Don't call Obama the next LBJ

[ProSense]

Don't call Obama the next LBJ

By Steve Kornacki

This was the week for comparisons between Barack Obama and Lyndon Johnson -- and it shouldn't have come as a surprise to the current president.

It's what happens when the bleak prospects for "victory" in the war you inherited and escalated are driven home by a massive document leak and by news that monthly casualties are at -- and when more than 100 Democrats in the House desert you on your latest funding request for your war.

The echoes of 1966 and 1967, when LBJ's determined escalation of an unwinnable war in Vietnam began to fracture his political base, were hard to ignore this week. Which is probably why Ed Rendell, the Pennsylvania governor, said on Tuesday that "it's possible" that Obama -- just like LBJ -- will eventually be overwhelmed by a tide of intraparty war dissent and that it will cost him his party's nomination for a second full term in 2012.

Here, though, a reality check is in order: Yes, Afghanistan is going terribly -- and it could end up costing Obama reelection in '12. But it's not going to cost him the Democratic Party's nomination.

<...>

Obama still has time to avoid a similar confluence of events. He's pledged to revisit his Afghanistan strategy at the end of this year and to begin some kind of troop drawdown next year. A full withdrawal by 2012 won’t happen. But Obama can still satisfy Democratic voters -- voters who badly want to believe in him and who have shown a willingness to rationalize when it comes to his decisions -- that one will take place his second term.

more

The debate is on. Here is Lindsey Graham spinning his ass off: TRENDING: Graham fears left, right in 'unholy alliance' on Afghanistan

<...>

Obama has set July 2011 as the target date to begin to draw down the additional troops he's surged into Afghanistan. But, in an interview broadcast Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union," Graham predicted that conditions may not allow the troops to begin to come home by that date.

<...>

"You know what I worry most about: an unholy alliance between the right and the left," Graham said. "That there are some Republicans who are not going to take a, you know, do-or-die attitude for Obama's war. There are some Republicans that want to make this Obama's war. . . There will be some Republicans saying you can't win because of the July 2011 withdrawal date, he's made it impossible for us to win, so why should we throw good money after bad?"

Graham added that liberals could also refuse to back the president's plans in Afghanistan.

"You've got people on the left who are mad with the president because he is doing exactly what Bush did and we're in a war we can't win," Graham said, adding: "My concern is that, for different reasons, they join forces and we lose the ability to hold this thing together."

<...>

Kerry would reject a Petraeus request for more time, troops at drawdown deadline

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) said Sunday that he would say no if Gen. David Petraeus wanted more time or more troops to get the job done in Afghanistan.

Speaking on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS," Kerry said that President Obama's strategy with a transitional point in mind was underscoring to Afghans and the Pakistanis "that they need to begin to make this their battle."

"And the only way to get them to do that is for them not to believe you're there forever," Kerry said. "Now there is a delicate balance, obviously. But you don't need 150,000 troops on the ground, at a million dollars a troop or whatever it is, in order to be able to achieve the goals that we have."

Kerry said that next July's drawdown deadline shows that the president "is determined to begin to turn a corner," and demurred when asked what would happen if Petraeus asked for more time or troops when the 2011 deadline rolled around.

"I personally would say, no, I don't think troops are the answer," Kerry said. "The answer is a political resolution. And that political resolution has to come about by engaging to a greater degree with India, with Pakistan itself."

<...>

[w4rma]

1. LBJ expanded Social Security. Obama, on the other hand, is trying to reverse LBJ's successes. (nt)

[ProSense]

2. Got proof?

This thread is about Afghanistan. Still, do you have proof, a statement by the President, that he wants to reverse Social Security?

[w4rma]

5. Hell yes. Here is what Obama has done:

1. Formed a Debt Commission by Executive Order and stocked it with appointees who have gone on the record as opponents of SS.
2. Put "everything on the table"
3. Allowed his Commission to "partner" with Pete fucking Peterson, the biggest funder of anti-SS propaganda out there.

"But that doesn't mean anything, wah! You're just making unwarranted assumptions, wah!"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8855734&mesg_id=8857809
regards to Hannah Bell for her words.

