But at what cost
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...ow-to-elderly/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Back to my original question, it appears the Dems will pay a price. Obama's approval ratings now start with a '3', still absurdly high, but moving in the right direction. And in VA, where there was a (1)tea party Republican running for governor, AND (2) an idiot libertarian running as a third party candidate, the Democrat won 48-45 in an election that should have been a rout.

To the Libertarians who like running as a 3rd party candidate - all you are doing is handing victories to the Democrats. In a place like VA especially, that is all you are doing, because no place with that many federal workers is ever going to elect a Libertarian, ever. If you want to change the Republican Party, you do what the Tea Party did, and they didn't even exist 5 years ago.

Is the problem that insurance companies are so drastically changing plans that it is forcing people to change p,ans and pay higher premiums?

Honestly what could happen to him politically now, he has his two terms as president and he is going to be forever done with politics unless his wife runs for office. Screw them both

Totally agree.

Totally agree!

Here's my understanding, based on the tortured jibberish that Obama has been spouting since his approval ratings took a dive.

From what I understood Obama to say...Obamacare set minumum guidelines that plans had to meet. In the individual market, many plans did not meet those guidelines. It looks like existing plans that did not meet the guidelines would be grandfathered in (not required to meet the new requirements), UNLESS those plans changed in any way. For a cheapo plan to get grandfathered, it had no stay identical to what it was last year. If those plans changed at all, then they now had to meet the new minumum standards. And I gather that it's unheard of for those plans to not change at least a bit, so essentially, very few plans would be able to get grandfathered.

This time next year, Obamacare could clobber the Dems worse than it did in 2010. Back then, it was all theory. Next year, many Americans will be keenly aware that they are paying a lot more, and businesses will be keenly aware that Americans suddenly have less disposable income.

People are getting forced to take up preventative plans, instead of catastrophic plans.

Sorry for bringing facts to the party.

Americans suddenly had less disposable income a long time ago.. Specifically when oil prices started climbing and food costs started climbing.. Who was president then??? ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Gas was under 2 bucks a gallon when Bush left office ....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, forced and mislead would exactly be the right words when talking
about Obamacare.

Only because the economy was imploding. Buck, you know better...

-spence

I know and the robust economy we have now explains the high gas prices :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

GDP today is much stronger than in 2008/2009. Oil price is largely a product of consumption which includes manufacturing...not to mention speculation...geopolitical issues are a concern.

Were you serious when you typed that?

-spence

He was desperate. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you guys can blather on about Bush all you want but the fact remains that there is no meaningful recovery, what little good news exists that you can rest your hat on is the stock market which is a complete mirage thanks to the Fed, and it's going to get worse not better for most Americans, Obamacare is a debacle in every sense, more Americans are dependent on government than ever before...record numbers of Americans not working...oil prices remain high(how's that Keystone Pipeline going?) this president has been lying repeatedly to the American people and that is no longer debatable, he's eclipsed every former president in many areas and now clearly in terms of dishonesty and incompetence, but those two often go hand in hand, one attempting to cover up for the other. His "signature accomplishment" was forced on the country through tricks and lies....not a good way to do business but if you lack a conscience I guess you just carry on as though everyone must now live with what you've perpetrated....will he pay a political price? he doesn't have to get elected again but narcissists like this are often consumed with their image and so legacy construction might be a concern to him, tough to know if he considers further destruction of the country a positive or a negative in terms of his legacy, those that support him and will continue to carry his water going forward will do so as a result of a desire for further destruction(fundamental change)....he'll have to decide if he'd rather be loathed by many and idolized by a few or settle for less destruction and perhaps a more favorable public opinion of his presidency, he can count on the dems and the media to go all out to paint him in the most favorable light if he chooses the latter, he is, afterall, their "signature accomplishment" and one that we have to live with for 3 more years

Don't talk to me about desperate :)
At least you're now acknowledging it was a long time ago . Maybe now you can acknowledge that the only people making out under the Obama administration are the very wealthy. That must really frost your a$$
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You left out that median incomes are down more than 5% since he took office, and now those people with lower incomes will be shelling out a few hundred more a month, which they no longer have, for health insurance which they didn't want. Obama borrowed and spent at paces that blow away previous records, and what we have to show for it is lower median incomes.

