« Mourning in America | Main | An Argument We Can't Afford To Lose »

"It's Obama's policies that are hurting him right now"

Duh:

A significant majority of voters are considering voting against President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, expressing sour views of his new health care law and deep skepticism about his ability to create jobs and grow the sluggish economy, according to the latest POLITICO / George Washington University Battleground Poll.

Only 38 percent of respondents said Obama deserves to be reelected, even though a majority of voters hold a favorable view of him on a personal level. Forty-four percent said they will vote to oust him, and 13 percent said they will consider voting for someone else.

Get full poll results.

It's Obama's policies that are hurting him right now.

Yes... it's Obama's policies, stupid.

So what does the Obama administration do?  They have Joe Biden send out the following:

I spent 36 years in the Senate, serving alongside Republicans of all stripes. But some of the Republicans running now are not from your grandfather's Republican Party. They're from the Republican Tea Party:

  • Sharron Angle, who wants to be the next senator from Nevada, has called for phasing out Social Security and Medicare -- and even wants to end maternity coverage.
  • Pat Toomey is running for Senate in Pennsylvania. He wants to de-regulate Big Oil and open up the Great Lakes for drilling.
  • Christine O'Donnell, who is vying for the same Senate seat I was honored to hold in Delaware, is campaigning on repealing health reform.

The fact is this: The corporate special interests trying to elect these Republicans don't care if they're supporting extremists.

They just want us out of the way. With your help, we've enacted historic reforms despite their best efforts to derail us. Now, they're focused on one thing -- creating a Congress in which they can call the shots once again.

That's why they're pulling out all the stops -- and spending millions -- to win in November.

But we will not stand by and let them take the country backward.

We're counting on you to chip in today to fight back. Your donation will help us fund the organizing going on right now in key races across the country.

It's as if they don't see these polls... or they simply don't care and are willingly ruling against the will of the people.

Here's hoping they continue their baffling ways.

They're seriously in line for one helluva shock in about 6 weeks.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/40229.

Comments (35)

"Here's hoping they continu... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Here's hoping they continue their baffling ways."

I just hope Barry, Joey and Nancy keep smokin' it, whatever it is. They are so divorced from reality it's a wonder they haven't been arrested and committed for their own safety.

"It's as if they don't s... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"It's as if they don't see these polls... or they simply don't care and are willingly ruling against the will of the people."

They simply don't care. Why should they? They've been telling themselves for decades that they're smarter than everyone else who's ever held political office, that they REALLY know what the people need, and when they give the people what they 'need' the people will become fawningly grateful and install them as a permanent aristocracy.

That we dare NOT agree with them is literally unthinkable. The concept simply doesn't register. Neither does the realization that what they're doing isn't working. They've told themselves that their ideas WILL work, MUST work, and even when they DON'T work it's not because the IDEA is wrong - it's because there's wreckers or spoilers fouling up their plans deliberately.

We didn't want health care - they ignored the objections and passed it anyway. They've wasted trillions, with trillions more to come - and they can't imagine why we'd possibly object!

They've had 4 years, and fucked around with our credit cards to the point it'll take DECADES to pay down the debt, if ever. Everything they do seems designed to cause an opposite reaction than promised - and I'm sick of it.

They wouldn't listen then - they'll listen on Nov. 2nd when we serve the eviction notice.

JLawson. I agree with you 1... (Below threshold)
Joe:

JLawson. I agree with you 100%. The problem is when they lose congress (either or both houses), they will simply think we were angry or misguide just as they did in 1994. They will learn nothing.

•Sharron Angle, who wants t... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

•Sharron Angle, who wants to be the next senator from Nevada, has called for phasing out Social Security and Medicare -- and even wants to end maternity coverage.

Uh, Joe, she wants to phase out a program heading for bankruptcy and you have a problem with that?

•Pat Toomey is running for Senate in Pennsylvania. He wants to de-regulate Big Oil and open up the Great Lakes for drilling.

Most liberals are confused by the idea of mining resources from our own domestic supplies instead of, oh, let's say sending money to Brazil so they can drill for their own domestic resources to sell to us.

