So, how's that repeal effort working out for you, Republicans?

[AFTiger 282]

22 pages and still going

But I didn't realize our healthcare insurance system was working so well prior to ACA. That changes everything! :-\

We destroyed it for expanding Medicaid. We are so smart.

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me. Can you explain?

You are the self ordained smart one.

[japantiger 4,051]

"But I didn't realize our healthcare insurance system was working so well prior to ACA. That changes everything!"

I dont know. How well it was working is certainly a issue of debate and clearly you wish to debate it.

Lets look at a couple of facts. 85% of the people in America had insurance they were happy with, again 85%. Were there citizens with no coverage? Of course but guess what? When this law is fully implemented the CBO estimates there will still be 31 million uninsured. Given the law was "sold" to insure the uninsured, is the step that's been taken justified by the havoc its reeked in the individual market? I would say, NO, it has not.

Now I realize there were people with pre-existing conditions who couldn't get insurance. The question one must ask, however, is what they need really insurance?I would submit that is more of a welfare entitlement than insurance. Nothing is going to be perfect but we had the best system in the world when measuring networks of care and research and development. O-Care seemed to operate on the premise, if its not broken break it, because it caused the cancellation of 6.2 million policies and when comparing the net to net on insureds.....it insured < 900,000 people who didn't already have insurance after spending a trillion dollars to get it off the ground. In the meantime people are being hurt by it ie. losing jobs, losing hours and companies are not hiring. I just saw the unemployment of 18 to 29 year olds is 15.5% when factoring in those who have given up looking for a job.

In the end, O-Care is just another govt boondoggle and proof positive the govt cannot and should not try to do what is best left to the private sector. The collateral damage associated with this law has been widespread and well documented. Mr Hope and Change has delivered instead an irresponsible squandering of public trust and profligate waste of tax payer money in passing a law by lying to the American people.

I think THIS is interesting:

http://www.cnsnews.c...enroll-exchange

Blue...stop confusing them with the facts...

I think it is also interesting that Homey and his gang want to compare this to social security and say social security was the same at roll-out. Social security was a limited and measured program when it was rolled out...it targeted a very narrow group of job classes and went after 2 very simple goals. Also, it was funded by a small tax shared by individuals and employers and there were 41 tax payers for every 1 beneficiary. It also started mailing checks on the very day it was implemented...in other words, it was executed well.. Social Security didn't kick people out of jobs; or take away any existing insurance program to provide this benefit. In fact, the ACA is really nothing like social security; which worked from day one...it wasn't until really the 1980's that Social Security got out of hand when the ratio of beneficiaries to payers dropped from 41 to 4...and now has over 51m people in the program. But, I guess I'm guilty of what I asked Blue to do...stop trying to confuse them with the facts.

[CircleDrill 178]

Just remember: Your teacher doctor is not the expert. The government is the expert on your health. The teacher doctor is only there to do what the government tells him/her to do and to take the blame when the government's newest social engineering effort does not work.

[homersapien 11,461]

22 pages and still going

But I didn't realize our healthcare insurance system was working so well prior to ACA. That changes everything! :-\

We destroyed it for expanding Medicaid. We are so smart.

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me. Can you explain?

You are the self ordained smart one.

What is it with you guys anyway?

I didn't understand it. Did you think I was being sarcastic?

I asked (politely) that you explain it for me, and you come back with this?

[homersapien 11,461]

"But I didn't realize our healthcare insurance system was working so well prior to ACA. That changes everything!"

I dont know. How well it was working is certainly a issue of debate and clearly you wish to debate it.

Lets look at a couple of facts. 85% of the people in America had insurance they were happy with, again 85%. Were there citizens with no coverage? Of course but guess what? When this law is fully implemented the CBO estimates there will still be 31 million uninsured. Given the law was "sold" to insure the uninsured, is the step that's been taken justified by the havoc its reeked in the individual market? I would say, NO, it has not.