The one bright spot is the stock market, which is really ironic considering that Obama's base and his Occupy Wall Street anarchists would say that's a bad thing, because all that does is help the rich get richer on backs of the little man.

depends on how you look at it, the market isn't moving based on the performance of the economy but rather it responds and fluctuates based on what the Fed is signaling, whether or not it will continue to pump....it's not real, it's not on the backs of the little man but a result of gimmickry like everything else associated with this administration, it has a shelf life and it's running out .....a tiny bright spot perhaps...if you are really searching for one... on a very dark and unavoidable horizon......:uhuh:

Oh, I agree with you that it's not real...it just makes it more krazy that the one bright spot, is the one symbol of the economy that liberals despise the most. If Romney were president, and the only indicator that improved was the stock market, liberals would be saying that Romney was rigging the economy to enrich Wall Street fatcats. You can't make this stuff up.

Obamacare may well hurt the Democrats more in 2014 than it did in 2010.

How were they mislead? The government only regulates (on a state level) insurance. Not govern.

The lady in Florida with the $54 plan turns out was being scammed by bcbs of Florida on the $591/most plan replacement. Her plan was garbage and basically covered nothing (those plans you're looking at for instance 10k out of pocket before they kick in, and I'd bet most who had plans like that leave the taxpayer with the bill).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Ruling Class realizes that the Wall Street Fat Cats pay more than half of the taxes and the wannabe fat cats pay the other half; this allows our Rulers to spend freely and buy the votes they need to stay in power.

That being said, the "pumping" won't stop...

I have also heard said that inflation is welfare for the rich...

"How were they mislead?"

Really?...when Obama was selling Obamacare, he said (dozens of times on camera) that if you liked your current plan, you could keep it - period. Turns out that's not true for millions and millions of Americans. It was a major selling point of Obamacare that you could keep you current plan if you liked it.

What could be more misleading than that?

Worse, there are memos that the Administration has in its possession, which make it clear that they knew for a fact that not everyone would be able to keep their plans, but Obama continued to make that claim anyway.

That qualifies as misleading...Obama himself apologized on NBC yesterday, for the fact that his assurances did not bear out.

There goes likwid again picking one out of a thousand. Obama did not even apologize, all he said was, "I'm sorry." This shows that he was insincere.

and I put that in sentences that U would like to C likwid

Exactly, and in addition it turns out many will not be able to keep their Doc as promised. They will be forced to use another Doc as insurance companies drop their policies and Doc choice, and people are forced to use what is mandated by the Govt. Another freedom lost, especially hard on the elderly and those that are seriously ill who trust and are comfortable with their Doctor. Meantime,the same Govt. that makes the mandates for us has no consequences,as they have their own health care plan that is not affected.

Absolutely accurate!

Will Obama pay a political price for his lies?

No. Politicians are expected to lie. They lie to get elected. They paint negative portraits of their opponents in the primaries. They paint negative portraits of their opponents in the finals. They make promises they can't or won't keep. They lie to pass bills. They make back door deals to pass those bills all the while they pretend to be fighting each other. They lie to get re-elected. They again paint negative portraits of their opponents. They promise their donors to sweeten legislation to give them breaks or advantages. They spend most of their visible time on spin and "optics" to persuade us that they are fighting the good fight for us. When they achieve a secure status as tough, experienced warriors for the people, they achieve a comfort with each other and understand that the jabs they take against each other is just show for their constituencies, so are able to make
"bipartisan" deals that keep the ball rolling and keep the "trust" with their voters. Their constituents are perfectly happy to accept the lies which enable their warriors to win. They secretly cheer the lies, even if they have to justify them as not so bad, perhaps exaggerations, a means to a good end.

Politics is war. It is winning and losing. A politician's first priority is to win. They are subject to the principles of war. Wars require deceit.

Those that don't understand the rules and principles of war, but choose to run on rules and principles of governance, are considered purists--too naïve to win. They may inspire a following, even a considerable one, but the "smart" folks in the political, business, and media world don't respect their narrow naivete, so they are easily marginalized, made to look like fringe radicals or fools. The "smart," experienced and well backed pols on either side of the aisle use the "purists" for a push, then discard them when their goals are achieved.

Lying is not the issue. It is the mode. Unless you believe the medium is the message. But then you would be a purist. The issue is what is "good" for the people--do you subscribe to the "smart, pragmatic" ideology that society is best for all if it is directed by a bureaucracy of experts, Hobbes' version of the Leviathan--or if it is best for all if individuals determine how to live their lives, the Lockean concept.

Obama may seem to be "lying" more than most. I don't know if that is true. I think he believes in the progressive message, and that it is separate from the medium of lying. He is good at it. His handlers and his party seem to be better at it than their opposition. He and they are very successful. For the most part, their opposition not only seem foolish, but don't very much separate themselves in policy--they are not choosing a Lockean path of governing. For instance, they are trying to come up with an "alternative" to Obamacare. That is, another Hobbesian method--central planning. Those in their party, Tea Partiers, who would choose John Locke's method, were useful to win some elections, but are now seen to be an obstacle and are shunned.