•Christine O'Donnell, who is vying for the same Senate seat I was honored to hold in Delaware, is campaigning on repealing health reform.

I can't believe he even mentions healthcare reform.

DaveDBiden still t... (Below threshold)
hermie:

DaveD

Biden still thinks Katie's Diner is still in business.

What's one more delusion to him?

...open up the Great Lak... (Below threshold)
John S:

...open up the Great Lakes for drilling...

Drilling for what? Pink ponys? There's no oil there and no ban on drilling for that matter. Sorry Joe, the goal is to replace all the Republicans with Tea Party Republicans.

"They will learn nothing."<... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"They will learn nothing."

Exactly. Because they already know "everything".

"It's Obama's policies t... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

"It's Obama's policies that are hurting him right now"

They may be hurting him...but they are killing ME and my country!!

November 2nd can't come soon enough!!

Did anyone see former GE CE... (Below threshold)
Ken D.:

Did anyone see former GE CEO, Jack Welch on CNBC's Squawk Box last week? He said there was no way that ObamaCare would cut $1 trillion dollars as stated by President Obama. Now apparently official sources are indicating that instead of cutting the deficit, ObamaCare would add significantly to the deficit. When is the last time you heard of anyone who missed an estimate by $1 trillion and maintained any credibility?

Voters are not only rejecting his policies, they are rejecting the ridiculous and insulting spin democrats are putting on these policies.

As regards the will of the ... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

As regards the will of the people or public opinion on healthcare, Obama seems to have got it about right. Of course, it goes without saying the plan will be terribly costly, and as a compromise measure, few will go to the ramparts for Obamacare, but doing anything else would have more divisive, and doing nothing the most divisive.

An AP poll (from September, 2010), found that about four in 10 adults think the new healthcare law did not go far enough to change the health care system, regardless of whether they support the law, oppose it or remain neutral. On the other side, about one in five say they oppose the law because they think the federal government should not be involved in health care at all (two in ten adults).

So what do we have? 20% are in favor of doing nothing -tea partiers, 25% doing a little tinkering, the moderate republicans and a few blue dog democrats, 15 % doing a little more, radical tinkering -0bama's healthcare but far from universal health plan, and then finally 40%,- it didn't go far enough- who are on the left. You tell me who is out of touch with the American electorate?

Stevie, you're always good ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Stevie, you're always good for thinking inside the Democratic box.

"It didn't go far enough". For you than means government health care.

WRONG!

How about:
1) remove the laws prohibiting competition across state lines
2) tort reform
and that's just a start.

Yes, GarandFan no argument... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Yes, GarandFan no argument, Obama should have done more on tort reform!!!I agree.

but as to removing the laws prohibiting competition across state lines

Here is the full rebuttal given to the same question asked by House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.). I`m sure you will acccept this. mnnnnnnnnn.

We've been through this enough times that even a House Republican should be able to understand it. Different states regulate insurers in different ways, with restrictions ranging from strict to weak. As the GOP sees it, the model can and should follow the credit card industry standards -- let all the major insurers cluster in one state where the standards are barely existent.

It's why this idea is generally characterized as promoting a "race to the bottom." Insurers would be told that they can set up shop in a state and write the rules to the industry's liking. (like Delaware for credit card companies) The industry would go with the state that offered the sweetest deal -- which is to say, the worst, weakest, most lax oversight with the fewest restrictions -- and before long, it would be consumers' only choice. Why? Because every major insurer would move to that state, leaving Americans with no other coverage to buy.

The insurance, under this approach, would probably be cheaper. It will also be awful. Pence may not care -- you and I already pay for his health insurance and that of his family -- and may even see this as preferable to the status quo, but the rest of us would suffer.

In the Affordable Care Act, President Obama offers a better approach, which allows insurers to sell coverage across state lines, just so long as they meet minimum federal standards. It's these standards that prevent the race to the bottom. When Obama offered this as a compromise a year ago to Republicans, they balked, insisting that minimum standards would mean federal regulations imposed on insurance companies. And we can't have that because it would mean government looking out for consumers, which is, you know, bad. Or something.

Democrats included the provision in the new law anyway, and insurers in states willing to operate under minimum standards can, in fact, sell coverage across state lines.