Now I realize there were people with pre-existing conditions who couldn't get insurance. The question one must ask, however, is what they need really insurance?I would submit that is more of a welfare entitlement than insurance. Nothing is going to be perfect but we had the best system in the world when measuring networks of care and research and development. O-Care seemed to operate on the premise, if its not broken break it, because it caused the cancellation of 6.2 million policies and when comparing the net to net on insureds.....it insured < 900,000 people who didn't already have insurance after spending a trillion dollars to get it off the ground. In the meantime people are being hurt by it ie. losing jobs, losing hours and companies are not hiring. I just saw the unemployment of 18 to 29 year olds is 15.5% when factoring in those who have given up looking for a job.

In the end, O-Care is just another govt boondoggle and proof positive the govt cannot and should not try to do what is best left to the private sector. The collateral damage associated with this law has been widespread and well documented. Mr Hope and Change has delivered instead an irresponsible squandering of public trust and profligate waste of tax payer money in passing a law by lying to the American people.

I think THIS is interesting:

http://www.cnsnews.c...enroll-exchange

Blue...stop confusing them with the facts...

I think it is also interesting that Homey and his gang want to compare this to social security and say social security was the same at roll-out. Social security was a limited and measured program when it was rolled out...it targeted a very narrow group of job classes and went after 2 very simple goals. Also, it was funded by a small tax shared by individuals and employers and there were 41 tax payers for every 1 beneficiary. It also started mailing checks on the very day it was implemented...in other words, it was executed well.. Social Security didn't kick people out of jobs; or take away any existing insurance program to provide this benefit. In fact, the ACA is really nothing like social security; which worked from day one...it wasn't until really the 1980's that Social Security got out of hand when the ratio of beneficiaries to payers dropped from 41 to 4...and now has over 51m people in the program. But, I guess I'm guilty of what I asked Blue to do...stop trying to confuse them with the facts.

Well here's a fact:

I wasn't trying to compare it to anything. To be honest, I don't know how difficult SS was to roll out. That's the reason I asked. I was hoping someone else would do the research.

Again, just focus on the actual words. Go back and look. I was not trying to force a comparison.

[DKW 86 7,451]

I kept saying that the new leadership in America would belong to whomever started the effort to fix ACA.

GOP seeks coverage choices in health law they hate...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20140406/DAD0NOP00.html

[japantiger 4,051]

"But I didn't realize our healthcare insurance system was working so well prior to ACA. That changes everything!"

I dont know. How well it was working is certainly a issue of debate and clearly you wish to debate it.

Lets look at a couple of facts. 85% of the people in America had insurance they were happy with, again 85%. Were there citizens with no coverage? Of course but guess what? When this law is fully implemented the CBO estimates there will still be 31 million uninsured. Given the law was "sold" to insure the uninsured, is the step that's been taken justified by the havoc its reeked in the individual market? I would say, NO, it has not.

Now I realize there were people with pre-existing conditions who couldn't get insurance. The question one must ask, however, is what they need really insurance?I would submit that is more of a welfare entitlement than insurance. Nothing is going to be perfect but we had the best system in the world when measuring networks of care and research and development. O-Care seemed to operate on the premise, if its not broken break it, because it caused the cancellation of 6.2 million policies and when comparing the net to net on insureds.....it insured < 900,000 people who didn't already have insurance after spending a trillion dollars to get it off the ground. In the meantime people are being hurt by it ie. losing jobs, losing hours and companies are not hiring. I just saw the unemployment of 18 to 29 year olds is 15.5% when factoring in those who have given up looking for a job.

In the end, O-Care is just another govt boondoggle and proof positive the govt cannot and should not try to do what is best left to the private sector. The collateral damage associated with this law has been widespread and well documented. Mr Hope and Change has delivered instead an irresponsible squandering of public trust and profligate waste of tax payer money in passing a law by lying to the American people.

I think THIS is interesting:

http://www.cnsnews.c...enroll-exchange

Blue...stop confusing them with the facts...

