Obama Care

And Obama didn't try? People on the left were actually criticizing Obama for trying to be bi-partisan, especially after the Republicans clearly were unwilling to compromise whatsoever.

Also, the reason things like the Iraq War and the Patriot Act passed, was because the Republicans made it nearly impossible for politicians to oppose these things. I personally wish that the Democrats had taken a page out of the Republicans when it came to opposing the Iraq War.

Although I find it funny that you bring up the Iraq War (a war started under false pretenses like WMDs and took away from going to Afghanistan and get Bin Laden) and the Patriot Act (a legislation that made it OK to violate people's civil liberties for the sake of security), yet these things were 10 times worst than passing Health Care reform.

Hell even the great Bill Clinton backed the Iraq war.

Hell even the great Bill Clinton backed the Iraq war.

The Democrats are terrible when it comes to being the opposition party. Like I said, I wish they were more like the Republicans when it comes to this.

Not to veer too far off course here but most of these were passed with bi-partisan approval:

Iraq War Resolution passed House 297-133 (82 Dems voted Yes), Senate 77-23 (29 Dems voted Yes)

The Patriot Act passed by wide margins in both House & Senate. In 2005 it was Re-Authorized by the House 257-171 and the Seante 89-10

The 2001 tax cuts we passed with bi-partisan support. 2003 was close to party line vote (no reconciliation though).

Stem Cell Research was vetoed twice (Bush only vetoed four bills total). Here's the letter he sent to the Senate:
Message to the Senate of the United States (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070620-5.html)

Let's not compare what Bush did in office to what Obama is doing. Bush did more for many liberal causes and expansion of government than Bill Clinton ever did. Bush 1 and Reagan both worked across the aisle.

Obama and the left in Congress are pushing through legislation that 60% of the country is vehemently against.

You can't fault Obama for trying to be bi-partisan. Lord knows he did try at every step. Ultimately the fact that it wasn't can't be blamed solely on Obama. In the face of all the mischaracterization and all the b.s. I'm suprised he didn't give up sooner.

BTW, did you see the new USA Today poll (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable_N.htm?csp=hf)? Or that pre-vote CNN poll (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/22/rel5a.pdf) (43% oppose reform because it's too liberal, 13% oppose it because it is not liberal enough and 39% support it)? Or the WSJ/NBC poll (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/wsjnbcpoll03162010.pdf) released last weekend (36% think it's a good idea while 48% don't...46% of those people also think that it's better to pass ObamaCare where as 45% don't it is)?

I don't want to interrupt the back and forth with you and fd, but just wanted to share a couple of things to think about.

1) There are already state programs in place to provide health insurance for children (SCHIP). No new gov't program is needed here.

2) Why should fd or anyone who owns a small business have to cut into their business profits to provide health insurance for someone? If fd choses to offer health coverage it makes it more attractive to employees to work at his company, if he choses not to, that's his choice. He should not be mandated by the government to provide health insurance coverage.

My wife and I own a small restaurant (as a side business, I have a full-time job). Due to the economic downturn, we are working several more hours per week to keep "above water". Can I go to the federal government and have a mandate that my employees have to work for less money per hour so I can cover all the expenses? Will my employees cover the rent for April? Of course not. Keep in mind the financial risk small business owners take before you suggest they just "cut profits".


By not providing healthcare to his employees FD is silently passing on the cost of covering his employees to the tax payers.

Last I checked the people elected Barack Obama with an overwhelming majority who knew, by the way, that he was going to pass universal healthcare as his top domestic priority. This notion that the people are "against" this bill doesn't square with the people voting Democratic majorities to both the House and Senate, and a Democrat into the White House. The polls are all over the place on this bill and have been for sometime. Unfortunately the loudest opponents of it have been getting the most media coverage and have clouded the debate and the merits of the bill.

I say let the dust settle and we'll see who's really against it and who's for it.

With Republicans running on a full repeal platform the electoral prospect of the Democrats just got insanely better.

With Republicans running on a full repeal platform the electoral prospect of the Democrats just got insanely better.

What's sort of perplexing to me is that their new strategy is: Repeal, Reform, and Replace. In other words, they are going to propose an entirely new bill to replace the one that just passed. Huh?

How they plan on jumping from a meager 3 million being covered to 32 million without making some wholesale changes to the current system is beyond me.

By not providing healthcare to his employees FD is silently passing on the cost of covering his employees to the tax payers.

You need to go back and read my post about me providing health care to my employees and you also assume that they don't have health ins. Have you ever thought that they are on their spouses plan because they offer it at a lower cost. I will say if your the bread winner then I'm not the place for you to work. My employees are the second income and while I can't afford to pay them as bread winners I do what I can to provide them a good paying job. I'm also probably alot more flexable then most when they need to take off to deal with family issues so there is alot of give and take. Right now my employees have been with me 10, 10, 16 years so its not like I have them running in and out.

Not to veer too far off course here but most of these were passed with bi-partisan approval:

Iraq War Resolution passed House 297-133 (82 Dems voted Yes), Senate 77-23 (29 Dems voted Yes)

The Patriot Act passed by wide margins in both House & Senate. In 2005 it was Re-Authorized by the House 257-171 and the Seante 89-10

The 2001 tax cuts we passed with bi-partisan support. 2003 was close to party line vote (no reconciliation though).

Stem Cell Research was vetoed twice (Bush only vetoed four bills total). Here's the letter he sent to the Senate:
Message to the Senate of the United States (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070620-5.html)

Let's not compare what Bush did in office to what Obama is doing. Bush did more for many liberal causes and expansion of government than Bill Clinton ever did. Bush 1 and Reagan both worked across the aisle.

Obama and the left in Congress are pushing through legislation that 60% of the country is vehemently against.
Why must you always use logic , and facts ??? :)

By not providing healthcare to his employees FD is silently passing on the cost of covering his employees to the tax payers.No he's not. If his employees (fd, I know they won't I saw your post) chose not to obtain coverage and need medical attention that winds up being gov't funded that's on them, not fd.

You need to go back and read my post about me providing health care to my employees and you also assume that they don't have health ins. Have you ever thought that they are on their spouses plan because they offer it at a lower cost. I will say if your the bread winner then I'm not the place for you to work. My employees are the second income and while I can't afford to pay them as bread winners I do what I can to provide them a good paying job. I'm also probably alot more flexable then most when they need to take off to deal with family issues so there is alot of give and take. Right now my employees have been with me 10, 10, 16 years so its not like I have them running in and out.


My post is not about you but about employers who don't provide covrage at all. The fine is not per employee that you dont't provide coverage for but employees that dont have covrage at all...so you're not going to get fined if they get insurance through their spouses.