More here:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/07/29/entire-premise-of-cat-food-commission-wrong/

[ProSense]

11. And none of that is proof the President wants to cut Social Security

In fact, his position run counter to the speculation.

Protecting Social Security

President Obama believes that all seniors should be able to retire with dignity, not just a privileged few. He is committed to protecting Social Security and working in a bipartisan manner to preserve its original purpose as a reliable source of income for American seniors. The President stands firmly opposed to privatization and rejects the notion that the future of hard-working Americans should be left to the fluctuations of financial markets.

link

President Obama has said nothing about cutting Social Security.

[w4rma]

12. He's good at saying what he thinks Democrats want to hear and doing the opposite.

He "supported" the very popular Public Option publicly while destroying it in the back rooms.

He supports public education, supposedly, also. While he tries to destroy it by handing it over to robber barons.

[ProSense]

16. And people are

good at saying he doesn't mean what he says, until he proves them wrong. If you don't believe a word the President says, then there isn't much he can do to change your mind.

[w4rma]

19. You don't debate in good faith, ProSense. Re: "a word". (nt)

[ProSense]

22. "He's good at saying what he thinks Democrats want to hear and doing the opposite." n/t

[w4rma]

26. Where is that public option that polled at higher than 70% and still does?

• Why is the Cat Food Commission filled with Social Security haters, all appointed by RahmObama?


• Why was Wall Street given everything they asked for and Main Street all but ignored?


• Why is Obama's entire economic team from Goldman Sachs? And why is Goldman Sachs still in business and doing exactly what they did to cause the New Depression?


• Why did Obama fire his economic team from his camapaign and replace them with very unpopular (on both sides of the isle) DLCers?


• Why is Obama busing teachers' unions and choking off funds for public education while supplying tax dollars to private robber baron owned educational systems?


• Why did this administration work to water down the Volcker Rule? Heck, for that matter, why not just bring back Glass-Stegal? It worked after the Great Depression to keep us out of another one, and when it was repealed we got another Great Depression!

[treestar]

47. The amount of disinformation there is almost admirable

[IndianaGreen]

50. Geithner and Summers don't work for Obama?

The architects of the Great Recession?

[treestar]

60. Are you series?

The architects of the Great Recession are George W. Bush, George W. Bush and George W. Bush!

[jgraz]

62. So Bush pushed the CFTC and ran the NY Fed during the collapse?

I never knew the guy was so busy. :wow:

[ProSense]

67. No, you're right. The financial crisis that began in 2007 is

then Senator Obama's fault.

Who needs the RNC?

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[w4rma]

71. lol. (nt)

[ProSense]

72. Thanks for more of that

Palin-like wisdom.

You add so much to the distraction.

[ProSense]

74. You need to

pay attention if you're going to accuse people of arguing in bad faith.

Also, trying to excuse Bush is what the RNC does best.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[w4rma]

77. Robert Rubin and his acolytes got paid well for their poisonous snake oil. (nt)

[IndianaGreen]

65. Tim Geither and AIG, do they ring a bell?

Time for Tim Geithner to go

(I)t's become obvious that his part in helping to bail out AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) in September 2008 at the peak of the financial crisis will forever haunt him.

Geithner once again claimed on Wednesday that he had no role in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's decision to tell AIG to withhold information about so-called counterparty payments to big banks such as Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500), Deutsche Bank (DB) and the now Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500)-owned Merrill Lynch. But his repeated denials don't pass the proverbial smell test.

For one, Geithner was the president of the New York Fed at the time of AIG's near-collapse. He had to know back in September 2008 just how much Goldman and others stood to lose because of their AIG counterparty risk.

What's more, he'd have to be tone-deaf to not have realized the uproar that would follow once the public found out how much the big financial firms were being paid.

And even though Geithner said he recused himself from AIG discussions once he was asked to be Treasury secretary, subpoenaed New York Fed documents show that AIG began preparing a filing to the SEC that lacked the key counter-party information just one day after Geithner was nominated.

Add all that up and it's hard not to think of the famous line from Hamlet every time Geithner claims innocence. "The lady doth protest too much, me thinks."

http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/28/markets/thebuzz/index.htm

[Hawkowl]

114. I don't see it

I only see you wearing rose colored glasses, or deliberate ignorance on your part.

