Obamacare is a Tax Scam

[windy90]

Like most politicians today, they promise the world, but make the delivery of their promises delayed until their second term, thus creating a reason for electing them a second term.  Gary Locke did this with transportation in the state, Christine Gregiore also has done this with every major piece of transportation (Alaskan Way Viaduct, which has been exhaustively studied since 1982).  Now Obamacare, the 1.2Trillion spending bill for insuring those without insurance, will NOT be in effect until Obama's term is up.  Obama has 3 years in which to tax at unprecedented levels ever, yet not provide one single benefit to anyone uninsured for the next 3 years.  If it is anything like out state, he will have 3 years to diminish the health care provisions down so far, it would amount to taking an asprine, and don't call me in the morning. A scam.

[Trackside14]

I don't think a lot of people know that even though the the health care in the bill doesn't go into effect until 2013, the taxes will start being collected right away.  It would be like buying a car and making payments on it, but not being allowed to drive it for three years.  This is why again, I say to people, "Start reading the Bill!"  This bill is a perfect example of the corruption and dishonesty (and I am including all parties) in Washington.  People need to read this bill and start asking themselves and their congressmen questions.  For every action there is a reaction, so for every single thing they want to implement in this bill you need to think about what the possible consequences would be.  There is a little thing I like to call human behavior.  I will start with an example:  there is a 2.5% excise tax on medical equipment manufacturers in the bill.  When I think of what the consequences are of that, I think that the those businesses will probably raise the cost of their products which gets passed on to who...us....the consumer. They keep bragging that this bill will bring down medical costs but this is a built in medical cost increase, not a decrease. 

[EWSoccer64]

I don't think a lot of people know that even though the the health care in the bill doesn't go into effect until 2013, the taxes will start being collected right away.  It would be like buying a car and making payments on it, but not being allowed to drive it for three years.  . 

LOL.   They used to do this in the Warsaw Pact economies, and in the USSR itself.   Sign up for a car, get it approved, start paying for it, and then years later it (may) be delivered.

[basketballdad]

I am shocked that AARP supported this bill given the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid that are coming. Thought that was interesting. The AMA support while helpful was also surprising given the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. In our state our doctors get screwed due to the different reimbursement rates by state. I still have no idea how that can happen. Some states get more reimbursement money from the federal government than other states for doing exactly the same thing.

[93soccerdad]

I am shocked that AARP supported this bill given the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid that are coming. Thought that was interesting. The AMA support while helpful was also surprising given the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. In our state our doctors get screwed due to the different reimbursement rates by state. I still have no idea how that can happen. Some states get more reimbursement money from the federal government than other states for doing exactly the same thing.

BBD:  AARP supported this bill because AARP is essentially an insurance company.  AARP is the leading provider of Medi-Gap coverage...a high-priced insurance that takes up where Medicare leaves off.  With this bill essentially killing the current low-cost Medicare Advantage insurance that more than 10 million seniors purchase every year, AARP is now able to offer their MUCH higher-priced alternative to 10 million potential customers. If this bill does get enacted, it is easily worth a billion dollars in new revenue to AARP.

As for the AMA, the bill calls for repealing the current 5-6 percent per year cut in Medicare reimbursements that physicians face.  Congress has bravely suspended the rollover for several years now, but has not repealed this.  The reimbursement cuts have added up for several years and now stand at 21%.  IF the AMA did not support this bill, they were told that Congress would NOT suspend the cuts this year and it would cost every physician 21% on his/her Medicare reimbursements.  By supporting this bill, the 5-6% per year cut would be entirely repealed and doctors would not be subjected to the 21% cut in Medicare reimbursements. 

[basketballdad]

Thanks for the explanation. I had no idea that these were the reasons.

[Squash]

Thanks for the explanation. I had no idea that these were the reasons.

Things that make you go HmMMMmmmm

Sad country we live in when it's more about greed than caring about each other....pathetic and it just gets worse everyday.

[EWSoccer64]

From what I have seen on various news reports and articles - and no Leftie, I do not read only from FoxNews and the New Fascist Front - it looks like there is going to be extra taxes on businesses as well as individuals because of this health care plan - that does, from reputable accounts, include the so called "death panels".   If it turns out to be true, then I will not hire any more workers for my business and look at ways of reducing my current staff.  Absolutely serious.

[EWSoccer64]

These Libeals will make any lie to get elected.

