Deja Vu All Over Again****** UPDATE

Shades of 1990, no, I think it is shades of the 1960's and the battle to pass Medicare.

I was perusing the web and found some things I thought was interesting. Since people seem to think this is Pres. Obama's fault we can't get Health Care done, because he hasn't been strong enough, and hasn't spoken out enough about the Public Option, and that's why there are so many problems getting it done, I thought I would see how history treated things and compared to what was happening now.

Here is the Op-Ed Michael Steele, Chairman of the RNC had in the Washington Post today. He titled it Protecting Our Seniors GOP Principles for Health Care.

Americans are engaged in a critical debate over reforming our health-care system. While Republicans believe that reforms are necessary, President Obama's plan for a government-run health-care system is the wrong prescription. The Democrats' plan will hurt American families, small businesses and health-care providers by raising care costs, increasing the deficit, and not allowing patients to keep a doctor or insurance plan of their choice. Furthermore, under the Democrats' plan, senior citizens will pay a steeper price and will have their treatment options reduced or rationed.

Republicans want reform that should, first, do no harm, especially to our seniors. That is why Republicans support a Seniors' Health Care Bill of Rights, which we are introducing today, to ensure that our greatest generation will receive access to quality health care. We also believe that any health-care reform should be fully paid for, but not funded on the backs of our nation's senior citizens.

The Republican Party's contract with seniors includes tenets that Americans, regardless of political party, should support. First, we need to protect Medicare and not cut it in the name of "health-insurance reform." As the president frequently, and correctly, points out, Medicare will go deep into the red in less than a decade. But he and congressional Democrats are planning to raid, not aid, Medicare by cutting $500 billion from the program to fund his health-care experiment. The president also plans to cut hospital payments and Medicare Advantage, all of which will mean fewer treatment options for seniors. These types of "reforms" don't make sense for the future of an already troubled federal program or for the services it provides that millions of Americans count on.

Second, we need to prohibit government from getting between seniors and their doctors. The government-run health-care experiment that Obama and the Democrats propose will give seniors less power to control their own medical decisions and create government boards that would decide what treatments would or would not be funded. Republicans oppose any new government entity overruling a doctor's decision about how to treat his or her patient.

Simply put, we believe that health-care reform must be centered on patients, not government.

Third, we need to outlaw any effort to ration health care based on age. Obama has promoted a program of "comparative effectiveness research" that he claims will be used only to study competing medical treatments. But this program could actually lead to government boards rationing treatments based on age. For example, if there are going to be only so many heart surgeries in a given year, the Democrats figure government will get more bang for its buck if more young and middle-aged people get them.

Fourth, we need to prevent government from dictating the terms of end-of-life care. Many of the most significant costs of care come in the last six months of a patient's life, and every American household must consider how to treat their loved ones. Obama's government-run health "reform" would pay for seniors' meetings with a doctor to discuss end-of-life care. While nonthreatening at first, something that is quite normal for a family to do becomes troublesome when the government gets involved. Seniors know that government programs that seem benign at first can become anything but. The government should simply butt out of conversations about end-of-life care and leave them to seniors, their families and their doctors.

Finally, we need to protect our veterans by preserving Tricare and other benefit programs for military families. Democrats recently proposed raising costs for the Tricare for Life program that many veterans rely on for treatment. Republicans support our veterans and believe that America should honor our promises to them.

Barack Obama campaigned on "post-partisanship." As president, however, Obama has shown that he is beholden to his party's left-wing ideologues. It's not too late for him to honor his pledges for bipartisan health-care reform. Reversing course and joining Republicans in support of health care for our nation's senior citizens is a good place to start. Doing so will help him restart the reform process to give Americans access to low-cost, high-quality health care.

This is very similar to the argument that was given to people by none other than Ronald Reagan, back in 1961, however it was a Radio Address, rather than an Op-Ed and you can listen to it via the YouTubes if you like... He laid it all out, the scare tactics, telling everyone how Medicare was going to be "Socialized" medicine and would be the death of us all.. It would be the end of America as we know it, and it would be terrible for the Senior Citizens in our country.

Here is the hero of the right.. Ronnie Raygunz....