[treestar]

46. Enough of that; the votes were not there

the tinfoil hat stuff has to go.

[jgraz]

64. The leadership was not there.

But the deals with PHRMA and for-profit hospitals are on the record.

[treestar]

78. There is no legislation on earth that can make it without deals

of some kind.

The overall effect was to help people.

[IndianaGreen]

82. Like voting in favor of the banks and Big Pharma?

How did the ban on importation of cheaper drugs from Canada help the people?

[joe black]

32. I hope you can apologize when this comes to pass.

I will if I'm proven wrong. It's obvious what he's up to by the way he kisses repuke ass.

[treestar]

45. that's just so they can't claim their opinions were ignored

I'm amazed at how powerful these commissions are when the left wants a disaster and how weak they are when the President appoints one to do some good, as he did on the oil spill.

[w4rma]

68. Don't get me started on how Obama handled the oil spill and allowed BP to take control of the Coast

Guard towards suppressing *evidence* against BP.

[ProSense]

3. Also, how did LBJ expand Social Security?

Medicare? President Obama just signed into law the biggest expansion of health care in America's history.

[BlueIdaho]

6. But But But...

That doesn't fit with the scripted knee jerk automatic response to any positive thread about our Democratic President!

[w4rma]

8. Without the public option there is no cost containment. That bill was a bailout for the insurance

industry that was losing power as *states* implemented their own public options.

[BlueIdaho]

35. Ezera Klein lists five...

(1) Create a competitive insurance market:

(2) The Medicare Commission:

(3) A tax on "Cadillac m":

(4) Medicare "bundling" programs:

(5) Changing the politics of reform:


More here:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/the_five_most_promising_cost_c.html

[polmaven]

41. Soooo,

He should have jettisoned the entire thing because the public option was not possible? Or maybe he should have simply declared himself emperor and ordered the PO after the fact.....

[Hansel]

83. The public option was not the only way to achieve cost containment.

Just because you wanted one and did not get it does not follow that there are no other ways to contain cost.

The public option is not even a guarantee of cost containment. It is a guarantee only that you would be allowed to purchase health care insurance through the government. What makes you think that the Republicans would allow a public option to be cheaper than private insurance plans once they are back in power?

The last I checked insurance companies did not need a bailout. They were doing very well all on their own making massive profits off of the misfortune of others. So how do you figure this is a bailout? If Obama wanted to really bail out the insurance companies he should have done nothing.

[w4rma]

7. The Social Security Act of 1965.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Act_of_1965

[ProSense]

9. "resulted in creation of two programs: Medicare and Medicaid"

Like I said, the President signed the biggest expansion of health care in history.

[w4rma]

10. What program did he expand, again? (nt)

[ProSense]

14. Expand?

He implemented an entirely new health care program, which includes covering 32 million Americans, health care exchanges, changes to the profit structure, free preventive care and funding for state single payer initiatives.

[w4rma]

15. What "funding for state single payer initiatives"? I had not heard about that. (nt)

[ProSense]

17. Look it up, it's there.

Also, the OP is still about Afghanistan. Care to add a relevant comment?

[Warren Stupidity]

31. He implemented RomneyCare with an Obama twist.

It is not entirely new anything, it is more of the same with a government stamp of mandate on it. Yes there is some good to it, and I have defended it here for the good it will do, but up there with medicare and medicaid? Seriously? Please try to be a little honest.

[ProSense]

38. There is no such thing as RomneyCare. Mass has the

lowest uninsured rate in the country:



That "Obama twist" lead to a better bill with better cost control measures.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. so my request for honest discourse is going to go unheeded.

Very well, if you want to continue to attempt to sell Obamacare as on the same level as medicare and medicaid, go ahead. You are not fooling anyone here with this nonsense, you are not convincing anyone, and you just look silly.

[ProSense]

42. "to sell Obamacare as on the same level as medicare and medicaid"

What cost controls did Medicare include? Why are seniors paying more? Did Medicare cover 95 percent of the population? Did it implement free preventive care for all?

[Warren Stupidity]

86. "What cost controls did Medicare include?"

Seriously? Is that all you've got?