I think it is also interesting that Homey and his gang want to compare this to social security and say social security was the same at roll-out. Social security was a limited and measured program when it was rolled out...it targeted a very narrow group of job classes and went after 2 very simple goals. Also, it was funded by a small tax shared by individuals and employers and there were 41 tax payers for every 1 beneficiary. It also started mailing checks on the very day it was implemented...in other words, it was executed well.. Social Security didn't kick people out of jobs; or take away any existing insurance program to provide this benefit. In fact, the ACA is really nothing like social security; which worked from day one...it wasn't until really the 1980's that Social Security got out of hand when the ratio of beneficiaries to payers dropped from 41 to 4...and now has over 51m people in the program. But, I guess I'm guilty of what I asked Blue to do...stop trying to confuse them with the facts.

Well here's a fact:

I wasn't trying to compare it to anything. To be honest, I don't know how difficult SS was to roll out. That's the reason I asked. I was hoping someone else would do the research.

Again, just focus on the actual words. Go back and look. I was not trying to force a comparison.

Then why ask in a thread about the ACA?

[homersapien 11,461]

"But I didn't realize our healthcare insurance system was working so well prior to ACA. That changes everything!"

I dont know. How well it was working is certainly a issue of debate and clearly you wish to debate it.

Lets look at a couple of facts. 85% of the people in America had insurance they were happy with, again 85%. Were there citizens with no coverage? Of course but guess what? When this law is fully implemented the CBO estimates there will still be 31 million uninsured. Given the law was "sold" to insure the uninsured, is the step that's been taken justified by the havoc its reeked in the individual market? I would say, NO, it has not.

Now I realize there were people with pre-existing conditions who couldn't get insurance. The question one must ask, however, is what they need really insurance?I would submit that is more of a welfare entitlement than insurance. Nothing is going to be perfect but we had the best system in the world when measuring networks of care and research and development. O-Care seemed to operate on the premise, if its not broken break it, because it caused the cancellation of 6.2 million policies and when comparing the net to net on insureds.....it insured < 900,000 people who didn't already have insurance after spending a trillion dollars to get it off the ground. In the meantime people are being hurt by it ie. losing jobs, losing hours and companies are not hiring. I just saw the unemployment of 18 to 29 year olds is 15.5% when factoring in those who have given up looking for a job.

In the end, O-Care is just another govt boondoggle and proof positive the govt cannot and should not try to do what is best left to the private sector. The collateral damage associated with this law has been widespread and well documented. Mr Hope and Change has delivered instead an irresponsible squandering of public trust and profligate waste of tax payer money in passing a law by lying to the American people.

I think THIS is interesting:

http://www.cnsnews.c...enroll-exchange

Blue...stop confusing them with the facts...

I think it is also interesting that Homey and his gang want to compare this to social security and say social security was the same at roll-out. Social security was a limited and measured program when it was rolled out...it targeted a very narrow group of job classes and went after 2 very simple goals. Also, it was funded by a small tax shared by individuals and employers and there were 41 tax payers for every 1 beneficiary. It also started mailing checks on the very day it was implemented...in other words, it was executed well.. Social Security didn't kick people out of jobs; or take away any existing insurance program to provide this benefit. In fact, the ACA is really nothing like social security; which worked from day one...it wasn't until really the 1980's that Social Security got out of hand when the ratio of beneficiaries to payers dropped from 41 to 4...and now has over 51m people in the program. But, I guess I'm guilty of what I asked Blue to do...stop trying to confuse them with the facts.

Well here's a fact:

I wasn't trying to compare it to anything. To be honest, I don't know how difficult SS was to roll out. That's the reason I asked. I was hoping someone else would do the research.

Again, just focus on the actual words. Go back and look. I was not trying to force a comparison.

Then why ask in a thread about the ACA?

Because - recognizing they are hardly the same - they both represent significant moves into the realm of "socialism" (to use your own rhetoric). I suppose Medicare might have been a better comparison, but unlike SS, Medicare had a precedent (SS) to build on.

As a related point the ACA is unnecessarily complicated specifically in order to incorporate private insurers instead of bypassing them. A simple expansion of Medicare would have been very easy from the standpoint of getting it started.

