Use this one instead, it’s very fresh (Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union”):
“Remember this, President Obama, when he became president, he said I’m going to cut the deficit in half in four years. He did it in four years and three months.”
She didn’t say “other fossil fuels”. In fact, she said it twice.
If you see the interview, it’s abundantly clear that she has absolutely no idea what she’s talking about. The statement is not correct, neither technically nor ideally. It’s not “barely a mistake”. And it’s indicative of how little our lawmakers know about the laws that they’re passing.
And it was directly on point because somebody else brought up the wisdom (or folly) of Nancy Pelosi’s stupid ass.
So, in 2009 the deficit was ($1,549,681) and the 2013 estimated deficit is ($1,006,358). Mission accomplished Obama!
Greenie, I agree that what Pelosi said is not accurate,but it is barely a gaff…also, didn’t that happen years ago? Also, I’m just sick of hearing about it when there is stuff that is actually ridic, and rapey:
“If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down”
- Mid 2012, Todd Akin
Whatever you do, don’t accidentally say something wronglike around the Greenster. And for God’s sake, man: verbs at the end of your sentences put!
uh oh. grammer police is now in the mix
Yeah, the Pelosi quote still uses hyperbole because it was cut by 1/3, not 1/2.
Either way, maybe Obama had a lot to do with it, maybe he didn’t. What drove down the deficit? Troop drawdowns probably helped, sequester is helping (although the fact that it was enacted is evidence of political failure) not bailing out any banks over the past few years is helping. Mixed bag to be sure.
But if you’re going to get raped, and it’s inevitable, you might as well just lay back and enjoy it, right?
Respect.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/05/news/economy/obamacare-plans/index.html?iid=HP_LN
Obama administration now says people can keep their old plans through 2016, conveniently the year of the presidential election. This administration is so transparent. They know ACA is a complete trainwreck and are doing everything possible to limit the damage during elections.
I think it is pretty sleazy of them to time the different ACA policies so that the popular parts (pre existing conditions, 26-year-olds under parents plan, health exchange subsidies) came into effect first, and the unpopular parts (forcing people onto ACA plans, for instance) are being implemented later or are being delayed. I don’t know if this was part of Obama’s design or if the government is just caving into public pressure. Both ways make me not want to support any kind of further reform - even those that make sense on paper.
This is purely damage control now. A last ditch effort for dems to rescue upcoming elections and not lose total control of the govt houses.
Obamacare has one lie after another. Dems had to have known that forcing insurers to include X,Y and Z would force the cancellation of manyhealth plans and/or increases in premiums.
The “like your doc , keep your doc” simplicity was a pure lie, and they knew it. But they had to say something to con people into accepting it, or else the law wouldn’t have survived passage.
Have to pass it into law to know what’s in it , right Pelosi?
It’s amazing to see how dysfunctional US and Canadian health care systems are, in opposite directions. Both of our countries (Canada & US) are dogmatically killing ourselves over health care. It’s pathetic.
[/quote]
If you take the UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain you have about the same population as the US. All of them have universal healthcare in some similar form although they differ very much in culture, GDP and demographics. Might the solution be a healthcare system on a state level that is adjusted to the unique requirements of each state?
[/quote]
This would be a great start. Republicans have said from the beginning of this debate that the issue should be dealt with at the state level, where for instance something like the individual mandate is actually legal because the States have authority to create commerce (the federal govt doesnt, which is why John Roberts had to twist the mandate into a tax to make it legal). States have very different populations with unique medical needs that should be adressed in different ways. This is why Romney had at least a modicum of success in Massachusetts with what they eventually used as a model for the ACA. It worked in Mass, but won’t for the whole country!
Looks like I’m the only one supportive of Obamacare here. Oh well.
I think the concept is not necessarily bad. However, the implementation has not been good, and the inefficiencies will probably drag on us for years and years…
Nah, european docs are cool and they spend half the no of years than their american counterparts in college
I think a lot of folks here, myself included, are not against the idea of universal coverage, but the ACA is a horribly written piece of legislation. Moreover, coverage, or lack thereof, is not the most important problem with the current US healthcare system. The biggest problem is costs. If the President really wanted to do something to help people, he should have tried working with Congress and the people in the healthcare industry to develop legislation that would allow/force the system to become more cost effective. Once costs are undercontrol, it becomes far easier and less controversial to make sure everyone is covered.
I’m still of the opinion that the US is too large and diverse for a national program to work (not even Canada or the UK have national programs), but the federal government could provide a limited set of rules/guidelines that the states could work within to develop their own programs. Get costs under control first though.
According the UK’s NHS, it takes 10 years to become a general practitioner and 14 years to become a surgeon.
http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/explore-by-career/doctors/faqs/#faq-51245
^
I mentioned ‘in college’ mate.
Everywhere in the world medicine is an undergrad degree. There really is no need to make it a postgrad degree and then make them do their residency after that.
quite unnecessary if i may say.