okie
 
  0  
Tue 18 May, 2010 04:44 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

And IMHO, by claiming to have served when he didnt, he doesnt deserve to be elected dogcatcher, let alone a US senator.

Agreed on that, and I think he cannot even be compared to Bush. Bush served with honor, and his record was lied about many times by the opposition, including the hit piece attempted by Dan Rather right before the election, essentially amounting to a trumped up phony investigative reporting in an attempt to alter a federal election, which is a federal offense, which has never been adequately investigated or the guilty parties punished, because the mainstream press has no interest at all. We will not forget however.
okie
 
  0  
Tue 18 May, 2010 04:49 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

If yall have time, link to and read the full article Okie cited above. It's a hoot.

Its not only a hoot, it is highly disturbing to think we have a president with that strange of a background, while his law team prevent people from finding out more about his background. Only the koolaid drinkers pass it off as nothing, as nothing to be concerned about. People have a choice, they can remain Obama koolaid drinkers, or they can choose to care more about the country, one or the other.
okie
 
  0  
Tue 18 May, 2010 05:04 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

This isnt about Obama, but here we have a dem talking about his vietnam service.
Guess what, he NEVER went to vietnam, and he NEVER left the US while in the Marine Reserve.

Now, since the dems blasted Bush, are they gonna blast this guy also?

Isn't it interesting he claims he "mis-spoke." I have noticed when Democrats lie, they call it a case of "mis-speaking," when in fact it is a clear case of blatant lying to your face. It is obvious they have no respect for the American people or for any moral standard of right and wrong, none at all. It is my opinion that this practice took a turn for the worse during the Clinton campaign against Bush, when there was no respect for the truth, Bill lied so much and often that people ceased to care, and his presidency left a wasteland of lying behind him, and the Democratic Party has not changed since, its just as bad and maybe getting worse. Their party philosophy is "the end justifies the means."

If anyone thinks I am anti-Democratic Party, they are correct. That party is a mere shadow of itself, and a very poor and pathetic shadow.
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Tue 18 May, 2010 05:10 pm
@okie,
The Western Center For Journalism article you seem to think highly of, Okie, includes this one line that they report as being a fact.
"Over 49 separate lawsuits have been filed on the eligibility/birth certificate issue alone, with several of the suits making it all the way to the United States Supreme Court, only to be denied a full hearing."
I am aware of only one case that made it to a District Court. It was tossed out by the judge who wrote a rather withering opinion about the merits of the birther's claim. Are you aware of any of the other 48 claimed in the story?
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Tue 18 May, 2010 05:11 pm
@okie,
Quote:

If anyone thinks I am anti-Democratic Party, they are correct. That party is a mere shadow of itself, and a very poor and pathetic shadow.


I'm sure that, being the balanced person you are, you would agree that the Republican party is a poor and pathetic shadow of itself as well.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 18 May, 2010 05:13 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

The Western Center For Journalism article you seem to think highly of, Okie, includes this one line that they report as being a fact.
"Over 49 separate lawsuits have been filed on the eligibility/birth certificate issue alone, with several of the suits making it all the way to the United States Supreme Court, only to be denied a full hearing."
I am aware of only one case that made it to a District Court. It was tossed out by the judge who wrote a rather withering opinion about the merits of the birther's claim. Are you aware of any of the other 48 claimed in the story?



Demands of factual accuracy? C'mon, RJB! That's not the point with these guys.

Cycloptichorn
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Tue 18 May, 2010 07:06 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
The Western Center For Journalism, in the article Okie cited, went on to report that a Google search of the name Barack Obama got hits from all over the US: UT, GA and more. 25 people or so. People with that name might have gotten SSAE numbers beginning with xxx or yyy. But they could be fictitious people, meaning that President Obama could have as many as 30 phony SSAE numbers!
Imagine if his name were John Smith.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  -1  
Tue 18 May, 2010 07:17 pm
@hawkeye10,
I guess there is a virtue to being honest about being a cloaca.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  -1  
Tue 18 May, 2010 07:21 pm
@okie,
There are people waiting to sell you a bridge. It is called the Verrazano Narrows Bridge. You already own the Brooklyn. They will make a lovely matched set!
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  -1  
Tue 18 May, 2010 07:22 pm
The Western Center for Journalism is a right wing shill.
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Tue 18 May, 2010 07:25 pm
@plainoldme,
You think so? I am sure that there are those who believe otherwise.
okie
 
  1  
Tue 18 May, 2010 09:54 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

The Western Center For Journalism article you seem to think highly of, Okie, includes this one line that they report as being a fact.


Where and when did I say I thought highly of them? I am simply pointing out an example link that points out the fact that there are many questions about Obama's past, some of which raises valid questions that I think deserve answers. I am not here to claim all of the claims are true, but I do think many questions remain, and I think its a known and verified fact that Obama has a chequered and questionable past in terms of how he grew up, including parents that either abandoned him or took him to various places around the world to grow up under questionable circumstances. And I think it is clear that Obama is not particularly anxious to open up all of his records from his past.

My opinion, I don't honestly know what to think of some of the theories, I would imagine most are false, but I also think he has grown up with communist and Marxist influences, and I have never found the man to be very convincingly American in his opinions and political philosophies, definitely not suited to be president in my opinion. How he got elected, its surprising to say the least, and why the media jumped on his bandwagon and basically sold the guy to America, it seems like a bad dream come true. Nothing more than a cheap Chicago organizer with a very questionable past, but we are stuck with him until the populace wakes up and sweeps these losers out of office.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Wed 19 May, 2010 07:02 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

There is a saying: Good enough for government work.


