Did you know that Obama has restored our position in the world? The polls say so, so it’s true. Everyone loves us!
“No. 1, I think that we’ve restored America’s standing in the world,” Obama said, citing polls about public confidence in the United States around the world.
“We’ve seen very specific areas of cooperation around the nuclear issue,” he said. “At the time of my inauguration, the world community was still divided on what Iran’s intentions were… We mobilized the international community… You now have validators like the International Atomic Energy Agency, you’ve got the P-5 plus one, which includes Russia and China, all saying to Iran, you’re on the wrong side of history here.”
“There is no doubt that, in the same way that on domestic policy our first job was to stabilize the situation and prevent disaster, on the international stage our first job was to stabilize the situation to allow us to move forward,. A lot of our initiatives have not borne fruit… The question is, are we moving in the right direction. There is no doubt we are.”
Well of COURSE they like us, they now feel like they can kick our ass and we’ll have no recourse. How arrogant do you have to be to think that you have the ability to make friends with everyone in the world less than a year? The only think you’ve done is WEAKEN us, and other countries now feel empowered.
Are we moving in the right direction? Obama says he has no doubt that we are.
NEW YORK (Reuters) – The Connecticut attorney general is seeking information about what the state’s five largest health insurers may have sent policyholders over legislation that would reform the Medicare program for the elderly.
The information requests announced on Friday follow a U.S. government probe announced last month into a letter sent from Humana Inc (HUM.N) to its Medicare members that caused a stir on Capitol Hill.
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal wants information from Aetna Inc (AET.N), UnitedHealth Group Inc (UNH.N), Health Net (HNT.N), WellPoint Inc’s (WLP.N) Anthem Health Plans unit and ConnectiCare Inc.
Let me summarize: The Attorney General of Connecticut was irritated that Humana had the audacity to inform its members of relevant legislative changes, and wants to ensure that the other insurance companies are staying in line.
To quote the President – let’s be clear about this… it’s purely a way for the state to monitor private industry. It’s part of the game. They’re finding ways to demonize the companies and shut them down. It’s a way to limit your options, Connecticut.
Eliminating options seems to be a pattern. There is a HuffPo piece (yes, click at your own risk) that refers to the battle between public and private insurers “political extortion”. Seriously?
The fiscal truth of the matter is Medicare cannot afford to continue to give away $169 billion dollars of taxpayer funds to America’s insurance industry. The industry is quick to highlight extra benefits provided to MA beneficiaries (such as eyeglasses, dental coverage, and gym memberships) but why shouldn’t these benefits be provided to all seniors, not just those in private plans?
First of all, this begs the obvious: we can’t afford to subsidize… but we can afford to provide a public option that gives everyone those benefits? Um…
Second – it shouldn’t be provided to all seniors because some people pay more. All health care is not created equal. Medicare Advantage is a higher level of care. If seniors want to pay more and have more benefits, they should have that choice.
Sept. 24 (Bloomberg) — Senate Republicans vowed to block President Barack Obama’s nominee for surgeon general and other health officials unless the government drops what they said is a “gag order” barring insurers from lobbying their Medicare policyholders on the health-insurance overhaul.
The move by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and seven other Republicans would delay confirmation of almost a dozen nominees for Health and Human Services positions, including Dr. Regina Benjamin to become surgeon general.
“Until your department rescinds its gag order and allows seniors to receive information about matters before Congress, we will not consent” to move forward with the confirmations, the eight Republicans said in a letter today to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
How’s that whole transparency thing working out, huh? I’m actually kind of shocked that they called it what it is – a gag order. What else can you really call legally silencing a private company?
Humana has every right in the world to disseminate information to their insured. In fact, they have an OBLIGATION to do so! There are Clintonian rules still in place that allow insurers keep their insured informed about legislative changes.
But why on earth would the one calling for dialogue and action work so hard to shut down opposing voices? Easy: the facts are inconvenient. The “solution” driven left seems to ignore the fact that there are ethics involved. That maybe companies have a reponsibility to let the people that rely on them for their health care know that their coverage may be affected.
“Republicans jeopardize their own credibility when they choose to defend big insurance companies trying to make false claims about senior citizens,” Schultz said.
Except… they may not actually be false. No one can seem to prove otherwise. Instead of doing so, they issue nothing short of a gag order to keep the whole thing under wraps, and hope it goes away.
Read the letter to Sebelius here. Yes, that’s Grassley’s signature… I was surprised too.
My bet? They’re hanging on by a thread, desperately trying to sell this false ideological argument, and praying that the short attention span of the general public allows this to slip through.