Steve -Screw it - ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Steve -

Screw it - scrap the so-called reform. If the ideal is to set up a way to get the supposed 30 million without health care SOME standard of care, that can be done a hell of a lot cheaper than by dismantling the systems that work pretty well for most people and slapping a trillion-dollar bill on us to boot.

Heck, you could design a basic system for the uninsured in fifteen minutes. Using the IRS, unemployment, and state WIC rolls, set up a 'health care account' for everyone who doesn't have some form of health insurance and DOESN'T meet a certain minimum annual income. (The assumption being that above a certain minimal income - say $30k/year for a single adult, $45k for a married couple, with each child adding $5k on that, so a couple with 3 kids would hit the limit at $60k - you're responsible for your own insurance, and there could be a program for that but it wouldn't be free...)

Fund that health care account with $1000, which could only be spent at authorized providers for authorized services. (Doctors, dentists, discount opticians, pharmacies.) Each family would have $1000 x the number of family members - a family of 4 would have $4k, and would be able to shuffle funds between members as needed. That would take care of primary care physician visits and generic prescriptions quite easily. At the end of the year, the account is refilled to the $1000 mark. If you run over the $1000 mark, your case would be referred to a case worker to determine just why.

Fraud and abuse would be grounds for being dropped from the program, with no possibility for renewal for 5 years.

ER visits for non-emergency reasons would run $100 each - for emergencies they'd be written off as they are now.

That'd run roughly $30 billion for the first year - and the subsequent year's costs would go down, because most people wouldn't be draining their accounts. Add in about $2 billion for bureaucratic overhead - and in 10 years the cost would be about $300 billion or less in total.

The real question's not whether a bunch of gullible idiots who still believe the ol 'Hope and Change' mantra want something that's been promised that cannot be affordably delivered - but whether we need to bankrupt our economy to provide federal care for a supposed 30 million who already have access to health care through various other means already in place - and through various other means already in place and through local free clinics.

The only reason it's terribly costly is because the federal government's making it so. And I don't know about you, but I'm wondering just why they're costing so much when there's other options out there.

It seems if you add up 20% ... (Below threshold)
Deke:

It seems if you add up 20% + 25% + 15% that comes to 60% of the country that think doing little to nothing is the way to go.

You put the 15% in the "support the Obama plan" column, I would disagree and contend that you say that to bolster your argument. They are more likely in the column of more regulations on insurance companies but I would say they weren't in favor of this boondoggle.

Crikmore, no matter how you spin it, the fact remains this is wildly unpopular with the American people, who out there is camapinging on it?

This supposed 30 million un... (Below threshold)
Gigabyte:

This supposed 30 million uninsured (yes I have my doubts as to the actual number).....can someone please tell me what the hell Medicaid is for if not for helping "the poor" who are not insured? No spin please. Just want to know why they couldn't tinker with Medicaid, and leave everybody else the hell alone who was satisfied with the system as it was.

"We're counting on you to c... (Below threshold)
914:

"We're counting on you to chip in today to fight back."

THEN I GUESS YOUR SHIT OUT OF LUCK.

A significant number of tho... (Below threshold)
jim m:

A significant number of those uninsured are unemployed. Extending medicaid coverage to the unemployed and their families would resolve that issue entirely.

The second big block of people is the illegal immigrant community. We have no obligation what so ever to provide for anything beyond emergency care. Period. Libs are so fond of telling us how the health care systems in other countries are superior to ours let the illegal aliens go back home and use those superior systems.

The last big block is the self employed. Allowing them to take health insurance as a pretax deduction would go a long way to solve that too.

Dems are for some reason unable to see that there are easy ways to help people. They are blinded by their greed for power and they can only see the opportunity to take over 1/6 of the economy and destroy it.

"We're counting on you t... (Below threshold)
SShiell:

"We're counting on you to chip in today to fight back."

So, why don't you chip in Crickmore? I've sent a couple of $$ooo to the other side of the aisle and am planning on sending more. Put your money where your mouth is!! If Biden's got it so right as you say he does then you can't go wrong by sendng him a few grand $$. Belly up to that bar, Bubba!!!