>>>     
   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Gouverneur Times
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday November 9, 2009 2:15am EST. We have 7025 guests online .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections
Home
North Country News
Opinions
Forums
Entertainment
Classifieds
Obituaries
Search


 
  Owens Breaks 4 Campaign Promises in first hour in Congress 
Northern NY News 
Written by Nathan Barker     
Friday, 06 November 2009 12:04 
GOUVERNEUR, NY - Congressman-elect Bill Owens was sworn in at noon today.

Owens indicated in a press release released shortly afterwards that he was now in favor of the the "Affordable Healthcare for America Act" bill in direct contrast to his earlier position during the election campaign.

According to Politico.com, Mr. Owens assured voters that he felt the public option had no place in the health care reform bill.  Contrary to that position, Mr. Owens now indicates that he intends to vote in favor of the bill even though it now contains a public option.

UPDATED: A spokesman for Congressman Owens indicated correctly that Mr. Owens had recanted his solid position against public option later in the campaign, clarifying that he did not wish public option to be a 'litmus test' for the Health Reform bill and that on Oct. 30th, several days prior to the election, in a debate had stated that he generally supported the public option as it was now written (at that time.)

Mr. Owens also indicated during his campaign that he was firmly opposed to cutting Medicare benefits, taxing health care benefits, and increased taxes on the middle class in any way as you can see clearly in the screenshot below, taken directly from Mr. Owens' campaign website.

 

 Click to enlarge image

The House Health reform bill contains sections that cut Medicare benefits, tax existing health care benefits, and increases taxes on the middle class, yet Mr. Owens stated today that he will now vote in favor of those things contrary to what he had promised the voters of NY's 23rd Congressional District that he would vote against.

Mr. Owens indicated in his press release today that "This legislation will reform the insurance industry and provide increased access to affordable healthcare without taxing healthcare benefits, cutting Medicare benefits or raising taxes on the middle class, and that is exactly the direction we need to go."   

When The Gouverneur Times attempted to contact Mr. Owens to clarify this information, we received no direct response to our phone or email inquiries.  Both FactCheck.org and the Congressional Budget Office agree that HR 3962 contains potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in planned cuts to Medicare, yet Mr. Owens indicates that he supports this legislation and says that it does not cut Medicare benefits.  Either Mr. Owens has been snowed or the public is about to be.

HR 3962 also includes a range of various taxes on middle-class families as well as language to repeal tax relief already in place.  Has Congressman Owens blindly followed Ms. Pelosi's rhetoric in believing that the end to a tax cut is not the same thing as an increase in taxes or is he hedging his bet with very carefully chosen words?

HR 3962 now also contains language that allows illegal immigrants to be covered under the legislation.  When The Gouverneur Times attempted to contact Mr. Owens for clarification of this language, we received no response other than the press release heretofore mentioned.  Specifically, we asked if illegal immigrants would be forced to purchase healthcare insurance as citizens will be and whether or not they would be forced to do so at standard rates or if they would qualify for the public option subsidy.

The Associated Press said this morning that: "House leaders said that, in keeping with the Hispanic Caucus' demands, there was not likely to be any prohibition added to the House bill against illegal immigrants shopping in the exchange."

In a speech made to Congress a short time ago, President Obama had stated that the bill would not contain support for illegal immigrants - a statement for which he was called a "liar" by Rep. Joe Wilson.  Rep. Wilson was severely chastised for his comment at the time though it would now seem to be true.

The mixed-up mess that was the 23rd Congressional District Special Election was a close race between Democrat Bill Owens and Conservative Doug Hoffman.  Many feel that it was unlikely Mr. Owens would have won those crucial few thousand votes if the voting public was aware of his intent with regard to the Health Care bill.  The majority of residents in this district do not support the Health Reform bill as it is now written and many feel like they've become victims of a fraud perpetrated by their chosen candidate.

Breaking campaign promises is not unusual for politicians... it's a cliche.  This is almost certainly a record though.  Mr. Owens broke no less than 4 promises in his first 24 hours in office. 
 <<<
 
 
 

[Left Foot]

These Libeals will make any lie to get elected.

>>>     
   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Gouverneur Times
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday November 9, 2009 2:15am EST. We have 7025 guests online .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections
Home
North Country News
Opinions
Forums
Entertainment
Classifieds
Obituaries
Search


 
  Owens Breaks 4 Campaign Promises in first hour in Congress 
Northern NY News 
Written by Nathan Barker     
Friday, 06 November 2009 12:04 
GOUVERNEUR, NY - Congressman-elect Bill Owens was sworn in at noon today.