Remember all the outcry when we raised hell about President Obama’s address to students? Our concerns were “baseless“. We’re clearly nothing but “paranoid right wing nut jobs“. And of course, don’t forget RAAAACIST!! Fine, other Presidents have spoken to students before. THAT is not what we took issue with! How many Presidents issued study guides? And how many treated everything the President said as fact? I wrote about this yesterday:
So much for objectivity, right? As I said yesterday, the things that are being presented as fact are, well, not so much fact. When the experts are still hotly debating the legislation, and there can be no clear answers derived from the bill itself, it is NOT fact. Go read this, from HSLDA.
The most interesting thing about the abortion issue? BOTH sides are protesting! The right is angry because they believe it IS included, and the left is angry for the opposite reason. The wording is SO loose that no one actually knows what’s in it. The fact that a teacher presumes to know the truth and teach it to the class as fact is inexcusable. Of course, abortion is NOT the only issue. The rest of the numbers used are skewed at best, if not flat out wrong. Such as the number of people who are uninsured, which mysteriously changes. This is EXACTLY the issue we were concerned about. Then yesterday, this video was released (which I’m sure most of you have seen by now): So this is all after the fact. Are we just looking for things to justify our accusations after the fact? No. My first cue that there would be indoctrination of children involved was this: THIS IS NOT NORMAL. And parents are right to object. When there are teachers like Diantha Harris around, there is a justifiable concern for parents who are sending their children to public school every day. So lefties, keep your head in the sand. Pretend your children are independent thinkers. But if you think your 5 year old has the intellect and wit to out-think an authority figure and come to their own conclusions regarding the President of the United States, I feel for your child.
A member’s daughter, a senior in high school, had come home upset because, although the speech was not shown in her school, her anatomy teacher had made the class watch the President’s health care speech. After the video was shown, the students were given a short quiz about the speech. The questions asked gave the assumption that the answers provided in the President’s speech were fact and not opinion. The students were given no opportunity to discuss opposing views or have a debate on the topic. In fact, when one student stated that the President had lied, the student was told that kind of talk was unnecessary. Students in the class with opposing views were forced to remain silent or whisper amongst themselves.
The daughter of our member was so upset about what had occured that she refused to finish the quiz and brought it home to her mother for review. A copy of the quiz is provided below. Some of these students were educated on the health care debate going on in the country, while others simply took the information as fact and filled out their quiz. For those students, President Obama’s speech was their education. Is that not considered indoctrination?
So all the lefties that laughed and did the “I told you sos” over the speech. It was obviously scrubbed once the parents across the country raised hell. They didn’t hand out the study guides that they’d previously shown. Things were changed.
However, it’s become a battle between the education system and parents. You cannot present things that are not facts as, well, fact. I know from my own experience in the public education system that there are things that are just accepted by teachers as truth, when really, they’re not… mostly centering around religion and science and history. It is then passed on to students as truth. It’s a trend, one that has been heading heading leftward since the 60′s. This is the culmination of that.
The responsiblity of an educator is to present fact and facilitate critical thinking and dicussion. Spoonfeeding high school students misinformation as fact is not okay on any level.
If pundits and other political and health care professionals still do not have the answers to the questions asked in the quiz, there is no solid ground for the teacher to be presenting this as fact.
Education fail. Reason #48975478 I want to home school my kids.
Earlier this month, Humana sent a one-page letter to its customers enrolled in its Medicare Advantage plans, which offer private options to Medicare beneficiaries. Humana noted that, because of spending cuts proposed by Democrats, “millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable.” The Kentucky-based company also urged its customers to contact their Representatives. Pretty tame stuff, as these things go.
Tame, yes. Also true. So there’s that. Humana was audacious enough to call out the Baucus plan for the potential danger to seniors. We wouldn’t want people knowing what the Baucus plan would actually do to private insurers, now would we?! Therefore, Baucus declared war.
“It is wholly inappropriate for insurance companies to mislead seniors regarding any subject—particularly on a subject as important to them, and to the nation, as health-care reform,” Mr. Baucus said in a statement yesterday, playing the role of Congressional censor. “The health-care reform bill we released last week strengthens Medicare and does not cut benefits covered under the Medicare program—and seniors need to know that.”
The truth? As it stands currently, the Baucus plan slashes Medicare Advantage by $123 billion over the next ten years.
Mr Baucus’ solution to avoid the backlash that comes from slashing these programs, the ones that help seniors afford private insurers, is to keep them in the dark. If they don’t know any better, then there won’t be any fall out and he can start killing of private companies. Because that’s what this plan is about. None of the people involved actually want there to be healthy competition between public and private insurers. They want the public option to succeed.
In Humana’s specific case, nearly 50% of their annual revenue comes from – you guessed it – Medicare Advantage. Now, if Medicare Advantage is slashed by, I repeat, $123 billion… how is that encouraging competition? Meanwhile, CMS has decreed that all Advantage insurers stop the flow of information.
I suppose that’s what you get for trying to tell the truth. You get bludgeoned to death by your adversary.
Wait, how is this discourse supposed to fix our health care system again?
Just to be up front: I like Palin, but am not a real supporter of her. I’ve been pretty open about the things I view as her flaws. But she’s been out in force this week and I love it. First, there was the op-ed she published in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday.
Common sense tells us that the government’s attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats’ proposals “will provide more stability and security to every American.”
Here’s the thing. I have no desire for the government to provide security for me. They are supposed to keep us from getting blown up and/or nuked, and that’s it. There should be no financial security coming from those who destroy everything they touch. There will be no great efficiency. There will be no paring down and elimination of the status quo, as they try so hard to convince us. That is just not the case. No matter how many times they tell us this, no matter how forcefully they try to ram it down our throats, the American people know better. And they don’t trust the government to make decisions for them. Poll after poll has shown us this.
That response is an innate sense of right and wrong, and the God given right to be free. It has nothing to do with these fictitious Nazi bastards that they’re claiming are out to “kill this reform by any means necessary”. Get that through your skulls, Oh Saviors of All That Is Deficit.
Okay. End rant.
As Palin points out, we hear these promises ALL THE TIME. We’re tired of them.
Sarah, keep writing and fighting. This is where you should be.
President Obama had an op-ed published in WaPo yesterday. I’ll bring you the Cliff’s Notes. (Side Note: Does anyone even use those anymore? Why do I feel like I just dated myself?)
The swift and aggressive action we took in those first few months has helped pull our financial system and our economy back from the brink.
“The brink”? Of what? 9.5% unemployment? The collapse of the banking industry? The bankruptcy of the auto industry? Oh. Wait.
There are some who say we must wait to meet our greatest challenges. They favor an incremental approach or believe that doing nothing is somehow an answer. But that is exactly the thinking that led us to this predicament.
I love that allowing the free market to work is called “doing nothing”. By “doing nothing” we mean the GOVERNMENT does nothing. There’s is a remarkable difference. Businesses that are collapsing are not going to “do nothing”. Without government assistance, they would have been forced to either collapse or restructure. They would not have continued the same practices, because they could simply not have afforded to do so… instead of waiting around for their handouts.
However, despite the other gems in this piece, I have a huge issue with him urging us to “be patient”.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was not expected to restore the economy to full health on its own but to provide the boost necessary to stop the free fall. So far, it has done that. It was, from the start, a two-year program, and it will steadily save and create jobs as it ramps up over this summer and fall. .
Anyone else convinced this free fall has stopped? I’m not entirely sure it has even SLOWED. Where was YOUR patience, President Obama, when you were forcing this through Congress before anyone even read it because it was SO URGENT it had to happen immediately?
That is why I have moved quickly to work with my economic team and leaders of both parties on an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that will immediately jump-start job creation and long-term growth.
So, wait, which is it? Immediately? I’m confused. Replay from yesterday’s piece:
We must let it work the way it’s supposed to, with the understanding that in any recession, unemployment tends to recover more slowly than other measures of economic activity.
This is working EXACTLY the way it’s supposed to… right.
*This article was written by Rob at Leaning Right. This article does not necessarily reflect the beliefs of Tabitha Hale. Direct your hateful comments to me. *
In 1988 when George HW Bush was running for president he used that ever so famous line “Read My Lips: No New Taxes.” This line, written by the elegant Peggy Noonan, has become a buzzphrase connected to the word “Liar.” He raised taxes and lost re-election.
Remember September 12, 2008 when then-Senator Barack Obama spoke to a crowd in New Hampshire?
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes” (September 12, 2008, Dover, NH)
I will set aside all arguments on how raising taxes on anyone regardless of income is bogus. It is easier to point out that this statement was simply not true.
First, and probably with the support of many “social conservatives” (I hate that term but had to use it here), the first tax increase came in early April entering the President’s 4th month in office when he signed one of the largest tax increases on the working class in history.
Now in office, Obama, who stopped smoking but has admitted he slips now and then, signed a law raising the tobacco tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, to $1.01. Other tobacco products saw similarly steep increases.
I make under $250,000 a year. In fact, I make around 10% of that. I smoke. My taxes went up. And hold your tongue on that “you can choose to stop killing yourself” crap because that argument doesnt hold any water. You can quit buying gas and turn down that promotion that would put you in a new tax bracket. Taxing people for their personal habits and decisions is wrong. End of story.
NOW the most recent tax increase that is on everyone’s mind is what came about with this cap and trade fiasco, the president’s first major attempt at combatting the so-called climate crisis.
