The Obama Administration thread

[Smoking Guns]

Why is it when Cindy Sheehan protests at Camp David or the White House while Obama is the Pres, nobody mentions it, but when Bush was Pres, she was a top story.  So war was bad then, but good now?  I don't get it.  Its time to get the fuck out of the middle east.  We are now having to "rebuild" afghanistan.  40,000 troops is a lot.  Of course, if they all come back, I don't think we have many jobs for them to come back too.

I haven't heard about her in a long while...well back into the Bush Presidency...and I remember stories about her protesting Pelosi and hinting at running against her for Congress, so I certainly don't think it's just a party thing. 

But the real reason is because people approve of his handling of Iraq:



If this number was at 46 instead of 56, it would be a bigger story.  And, if he takes to long to get us out, it WILL become a story again. 

Freedom, you and I are on the same page on this.  The only reason the numbers are where they are is because its felt that we are in the stages of leaving Iraq, so he gets a pass there.  But this shit in Afghanistan is Iraq part 2 and Veitnam part 3.  Even the mighty russians couldn't win there.  What the fuck are we doing?  Send in seals, take out Al Queda and key leaders.  Why do we need a full army for a few dozens "leaders" and a few thousand "tops" of crazies that fight with them.  And I don't care if the rest of the world wants to be there.  They were all there in Iraq at one time as well too.  Its a cluster fuck. 

[Genesis]

What the fuck are we doing?  Send in seals, take out Al Queda and key leaders.  Why do we need a full army for a few dozens "leaders" and a few thousand "tops" of crazies that fight with them. 

It's not that simple. Which is what the Russians found out the hard way. You're not dealing with conventional warfare here, you are fighting guerilla warfare.
It's a completely different beast. You can pound the place with all the F-22s, drones and other fancy stuff you have and you still wouldn't win.

Militants work by taking out a few soldiers or convoys at a time, using IEDs or RPGs. The terrain is extremely difficult with a thousand hiding places and as
December approaches, the weather is going to get extremely harsh as well. Freezing winter and snow.

You need the help of the local tribes which you're unlikely to get. Why do you think the place is considered to be the most dangerous in the world?
Not even the Pakistan army is crazy enough to go into South / North Waziristan and fight... and that's part of their own country.

[sandman]

we have an important mission to accomplish in afghanistan, and obama knows that. it will be interesting to see what he decides in the coming weeks.

since obama has improved relations with our friends overseas, maybe some of those countries will actually send some troops to help the cause. afterall, the mission is afghanistan is recognized as a noble cause, isn't it?

[sandman]

bill maher explains his criticism of Obama...

Q: You've received some recent criticism for calling out President Obama, specifically about health care. Has the negative backlash first directed at you changed?

A: People are sort of catching on to that. I was saying that a few months ago and getting on Obama's case, and I was getting booed by my audience. They're not booing anymore.

I was out last night at the HBO party. These are liberals, I imagine, and a lot of people came up to me and said, "Keep giving it to the president."

I said something recently about how the president should stop trying to placate the crazies and the right wing and the Republicans and stand up for the 70 percent of Americans who are not insane and stand up for the people who actually voted for you.

That hit a real nerve.

I can tell on a sort of anecdotal basis, and from the reaction of the studio audience when we did the show, it's really shifted.

People do not want to be disillusioned by the new president.

The liberals felt, finally, this is our time. Now they're worried. Now what they see is more business as usual.

We all want to give him the benefit of the doubt. We know it's a tough job and he inherited a mess, but at the end of the day, is it really change we can believe in when there's no public options and Wall Street reform has no teeth in it?

It really looks a lot like we just changed the color.

Source: philly.com

[Smoking Guns]

Bill Maher is dead on.  And HE is a liberal.  WAKE UP!

[AxlsMainMan]

What the fuck are we doing?  Send in seals, take out Al Queda and key leaders.  Why do we need a full army for a few dozens "leaders" and a few thousand "tops" of crazies that fight with them. 

It's not that simple. Which is what the Russians found out the hard way. You're not dealing with conventional warfare here, you are fighting guerilla warfare.
It's a completely different beast. You can pound the place with all the F-22s, drones and other fancy stuff you have and you still wouldn't win.

Militants work by taking out a few soldiers or convoys at a time, using IEDs or RPGs. The terrain is extremely difficult with a thousand hiding places and as
December approaches, the weather is going to get extremely harsh as well. Freezing winter and snow.

You need the help of the local tribes which you're unlikely to get. Why do you think the place is considered to be the most dangerous in the world?
Not even the Pakistan army is crazy enough to go into South / North Waziristan and fight... and that's part of their own country.

If the Americans failed to grasp this concept after 'Nam, they certainly wont comprehend it now.

afterall, the mission is afghanistan is recognized as a noble cause, isn't it?

Enforcing democracy on a country through imperialistic tendancies no matter how many casualities is always noble, no?

[Genesis]

What the fuck are we doing?  Send in seals, take out Al Queda and key leaders.  Why do we need a full army for a few dozens "leaders" and a few thousand "tops" of crazies that fight with them. 