And then... there is the AMA, who unlike now, is on our side.. So even though Pres. Obama has failed as the CW is saying... he has brought them around.. But, in 1962, when John Kennedy and LBJ, who everyone keeps saying Pres. Obama needs to be more like, was trying to get Medicare done.. the AMA was working against them.. Click here to see a copy of an ad the AMA ran in the New York Times.

It calls Health Care a Hoax, Millions will be left not covered, there will be limited benefits.

Sound familiar?

They took out a huge, (for that time) buy on television, and tried to blanket the airwaves with the news that this was a takeover of the health care system by the government. All except Boston, and they were terribly upset that Boston wouldn't buy into their scare tactics.. lol

So, as you see, everything we are seeing is nothing new.. and for everyone to say that it is the President's fault this is happening, I think is just a little naive. Yes, he was a little slow maybe in hitting back at the Republicans, but that is his style, he did the same thing to Hillary, and to McCain.

He wouldn't be who he was, if he came out swinging, that's just not his style...

I truly hope the members of Congress after this break can come together and after hearing our voices will do what we the people want. We have spoken to them, now they just need to do the correct thing.

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

UPDATE

From one of my favorite bloggers, Bob Cesca, he says some of the same things I have pointed out here.. If you think I am wrong or have misstated how Pres. Obama has mishandled this health care, go read some of Bob's stuff.. but his take on FDR and LBJ and Jack Kennedy are here and he says the same thing I do.. it is way overrated to think they were any different than Pres. Obama has been. So to say he needs to be more like them is just not correct and is just being silly... they settled for way less than what the president is asking for...and then the bills were added to later. That's not what the President wants, that's not what he is trying to do.. if that's what he wanted, this could have been done a long time ago.

To say the President has mishandled this health care reform debate is just not correct.. he has handled it just as he is.. in his own way.. He is the man we elected and nothing more. To demand him to change now is just silly on our part.. That's not what I expected or thought he would do.

If you thought he was going to be different.. then YOU didn't know Barack Obama.

High Marks for the President

From: MSNBC
Poll: Obama's rating at all-time high
NBC/WSJ poll shows gap between popularity of president and his policies
By Mark Murray
WASHINGTON - After Barack Obama's first six weeks as president, the American public's attitudes about the two political parties couldn't be more different, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds.

Despite the country's struggling economy and vocal opposition to some of his policies, President Obama's favorability rating is at an all-time high. Two-thirds feel hopeful about his leadership and six in 10 approve of the job he's doing in the White House.

"What is amazing here is how much political capital Obama has spent in the first six weeks," said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. "And against that, he stands at the end of this six weeks with as much or more capital in the bank."

By comparison, the Republican Party — which resisted Obama's recently passed stimulus plan and has criticized the spending in his budget — finds its favorability at an all-time low. It also receives most of the blame for the current partisanship in Washington and trails the Democrats by nearly 30 percentage points on the question of which party could best lead the nation out of recession.

But the poll also shows potential dangers for Obama and the Democrats. For instance, there's a sizable gap between the president's personal popularity and the popularity of his policies.

And it contains some hope for Republicans, given the public's concerns about the costs of Obama’s policies and programs. "When does gravity begin for President Obama?" McInturff asked.

Obama’s high marks
In the survey, 68 percent have a favorable opinion of the president, including 47 percent whose opinion is "very positive" — both all-time highs for Obama in the poll. Moreover, 67 percent say they feel more hopeful about his leadership and 60 percent approve of his job in the White House.

Yet the percentage of Americans who are confident that Obama has the right goals and policies for the country — 54 percent — is slightly smaller, suggesting that the president is more popular than his policies are. An example: 57 percent tend to support the stimulus, compared with 34 percent who tend to oppose it.

Still, these attitudes about Obama have helped fuel a big jump in the percentage of Americans who believe the U.S. is headed in the right direction, according to the poll. In January’s NBC/Journal poll, 26 percent said the country was on the right track; now 41 percent think that.

McInturff attributes this jump to Democrats who have been pleased by Obama’s actions — such as the stimulus’ passage, his announcement that he will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, and his declaration that most U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by Aug. 2010. “If you’re a Democrat, that’s a pretty good six weeks compared to the last eight years in their mind,” he said.