Translation: Half assed.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Wed 19 May, 2010 09:46 am
Here is more evidence that the Odem (i.e., Obamademocrats) are lying thieving gangsters working to reduce our Liberty, our Constitutional Government, and our Capitalist Economy.

We shall lawfully remove the Odem from our federal government.

Quote:

WSJ OPINION MAY 18, 2010

No, You Can't Keep Your Health Plan

Insurers and doctors are already consolidating their businesses in the wake of ObamaCare's passage.

By SCOTT GOTTLIEB

President Obama guaranteed Americans that after health reform became law they could keep their insurance plans and their doctors. It's clear that this promise cannot be kept. Insurers and physicians are already reshaping their businesses as a result of Mr. Obama's plan.

The health-reform law caps how much insurers can spend on expenses and take for profits. Starting next year, health plans will have a regulated "floor" on their medical-loss ratios, which is the amount of revenue they spend on medical claims. Insurers can only spend 20% of their premiums on running their plans if they offer policies directly to consumers or to small employers. The spending cap is 15% for policies sold to large employers.

This regulation is going to have its biggest impact on insurance sold directly to consumers"what's referred to as the "individual market." These policies cost more to market. They also have higher medical costs, owing partly to selection by less healthy consumers.

Finally, individual policies have high start-up costs. If insurers cannot spend more of their revenue getting plans on track, fewer new policies will be offered.

View Full Image

AFP/Getty Images
This will hit Wellpoint, one of the biggest players in the individual market, particularly hard. The insurance company already has a strained relationship with the White House: Earlier this month Mr. Obama accused Wellpoint of systemically denying coverage to breast cancer patients, though the facts don't bear that out.

Restrictions on how insurers can spend money are compounded by simultaneous constraints on how they can manage their costs. Beginning in 2014, a new federal agency will standardize insurance benefits, placing minimum actuarial values on medical policies. There are also mandates forcing insurers to cover a lot of expensive primary-care services in full. At the same time, insurers are being blocked from raising premiums"for now by political jawboning, but the threat of legislative restrictions looms.

One of the few remaining ways to manage expenses is to reduce the actual cost of the products. In health care, this means pushing providers to accept lower fees and reduce their use of costly services like radiology or other diagnostic testing.

To implement this strategy, companies need to be able to exert more control over doctors. So insurers are trying to buy up medical clinics and doctor practices. Where they can't own providers outright, they'll maintain smaller "networks" of physicians that they will contract with so they can manage doctors more closely. That means even fewer choices for beneficiaries. Insurers hope that owning providers will enable health policies to offset the cost of the new regulations.

Doctors, meanwhile, are selling their practices to local hospitals. In 2005, doctors owned more than two-thirds of all medical practices. By next year, more than 60% of physicians will be salaried employees. About a third of those will be working for hospitals, according to the American Medical Association. A review of the open job searches held by one of the country's largest physician-recruiting firms shows that nearly 50% are for jobs in hospitals, up from about 25% five years ago.

Last month, a hospital I'm affiliated with outside of Manhattan sent a note to its physicians announcing a new subsidiary it's forming to buy up local medical practices. Nearby physicians are lining up to sell"and not just primary-care doctors, but highly paid specialists like orthopedic surgeons and neurologists. Similar developments are unfolding nationwide.

Consolidated practices and salaried doctors will leave fewer options for patients and longer waiting times for routine appointments. Like the insurers, physicians are responding to the economic burdens of the president's plan in one of the few ways they're permitted to.

For physicians, the strains include higher operating costs. The Obama health plan puts expensive new mandates on doctors, such as a requirement to purchase IT systems and keep more records. Overhead costs already consume more than 60% of the revenue generated by an average medical practice, according to a 2007 survey by the Medical Group Management Association. At the same time, reimbursement under Medicare is falling. Some specialists, such as radiologists and cardiologists, will see their Medicare payments fall by more than 10% next year. Then there's the fact that medical malpractice premiums have risen by 10%-20% annually for specialists like surgeons, particularly in states that haven't passed liability reform.

The bottom line: Defensive business arrangements designed to blunt ObamaCare's economic impacts will mean less patient choice.

Dr. Gottlieb, a former official at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a practicing internist. He's partner to a firm that invests in health-care companies.

0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Wed 19 May, 2010 11:22 am
@realjohnboy,
I did some research on it.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 19 May, 2010 11:53 am
Which seems a long-winded way of saying that you lot are becoming ungovernable under present arrangements.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Wed 19 May, 2010 12:52 pm
http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/051910_correctedmohammed_20100519_135526.jpg
okie
 
  2  
Wed 19 May, 2010 01:50 pm
@H2O MAN,
With all due respect, H2OMAN, who cares?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Wed 19 May, 2010 01:51 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Which seems a long-winded way of saying that you lot are becoming ungovernable under present arrangements.
Centrists have been under withering attack ever since Gingrich launched "Contract with America" in 1994. The last of them are getting finished off now. It is not clear to me how America goes forwards now, it is as the Gears of Washington have been encased in sludge.

I think maybe we fight until we figure out that we need to work together and fix things, both for our kids and to keep our bankers happy. This could take awhile.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Wed 19 May, 2010 02:08 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

With all due respect, H2OMAN, who cares?
Nobody except Islamic extremists and radical jihadists that want to kill those that participate.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1648
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 07/01/2025 at 06:29:07