“ to anyone who bothered to listen,”

That’s the operative phrase – they didn’t bother listen and the Statist Controlled Media didn’t do their job in informing people.

Obama made it quite clear as to his intentions regarding Cap and Trade, and Universal Healthcare, for example.

He didn’t make it clear what he really wanted to do – he (or rather, the teleprompter) tossed off a few well chosen words, meant to garner the maximum numbers of votes.

Since his personal rating still seems to be above 50%, I can only assume that those people are happy with his policies – in general.

Personal approval is vastly different from policy approval – some might like him personally, but not like his policies.

but they seem prepared to allow him to carry on, as long as they get plenty of free goodies.
Finally, many such people, in any Western nation, rarely go so far as to actually apply a label to a policy brief – they are just glad to be getting what they want.
OldEnglish on July 7, 2009 at 8:24 PM

Note the following:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.
Alexander Tytler

Here we have a well spoken (with a teleprompter) politician who was able to fool a number of people into voting for him with the promise plunder from the rich. Such a system has never worked, and will never work.

He Lied through his teleprompter about what he wanted to do to this country, there is no way that 53% figure is applicable today.

Sanders accuses the health insurers of spending a million dollars a day, in the aggregate, to fight the public plan. If so, that amounts to $365 million for this year at the most (obviously, they’ll stop once action is taken on the bill or it fails). At that rate, the health insurers would take 2,739 years for them to spend what the CBO estimates ObamaCare will cost over ten years in its least expensive iteration. If we’re going to talk about wasteful spending, let’s put that in its proper perspective.

Ed:

This doesn’t make sense. The money the government spends is (supposedly) to be PROVDING health care (I know, I know…) while the “million per day” spent by the insurance companies is spent in a non-health care area. I strongly oppose government health care but that is a very weak comparison.

CC

They certainly wouldn’t have won if they had told the truth about what they wanted to do, but that seems to be you’re implication.

Am I correct in that interpretation?

Insert witty screen name here on July 7, 2009 at 2:32 PM

First, my apologies for the very late reply – I’m in Australia.

While you are quite correct in your breakdown of the 2008 Democrat vote, It must be remembered that, to anyone who bothered to listen, Obama made it quite clear as to his intentions regarding Cap and Trade, and Universal Healthcare, for example.

Since his personal rating still seems to be above 50%, I can only assume that those people are happy with his policies – in general. Sure, there will be angst among some, with regard to some portion of the changes being made, but they seem prepared to allow him to carry on, as long as they get plenty of free goodies.

Finally, many such people, in any Western nation, rarely go so far as to actually apply a label to a policy brief – they are just glad to be getting what they want.

Video: Bernie Sanders says gov’t plan should frighten health insurers
…

There is no way in hell that I want your goddamned mitts screwing around with health insurance and forcing people to go on your government controlled, bureaucratic run system that is going to end up costing taxpayers millions and possibly risking people’s lives in the process.

pilamaye on July 7, 2009 at 2:51 PM

When that happens they’ll just shrug and say they “misread” the situation.

He is still dead, correct?

Okay, just worried that a zombie or werewolf attack might be coming. Oh yeah, his brain is missing. Either way we are safe.

But Al Sharpton and Joe Jackson are still out there.

I can’t wait till 2 week vacations in the BVI become a right.

Why don’t we, as conservatives, jump the shark and go all in on this “entitled to it” wave, and produce legislation that makes the following a “right”:

1. Large Motorhomes
2. Big Plasma TVs
3. 10 Million free Frequent Flyer Miles
4. Kids that behave (this one is tricky…)
5. Non-government, high paying jobs, like Bill Gates.
6. Free food, delivered!

I fail to see how reducing the amount the govt is willing to pay changes how many patients there are or the sticker price on medical equipment.

RobertE on July 7, 2009 at 1:38 PM

It is not a failure to not see something that isn’t there.

You have passed the test.

I think when they deny people health care because somebody has breast cancer a few years ago, when they throw people off of health insurance because people were sick and ran up a health care bill they have a right to be exposed, a right to be afraid.