Owens indicated in a press release released shortly afterwards that he was now in favor of the the "Affordable Healthcare for America Act" bill in direct contrast to his earlier position during the election campaign.

According to Politico.com, Mr. Owens assured voters that he felt the public option had no place in the health care reform bill.  Contrary to that position, Mr. Owens now indicates that he intends to vote in favor of the bill even though it now contains a public option.

UPDATED: A spokesman for Congressman Owens indicated correctly that Mr. Owens had recanted his solid position against public option later in the campaign, clarifying that he did not wish public option to be a 'litmus test' for the Health Reform bill and that on Oct. 30th, several days prior to the election, in a debate had stated that he generally supported the public option as it was now written (at that time.)

Mr. Owens also indicated during his campaign that he was firmly opposed to cutting Medicare benefits, taxing health care benefits, and increased taxes on the middle class in any way as you can see clearly in the screenshot below, taken directly from Mr. Owens' campaign website.

 

 Click to enlarge image

The House Health reform bill contains sections that cut Medicare benefits, tax existing health care benefits, and increases taxes on the middle class, yet Mr. Owens stated today that he will now vote in favor of those things contrary to what he had promised the voters of NY's 23rd Congressional District that he would vote against.

Mr. Owens indicated in his press release today that "This legislation will reform the insurance industry and provide increased access to affordable healthcare without taxing healthcare benefits, cutting Medicare benefits or raising taxes on the middle class, and that is exactly the direction we need to go."   

When The Gouverneur Times attempted to contact Mr. Owens to clarify this information, we received no direct response to our phone or email inquiries.  Both FactCheck.org and the Congressional Budget Office agree that HR 3962 contains potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in planned cuts to Medicare, yet Mr. Owens indicates that he supports this legislation and says that it does not cut Medicare benefits.  Either Mr. Owens has been snowed or the public is about to be.

HR 3962 also includes a range of various taxes on middle-class families as well as language to repeal tax relief already in place.  Has Congressman Owens blindly followed Ms. Pelosi's rhetoric in believing that the end to a tax cut is not the same thing as an increase in taxes or is he hedging his bet with very carefully chosen words?

HR 3962 now also contains language that allows illegal immigrants to be covered under the legislation.  When The Gouverneur Times attempted to contact Mr. Owens for clarification of this language, we received no response other than the press release heretofore mentioned.  Specifically, we asked if illegal immigrants would be forced to purchase healthcare insurance as citizens will be and whether or not they would be forced to do so at standard rates or if they would qualify for the public option subsidy.

The Associated Press said this morning that: "House leaders said that, in keeping with the Hispanic Caucus' demands, there was not likely to be any prohibition added to the House bill against illegal immigrants shopping in the exchange."

In a speech made to Congress a short time ago, President Obama had stated that the bill would not contain support for illegal immigrants - a statement for which he was called a "liar" by Rep. Joe Wilson.  Rep. Wilson was severely chastised for his comment at the time though it would now seem to be true.

The mixed-up mess that was the 23rd Congressional District Special Election was a close race between Democrat Bill Owens and Conservative Doug Hoffman.  Many feel that it was unlikely Mr. Owens would have won those crucial few thousand votes if the voting public was aware of his intent with regard to the Health Care bill.  The majority of residents in this district do not support the Health Reform bill as it is now written and many feel like they've become victims of a fraud perpetrated by their chosen candidate.

Breaking campaign promises is not unusual for politicians... it's a cliche.  This is almost certainly a record though.  Mr. Owens broke no less than 4 promises in his first 24 hours in office. 
 <<<
 
 
 

For gosh sakes EW. You've got it wrong again.

It goes like this:

These POLITICIANS will make any lie to get elected.

BTW, what is a Libeal......

[basketballdad]

At home today for some fasting tests so I am getting hungry and crabby so I apologize in advance. Want to ask EW why would those moderate Democrats in those swing or somewhat red states vote for this if they did not believe in it. Sure they were promised some stuff but looking at a couple of list of first term congressman from Districts where they won by just a few votes or were in districts that McCain carried they are in trouble. Why would you do that just for some pork. Sure some will be re elected by many won't. Either they believe in the bill or they are dumb for doing it. I say dumb as far as political sense goes. As far as taxes go I too don't like being taxed now for something in the future but then again isn't that what Social Security is not to mention Medicare.