Part of the problem with th... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Part of the problem with this whole Obamacare boondoggle is that it didn't truly touch several 800 pound gorillas, such as incentives for cooperation between hospitals, doctors and providers (who largely go their own directions now) and especially shrinking sources of payments and reimbursements. Government red tape and band-aid solutions over the past several decades were bad enough. The hopelessly tangled web of Obamacare makes matters far, far worse.

"Dems are for some reaso... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"Dems are for some reason unable to see that there are easy ways to help people. They are blinded by their greed for power and they can only see the opportunity to take over 1/6 of the economy and destroy it."

Never have a small program when a large program can be created. Never go little when you can increase your importance by going big. Never ask for $30 billion, when you can justify $300 billion. Never risk making yourself irrelevant by saying something could be simplifed and improved - puff up your importance by going for the pork and payouts.

We're broke because the idiots inside the Beltway refuse to think SMALL, Jim M - and we simply can't afford their grandiose schemes to make themselves indespensible any longer.

@ Crickmore in #10,<p... (Below threshold)
Sky Captain:

@ Crickmore in #10,

Intriguing polls results. Too bad there is no link to examine the particular bias in the poll.
You realize, of course, the poll results aren't worth much without it.

Also - You tell me who is out of touch with the American electorate?

Obama.
Pelosi.
Reid.
You.

Any questions?

I am against any involvemen... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I am against any involvement in healthcare by the US government. Has anyone ever been impressed when dealing with the government? Have you seen any private business base it's operation on a government operation? Has anyone been to the post office? And that is just for stamps or to send packages. Does anyone believe that the government cannot be fraudulant? Just the idea that our government will decide my health issues and treatment gives me the huzz. I know, the liberal whacko's will site Medicare as a success. Of course, the billions in fraud every year doesn't matter or doesn't count while private insurance companies cannot succeed with that kind of fraud.

This is just like the border. The government says again: "Trust me, Give us immigration reform. Then we will secure the border." It just ain't happening. Our government is not representing the majority of the people anymore. ww

Hey, I am not much of a fa... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Hey, I am not much of a fan of the compromise Obamacare for two reasons, mandates and the increased costs. I don't think Obama is either.

Candidate Obama: "If a mandate was the solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house," he said on a CNN morning show on Super Tuesday during the election campaign.

I agree with most of you, I can see that national healthcare costs will go through the roof, based on the experience of the Massachusetts plan, particulary in times of continuing high unemployment.

Jlawson, your option to go free medical clinics for those who who are earning too much to go on medicaid,(a reverse income disparity), but aren't covered by an employer plan and earn too too little to afford private insurance sounds reasonable, but doesn't that depend on the locale where one is living, if they are available?

Liberals are like many in t... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

Liberals are like many in the Hollywood crowd. They think reality is what they make it out to be.

I get the feeling that Stev... (Below threshold)
Michael:

I get the feeling that Steve would like to have sex with government if he could. Sickening.

Steve -One thing t... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Steve -

One thing that's missing from the equation is the responsibility of the PERSON to actually be proactive in their own behalf. In pretty much every city or town there's a city or county health agency which will either provide health services or provide assistance. But that's at the local level - under the federal radar, so it might as well not even exist as far as the national health care debate goes.

Sure, most folks don't think about their health until something's wrong - but that's not anything that'll change through a government program.

By the way, I figure that N... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

By the way, I figure that North Dakota's a good example of a state that (a) doesn't have much of a population, and (b) probably has a good number of folks who need state assistance.

At the North Dakota Department of Health site, I found the following services in their summary...
Blood pressure screening (adults and school-age children)
Scoliosis screening (school-age children)
Vision screening (school-age children)
Immunizations (all ages)
Maternal and Child Health services
Mental health services
and "It is important to note that services not provided by a local public health department may be provided by other agencies within the public health region."

This was found just by typing in 'north dakota public health clinic', in case anyone's curious.

My brother had a heart attack in Washington state a few years back, and he didn't have insurance. He was in the operating room fifteen minutes after he called 911, and they put in a stent. He spent two days under observation before discharge, was referered to a case worker for payment issues and ended up paying $25 for his visit. Medication's been a bit on the pricy side since, but there was assistance for that through WalMart (of all places) and Walgreens pharmacy programs.