It’s called INSURANCE. You don’t get insurance on your car after you wreck it and expect the insurance company to cover and pay for your car do you? And you don’t wait to get health insurance until after you get cancer and expect the insurance company to cover you.

And as to dropping people because they “ran up a health care bill”. What a crock of s***. The vast vast majority of these cases involve a person ommitting important facts about themselves in their application. If for example a person does not tell us they have diabetes when they signed up, how is it the “private insurers” responsibility to continue to pay for diabetic care for this person. Of course there are anecdotal cases where the system fails, but find me ANY industry that you can’t find anecdotal evidence of issues?

If the hospitals are claiming savings while getting paid at better rates than they are now through Medicare and Medicaid, how will that reduce costs?

Although I do not believe it will work out in the hospitals favor in the end, one thing to think about is the fact that a huge percentage of the uninsured who visit a hospitals emergency room (often for basic care) never pay the hospital. This is a major problem causing some hospitals to go under. So if there are no longer any uninsured, the hospitals will not get at least some form of compensation for these services tomorrow. Additionally although the government is horrible to deal with, it’s easier to get compensation from a government insurance company, than from the individuals who don’t have money to visit a doctor in the first place.

Our insurance company is picking up the tab for her treatments and her doctor visits 100%, without us having to shell out a dime.

There is no way in hell that I want your goddamned mitts screwing around with health insurance and forcing people to go on your government controlled, bureaucratic run system that is going to end up costing taxpayers millions and possibly risking people’s lives in the process.

So you and your liberal Democrat cronies can take your moron plan for heathcare reform and shove it! We don’t need it, we don’t want it!

If the Constitution doesn’t protect us from communism being implemented, then the Constitution is a pointless document.

On the other hand, things are looking up for blood sucking socialist/Marxist/Communist/Democrats and freeloaders.
Star20 on July 7, 2009 at 1:07 PM

So, 53% are ok, then?
OldEnglish on July 7, 2009 at 1:13 PM

I still don’t understand you’re original posting.

The snapshot in time of the 53% from November 4, 2008, can be broken down into several groups – some voted that way because they wanted to be in on an ‘historic’ vote. Sad to say, but some voted solely based on skin color – and that’s racism by the way. Some voted because they were promised a share of the plunder from the rich.

Surely you aren’t going to pretend that the Demoncraps didn’t Lie through their teeth to attain power – it’s what they do, it’s like breathing to them.

They certainly wouldn’t have won if they had told the truth about what they wanted to do, but that seems to be you’re implication.

Am I correct in that interpretation?

Correct me if I have the percentage wrong, but I thought 53% voted for what is now occurring.
OldEnglish on July 7, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Do you really think that 53% voted for Statism/Fascism/Socialism/Communism/Marxism……. take you pick….. ??

Correct me if I have the percentage wrong, but I thought 53% voted for what is now occurring.
OldEnglish on July 7, 2009 at 1:56 PM

No offense, but do you really think that high of a percentage of the voting population would have voted for Ol’ Barry, IF they really knew what he was planning?

Just because a certain percentage of the voting population was duped back on election day – some more that once, doesn’t mean that the Demonrats can do whatever they want – they still have to answer to the voters don’t they?

What I’d like to see happen would be an industry pillar stand up and say “No!” to Obamacare, but it isn’t happening yet.

As long as they are at the table and able to work some concessions, it probably won’t happen. But, if the negotiated framework breaks down and the Lefties’ dream plan gets put into action, look for some big names to start yelling “Stop!!”

Unless the administration is able to hide what’s happening until the ink is dry, then we’re really screwed.

Insert witty screen name here on July 7, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Correct me if I have the percentage wrong, but I thought 53% voted for what is now occurring.

Of voters.
OldEnglish on July 7, 2009 at 1:39 PM

And is that Real voters or does that include ‘ACORN’ voters

The Ronin Edge on July 7, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Got enough “camping gear” you could donate a little to a fellow patriot? Doesn’t have to be fancy stuff; even WW1 surplus gear would do. My part-time job pays peanuts, and the local economy is so badly in the dumps there’s practically no hope for anything better. I literally cannot afford my 2nd amendment rights – and there are others in the same boat.

Of voters.
OldEnglish on July 7, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Back in November 2008 or Now?