But I am fine with either approach if it works. I haven't done much research but the German system sounds like it could be a good model to follow. I think they incorporate private insurance companies also.

[homersapien 11,461]

I kept saying that the new leadership in America would belong to whomever started the effort to fix ACA.

GOP seeks coverage choices in health law they hate...

http://apnews.myway..../DAD0NOP00.html

Good article. Thanks for offering the link. I'd like to offer some comments:

GOP seeks coverage choices in health law they hate

By DAVID ESPO

WASHINGTON (AP) - At the prodding of business organizations, House Republicans quietly secured a recent change in President Barack Obama's health law to expand coverage choices, a striking, one-of-a-kind departure from dozens of high-decibel attempts to repeal or dismember it.

Democrats describe the change involving small-business coverage options as a straightforward improvement of the type they are eager to make, and Obama signed it into law. Republicans are loath to agree, given the strong sentiment among the rank and file that the only fix the law deserves is a burial.

"Maybe you say it helps (Obamacare), but it really helps the small businessman," said Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., one of several physician-lawmakers among Republicans and an advocate of repeal.

No member of the House GOP leadership has publicly hailed the fix, which was tucked, at Republicans' request, into legislation preventing a cut in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients.

It is unclear how many members of the House rank and file knew of it because the legislation was passed by a highly unusual voice vote without debate.

Several lobbyists and Republican aides who monitored the issue said the provision reflects a calculation that no matter how hard the party tries, the earliest the law can be repealed is after Obama leaves office in 2017. In the meantime, according to this line of thinking, small-business owners need all the flexibility that can get to comply with it.

One repeal-favoring Republican lawmaker took a similar view. "I was brought up in a family of 12. My mother taught me to be patient," said Rep. Tom Reed of New York, who backed a stand-alone bill to make the same change.

The provision itself was relatively minor. It eliminated a cap on deductibles for small group policies offered inside the law's health care exchanges as well as outside; the cap was set at $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families.

Republicans said they sought it so small businesses can offer high-deductible plans that could be purchased by individuals who also have health savings accounts. These tax-preferred accounts are a long-time favorite of many Republicans, who say they give consumers greater control over their own health care.

The health law contains no deductible caps for individual plans or those offered by large employers, and the Department of Health and Human Services already had waived them for small businesses through 2015. The legislation means they will never go into effect.

As yet, there is no indication the change in course heralds any sort of significant pre-election change in attitude by Republicans, who last week engineered their 52nd vote in the House to repeal or dismember the law. They have said they intend to make its elimination a key element in the November election.

At the same time, though, administration officials announced last week that more than 7 million people have signed up for coverage. Democrats hope to counter demands for repeal by challenging critics to explain why they want to eliminate some of politically popular provisions such as guaranteed of coverage for pre-existing condition or plans without a lifetime cap in coverage costs.

Fittingly in an era of divided government, now that the change has been made, officials in both parties are once more at odds, each describing it as a victory for their side in a ceaseless political struggle.

Asked if the legislation strengthened the law, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, "I would hope so. I believe that" it does. He added, "So there are changes being made. But the Republicans have to get over if they hate 'Obamacare' and are going to repeal it," he added.

Rory Cooper, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said, "This is another in a series of changes to Obamacare that the House has supported to help save Americans from being harmed by the law, and we're glad to see the President signed it into law." Cantor was involved in negotiations on the legislation, which were overseen by Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Reid.

While Cooper described the change merely as one of several designed to prevent harm, the episode marks the first time Republicans have agreed to make it easier for anyone to obtain coverage under the law.

According to a list maintained by the office of the House Republican whip, Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, five of the eight previous changes signed by Obama reduced funding; one repealed a minor voucher provision; one jettisoned a section dealing with home care for the elderly; and the other eliminated a tax reporting requirement.

In this case, though, large business organizations that support repeal pressed Republicans to make the change.