The issue, then, is choosing either principle or progressivism. The former are adherents, the latter are the strategists. We have been guided by the strategies to be concerned primarily with economic conditions and with creating centralized economies of distribution rather than allowing free individuals wide reign to create wealth and distribute it through markets. And the public sympathy has been trained to favor government intervention in personal problems and catastrophes rather than private solutions.

Political progress has arrived at a historical place where most people do not feel adequate to live a modern life without government help. And the progression of how much help is needed has grown from little to a lot. Those who voted for Obama and his party have been persuaded that a lot of help is needed, and the more the better. He and his party and their fellow traveler "Republicans" have been very successful at engendering that attitude. Obama won't pay a price with them. He will be lauded.

And if "Republicans" win congressional seats or the Presidency, but continue to play Democrat-lite, it will merely slow down "progress" a bit.

HE
 

I would agree until it hits the" constituent's pocketbook" or takes away some
perk they have enjoyed under "their " politicians tenure. That's when the rubber
meets the road and suddenly the "stretched truth" ,which doesn't mean a good end
for them, becomes a lie.

So true. But that is the natural spiral which actually grows the power of the progressive administrative State. That we have, as John Hayward put it, had an attitude adjustment--what I see as a worship of our "pocketbook" above the principle of freedom and the reverence for life and the human spirit necessary to achieve that life. Life is more than manna, but if the State can shrink us to worker bees who depend on it for sustenance, then spirit loses its function. Life becomes a matter of material economics. And when the perks the State gives us are lost, we look to it to fix the loss and give it ever more authority to rule us. New lies are fresher and more promising, and the State's promise to fill our pocketbooks in more equitable quantities becomes the mantra by which we live. If we "throw the bums out" the new crop continues the growth of the State with the same methods and lies. Our addiction grows.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/11/...ide-continues/

the question is what will happen when the "state" can't keep it's "promises" as it further exceeds it's boundaries, we've seen "three more years" scapegoat just about anyone/everthing for his failures...the most obvious scapegoats will be those "benefitting" from the phony stock market bubble and anyone that threatens all of these "entitlements"....

Originally Posted by detbuch

..."I think he believes in the progressive message, and that it is separate from the medium of lying.(it's still lying, whether or not you think it is separate from the medium because the message/purpose is noble in your mind.... the progressive message ignores reality and trounces the principles that we live under as a result of our founding, it requires lying or ignorance) He is good at it. (convincingly distorting truth)His handlers and his party seem to be better at it than their opposition. He and they are very successful. (when you operate, as a group, without conscience, not bound by the rules that you require others to adhere to...it's easy to be good, in fact, you should win most of your battles against those that will not descend to your level , I guess we should take solace in the fact that history shows us that while they win many battles and cause great misery it doesn't always end well -)

At some point the charade will be up and forces will require an accounting, it can't continue...they are wallowing in a mess , none can point to anything that indicates a sustainable or sufficient recovery to maintain the current levels of spending and promises let alone the additional future promises to be made as they double down on their "progressive message".......

And "what will happen" when the end comes may be "good" or "bad." Whether we return to a foundation built on experience and has individual liberty as its goal, or continue on to some new theory on how to rule the people may be a toss-up. In the meantime, the battle rages. If the minority who still see the value of our founding can convince enough with their "message" then the end of the Republic may be put off for a long time. If not, welcome brave new world.

So when liberals lie it's strategic but when conservatives lie it's principled? That's pretty slick...

I doubt Obama is lying about the insurance issue. He was likely told the vast majority of people wouldn't be impacted and those who were would likely end up with a better deal anyway...which is how it appears to be playing out.

I also doubt Obama is any generally more/less honest than other recent presidents. The big difference is that he has a motivated hate machine and the Internet has matured to the point where information access and misinformation campaigns are cheap and effective. Clinton and Bush certainly suffered from some of this but nothing like we're seeing today.

-spence

The problem lies in the self-centeredness of human nature where the Love of money is the root of all evil. Only a higher good can overcome it.
We have lost our moral compass in this country. Go back in the 30's, 40's and 50's and you'll see main stream Americans putting God and Country first. We were the beacon of Freedom to the rest of the world and had A PURPOSE in defending that Freedom.
Then came the drugs in the 60's and greed in the 70's which led us down the path we are on now, with no real purpose except the quest for material things.
Go back to Nixon where the impeachment proceedings were started because of lying. Compare that with today where, if it fits their purpose, lying becomes a wink and a nod, or a stretching of the truth, supposedly for the greater good. The problem is that lying is a falsehood and there is no reality in it. Problems cannot be solved unless their solution is based on truth.