A “long leash”
These high marks for Obama come at a time when Americans are increasingly pessimistic about the economy. Only seven percent say they're satisfied about the state of the economy, which is an all-time low in the poll. What's more, a whopping 76 percent believe the economy still has a ways to go before it hits rock bottom.

Obama, Hart says, "has done a Herculean job in raising the spirits and mood of the American public against what is an economic tsunami."

According to the poll, part of the reason why Obama's numbers remain high despite these economic concerns is that the public doesn't blame the president for the current state of the economy. Eighty-four percent say this is an economy Obama inherited, and two-thirds of those people think he has at least a year before he's responsible for it.

"That's a long leash," McInturff says. "It normally doesn't last that long. But believe me, that's a good place to start."

Yet McInturff cautions that while these numbers suggest a patient public, "Americans are notoriously impatient people."

A tough six weeks for the GOP
While the poll — which was conducted of 1,007 adults from Feb. 26 to March 1, and which has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points — finds Obama in a strong position after his first six weeks as president, the same isn't true for Republicans.

Just 26 percent view the Republican Party positively, which is an all-time low for the party. That's compared with 49 percent who have a favorable view of the Democratic Party.

In addition, a combined 56 percent say the previous Bush administration deserved "almost all" of the blame or a "major part" of the blame for the partisanship in Washington, and a combined 41 percent say the same of congressional Republicans.

By contrast, only 24 percent say that of congressional Democrats and just 11 percent say that of the Obama administration.

Also, the public overwhelmingly believes the GOP's opposition to Obama's policies and programs is based on politics: 56 percent say they're trying to gain political advantage, versus 30 percent who say they're standing up for their principles.

Finally, Americans don't seem to have confidence in the Republican Party when it comes to the economy. By a 48-20 percent margin, they think the Democratic Party would do a better job of getting the country out of the recession.

Republicans, Hart argues, "have been tone deaf to the results of the 2008 election... They never heard the message. They continue to preach the old-time religion."

McInturff, the GOP pollster, agrees. "These are difficult and problematic numbers."

Still, in the first six weeks of his administration, Obama and the Democrats find themselves in a much stronger position than their GOP counterparts.

"It is an amazing feat in terms of what Barack Obama has accomplished against the most difficult terrain one could imagine," Hart says.

Jobless rate hits 7.6 percent as layoffs mount

Jobless rate hits 7.6 percent as layoffs mount

Recession-battered employers eliminated 598,000 jobs in January, the most since the end of 1974, and catapulted the unemployment rate to 7.6 percent.

The grim figures were further proof that the nation's job climate is deteriorating at an alarming clip with no end in sight.

The Labor Department's report, released Friday, showed the terrible toll the drawn-out recession is having on workers and companies. It also puts even more pressure on President Barack Obama to revive the economy.

I just sat here and heard another idiot republican stating this was a spending bill. After the talking head pointed out to him that the part of the bill he was objecting to was 1/2 of 1% of the total. Yeah... you read that right.. 1/2 of 1 %.. that's all they are objecting to... So, while another almost 600,000 people lost their jobs last month and the unemployment rate went up to 7.6% they are arguing over 1/2 of a percent. Give me a frikking break... what a sorry bunch of losers they are... all of them.

Some of the ones who are holding back are the so called Moderate Dems.. the Blue Dogs.. They have to get on board too.. We just don't have enough votes in the Senate to pass it yet.

Gallup still shows the public is supportive of this bill. 52% of the population total, Dems, Independents and Republicans support this. 38% don't... So why aren't the Senators getting this message... Because people aren't calling or writing them. We need to call, write or email our senators or congress people and let them know we support this bill.

Well, that's my rant for the day... I have to be gone for a while... so I am going to just shut up.. but call, email, write...but if you write..you better send it overnight.. so call or email.. PLEASE!!!!!! NOW!!!!!

What's the difference between a Conservative and a Liberal??

What is a Conservative?? A Liberal?? A Democrat, a Republican?? We hear these terms all the time. But what do they really mean??

Here is a definition from the dictionary of a Conservative: One who desires to maintain existing institutions and customs; also, one who holds moderate opinions in politics; -- opposed to revolutionary or radical. Sound like someone you know??

