened to you."

Which I would think is the norm of an individual.

"Since that is the standard you want to apply to others, lets see if you can live by that."

When did I set a standard, if I voice my opinion? As an American of African, Native American and European Ancestry that was here before you or your ancestors came over from wherever your people are from, presumably European or other, I am speaking from "personal" history/experience, of which I know well. I don't remember asking anyone to feel sorry for my having been born Black or otherwise. Just related how I was treated, my parents and other persons, all Americans are/were treated differently from what some of you consider "All American", which I translate to be "white".

I did not state that anyone 40 or under is guilty of any of the experiences I've had or may have, as racism is certainly alive and well in the United States. It's evident by the number of people in Washington that are set against the 1st Black President of ever achieving any of the goals he set out to achieve.

It also goes without saying that so-called Democrats are as guilty as any Republican of the same, if you look at political affiliations. It is what it is. A new term has come into existance and it's whites calling blacks racists! I can be accused of bigotry, (favoring one race over another), but racism? Racism is the majority race instituting a system, programmed to keep one group or another of people, either of color/race/religion, in a separated and unequal system of life, in general.

I don't know of any instance in this country that Blacks have instituted a system of keeping whites or any race from living in their neighborhoods, attending their schools, acquiring employment, worshipping in their churches or even being allowed to be buried amongst us. Do you?

What I have described in what I hope are simple terms is a systemic, institutionalized, way of life for Blacks in these United States since 1619, when 22 people of color landed in Jamestown, Va. This after native Americans were seen as unable to toil in the tobacco and corn fields, whites had tried to force upon them. This, after land had already been confiscated from the native Americans, who are still battling for the return of certain lands in the Dakotas and elsewhere.

I have no idea where you're trying to place guilt or send someone on a guilt trip, because no matter the argument that some of you say, "well I never placed anyone in slavery", but you are a direct recipient for tis country having such a system. No, none of you are guilty, but like the holocaust of World War 2 and the incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War 2, you can't just tell me to "MOVE ON"! The Jews said "never again", built holocaust museums, erected monuments, formed philanthropic foundations, were compensated for their loss and art, jewelry and other artifacts returned, where proved, so I should "move on", huh?

Each of the Japanese interred were given a set amount of money, return of some land but not nearly compensated like the Jews were, no disrespect to anyone of Jewish ancestry. Nothing can compensate for what happened to the Jews of Europe or anywhere, for that matter. Nothing can compensate either for the senseless lynchings, rape of slave women, separation of children from their mothers, the selling of a husband for the purpose of mating him with other women, the justification, using the bible that slavery was okay with God and the loss of identity, language and history of ones self.

So it's not okay to be angry? Put your feet in the shoes of any Black man and see how you'd feel. For those who post that they have no memory of any of the above, go to the library and get a book on the history of slavery in America or read "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee" and see what it feels like to have an entire country stolen from you. I am not a lawyer, but I rest my case.

I don't send around cartoons of anyone eating watermelon, but just curious, how is eating watermelon racist?

Being perfectly frank here, there are many jokes about people, okies, aggies, pollocks, irishmen, you name it. Why do any of us have to be so hypersensitive to stuff like that? People kid me all the time about being an okie, and it does not bother me in the least, and in fact that is one small reason why I used the name, okie, here, because I think many in intelligentsia consider anyone from Oklahoma as some backwoods hick. I think the joke is on them of course, due to their own misguided ivory tower attitudes.

Hey, my dad used to work at the cattle sales, and guys would drive into the sale with a truck load of watermelons, and at the end of the day whatever they didn't sell, my dad would sometimes buy the whole lot of whats left for a bargain price, so we knew what it was like to eat plenty of watermelon on hot Oklahoma summer days, and it was usually alot easier to eat it without a fork or plate. People can make cartoons all they want about what we did, I couldn't care less. Perhaps some people think it is a derogatory stereotype of black people, I don't know why it matters all that much to them, but in consideration of their hypersensitivity I would not use it, but I still don't see that it is the worst thing that anyone ever did.

okie, It's because you are clueless.