It's not that simple. Which is what the Russians found out the hard way. You're not dealing with conventional warfare here, you are fighting guerilla warfare.
It's a completely different beast. You can pound the place with all the F-22s, drones and other fancy stuff you have and you still wouldn't win.

Militants work by taking out a few soldiers or convoys at a time, using IEDs or RPGs. The terrain is extremely difficult with a thousand hiding places and as
December approaches, the weather is going to get extremely harsh as well. Freezing winter and snow.

You need the help of the local tribes which you're unlikely to get. Why do you think the place is considered to be the most dangerous in the world?
Not even the Pakistan army is crazy enough to go into South / North Waziristan and fight... and that's part of their own country.

If the Americans failed to grasp this concept after 'Nam, they certainly wont comprehend it now.

I think the Americans are headed for a failure again. It's been eight years since the war started and all they've achieved is
to drive the Taliban from the cities into the mountains where it's very difficult to fight them, install a puppet government that
has control only over Kabul and kill a large number of civilians while building up hatred from the local population.

The problem is that most of the world see this as America's fight.  I agree that getting rid of all these terrorist scum is in the
civilized world's interest, but then it has to be a united effort. A token number of 500 or a few thousand soldiers from other allies
is not going to help. You certainly can't win the war alone. More importantly, you don't have either Russia's or China's help.

Sending more American soldiers there just means that more will return in body bags. As to when the U.S. government understands
this is anyone's guess.

[AxlsMainMan]

All it really boils down to is egotism and greed. How'd that work out for the Romans again?

[sandman]

Health insurer profits not as fat as Dems claim
Profit margins are anemic compared with a variety of industries

WASHINGTON - Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo? Answer: They're all more profitable than the health insurance industry.

In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."

Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.


Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

Insurers are an expedient target for leaders who want a government-run plan in the marketplace. Such a public option would force private insurers to trim profits and restrain premiums to compete, the argument goes. This would "keep insurance companies honest," says President Barack Obama.

The debate is loaded with intimations that insurers are less than straight, when they are not flatly accused of malfeasance.

They may not have helped their case by commissioning a report that looked primarily at the elements of health care legislation that might drive consumer costs up while ignoring elements aimed at bringing costs down. Few in the debate seem interested in a true balance sheet.

But in pillorying insurers over profits, the critics are on shaky ground. A look at some claims, and the numbers:

The claims

"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." ? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers' "obscene profits."

"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." ? Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

"Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." ? A MoveOn.org ad.

Other health sectors doing well
Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better ? drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.

UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.

Van Hollen is right that premiums have more than doubled in a decade, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase.

But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?

Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry's overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.

The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.

[freedom78]

^As far as I'm concerned, it's "obscene" to make $0.01 if what you had to do to get it was to deny someone coverage or refuse to pay for their treatments/procedures.

[sandman]

^As far as I'm concerned, it's "obscene" to make $0.01 if what you had to do to get it was to deny someone coverage or refuse to pay for their treatments/procedures.

i think everyone agrees with that statement. but that's a different issue.

unless you are saying that ALL insurance companies deny coverage improperly.

[freedom78]

^As far as I'm concerned, it's "obscene" to make $0.01 if what you had to do to get it was to deny someone coverage or refuse to pay for their treatments/procedures.

i think everyone agrees with that statement. but that's a different issue.

unless you are saying that ALL insurance companies deny coverage improperly.

I do my best to avoid absolutes, as they're rarely true. 

[pilferk]

Public option looks to be gaining steam:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/10/27/2109332.aspx

[sandman]

i think most people don't know what the public option is. i think if they changed the name and ensured no one thinks it's universal healthcare or the government taking everything over, it would gain even more popularity.

also, if Obama just waits another month or two, he'll be able to pass any legislation he wants. there's alot of people who will be learning that their health insurance costs are increasing. sometimes quite significantly.

i think alot of middle class people will be more concerned than ever about costs, and may be more open to new ideas. as long as the Dems can sell it to everyone that their plan is the best way to lower prices in the long run, they should be in good shape.

[pilferk]

i think most people don't know what the public option is. i think if they changed the name and ensured no one thinks it's universal healthcare or the government taking everything over, it would gain even more popularity.

also, if Obama just waits another month or two, he'll be able to pass any legislation he wants. there's alot of people who will be learning that their health insurance costs are increasing. sometimes quite significantly.

i think alot of middle class people will be more concerned than ever about costs, and may be more open to new ideas. as long as the Dems can sell it to everyone that their plan is the best way to lower prices in the long run, they should be in good shape.

We just got our plan update.  OUR paycheck to paycheck costs aren't going up, but our co-pays are going up across the board..between 15% to 25% depending on what we're talking about.

[sandman]

i think most people don't know what the public option is. i think if they changed the name and ensured no one thinks it's universal healthcare or the government taking everything over, it would gain even more popularity.

also, if Obama just waits another month or two, he'll be able to pass any legislation he wants. there's alot of people who will be learning that their health insurance costs are increasing. sometimes quite significantly.

i think alot of middle class people will be more concerned than ever about costs, and may be more open to new ideas. as long as the Dems can sell it to everyone that their plan is the best way to lower prices in the long run, they should be in good shape.