[brentspeak]

94. How come you forget to mention that Mass has the highest insurance premiums in the nation?

Oh, and to reiterate: your postings here on this website have failed.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/08/22/bay_state_health_insurance_premiums_highest_in_country/

Massachusetts has the most expensive family health insurance premiums in the country, according to a new analysis that highlights the state’s challenge in trying to rein in medical costs after passage of a landmark 2006 law that mandated coverage for nearly everyone.

The report by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health care foundation, showed that the average family premium for plans offered by employers in Massachusetts was $13,788 in 2008, 40 percent higher than in 2003. Over the same period, premiums nationwide rose an average of 33 percent.

[ProSense]

95. The Mass plan lacked cost controls. It

isn't a secret. It was discussed throughout the debate. This is why health reform was still important to states like Mass.

[izquierdista]

36. Correction

Health insurance, not care, insurance.

[treestar]

44. ...

[lordcommander]

4. Which GOP nominee could possibly oppose Afghanistan?? seriously? nt

[Steely_Dan]

13. The Strange Thing Is...

...the whole issue of comparing President Obama with LBJ is that it would have never been made (by many people - enough to generate an article) if there wasn't a grain of truth to the concept.

-PLA

[ProSense]

20. A grain of truth

can spark debate. This was a war in progress. One that was completely neglected by Bush. Had the President not done what he said, and made an attempt to create some stability before leaving, he would go down in history as equally irresponsible as Bush.

If anyone saw the report by Rachel Maddow, there is some progress being made in the cities. Still, the President says the drawdown will begin in 2011, and he should be held to that. If he does begin the drawdown, then the LBJ comparisons will be moot.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. I certainly wouldn't do that.

Great Society, civil rights act, medicare, medicaid, head start, low interest student loans, bilingual education programs, vista, ...

Oh wait you meant the wars.

[w4rma]

21. How about Nixon? (nt)

[Warren Stupidity]

23. we can't go there anymore

heads explode

[ProSense]

25. We can't go there anymore because it's bogus. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

27. Some people can't handle the truth!

Everything is peachy in Afghanistan, don't ya know?

[ProSense]

28. If people could handle the truth

the OP wouldn't be used to start a debate about health care and to tout the Nixon was more liberal than Obama BS.

[IndianaGreen]

30. Nixon went after the leaker of Pentagon Papers, Obama went after wikileaks

Both Nixon and Obama used the military to spy on Americans. Both continued to wage wars long considered lost.

LBJ lied about the reasons for escalating Vietnam. Obama's Afghanistan speech was panned for its lack of veracity.

[ProSense]

24. Well

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act
Omnibus Public Lands Management Act
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act
Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (biggest expansion of health care in the nation's history)
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010
Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (most significant reforms since the 1930s)


Facts are troublesome

[Warren Stupidity]

29. If you think any of this holds up to the great society programs

then you are delusional. They aren't in the same league. Do some research. Spare yourself the embarrassment of continuing down this line of argument.

[ProSense]

34. Covering 32 million more

Americans and achieving 95 percent insured for the first time ever

implmenting the first federal consumer bureau ever

giving the government new powers to regulate financial instituions through several new agencies

repealing the section of the Securities Act of 1935 that exempted credit agencies

regulating tobacco for the first time ever

and on, and on will be recorded as some of the most significant achievenments in our nation's history.

I'm not the one who needs to be spared "embarassment."

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

48. One does not have to be "clever"

to realize that the health care law applies to more people, including Medicare and Medicaid recipients, and institutes more significant reforms than any previous legislation.

[IndianaGreen]

53. All ACA did was to enshrine in federal law the monopoly of the health insurance industry

Only the guillotine on the Washington mall will rid us of the greedy for-profit health insurance moguls, a day I look forward to.

[jgraz]

56. In fact, it really helps if you're not

The better to miss the gaping holes in your "evidence".

[dflprincess]

103. No matter how many times you repeat it

"covered" does not equal access to care as many Americans already know. And what we needed was access to care not more of the same shoddy product from the same old crooks - we already know that system doesn't work.

[treestar]

51. In 2010 rather than 1965?

It may be even more. That was before Reagan and before 911. It's a good thing it happened then.

