How else can you mandate insurers cover pre-existing conditions without bankrupting them in the process? Insurers need young, healthy people signing up to make money, and the primary reason young, healthy people sign up for insurance is to cover for low-probability, high-cost conditions that might develop. Once you mandate insurers cover your pre-existing conditions, then huge amounts of healthy people will opt to leave the insurance pool, only coming back in if they develop high-cost conditions.
I think single-payer would’ve been a better alternative, but there’s no way you could’ve passed that (gasp Socialism!) through congress.
In typical Obama style, he’s already backpedaling on his mosque support comments. Guess someone just whispered into his ear that he just pissed off about 70% of the voting public.
Mid-term elections are only going to be the start. This guy is toast in 2012
He may have had to modify or back off his original statement given that some people are trying to make this into ‘either you’re against the mosque or you’re with the terrorists,’ but that’s life. I’m sure we can all agree that a local land issue in which the federal government has no standing in the first place is a very pressing issue for Obama.
Will he ever learn not to wade into issues where his input is not needed. One would think after the Cambridge fiasco last summer (where the wheels came flying off his cart never to reappear) that he would have learned not to do that…
But those predictions of his imminent demise have been made before.
Two things have to happen. The economy has to remain in the pits. I don’t think this is likely.
And the Republicans have to get their act together and nominate presentable, non crazy candidates. I don’t think this will happen til 2016. Initially, Meg Whitman looked promising, assuming she could get the Cali job. But she can’t get past old Jerry Brown, even as she spends her ginormous personal fortune.
Unlike his predecessor, who never stuck his foot in his mouth, he does have the unfortunate habit of occasionally addressing the public as if it was composed of reasonable adults. (He’s said a couple of stupid things as well.) That’s come back to bite him a couple of times, but the idea that this has been a lasting issue is silly.
I was responding to a comment that said that there were no one else to vote for other than the Messiah. Apparently, you don’t want to hear that like everyone who voted for him, you were bamboozled into voting for an empty suit. I just want you to admit it.
It just makes sense that Charles Bolden imagined the whole thing when he when he made the statement to Al jazeera in Doha Qatar while on a special trip to the Mideast.
The President said he “Strongly Support[s]” putting the mosque at that site as opposed to someplace else? And this was a deliberate act of hostility toward the 9/11 victims rather than a disregarding of their feelings for the sake of a principle?
Elaborate, please.
So instead of expressing his views on what is in reality a local zoing issue, he should have gotten how deeply involved?
So when Bush acted in defiance of popular opinion, that was “leadership” as well?
Bucking popular opinion is not on its face evidence of “leadership.”
In fact, now that Obama has made his wishy-washy “won’t comment on the wisdom” statement, this is starting to look like Beer Summit II. This is one of the dim spots of his term, and even rabid Obama fans ought to recognize this.
You know what Obama should have said, if he wanted to show “leadership”, when asked about the mosque?
“The President of the United States should not be involved in zoning disputes. I’ve got more important stuff to worry about. Period.”