We just got our plan update.  OUR paycheck to paycheck costs aren't going up, but our co-pays are going up across the board..between 15% to 25% depending on what we're talking about.

the comparable plan i was in went up $60 a month. plus instead of co-pays, it's co-insurance. anywhere from 10%-25% co-insurance. prescriptions are still $5 for generics.

not a huge increase if we only need it for the basics. any type of major procedure and we're spending some bucks. there is a $4,500 annual out of pocket max. (this is a family plan.)

[pilferk]

the comparable plan i was in went up $60 a month. plus instead of co-pays, it's co-insurance. anywhere from 10%-25% co-insurance. prescriptions are still $5 for generics.

not a huge increase if we only need it for the basics. any type of major procedure and we're spending some bucks. there is a $4,500 annual out of pocket max. (this is a family plan.)

One of the benefits for working for a world class hospital/health care institution is they DO provide their employees with REALLY good medical benefits.  My copays aren't crazy (less for maintenance/checkups, more for "sick visits", and more for ED visits (if you're not admitted), I don't have to get "referrals" to specialists, and if we have any kind of major medical issue, and we go to the hospital I work at...we pay zippo out of pocket.  The hospital covers all the co-pays and anything beyond what the insurance pays.  It's one of the big reasons I stay put, actually, with our family of 5.  I could go elsewhere and make 10 to 20% more, likely, but I wouldn't get the same kinds of benefits that I do where I am.

But I agree: By and large health care costs are skyrocketing, company revenue is plummetting, and employees are having to cover the differences because companies just can't do it (even if they were willing).  Which, as we can see, is leading to a pretty loud outcry for reform from the public...it's the FORM of the reform that's up for debate, it looks like.  Not the need for it.

[freedom78]

Costs HAVE to come down...it is imperative.  Saw this article the other day, and though I'm not so optimistic that ALL of this could be paid for by cutting waste, there's certainly substantial room for improvement:

************************************

Health care wastes up to $850 billion a year
Proposed reforms could be paid for by fixing inefficiencies, report claims

WASHINGTON - The U.S. health care system is just as wasteful as President Barack Obama says it is, and proposed reforms could be paid for by fixing some of the most obvious inefficiencies, preventing mistakes and fighting fraud, according to a Thomson Reuters report released on Monday.

The U.S. health care system wastes between $505 billion and $850 billion every year, the report from Robert Kelley, vice president of health care analytics at Thomson Reuters, found.

"America's health care system is indeed hemorrhaging billions of dollars, and the opportunities to slow the fiscal bleeding are substantial," the report reads.

"The bad news is that an estimated $700 billion is wasted annually. That's one-third of the nation's health care bill," Kelley said in a statement.

"The good news is that by attacking waste we can reduce health care costs without adversely affecting the quality of care or access to care."

One example ? a paper-based system that discourages sharing of medical records accounts for 6 percent of annual overspending.

"It is waste when caregivers duplicate tests because results recorded in a patient's record with one provider are not available to another or when medical staff provides inappropriate treatment because relevant history of previous treatment cannot be accessed," the report reads.

Some other findings in the report from Thomson Reuters, the parent company of Reuters:

    * Unnecessary care such as the overuse of antibiotics and lab tests to protect against malpractice exposure makes up 37 percent of health care waste or $200 to $300 billion a year.
    * Fraud makes up 22 percent of health care waste, or up to $200 billion a year in fraudulent Medicare claims, kickbacks for referrals for unnecessary services and other scams.
    * Administrative inefficiency and redundant paperwork account for 18 percent of health care waste.
    * Medical mistakes account for $50 billion to $100 billion in unnecessary spending each year, or 11 percent of the total.
    * Preventable conditions such as uncontrolled diabetes cost $30 billion to $50 billion a year.

"The average U.S. hospital spends one-quarter of its budget on billing and administration, nearly twice the average in Canada," reads the report, citing dozens of other research papers.

"American physicians spend nearly eight hours per week on paperwork and employ 1.66 clerical workers per doctor, far more than in Canada," it says, quoting a 2003 New England Journal of Medicine paper by Harvard University researcher Dr. Steffie Woolhandler.

Yet primary care doctors are lacking, forcing wasteful use of emergency rooms, for instance, the report reads.

All this could help explain why Americans spend more per capita and the highest percentage of GDP on health care than any other OECD country, yet has an unhealthier population with more diabetes, obesity and heart disease and higher rates of neonatal deaths than other developed nations.

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer said on Sunday that Senate Democratic leaders are close to securing enough votes to pass legislation to start reform of the country's $2.5 trillion health care system.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33480141

[jarmo]

Apparently Michelle Obama used the phrase French fries.

And with that she did more to better relations between the USA and France than Bush did in eight years...




/jarmo

[GypsySoul]

Apparently Michelle Obama used the phrase French fries.

And with that she did more to better relations between the USA and France than Bush did in eight years...

Seriously, some of youze really need to get over blaming President Bush for not apologizing for everything the USA does. 



Question:  How many miles is it from Paris to Versailles?
Answer:  Zero!!!  foreigners count distance in kilometers.