[Warren Stupidity]

84. that is an interesting attempt at salvaging the argument

but the claim was not that health insurance reform was as relatively a great achievement as medicare and medicaid, given the political circumstances, but that is was equivalent in absolute terms. So no, that might or might not be true, but is irrelevant.

[joe black]

33. How's that reinvest and recovery act working for you.

Christ on a crutch.

[ProSense]

37. Worked

as intended

[jgraz]

52. Worked as intended?

So you're saying Obama intended to extend double-digit unemployment far longer than was necessary while, at the same time, politically hamstringing the Democrats who are calling for a second stimulus?

I thought these kinds of scurrilous accusations against Obama were no longer allowed under the new rules! I'm outraged! I'm offended!! WHY DO YOU HATE THE PRESIDENT?????

[ProSense]

55. Are you confusing

the effects of the crisis with the intent of the stimulus?

Yes, it worked as intended, turning massive job losses into job gains.

[jgraz]

57. I'm sorry, I thought the stimulus was supposed to deal with the effects of the crisis

Now you're saying the stimulus was, from the start, not intended to really handle the economic crisis? Then what, pray tell, is Obama planning to do about the rest of this disaster? Unemployment extensions and more war funding can only take you so far.

Maybe he's waiting for the trickle-down effect of Chelsea's wedding... :shrug:

[ProSense]

59. "Maybe he's waiting for the trickle-down effect of Chelsea's wedding..."

Hmmmm?

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

"Now you're saying the stimulus was, from the start, not intended to really handle the economic crisis?"

And it did.

[jgraz]

61. When you start running in circles and kicking up cat litter

I can be pretty sure the discussion is over. Nice try, tho. Maybe you'll be able to fool one of those not-too-clever people.

The rest of us? Not so much.

[ProSense]

63. "The rest of us? Not so much."

Can the "rest of us" explain what a comment about Chelsea's wedding has to do with the stimulus?

"Maybe you'll be able to fool one of those not-too-clever people."

What is that? Are you that insecure in making your arguments?

[jgraz]

66. 'Can the "rest of us" explain what a comment about Chelsea's wedding has to do with the stimulus?'

A sense of irony is a key metric of intelligence.

[rug]

43. OK, I'll call him René Mayer.

[IndianaGreen]

49. Monsieur Mayer had a long record of executive experience

Attaché au cabinet de Pierre LAVAL, ministre des travaux publics (1925)
Commissaire aux communications et à la marine marchande du Comité français de libération nationale (1943-1944)
Ministre des transports et des travaux publics (1944-1945)
Commissaire général aux affaires allemandes et autrichiennes (1945-1946)
Ministre de la défense nationale (1948)
Garde des sceaux, ministre de la justice (1949-1951)
Président du Conseil (1953)
Président à la Haute-Autorité de la Communauté européenne du charbon et de l'acier (1955-1957).

http://www.economie.gouv.fr/directions_services/cedef/histomin/ministres/fiche057.html

and as you probably intended to do, he was a transitional figure in the transitional Fourth Republic.

Should I mention how the war in Algeria brought down the Fourth Republic?

[rug]

54. Indeed, not to mention Dien Bien Phu.

"In May 1953, French Premier René Mayer appointed Henri Navarre, a trusted colleague, to take command of French Union Forces in Indochina. Mayer had given Navarre a single order—to create military conditions that would lead to an "honorable political solution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu

[IndianaGreen]

58. Dien Bien Phu was very traumatic to France (not to mention the Vietnamese)

but it never reached the level that Algeria did. The level of brutality used to put down the NLF was shocking even in the 20th century. DeGaulle was supposed to "win" the war, instead he decided to pull out of the colonies.

We don't have a DeGaulle, which means we will get kicked out from every country we tried to dominate.

[bvar22]

73. Obama the next LBJ???...LOL

Can you imagine what would have happened to Joe Lieberman if LBJ were president during HCR?

Can you imagine LBJ orchestrating a year long AppeaseFest with Republicans over Medicare?

I WISH Obama was an LBJ.
LBJ was a "Democrat" back when that meant something.