Now if he'd just quit smoking...

It's seemed to me for quite a while that the whole health care 'crisis' is looking more and more like a gigantic con - and we're the marks who are being robbed blind by the con men in Washington. Insist there's a crisis, don't listen to ANY possible solution except the one that'll give government the most power, deny loudly that there's any alternatives at all - it's just looking more and more like a scam.

It's about power and control and money - it's not about health care.

Steve if Obama doesn't like... (Below threshold)
John:

Steve if Obama doesn't like the bill why did he sign it? It will increase costs, it has an individual mandate he specifically rejected before the election. It lays a heavy burden on small business with this 1099 provision etc. This is at best a compromised peice of crap that will carry with it untold consequences. It seems to me Obama has taken full ownership of this monstosity and he will have it hung around his neck for the balance of his time in office. His party will have it hung around their necks in Nov. I suspect however, that our weak republicans will not have the stomach to take it on so we'll also end up stuck with it at least in large part. Sad really since we could have actually done someting to help if we had tried.

Yes to all that John, but ... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Yes to all that John, but the Tea Party with the likes of Sharron Angle is going too far; but you kind of expect that with people intoxicated by their own rhetoric. I don't know if they have had much experiencing at governing, or dealing with people, touched by a wide variety of health issues.

"Steve if Obama doesn't ... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"Steve if Obama doesn't like the bill why did he sign it?"

I'll tell you why. This gives certain members of congress the opportunity to repay big democrat supporters by carving out exceptions for them and excluding detractors from enjoying any benefits. They've already made threats of exclusion. This bill is so big and so nebulous it could be anything for anyone they want with just a tweak here and a tweak there behind closed doors.

Me? I think Obama was so eager to put his name on something he would have signed anything they plopped down in front of him.

Obama signed the bill becau... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Obama signed the bill because he had to fulfill rising expectations, and the healthcare policies were shaped, when there wasn't a full recession.The recession implications hadn't filtered down to the policy wonks and the con$equences of Massachusetts experiment hadn't been fully evaluated. Kind of like the premise of the Iraqi invasion based on WMD; it was too late to pull back, there would be a loss of face, and it might be years before the Dems had the presidency with 60% manjority in both Houses? I still think there are some good things (with the bad) in the bill..wait and see?

"...but the DEMOCRAT Party ... (Below threshold)
Sky Captain:

"...but the DEMOCRAT Party with the likes of BARACK OBAMA is going too far; but you kind of expect that with people intoxicated by their own rhetoric. I don't know if they have had much experiencing at governing, or dealing with people, touched by a wide variety of health issues."

Intriguing what changing a mere 3 words can do, ain't it?

And there have yet to be ANY "good things" found in ObamaCare. And I prdicct there will not be, unless you are a big fan of single-payer, as Obama is.

Has anyone seen a flowchart... (Below threshold)
Ken D.:

Has anyone seen a flowchart of the regulatory morass called Obamacare? If you can look at that chart, or what ever the hell it is, and honestly think is will cut costs, we should build the entire system where Rodney Dangerfield said the factory should be built in the 1986 movie "Back To School".....FANTASY LAND!!!!!!!

OK Steve so there are lots ... (Below threshold)
John:

OK Steve so there are lots of things that didn't "filter down" like cycles in the economy and the total failure of other healthcare experiments. Gee then maybe we should have taken our time and figured out what we were doing instead of passing a huge piece of junk that our elected representitives didn't read and don't understand what they passed. I don't give a good god damn about Obama or Bush or any other politican saving face.

The other thing I would say... (Below threshold)
John:

The other thing I would say Steve, your last post fails to point out a single good reason to pass obamacare. You point out that lots of people didn't understand how bad the recession was, these are the same people who pushed porkulous on us a year before telling us the economic world was ending. You make some reference to raising expectations whatever that is, but as I recall the expectations were bend the cost curve down, Obamacare does no such thing. Then the worst argument of all it was too late to stop witout losing face, I think it's too late to keep from losing face at this point. No Steve I don't think you've presented a compelling case for waiting to see how it works out. Sorry




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy