Obama willing to be one-term President over health care reform

[HAL 9000 96]

Interesting analysis from the panel of experts.

It's like getting analysis from Ann Coulter & Rush Limbaugh. However I do feel that Obama should have worked harder to get bi-partisan support for healthcare reform before moving forward. Now you have a bunch of people who don't have a clue about what they are protesting, except that Obama supports it & of course that means it's socialized medicine.

Disagree.

There would be no 'bi-partisan' support no matter how hard it was worked. The only way to get this thing done is to do it while the majority is on the Hill.

Yep. The GOP knows and has known for a long time that if we get another social program as significant as Social Security and Medicare, it would be another thorn in their side, ideologically. It makes it hard for them to sell to the American people that the government is good for nothing when people know firsthand, the benefits of such programs.

Correction, Steven... the neo-cons in the GOP. Believe it or not there are some less selfish members in the Republican party that are interested in allowing the American people to be healthy at a fraction of the cost of having their campaign contributors profiteer like privateers.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Interesting analysis from the panel of experts.

It's like getting analysis from Ann Coulter & Rush Limbaugh. However I do feel that Obama should have worked harder to get bi-partisan support for healthcare reform before moving forward. Now you have a bunch of people who don't have a clue about what they are protesting, except that Obama supports it & of course that means it's socialized medicine.

Disagree.

There would be no 'bi-partisan' support no matter how hard it was worked. The only way to get this thing done is to do it while the majority is on the Hill.

Yep. The GOP knows and has known for a long time that if we get another social program as significant as Social Security and Medicare, it would be another thorn in their side, ideologically. It makes it hard for them to sell to the American people that the government is good for nothing when people know firsthand, the benefits of such programs.

And when they are kept in the dark on all the negatives.

[rebeccajo 14]

Interesting analysis from the panel of experts.

It's like getting analysis from Ann Coulter & Rush Limbaugh. However I do feel that Obama should have worked harder to get bi-partisan support for healthcare reform before moving forward. Now you have a bunch of people who don't have a clue about what they are protesting, except that Obama supports it & of course that means it's socialized medicine.

Disagree.

There would be no 'bi-partisan' support no matter how hard it was worked. The only way to get this thing done is to do it while the majority is on the Hill.

Yep. The GOP knows and has known for a long time that if we get another social program as significant as Social Security and Medicare, it would be another thorn in their side, ideologically. It makes it hard for them to sell to the American people that the government is good for nothing when people know firsthand, the benefits of such programs.

And when they are kept in the dark on all the negatives.

You gonna turn down your Medicare when it's 'your turn', txn?

[Otto 83]

And when they are kept in the dark on all the negatives.

You mean like little mushrooms...?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I am going to read a lot of webpages on medicine and self-treat from now on.

It's the Amurkin way.

At the moment I am either pregnant, have a stomach tumor or have gas. To Webmd!

[My Name Is Nobody 3]

Another statement from the president which reveals more of the face behind the mask.

By stating he could be a one term president because of the health care bill reveals that he knows it is not supported by the majority of the electorate but he is going to go against the will of the people no matter what. He must have monuments and roads named after him rgardless of the consequences.

Egotist.....narcissist.............. will eventually be his undoing

[HAL 9000 96]

yawn

[nowhereman 1]

Another statement from the president which reveals more of the face behind the mask.

By stating he could be a one term president because of the health care bill reveals that he knows it is not supported by the majority of the electorate but he is going to go against the will of the people no matter what. He must have monuments and roads named after him rgardless of the consequences.

Egotist.....narcissist.............. will eventually be his undoing

The same was said about Bush. When will the rhetoric end?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Interesting analysis from the panel of experts.

It's like getting analysis from Ann Coulter & Rush Limbaugh. However I do feel that Obama should have worked harder to get bi-partisan support for healthcare reform before moving forward. Now you have a bunch of people who don't have a clue about what they are protesting, except that Obama supports it & of course that means it's socialized medicine.

Disagree.

There would be no 'bi-partisan' support no matter how hard it was worked. The only way to get this thing done is to do it while the majority is on the Hill.

Yep. The GOP knows and has known for a long time that if we get another social program as significant as Social Security and Medicare, it would be another thorn in their side, ideologically. It makes it hard for them to sell to the American people that the government is good for nothing when people know firsthand, the benefits of such programs.

Correction, Steven... the neo-cons in the GOP. Believe it or not there are some less selfish members in the Republican party that are interested in allowing the American people to be healthy at a fraction of the cost of having their campaign contributors profiteer like privateers.

That strikes me as funny, seeing that those "campaign contributors" are providing actuarial tables and defining benefits for the legislation as it is being written in secret.

[HAL 9000 96]

Interesting analysis from the panel of experts.

It's like getting analysis from Ann Coulter & Rush Limbaugh. However I do feel that Obama should have worked harder to get bi-partisan support for healthcare reform before moving forward. Now you have a bunch of people who don't have a clue about what they are protesting, except that Obama supports it & of course that means it's socialized medicine.

Disagree.

There would be no 'bi-partisan' support no matter how hard it was worked. The only way to get this thing done is to do it while the majority is on the Hill.

Yep. The GOP knows and has known for a long time that if we get another social program as significant as Social Security and Medicare, it would be another thorn in their side, ideologically. It makes it hard for them to sell to the American people that the government is good for nothing when people know firsthand, the benefits of such programs.