(I'm STILL laughing at the image of little snit fit Joe Lieberman standing up to LBJ and demanding that LBJ ditch his Medicare Program.)

[ProSense]

75. "Can you imagine what would have happened to Joe Lieberman if LBJ were president during HCR?"

Yes, something similiar to removing voting rights from the Civil Rights Act.

[bvar22]

79. If not the expansion of Medicare, we would have at the very least a Public Option,

and not some bogus "reform" that bestows mandated profits/"customers" to an industry that manufactures nothing and creates no wealth.

Rahm was recently overheard crowing to the Ownership Class about "protecting the Private Delivery" Health Care System.

The basis for comparison of LBJ to Obama:
LBJ was a Churchill.
Obama is a Chamberlain.


On Edit:
I absolutely agree with the title of the OP:
Don't call Obama the next LBJ

[ProSense]

80. The public option is a good thing,

but its omission does not negate the massive reforms of the health care law. The public option was not and is not a provision that can stand on its own.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[brentspeak]

100. You mean it doesn't "negate" the massive institutionalization of the private health insurance system

as a result of this bill. Thanks, Obama -- our tax dollars are now corporate insurance CEO's dollars. And families will still have the luxury of going broke from insurance premiums and medical bills anyway.

[bvar22]

101. "Massive Reforms"?

I reject your premise.
There are some regulations being imposed on the Health Insurance Industry.
The enforcement & effectiveness of these regulations are still to be proven,
especially since it was the Health Insurance Industry Lobbyists who wrote & approved all these regulations.
The MMS was a "Regulatory Agency", and we all know how well that worked out for BP.

The addition of more to Medicaid is also a good thing.

The point is:
these "massive Reforms" are only crumbs compared to delivering Mandatory Profits to a Parasitic For Profit Industry.
We did NOT have to eat the entire Shit Sandwich (Mandates, Cadillac Tax, Defunding of Medicare) in order to get these "regulations".
We COULD have gotten all these crumbs in clean, specific bills without giving the Health Insurance Industry the keys to the Public Treasury.

It is a scam to tell a consumer that a junk car is aGood Buy because it has a workable radio.

[cornermouse]

81. lol

at my mental image of Liberman scurrying out of the room in utter terror.

[Hawkowl]

115. Outstanding!

Yeah, LBJ had more backbone in his left ear lobe than Obama has in his entire body.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

85. Wouldn't dream of it

I'm old enough to remember the ORIGINAL LBJ.

Obama doesn't even come close to him in political horsetrading smarts or willingness to do the right thing for the good of the country, even if it meant sacrificing his personal ambition.

[ProSense]

87. So why did he cut voting rights

when he had 66 Democrats? Every President horsetrades and everyone of them compromises. There is a reason President Obama is the first ever President to enact health care reform, and he did it not with 66 or 76 Democrats.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

89. Because what he did get was revolutionary--

Medicare
Medicaid
The War on Poverty
The Civil Rights Act

All of which went in the RIGHT DIRECTION, unlike Obama's initiatives, most of which head off in totally wrong directions (corporate welfare for the insurance companies, letting the financial pirates keep their bonuses, continuing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, putting a privatizer in charge of education and bashing teachers, etc. etc.)

I don't know how old you are, but I was a teenager in the 1960s, and I remember that LBJ's initiatives (except for his refusal to leave Vietnam) made me feel GOOD about the country instead of discouraged. It felt as if we were working toward economic and political JUSTICE.

Obama makes me feel as if we're working toward handing the store over to the shoplifters.

[ProSense]

90. "All of which went in the RIGHT DIRECTION, unlike Obama's initiatives"

Really?

Ending rescission, making preventive care free and establishing heatlh care exchanges goes in the wrong direction?

You know what's revolutionary: 95 percent of the American people covered for the first time in history.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

91. Oooh, 95% covered (when most other countries cover 100%) but ONLY

if they buy overpriced insurance with high deductibles and copays from private companies, with said private companies guaranteed government subsidies if the person can't afford them (with "affordability" determined by out-of-touch millionaires who think that $6000 a year with deductibles and copays on top of that is reasonable).

That is the wrong, wrong, wrong direction.