The Congressional Budget Office… estimates that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile about 3.3% of its after-tax income every year. That’s about $680, not including the costs of reduced employment and output. The three middle quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $880 and $1,500, or 2.9% to 2.7% of income. The rich would pay 1.7%. Cap and trade is the ideal policy for every Beltway analyst who thinks the tax code is too progressive (all five of them).
A governing body caps the amount of pollutants that can be released into the atmosphere, then mandates that companies emitting those pollutants must hold permits to cover the amount of pollutants they expel. To reduce pollution, the governing body slowly reduces the number of allowances available over time…
…when participants place a bid, they name the amount they’re willing to pay per allowance and the number of allowances they’d like to purchase……The bids are then collected and ordered according to price. Starting at the top of the list, with the highest bids, the auction overseer works his way down, adding the number of allowances requested until he reaches the total number of allowances offered in that auction. When he reaches that point, he draws a line; everyone above the line receives the number of allowances they requested at the lowest winning bid – the price closest to, but still above, the line. This is known as the clearing price, the price that every winning bidder will pay for their allowances, no matter what price they originally bid.
So the companies that offer to pay the most, pay the same amount as those that offer to pay the least, so long as the government believes that that least amount is acceptable. The companies that offer to pay less than what the government determines is acceptable get screwed out of the energy that they may need.
To use a word that people will accuse of being extreme, this is the definition of Fascism.
Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it.
‘But.. But.. Mister Rob… The taxes are against evil corporations that want the ocean to swallow up New York City and cast the world into an ice age. The working class is left alone.’
Unless of course you work for a corporation. Like Wal Mart, Microsoft, Google, GM, GE, and the rest. The government is cutting emissions by a whopping 15%, so naturally the price will increase to reflect the demand for the 85% of energy that is left. Those price increases will be reflected in the very same budget that reflects your wages. And I have a hard time believing that companies already just blow money on energy that they don’t need, but let’s say they cut every corner to bring their usage down to their minimal requirements with their current labor force. What’s the decrease? A whopping 1/6 of their energy budget? Try cutting your food budget by 15% and see if you don’t have to cut back on other things.
Coal provides more than half of U.S. electricity, and 25 states get more than 50% of their electricity from conventional coal-fired generation. In Ohio, it totals 86%, according to the Energy Information Administration. Ratepayers in Indiana (94%), Missouri (85%), New Mexico (80%), Pennsylvania (56%), West Virginia (98%) and Wyoming (95%) are going to get soaked.
Those billionaires in New Mexico, West Virginia and Whyoming man. Those filthy rich bastards will be paying all these energy taxes. wait…
Who’s going to be benefitting without paying those taxes? Looks like the poor, hungry people in the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, California, and New York. Wait…
WASHINGTON — April 23, 2009: Acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps has announced the full membership of the commission’s Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age. On the panel are:
Henry Rivera, Emma Bowen Foundation for Minority Interests in Media (Chairperson)
Raul Alarcon Jr., Spanish Broadcasting System
Jenny Alonzo, Mio.TV
James M. Assey, Jr., National Cable Television Association
Geoffrey C. Blackwell, Chickasaw Nation Industries, Inc.
Matthew Blank, Showtime Networks
Maria E. Brennan, American Women in Radio and Television
Kathy Brown, Verizon
Toni Cook Bush, Virgin Mobile
Alan B. Davidson, Google, Inc.
Ralph de la Vega, AT&T Mobility and Consumer Markets
Steve Hillard, Council Tree Communications
David Honig, Minority Media and Telecommunications Council
Rodney Hood, National Credit Union Administration
Ronald Johnson, Ronson Network Services
Debra Lee, BET Holdings, Inc.
Jane Mago, National Association of Broadcasters
Robert Mendez, ABC Television Network
Marc H. Morial, National Urban League
Karen K. Narasaki, Asian American Justice Center
Melissa Newman, Qwest
Jake Oliver, Afro-American Newspapers
Susan K. Patrick, Patrick Communications
Lisa Pickrum, The RLJ Companies
Rey Ramsey, One Economy Corporation
Michael V. Roberts, Roberts Broadcasting Companies LLC
Andrew Schwartzman, Media Access Project
Anita Stephens Graham, Opportunity Capital Partners
Diane Sutter, Shooting Star Broadcasting
Charles Warfield, Inner City Broadcasting
James Winston, National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters
I suppose this is what you do when you can’t compete with the ratings of conservative hosts. And let’s face it, no liberal talk radio show has come anywhere near the ratings of Rush, or even Laura Ingraham. Short story? Ratings = air time. We get ratings, we get air time.
But since we’re all about the redistribution now, I suppose a distribution of air time is logical to these people. Let’s see how well that works out for them when all the stations shut down because they’re canceling the moneymaking shows and forcing them to play ratings killers.