[Trackside14]

BBdad-Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme ever.  But that is a whole other topic.  This article in the Wall Street Journal is a good overview of how the health care bill passed the house.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574523613159447566.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion
Here is another analysis: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125772600979737285.html  There are even more articles there to look at.  This just shows the corruption that is rampant in Washington.  The lone republican that voted for the bill wanted 1.27 billion dollars in loans to his state forgiven in exchange for his vote.  I don't know about you, but I as a tax payer, I am tired of being thrown under the bus at the expense of politicians who are not interested in anything but their power base.  I thought bribery was illegal but it is the norm in congress.

[EWSoccer64]

One reason some vote for it is that they really do believe it, and have been trying to hide that from their constituents.
Two reason why they vote for it is because they are under serious pressure from the party leadership.
Three reason why they vote for it is because they do not respect the voters and believe the voters will forget.
Four reason why they vote for it is because of their arrogance and belief in their own omnipotence.
Five reason is that they believe in the power of the incumbency.
Six reason is that they believe the people will be persuaded to end up supporting nationalized healthcare.

At home today for some fasting tests so I am getting hungry and crabby so I apologize in advance. Want to ask EW why would those moderate Democrats in those swing or somewhat red states vote for this if they did not believe in it. Sure they were promised some stuff but looking at a couple of list of first term congressman from Districts where they won by just a few votes or were in districts that McCain carried they are in trouble. Why would you do that just for some pork. Sure some will be re elected by many won't. Either they believe in the bill or they are dumb for doing it. I say dumb as far as political sense goes. As far as taxes go I too don't like being taxed now for something in the future but then again isn't that what Social Security is not to mention Medicare.

[EWSoccer64]

If Obama really wanted to have a jobs creation program and an alternate energy program, here is what he would do:

1)  Mandate that all public transportation systems be changed over to CNG - Compressed Natural Gas - useage with a decade, with intermediate targets set up in a logical manner.   Also increas the tax on long haul trucking that is not powered by CNG by 5 cents a mile every year, starting in 4 years.

This would enable the basic infrastructure for CNG to be established nation wide in rapid order.  This is a proven technology, it is would cut green house emissions by more than 50% from these sectors, and it would use a domestic supply of fuel, helping to cut the economically crippling balance of payment transfer that we are exporting to the oil countires every year.  Indeed, it would have a further impact of really having a lowering impact on oil prices globally.

The infrastructure that was set up could then be used to power CNG private vehicles and other commercial vehicles that were not Public Transportation or Interstate trucking.

2)  Streamline the process for the building of new nuclear power plants.  Despite decades of bad press, American nuclear power plants are the safest means of producing power in history.   Burning coal produces more radiation into the enviroment than the entire US nuclear industry does.  (Sounds weird, I know, so go look it up.)   Invest in mas production of the new micro sized bebble bed nuclear energy sources.

3)  Build and then mothball factories for national defense.  Yes, build factories capable of producing every component of Humvees, M-1 Abrams, F-22 and F-35 jets, UH-60 helocopters, M-4 rifles and virtually every other frontline, state of the art weapon system - particularly ammunition - that the US uses, and mothball the factories.  This could be done very, very rapidly.  The plans for all the machinery and plants already exist.   build the plants, mothball them, and let them sit idle forever - unless they are actually needed.  In which case they will worth their weight in gold.
Remember, if NASA decided today to send a man to the moon, it would take longer than it did to send Armstrong to walk there from Kennedy first proposed it.  Even NASA says this.

4)   Give ownership of the public housing in the big cities to the occupants - in exchange for a gaurantee that they would never again seek any sort of public housing. 

5)   Right now, a country with a low taxation policy on the production of goods has a very great advantage over any American company producing goods in the USA.  This is exacerbated by the other costs of production, mainly those of capital, labor and regulatory.   The USA has some of the highest regulatory costs in the world.  Changing our tax structure to be more on consumption rather than on production - at net neutral level, where the amounts garnered by the government are the same - would shift much of the tax burden away from production and onto the makers and sellers of the goods.   This would be beneficial to American Producers of goods and detrimental to overseas low cost producers of goods to the US market.

6)   Begin production in the United States of 1,000 freighters, oil tankers, bulk ore carriers and Ro-Ro container ships, and then put them in harbor, mothballed.
This is a national defense situation, so all the work can be done in the USA.  What, we no longer have the shipyards to produce 50, let alone 100 ships a year?  National defense situation right there!   By embarking on a long term program to build and store ships to conduct the shipping the USA would need in a time of war, we are recreating the shipbuilding industry here that we have lost in the last 50 years.   And making hundreds of thousands of jobs.  And reinvigorating industry, particularly heavy industry. 