I hate the health insurance companies with a passion and am furious with Obama for trying to appease them. They are CROOKS and do not deserve appeasement. They NEEDED the competition of either a low-cost public option or Medicare expanded at the same price it is offered to seniors (since the addition of younger, healthier people would have helped balance its budget).

But Obama also appeased the crooks in the financial services industry (let them keep their bonuses after they helped wreck the U.S. economy on the grounds that "contracts are sacred" while telling the autoworkers that THEIR contracts could be scrapped.)

Oh yeah, I know whose side Obama is on, and it ain't the side of ordinary people.

By the way, 5% of Americans is 15 million people. And of the Americans who are supposedly "covered" by this rotten stinking bill, an untold number won't be able to afford actual CARE and will still be patronizing that outfit that provides free care in tents.

I've looked at what I could get under the bill, and it would be WORSE than the lousy policy I had before I dropped it in the interests of affording actual CARE.

CARE. That's what it's about. Not fucking "insurance."

I don't know whether the people who LOVE this bill are ignorant, out-of-touch, shills for the insurance companies, or simply people who want desperately to believe in Their Hero.

[ProSense]

92. Most countries don't cover 100 percent

Also, unlike Medicare and other programs, dental coverage is provided along with health insurance under current health plans.

Medicare would have to be substantially altered to take care of the needs of people under age 65.

The constant chatter about this is health insurance not health care is just a distraction. The U.S. system is costly, but the quality of the care is not the problem. The quality suffers from lack of coordination and efficiency.

These are the issues health care reform addresses. You may not like the insurance companies, but that doesn't change the facts of the legislation.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[great white snark]

98. "some fool here will eventually read your posts and believe something you spam"

Well guess I'm a fool. I read her posts and yours and can unequivocally conclude that 1 ProSense post adds more facts to the debate than 100 of yours.

[brentspeak]

99. Who am I to argue with your self-assessment?

[dflprincess]

105. Dental and vision coverage for adults are not included in the scam Congress passed

And remember, Obama is the one who said a public option was necessary to "keep them honest". So he pretty much admitted he knows they're crooks and, in the end, he signed a bill that transfers massive amounts of public and private dollars into their already bloated bank accounts.

Access to care may not be an issue for you but it is not a distration. There are a lot of people with "coverage" that has deductibles that are so high they can't afford see a doctor and more people are getting stuck with plans like this all the time. Nothing in the insurance bail out addresses that.

[ProSense]

106. Really?

Obama's plan bans health insurers from providing dental coverage?

[dflprincess]

107. Did I say he banned it?

No - I said it's not required that dental or vison be covered for adults. So, in addtion to the premiums, deductibles and other "cost sharing" expenses we have with this scam, we'll still have dental, vision and anything else the insurers decide they don't want to "cover" to pay for... This "reform" sure sounds a lot like the way things are today - except for the fines that may be levied if we don't have insurance.

I did say that Obama went back on his repeated statement that a public option was needed to keep the insurers honest. Apparently he decided keeping the crooks honest wasn't all that important. You're the expert on all things Obama, perhaps you can explain what 3 dimensional chess move he was making when he lied about the importance of a public option?

[ProSense]

109. "I said it's not required that dental or vison be covered for adults"

The plans offer it, they have always offered it.

[dflprincess]

110. No they have not

I know some companies do not offer dental even as a seperate coverage while other may offer both dental and medical coverage but, again, they are separate policies. Dental is considered something other than "medical". And not all policies offer vision covereage.

You implied that dental and vision would be covered by the insurance bill. They are no more apt to be covered under the bailout than they are today. Just another example of the "reform" reenforcing the status quo.

BTW - love how you're ignoring Obama's once held belief about the dishonesty of the insurance companies he now wants to protect.

[ProSense]

112. "You implied that dental and vision would be covered by the insurance bill. "

I did no such thing. The bill doesn't alter what insurance companies now offer and that is a fact. They will continue to offer dental and vision. Plans that do offer such coverage typically lay out the rates for each and a discounted rate for comprehensive coverage.

In fact, they offer a similiar comprehensive rate for COBRA.

[dflprincess]

116. Perhaps some plans do

and I would sure love to know their names. The COBRA situations I am aware of and the one I'm currenlty dealing with for my brother keeps the medical and dental seperate and offer no discount if both coverages are picked up.