Correction, Steven... the neo-cons in the GOP. Believe it or not there are some less selfish members in the Republican party that are interested in allowing the American people to be healthy at a fraction of the cost of having their campaign contributors profiteer like privateers.

That strikes me as funny, seeing that those "campaign contributors" are providing actuarial tables and defining benefits for the legislation as it is being written in secret.

I wouldn't deny that. Although of course, I don't know of many bills that are written on an overhead projector at an auditorium for all present to see.

[mendeleev 68]

Interesting analysis from the panel of experts.

It's like getting analysis from Ann Coulter & Rush Limbaugh. However I do feel that Obama should have worked harder to get bi-partisan support for healthcare reform before moving forward. Now you have a bunch of people who don't have a clue about what they are protesting, except that Obama supports it & of course that means it's socialized medicine.

Disagree.

There would be no 'bi-partisan' support no matter how hard it was worked. The only way to get this thing done is to do it while the majority is on the Hill.

Rebecca is right. This process needs formal invocation of reconciliation -- just like Reagan and Bush did with their big tax cuts, to mow down then opposition in the Senate.

[mendeleev 68]

Interesting analysis from the panel of experts.

It's like getting analysis from Ann Coulter & Rush Limbaugh. However I do feel that Obama should have worked harder to get bi-partisan support for healthcare reform before moving forward. Now you have a bunch of people who don't have a clue about what they are protesting, except that Obama supports it & of course that means it's socialized medicine.

Disagree.

There would be no 'bi-partisan' support no matter how hard it was worked. The only way to get this thing done is to do it while the majority is on the Hill.

Yep. The GOP knows and has known for a long time that if we get another social program as significant as Social Security and Medicare, it would be another thorn in their side, ideologically. It makes it hard for them to sell to the American people that the government is good for nothing when people know firsthand, the benefits of such programs.

Correction, Steven... the neo-cons in the GOP. Believe it or not there are some less selfish members in the Republican party that are interested in allowing the American people to be healthy at a fraction of the cost of having their campaign contributors profiteer like privateers.

Why couldn't those GOP folks get this done when the GOP had majorities in both houses and the White House, too? Could it be that this reasonable wing of the GOP is impotent to the point of irrelevance?

Edited August 14, 2009 by novotul

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Interesting analysis from the panel of experts.

It's like getting analysis from Ann Coulter & Rush Limbaugh. However I do feel that Obama should have worked harder to get bi-partisan support for healthcare reform before moving forward. Now you have a bunch of people who don't have a clue about what they are protesting, except that Obama supports it & of course that means it's socialized medicine.

Disagree.

There would be no 'bi-partisan' support no matter how hard it was worked. The only way to get this thing done is to do it while the majority is on the Hill.

Yep. The GOP knows and has known for a long time that if we get another social program as significant as Social Security and Medicare, it would be another thorn in their side, ideologically. It makes it hard for them to sell to the American people that the government is good for nothing when people know firsthand, the benefits of such programs.

Correction, Steven... the neo-cons in the GOP. Believe it or not there are some less selfish members in the Republican party that are interested in allowing the American people to be healthy at a fraction of the cost of having their campaign contributors profiteer like privateers.

Why couldn't those GOP folks get this done when the GOP had majorities in both houses and the White House, too? Could it be that this reasonable wing of the GOP is impotent to the point of irrelevance?

Or, different priorities. It seems such a time time ago that the GOP controlled Congress, that I can't really remember what those issues were.

Oh, yeah! National background checks, and ending the funding for the NEA and CPB.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[HAL 9000 96]

Interesting analysis from the panel of experts.

It's like getting analysis from Ann Coulter & Rush Limbaugh. However I do feel that Obama should have worked harder to get bi-partisan support for healthcare reform before moving forward. Now you have a bunch of people who don't have a clue about what they are protesting, except that Obama supports it & of course that means it's socialized medicine.

Disagree.

There would be no 'bi-partisan' support no matter how hard it was worked. The only way to get this thing done is to do it while the majority is on the Hill.

Yep. The GOP knows and has known for a long time that if we get another social program as significant as Social Security and Medicare, it would be another thorn in their side, ideologically. It makes it hard for them to sell to the American people that the government is good for nothing when people know firsthand, the benefits of such programs.

Correction, Steven... the neo-cons in the GOP. Believe it or not there are some less selfish members in the Republican party that are interested in allowing the American people to be healthy at a fraction of the cost of having their campaign contributors profiteer like privateers.

Why couldn't those GOP folks get this done when the GOP had majorities in both houses and the White House, too? Could it be that this reasonable wing of the GOP is impotent to the point of irrelevance?

They get called RINOs and other 'derogatory' terms. Or worse... get associated by fear campaigns and *gasp* accusations of being secret Democrats. (= Socialists)

Or, different priorities. It seems such a time time ago that the GOP controlled Congress, that I can't really remember what those issues were.

Oh, yeah! National background checks, and ending the funding for the NEA and CPB.

And NIH.

[My Name Is Nobody 3]

Another statement from the president which reveals more of the face behind the mask.

By stating he could be a one term president because of the health care bill reveals that he knows it is not supported by the majority of the electorate but he is going to go against the will of the people no matter what. He must have monuments and roads named after him rgardless of the consequences.

Egotist.....narcissist.............. will eventually be his undoing

The same was said about Bush. When will the rhetoric end?

You young wipper snapper were talking about the Big O not Bush, Stay on subject

Carry On