7)  Remove commercial, non-DoD and non-NASA flights into space (say, over 60,000 feet) from the FAA.   Long involved story, but basically companies that want to try to get into space commercially have to abide by many of the FAA rules as Delta or Alaska.   Making it economically unviable.   Ergo, no real competition for NASA.

Inflation in the USA has been kept down for years by two simple things - The flow of ever cheaper (in real terms) goods from Asia, particularly China, into the US market, and the ready availability of cheap labor through illegal immigration.  Cut off the inexhaustable supply of cheap, unskilled or semi-skilled labor by illegal immigrants, and labor prices will rise.   Employment of Americans will increase, particularly on the low end jobs.   This will also help lower government expenditures (unemployment, welfare, crime, etc). 

9)   Increase the use and extraction of domestically sources natural resources.  This produces jobs directly.  It also helps to prop the US Dollar, already being called the "sick old man of the world".  It creates revenue by direct taxation, by directly employeeing the workers involved, and by secondary and teriary effects.

10)   Reform the US legal system to make it quicker and less complex in commercial activities.

11)  Scrap the entire idea of "Cap and Trade" until China and India impose similar programs.


I won't bore you with my more radical ideas.

[goldengoal]

At home today for some fasting tests so I am getting hungry and crabby so I apologize in advance. Want to ask EW why would those moderate Democrats in those swing or somewhat red states vote for this if they did not believe in it. Sure they were promised some stuff but looking at a couple of list of first term congressman from Districts where they won by just a few votes or were in districts that McCain carried they are in trouble. Why would you do that just for some pork. Sure some will be re elected by many won't. Either they believe in the bill or they are dumb for doing it. I say dumb as far as political sense goes. As far as taxes go I too don't like being taxed now for something in the future but then again isn't that what Social Security is not to mention Medicare.

heard the expression "don't bite the hand that feeds you"? A politician with little money and support is basically dead, so you either vote for it and take the promises given by your party or don't vote for it and get banished from the party. If you vote yes they will give your district crums to show that you are doing something for them, they will give you money to help you run for re-election, they will give you a popular face figure when you are running for re-election, etc. So which is better for a politician?

Politics are the problem!

[Trackside14]

At home today for some fasting tests so I am getting hungry and crabby so I apologize in advance. Want to ask EW why would those moderate Democrats in those swing or somewhat red states vote for this if they did not believe in it. Sure they were promised some stuff but looking at a couple of list of first term congressman from Districts where they won by just a few votes or were in districts that McCain carried they are in trouble. Why would you do that just for some pork. Sure some will be re elected by many won't. Either they believe in the bill or they are dumb for doing it. I say dumb as far as political sense goes. As far as taxes go I too don't like being taxed now for something in the future but then again isn't that what Social Security is not to mention Medicare.

heard the expression "don't bite the hand that feeds you"? A politician with little money and support is basically dead, so you either vote for it and take the promises given by your party or don't vote for it and get banished from the party. If you vote yes they will give your district crums to show that you are doing something for them, they will give you money to help you run for re-election, they will give you a popular face figure when you are running for re-election, etc. So which is better for a politician?

Politics are the problem!

Corruption is the problem!

[basketballdad]

Completely disagree with the idea that politics is the problem. We are the problem. All I hear is how this politician is bad or that one is bad. Sorry but they did not get there with a majority of the votes from the people in their district. The right criticism should be the voters in District ABC are bad. The funny thing about democracy is that when it goes wrong the only people we have to blame are ourselves.

[Squash]

Completely disagree with the idea that politics is the problem. We are the problem. All I hear is how this politician is bad or that one is bad. Sorry but they did not get there with a majority of the votes from the people in their district. The right criticism should be the voters in District ABC are bad. The funny thing about democracy is that when it goes wrong the only people we have to blame are ourselves.

i have to disagree with you on the simple premise that they make promises they know they cannot keep in order to get votes. They lie and tell people what they want to hear knowing that they cannot deliver. Personally I'm tired of paying for their insurance while we get none...tired of paying their pension while we get none... tired of their self interests of getting rich at the expense of everyone else.

I'd prefer we do away with the lawyers and politicians at this point because to be honest 99% of what they do is pointless these days...unless you are them. 

Politicians like to point fingers but the only finger they deserve is my middle one. 