I didn't say he was more/less honest. And I certainly don't share your spin that the "big difference" is that he has a motivated hate machine dogging him, subtilely and falsely implying that Bush and Clinton didn't, but then switching to if they did it was nothing like today because the internet has "matured" (or immatured) enough to make it so. Quite a quick maturation. Am I to assume this hate machine waited five (a whole 5!) years for the internet to mature, and that the internet was just too unmatured for it to roar at this rate when he first ran for office and is spewing out "hate" at record amounts now?--kudos for a very imaginative spin. And that the negativity is merely about hatred not about reaction to policy, betrayal, and lying?--spin, spin, spinning.

You are good at that spin stuff.

As you often do, you set up tiny straw men, and totally ignore the majority, if not actually the entirety, of the post you respond to. Is there a bit of that strategic "lying" inherent in your attempts to justify? You thinking of running for political office? :devil2:

Spence, you meant to post this on Scuppers Joke of the Day, right ? :hihi: :D

Truth is a principle by which the Founder's system must operate, and on which the system was devised. In hammering out that system, they did not lie or dissemble to one another. They argued and debated about what they truly believed and desired. Their "truth" was based on the recorded history of human experience and the experience they were living. They were not afraid to face the difficulties of life as individuals, but understood that there was a need to provide for the common defense and welfare and to protect the free association and commerce among one another. They provided a constant, predictable social pact based on immutable principles, but provided for the necessity of change. The individual freedom, the free association, the common defense and commerce among each other depended on truth to be effective. Falsehoods would eventually distort and destroy the foundation and principles on which society depended.

For the Progressives, truth was relative. What was true in one generation might not be true in another, or even from moment to moment in the extreme. Constant change was the mode of existence and the way of governing. Principles were obstacles to change. Solutions would not be based on "truth" but on expediency. The exigence of the moment dictated how and what would be changed. Only an all-powerful central control of society could cope with this constantly shifting existence. "Hope and change" is not merely a catchy and attractive phrase, it is the essence of progressivism. And if those you wish to convert from so-called individual freedom to being protected and nourished by the collective, a few lies about what you are doing will eventually be appreciated when the greater good is established.

Of course, don't expect any change to last long. Time and history march on. The central power must constantly upgrade and reform. What may appear to be failures are just inevitable changes. New "theses" will always be followed by new"antitheses" from which new "syntheses" will be achieved--and the change will be faster as we technologically progress--until the ultimate synthesis is achieved--the perfect synthesis--utopia--the perfect society. Kinda like what Marx said.

clown :uhuh:

and it is a system that is/was unique in history, we have many examples of progressive(statist) movements to one degree or another throughout history but in each case the foundation that they were trying to erode(or in many cases they filled a vacuum) was not constructed to quite the degree and with the forethought and focus on individual liberty and limited government that our founders managed to engender. By doing this they, at least, perpetuated the inherent desire for individual freedom that I think represents the push back against all of these progressive agenda items that we see to this day...they were quite aware of the sophists and others throughout history who would use their "talents" to debase a culture and turn truth on it's head and advantage to a few in order to bring the balance of power about to a centralized form of governing and control..., but I'm not sure that the Founders provided a remedy for this, when truth becomes a casualty and those that benefit from the ignoring/twisting of fact and reality have wrested so much control over people and process

Debutch, being a simple man I found your comparisons between our Founding Principles and the Progressive Model one of the best I have ever read.

I guess you could say a simple example would be a Declaration of Independence
vs. a Declaration of Dependence.

[QUOTE=spence;1020897]So when liberals lie it's strategic but when conservatives lie it's principled? That's pretty slick...

I doubt Obama is lying about the insurance issue. He was likely told the vast majority of people wouldn't be impacted and those who were would likely end up with a better deal anyway...which is how it appears to be playing out.

He openly lied and did get caught....and he has not apologized like the news media said he did.....he only said he was sorry.....there is a difference in the two words.

A better deal????.....some had excellent plans for less then what it will cost them under Obamas plan

[QUOTE=Fly Rod;1020958]NO, they thought they had good plans, but our Dear Leader knows better.

Come next year, I expect to be grateful for Obamacare. Of the 33 Senate seats up, there are about twice as many Democrats up for re-election than Republicans. Next year, many many more people will realize Obama screwed them. Could be a repeat of 2010...