"Repealing the annual limitation on deductible would free up an important "lever" that employers need as they struggle to design affordable plans that meet the requirements" of the law, R. Bruce Josten, executive vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, wrote senior lawmakers. He expressed satisfaction with HHS' waiver, yet added, "a more permanent and predictable solution is critical."

Democrats said the now-defunct limitation was inserted into the original law in an unsuccessful attempt to win the vote of former Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. She supported the bill in the Senate Finance Committee but opposed it on the Senate floor.

----------------------

Comments:

Everything in red illustrates the point that total repeal to status quo ante is more political rhetoric than a practical strategy. This is why the ACA will ultimately be seen as an major accomplishment by Obama, like him or hate him. It is a step forward. It put the ball in play.

The part in blue is more than a minor change IMO. Everyone gets upset about raising deductibles but the reality is one of the main ways we can reduce the cost of our healthcare is by introducing more free market forces into the system. In other words, the system will be more efficient if we start shopping for the best deals for a given medical service instead of simply throwing down an insurance card and making a small co-pay without comparison shopping. This could have a huge effect in reducing costs IMO. Consumers may actually be better off with higher deductibles if it makes catastrophic coverage available at an affordable premiums price.

It will require one to assume more direct financial responsibility for their healthcare costs and to (gasp!) budget and save for it. I don't see that as a bad thing.

[DKW 86 7,451]

I kept saying that the new leadership in America would belong to whomever started the effort to fix ACA.

GOP seeks coverage choices in health law they hate...

http://apnews.myway..../DAD0NOP00.html

Good article. Thanks for offering the link. I'd like to offer some comments:

GOP seeks coverage choices in health law they hate

By DAVID ESPO

WASHINGTON (AP) - At the prodding of business organizations, House Republicans quietly secured a recent change in President Barack Obama's health law to expand coverage choices, a striking, one-of-a-kind departure from dozens of high-decibel attempts to repeal or dismember it.

Democrats describe the change involving small-business coverage options as a straightforward improvement of the type they are eager to make, and Obama signed it into law. Republicans are loath to agree, given the strong sentiment among the rank and file that the only fix the law deserves is a burial.

"Maybe you say it helps (Obamacare), but it really helps the small businessman," said Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., one of several physician-lawmakers among Republicans and an advocate of repeal.

No member of the House GOP leadership has publicly hailed the fix, which was tucked, at Republicans' request, into legislation preventing a cut in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients.

It is unclear how many members of the House rank and file knew of it because the legislation was passed by a highly unusual voice vote without debate.

Several lobbyists and Republican aides who monitored the issue said the provision reflects a calculation that no matter how hard the party tries, the earliest the law can be repealed is after Obama leaves office in 2017. In the meantime, according to this line of thinking, small-business owners need all the flexibility that can get to comply with it.

One repeal-favoring Republican lawmaker took a similar view. "I was brought up in a family of 12. My mother taught me to be patient," said Rep. Tom Reed of New York, who backed a stand-alone bill to make the same change.

The provision itself was relatively minor. It eliminated a cap on deductibles for small group policies offered inside the law's health care exchanges as well as outside; the cap was set at $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families.

Republicans said they sought it so small businesses can offer high-deductible plans that could be purchased by individuals who also have health savings accounts. These tax-preferred accounts are a long-time favorite of many Republicans, who say they give consumers greater control over their own health care.

The health law contains no deductible caps for individual plans or those offered by large employers, and the Department of Health and Human Services already had waived them for small businesses through 2015. The legislation means they will never go into effect.

As yet, there is no indication the change in course heralds any sort of significant pre-election change in attitude by Republicans, who last week engineered their 52nd vote in the House to repeal or dismember the law. They have said they intend to make its elimination a key element in the November election.

At the same time, though, administration officials announced last week that more than 7 million people have signed up for coverage. Democrats hope to counter demands for repeal by challenging critics to explain why they want to eliminate some of politically popular provisions such as guaranteed of coverage for pre-existing condition or plans without a lifetime cap in coverage costs.

Fittingly in an era of divided government, now that the change has been made, officials in both parties are once more at odds, each describing it as a victory for their side in a ceaseless political struggle.