[basketballdad]

Squash, if I accept your premise regarding politicians, (which I can't do since it seems to be like a blanket generalization about a group that is not true of some members of the group) then I would say this. Who is at fault the politicians who make promises and break them or the people who realize that and keep voting them back into office. For those politicians who do do this and I would agree there are some they get away with it because the people allow it. It was two years ago I saw this but there was a poll that showed 76% of people had a low opinion of Congress. However, 60% of those same people had a favorable opinion of their own congressman. Go figure. Must be those other people messing it all up. How does the old saying go? "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me"? For some people their legislator has been fooling them for decades I would agree.

[Squash]

Squash, if I accept your premise regarding politicians, (which I can't do since it seems to be like a blanket generalization about a group that is not true of some members of the group) then I would say this. Who is at fault the politicians who make promises and break them or the people who realize that and keep voting them back into office. For those politicians who do do this and I would agree there are some they get away with it because the people allow it. It was two years ago I saw this but there was a poll that showed 76% of people had a low opinion of Congress. However, 60% of those same people had a favorable opinion of their own congressman. Go figure. Must be those other people messing it all up. How does the old saying go? "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me"? For some people their legislator has been fooling them for decades I would agree.

I cannot help that 60% of americans are gullible. I am not and I for one am sick of the lies of hope and change. Christine here in our own state lied her entire re-election campaign as governor, the problem was Rossi was just as big of a clown and full of himself @ss. We do not have to agree on any of this, but each day as you see more crazy people shooting ex-employers because they see no light at the end of the tunnel and things get worse for americans. I'll say I'm not surprised by any of it because people are desperate for Hope and Truth.... and our leaders are not delivering anything they promise or giving people promise for their futures.

Show me your poll in 6 months. 

I'll show you a stack of daily killings of people desperate and not knowing what to do.....

[goldengoal]

Completely disagree with the idea that politics is the problem. We are the problem. All I hear is how this politician is bad or that one is bad. Sorry but they did not get there with a majority of the votes from the people in their district. The right criticism should be the voters in District ABC are bad. The funny thing about democracy is that when it goes wrong the only people we have to blame are ourselves.

I guess maybe partisan politics is the problem and with us being the problem, I think you are right in that we are partially to blame, but you have to admit that who we voted for is generally not the person who they become. I voted for Bush in 2004 and never thought he would increase government so much, I mean cmon a Republican increasing government. Its as if we passed on all our state responsibilities to a central government, what is up with that?

[basketballdad]

Soccerdad explained why AARP was for the health bill. However, today on MSNBC's website there is an article  that the 500 billion in cuts to Medicare would be so costly that hospitals and nursing homes would stop taking patients on Medicare. Congress could intervene but the savings proposed would be dramatically less. How does AARP sell this to its members when it looks like from this article that it would actually hurt their members in the long run. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33946165/ns/politics-washington_post

[Trackside14]

Soccerdad explained why AARP was for the health bill. However, today on MSNBC's website there is an article  that the 500 billion in cuts to Medicare would be so costly that hospitals and nursing homes would stop taking patients on Medicare. Congress could intervene but the savings proposed would be dramatically less. How does AARP sell this to its members when it looks like from this article that it would actually hurt their members in the long run. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33946165/ns/politics-washington_post

That is why my parents canceled their membership.  They don't feel that the AARP has its members best interests at heart.

[Left Foot]

Completely disagree with the idea that politics is the problem. We are the problem. All I hear is how this politician is bad or that one is bad. Sorry but they did not get there with a majority of the votes from the people in their district. The right criticism should be the voters in District ABC are bad. The funny thing about democracy is that when it goes wrong the only people we have to blame are ourselves.

Sorry BBdad, but, unfortunately, there is currently someone bigger than "we" in the room -- Corporate interests which are increasingly multi-national in scale. You can pick whoever you want. Vote away. But when the campaign finance, and lobbying laws are the way they are, he who has the money will drive the policy.

Example: Our dependence on oil in general and foreign oil in particular has been not just an energy issue, but a national security issue for decades. Guess what? It is still a national security threat (we have 2 wars going over it) and looming environmental disaster. Did I vote for that short-sighted policy or you? Or did it matter?

Example: estimates are that it cost the banking industry $300 million to repeal Glass-Steagle and hold off regulation of the derivatives market. Dems and reps participated in this farce with the luck of the draw putting the ideologically driven anti-regulation reps in power during the worst possible time.

Bigger forces my friend and it's not a cut and dried partisan issue.