Insurers do not offer medical and dental as comprehensive coverage. Fewer insurers are including vision as part of the medical package. Dental & vision are most commonly offered as seperate policies/benefits even when being purchased from the same company that provides the medical and, meanwhile, whether its medical/dental/vision we're all paying more and getting less. And that will continue with the insurance bill.

Still no opinion on Obama deciding the insurance companies aren't all that crooked after all and protecting their profits was more important than Americans getting access to care?

[brentspeak]

124. "I did no such thing"

That is correct -- you really didn't do a single thing to respond to the other poster's question about why Obama is now protecting insurance companies he once called "dishonest".

[Lydia Leftcoast]

122. Most countries don't cover 100%?

I suggest looking at the medical plans of various countries and revising that statement.

Forcing people to buy insurance is not the same as providing CARE.

Most important, in my look at health plans around the world, I can see some that have modest copays, but NONE make patients pay high deductibles on top of their premiums or taxes. Five hundred dollars a month isn't enough to exempt a person from deductibles?

If you think that it is reasonable to make a person pay a high deductible when they're already paying hundreds of dollars a month, then you are either very wealthy, very young and inexperienced in the ways of the world, or so dead set on making Obama look good that it has made you blind to reality and to human hardship.

[bvar22]

102. Recommending Post 91 ^^^^^

Lydia Leftcoast Nails It with this post.

No amount of campaign rhetoric,
No amount of spinning,
No amount of "sugar sprinkle crumbs"

...can change the nature of this "historic" "massive" Shit Sandwich.

[dflprincess]

108. Agreed

LL should post that as a seperate thread.

[craigmatic]

88. The right might turn on him in Afganistan just for the sake of knocking him

[Hawkowl]

117. Oh I guarantee it

There is no "might" about it. That is what Obama completely and utterly fails to comprehend. The right will crucify him no matter what he does. No amount of appeasement will satisfy him. He could outdo shrub in his giveaways and they will STILL hate him.

How can you compromise with that sort of hatred? All you do is infuriate your enemies (the right) and alienate your supporters (the left). I think Obama resembles President Buchanan more and more each day-constantly trying to placate everyone and all he ended up doing was guarantee a civil war. That is not strong leadership.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[StevieM]

104. First of all, I don't consider comparing Obama to LBJ to be a slight against the President.

LBJ got the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Medicare and Medicaid all through. He raised Minimum wage to levels not seen before or since, and had a host of other anti-poverty measures. He also signed a number of substantive education bill. And let's not forget about Public broadcasting--imagine if there was no PBS.

Second, you can't compare Afghanistan to Vietnam IMO.

Third, I happen to think that right now President Obama looks very strong for re-election.

Steve

[dflprincess]

111. Obama is not the one being slighted by that comparison. n/t

[hulka38]

113. No draft.

That's the difference if it's not apparent to some.

[smalll]

118. Didn't go quite as you expected, did it? Leaving aside wars, LBJ was a pretty good President --

-- got a lot done.

Why, I remember during the Primaries last year, "someone" made the point about the importance of Presidents like LBJ -- and got shot down for making the point. About the need for a Preisdent with experience? Who knew how to fight?

Who made that awkward, unwelcome point? Hmmmm?

[StevieM]

119. Well, she did win the New Hampshire primary in a stunning comeback after she said it (eom)

[Radical Activist]

121. Yes, we had a candidate who offered top-down change.

Who said she would pressure Congress for us instead of asking for a mass movement to make change. I see a lot of people at DU who still want that and don't seem to understand what Obama was offering voters.

[ProSense]

123. No, let's not leave aside wars. LBJ was a good President

Obama is also a good President. In fact, he is an excellent President.

"the need for a Preisdent with experience?"

Yet he's getting more done than most Presidents in history with a smaller majority than FDR and LBJ.

He's ending one war and preparing a strategy to wind down another.

The notion that anyone else in the field of candidates would be a better President than our current is not only revisionist, it's a pipe dream.

[Radical Activist]

120. Great comments from Kerry.

He has the right attitude and it's encouraging to hear him say it.