Asked if the legislation strengthened the law, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, "I would hope so. I believe that" it does. He added, "So there are changes being made. But the Republicans have to get over if they hate 'Obamacare' and are going to repeal it," he added.

Rory Cooper, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said, "This is another in a series of changes to Obamacare that the House has supported to help save Americans from being harmed by the law, and we're glad to see the President signed it into law." Cantor was involved in negotiations on the legislation, which were overseen by Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Reid.

While Cooper described the change merely as one of several designed to prevent harm, the episode marks the first time Republicans have agreed to make it easier for anyone to obtain coverage under the law.

According to a list maintained by the office of the House Republican whip, Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, five of the eight previous changes signed by Obama reduced funding; one repealed a minor voucher provision; one jettisoned a section dealing with home care for the elderly; and the other eliminated a tax reporting requirement.

In this case, though, large business organizations that support repeal pressed Republicans to make the change.

"Repealing the annual limitation on deductible would free up an important "lever" that employers need as they struggle to design affordable plans that meet the requirements" of the law, R. Bruce Josten, executive vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, wrote senior lawmakers. He expressed satisfaction with HHS' waiver, yet added, "a more permanent and predictable solution is critical."

Democrats said the now-defunct limitation was inserted into the original law in an unsuccessful attempt to win the vote of former Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. She supported the bill in the Senate Finance Committee but opposed it on the Senate floor.

----------------------

Comments:

Everything in red illustrates the point that total repeal to status quo ante is more political rhetoric than a practical strategy. This is why the ACA will ultimately be seen as an major accomplishment by Obama, like him or hate him. It is a step forward. It put the ball in play.

The part in blue is more than a minor change IMO. Everyone gets upset about raising deductibles but the reality is one of the main ways we can reduce the cost of our healthcare is by introducing more free market forces into the system. In other words, the system will be more efficient if we start shopping for the best deals for a given medical service instead of simply throwing down an insurance card and making a small co-pay without comparison shopping. This could have a huge effect in reducing costs IMO. Consumers may actually be better off with higher deductibles if it makes catastrophic coverage available at an affordable premiums price.

It will require one to assume more direct financial responsibility for their healthcare costs and to (gasp!) budget and save for it. I don't see that as a bad thing.

homer, it is staying. i take this article as the beginning of the transition toward making it permanent. There will be no repeal. If you think there will be, you are just flat wrong. It is indeed a mess. We were mislead to outright lied to to get it passed. We now need to growup and fix the damn thing. The first one to emerge as a leader on this, with the good ideas, will be political gold for years.

[AURaptor 1,128]

If growing up means never repealing this law, I don't want to grow up.

It absolutely must be repealed.

Period.

[TastesLikeChicken 0]

The most racist president ever with an agenda to destroy America. Hussein Obama is the worlds biggest terrorist. He destroyed a nation.

[DKW 86 7,451]

The most racist president ever with an agenda to destroy America. Hussein Obama is the worlds biggest terrorist. He destroyed a nation.

We survived Carter, LBJ, Nixon, Bush43 and we will survive BHO and all the other not so brilliant folks that get to the WH in the future.

They all did some damage, but we survived. We will survive. Soon we could be back to thrive.

[TheBlueVue 177]

The most racist president ever with an agenda to destroy America. Hussein Obama is the worlds biggest terrorist. He destroyed a nation.

We survived Carter, LBJ, Nixon, Bush43 and we will survive BHO and all the other not so brilliant folks that get to the WH in the future.

They all did some damage, but we survived. We will survive. Soon we could be back to thrive.

Its different now. I read that since 2007 America has been drained of 40% of its wealth. The projection is by 2016, with current regulatory and tax policy, it will be drained of another 40%. If that comes to pass, American will be reduced to 3rd world status. Its different now. This is the 1st president in my lifetime that tells you one thing, then proceeds to do something entirely different. I am driven to conclude that he wants to diminish America's standing in the world. If he doesn't, he's doing one fine job of accomplishing just that and I don't buy the incompetent bungler theory.