Here is where I have a problem. Conservatives, Republicans always say they are for less government. Yet, they seem to want more regulation or laws regarding personal freedoms. Or lack of freedom I guess would be a better way of putting that. They would like to overturn Roe v. Wade, for one, they don't believe in civil unions, or any kinds of rights for gays or lesbians. Basically, more laws, I call them bedroom and body laws.

Now, here is what it says about a Liberal: favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

Liberals, Democrats are usually more open to an everything goes type lifestyle I guess would be the best way to put it. They believe in allowing you the choice of how you live your life. Not the government telling you how to live. Yes, there are laws on the books, and that's as it should be, but Dems believe Roe v. Wade is fine as it is. Basically, NO more bedroom or body laws.

Another thing is the death penalty. This one is puzzling. Conservatives are supposed to be the "Christian" party. So, if someone asks God for forgiveness for his or her crimes and according to the Bible if we ask God will grant it, then our sins are forgiven and forgotten. So therefore we are for the moment anyway, sinless. How then, do we justify putting someone to death for that crime?? Isn't that murder, as they claim abortion is??

Of course, there are just as many Christian Democrats as there are Republicans I believe. Even if some of the Christian Conservatives just think there is no way you can be a Christian Liberal. They seem to think it just doesn't work that way.

So, what do these terms mean to everyone else?? One Conservative columnist wrote a book and titled it "If Democrats had brains they would be Republicans." I guess we know how she felt. There seems to be a lot of divide between the two parties, yet when you compare them, actually they are rather close. I think we all want the same things. We want a government that helps us up, but doesn't bail us out as it seems they have been doing Wall Street lately.

We want our elected officials to be able to talk to us like they actually know what they are talking about. With some knowledge, not like they dropped out of school in the 6th grade. We want integrity, honesty, and honor. We want people around the world to respect the USA again as they used to.

We want our troops to come home from Iraq with honor, we want to find the ones that attacked us on 9-11 and punish them. We want to honor our military and take care of them with the dignity they deserve, instead of treating them like 2nd class citizens.

We all want these things and I am sure there are other things we want as well that I have not mentioned. It doesn't matter if we are Liberal or Conservative, Republican or Democrat. At the end of the day, when the final tally is done, the final census will show we are all American's.

Against the War in Iraq, 157 plus voices weren't enough

This is a man who was called naive, inexperienced, had no idea what he was talking about when he was talking about the war, yet here, 6 years ago he made some of the most profound statements I have ever seen. If only congress had listened to him, if only the American people had listened to him more and objected, instead of a rush to war in Iraq like we did.

How different would things be right now?? Would we have captured Bin Laden? Would be be in the financial shape we are in?? Would our military be in the shape it is in right now?? What would our standing in the world be?? So many questions, that can't be answered, because no one listened to this voice among others who said we shouldn't rush to war in Iraq.

No, he wasn't the only one. He wasn't even the loudest. I am not saying he was. Sen. Byrd, WV was another who said we shouldn't go to war in Iraq, along with 20 other Democrats, 1 Republican and 1 Independent that voted against the resolution. In the House there were 126 Dems, 6 Reps and 1 Ind. against. Barack was still an Illinois State Senator, he wasn't in the US Senate at the time so even though he made this great speech, he didn't get to vote.

I am just saying that he seems to have had some sense even then of the direction this war was going to take. He talks about just exactly what may happen, detailing things that are almost prophetic in nature. Here is a state senator, with no experience in foreign affairs, no military experience, unless you count what time he spent at his grandfathers knee possibly, yet he seems to know more about what is going to happen and tells us more than all the so called learned men in Washington DC. Military, Pentagon, White House Foggy Bottom and Capitol Hill combined. But, instead of listening to the 157 combined voices, in congress, Barack Obama and the voices of the people who protested against this war, the elected leaders ignored those voices and invaded Iraq anyway. How disastrous it has proven to be.

The cost, in money and in blood has been very high. The money is nothing, the blood is priceless. It can never be made up. Between what lives have been lost and what lives have been scarred forever, physically, mentally and emotionally. Families have been torn apart, some never to be whole again. What a price we as a country have paid. And here we are, 6 years later, still paying that price, hopefully, soon it will be over, if Barack does what he has said he will do and I feel he will, as soon as he possibly can. He will start to bring this mis-guided war to an honorable end. It can't be too soon for most people.


Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq

October 2, 2002

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.