[DKW 86 7,451]

The most racist president ever with an agenda to destroy America. Hussein Obama is the worlds biggest terrorist. He destroyed a nation.

We survived Carter, LBJ, Nixon, Bush43 and we will survive BHO and all the other not so brilliant folks that get to the WH in the future.

They all did some damage, but we survived. We will survive. Soon we could be back to thrive.

Its different now. I read that since 2007 America has been drained of 40% of its wealth. The projection is by 2016, with current regulatory and tax policy, it will be drained of another 40%. If that comes to pass, American will be reduced to 3rd world status. Its different now. This is the 1st president in my lifetime that tells you one thing, then proceeds to do something entirely different. I am driven to conclude that he wants to diminish America's standing in the world. If he doesn't, he's doing one fine job of accomplishing just that and I don't buy the incompetent bungler theory.

Then you Sir need to read more about Presidents in the past. We have had good ones: Roosevelt, Truman, Ike, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton was great at governance and foreign policy.

We have had some woefully bad: LBJ(long bloody war), Carter(poor leadership, bad foreign policy), Bush43(two break the bank wars), and i think the hashtag "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan PERIOD" will haunt Obama for years. The roll out of ACA was bad, no one can defend that. Zero Prosecutions for the Financial Crash of 2008. That is another albatross around his neck. Obama once said that he would rather have a great four years than a mediocre eight. i wonder where history will write his place.

As for the incompetent bungler theory: We have read for years that he is bored being the President. He governs like it too. Vacations that cost us millions, etc. More golf than Bush43 ever thought about. I dont think he is "evil" or a "Kenyan" etc. I do see a man Oblivious to so much and surrounded by Chicago Way pols.

[homersapien 11,461]

homer, it is staying. i take this article as the beginning of the transition toward making it permanent. There will be no repeal. If you think there will be, you are just flat wrong. It is indeed a mess. We were mislead to outright lied to to get it passed. We now need to growup and fix the damn thing. The first one to emerge as a leader on this, with the good ideas, will be political gold for years.

LOL!

That sounds pretty much like what I said, only from a different perspective. At least we can agree on the reality.

[homersapien 11,461]

The most racist president ever with an agenda to destroy America. Hussein Obama is the worlds biggest terrorist. He destroyed a nation.

I love self-parodying posters. It's so efficient.

[AFTiger 282]

OK I think it is time for chili recipes.

[AUDub 11,184]

OK I think it is time for chili recipes.

This reminds me of a Stryker Communications class out in Dallas about a year ago. We already knew all of the material, so we spent that whole week discussing with each other whether or not chili should include beans. The consensus opinion was no.

[TheBlueVue 177]

OK I think it is time for chili recipes.

This reminds me of a Stryker Communications class out in Dallas about a year ago. We already knew all of the material, so we spent that whole week discussing with each other whether or not chili should include beans. The consensus opinion was no.

Really? I guess I've lived a sheltered life. I don't think I've ever eaten any chili that didn't have beans in it.

[homersapien 11,461]

Traditional chili is just meat, peppers and seasoning. But I prefer it with beans it it.

[AUisAll 2]

The most racist president ever with an agenda to destroy America. Hussein Obama is the worlds biggest terrorist. He destroyed a nation.

I can honestly say that I fear him more than al queda, Iran and North Korea combined. And he has certainly done more damage.

[AFTiger 282]

I like chili without all of the jalapenos - too hot too eat

[AUUSN 823]

The most racist president ever with an agenda to destroy America. Hussein Obama is the worlds biggest terrorist. He destroyed a nation.

I can honestly say that I fear him more than al queda, Iran and North Korea combined. And he has certainly done more damage.

I would highly consider dialing back the hyperbole.

and it's Al-Qaeda

[homersapien 11,461]

I like chili without all of the jalapenos - too hot too eat

I always de-vein fresh Jalapenos before using them. Most of the heat is in the seeds and veins. That way you can enjoy the flavor of jalapenos without so much heat.