And Barry O killing her Public Option.

Post #351,512 by mmoffitt 11/30/11 12:56:20 PM Reply	And Barry O killing her Public Option.
Post #351,514 by Another Scott 11/30/11 2:45:46 PM Reply	Meh. Didn't have the votes in the Senate.
Post #351,515 by mmoffitt 11/30/11 2:51:54 PM Reply	Let's not do this again, okay? It's called Leadership. Or lack thereof. ;0) Think LBJ started out with the Senate votes he needed for the Great Society?
Post #351,516 by Another Scott 11/30/11 3:08:01 PM Reply	You're the one with the whip, beating that dead horse. ;-) On the Public Option numbers in the Senate - http://plainblogabou...ublic-option.html On LBJ's numbers - http://en.wikipedia....ty-ninth_Congress With the exception of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,[9] the Great Society agenda was not a widely discussed issue during the 1964 presidential election campaigns. Johnson won the election with 61% of the vote, the largest percentage since the popular vote first became widespread in 1824, and he carried all but six states. Democrats gained enough seats to control more than two-thirds of each chamber in the Eighty-ninth Congress with a 68-32 margin in the Senate and a 295-140 margin in the House of Representatives. The political realignment allowed House leaders to alter rules that had allowed Southern Democrats to kill New Frontier and civil rights legislation in committee, which aided efforts to pass Great Society legislation. In 1965, the first session of the Eighty-ninth Congress created the core of the Great Society. The Johnson Administration submitted eighty-seven bills to Congress, and Johnson signed eighty-four, or 96%, arguably the most successful legislative agenda in U.S. Congressional history.[10] Bully Pulpit! Yeah, Johnson got what he wanted because he gave great speeches. The numbers had nothing to do with it... :-/ Cheers, Scott.
Post #351,517 by mmoffitt 11/30/11 4:02:55 PM Reply	Well, he started it. President Johnson was famous for staring down, shaming, cajoling, strong-arming, coaxing, sweet-talking legislators into doing his bidding. Johnson spoke directly to lawmakers. Sometimes very directly. Through manhandling and manipulation, Johnson was able to push through legislation affecting public health for the elderly, fair housing, voting rights and other programs that brought sweeping social change. As Obama also looks to initiate change, Johnson's name is evoked. An early flare was sent up by The Washington Post on July 14 in a story headlined: "On Health Care Reform, Obama Looks to the LBJ Model." Staff writer Ceci Connolly reported that Obama's team is using the same legislative strategy used by Johnson to promulgate Medicare in 1965. "There are two qualities these presidents have in common," White House senior adviser David Axelrod told Connolly. Johnson, like Obama, "had a big vision and drove the country toward it; and second, he had a great appreciation for the legislative process." By choosing to speak about the parallels, the administration opens Obama up to comparisons and criticism by historians and critics. Obama, says Julian Zelizer, a political historian who teaches at Princeton University, "does need a little LBJ in him." There are snags in expecting Obama to act like Johnson. For one thing, by the time Johnson became president in 1963, he had decades of experience in Congress. Obama began seeking the White House not long after winning his Senate seat in 2004. Plus, the two men "are pretty far apart in most people's minds, and certainly in [Obama's]," says Ted Widmer, a fellow at the New America Foundation, a Washington-based think tank. Between 1997 and 2001, Widmer served in the Clinton White House as a foreign policy speechwriter and senior adviser to the president. "There have never been stories of personal intimidation from Obama," Widmer says, "and most of the persuasion arts that are used at the moment deploy indirect forms Â texting, e-mail, phone messages Â rather than in-your-face, LBJ-style orders from on high." One of Obama's salient campaign promises was to bring an end to politics as usual in Washington. And no one was better at the usual politics than Johnson. http://www.npr.org/t...storyId=106839121 Obama just doesn't know how to make an omelet.
Post #351,519 by Another Scott 11/30/11 4:35:21 PM Reply	Um, he got ~ universal healthcare passed - LBJ didn't. Obama has played his cards with Congress very, very well. If he had more votes in Congress, he would have gotten even more done (e.g. closing Guantanamo). Obama isn't the problem. It's Lieberman, Nelson, Landreu, etc. - http://webcache.goog...&client=firefox-a http://www.msnbc.msn...d-be-part-reform/ ÂImprove quality and bring down costsÂ Obama's top aides said he still wants a government insurance option in healthcare legislation but they left room for a compromise that could disappoint his liberal backers. Weighing in on issue in Cincinnati, Obama said, "I continue to believe that a public option within the basket of insurance choices would help improve quality and bring down costs." But he really was secretly against it because shut up that's why. :-/ LBJ had powers of physical intimidation that BHO lacks. But he also had more votes to work with, and an opposition party that wasn't opposed to everything he proposed (even those things that they had supported in the past). Bully Pulpit only goes so far... FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #351,522 by mmoffitt 11/30/11 5:05:06 PM Reply	Swing and a miss. What he got was the first bit of dyed-in-the-wool true fascist legislation ever passed in this country through the Congress which, doubtless, pleased his Wall Street Masters no end. Naturally, this required a pre-emptory sweetheart deal for BigPharma, but hey, they're in Club-O, too. For the first time in our history, you have to pay a corporation a profit to breathe. Yep, that's really some huge success to celebrate. Ranks right up there with Medicare.
Post #351,524 by beepster 11/30/11 5:27:22 PM Reply	+5, informative :-) Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #351,526 by Another Scott 11/30/11 10:16:17 PM Reply	Meh. We obviously see things differently... Nobody is forced to buy health insurance. We've been through this before, also too. http://www.kff.org/h...m/upload/8061.pdf Those without coverage pay a tax penalty of the greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,085) per family or 2.5% of household income. The penalty will be phased-in according to the following schedule: $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 in 2016 for the flat fee or 1.0% of taxable income in 2014, 2.0% of taxable income in 2015, and 2.5% of taxable income in 2016. Beginning after 2016, the penalty will be increased annually by the cost-of-living adjustment. Exemptions will be granted for financial hardship, religious objections, American Indians, those without coverage for less than three months, undocumented immigrants, incarcerated individuals, those for whom the lowest cost plan option exceeds 8% of an individualÂs income, and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2009 the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples). [...] Â Provide refundable and advanceable premium credits to eligible individuals and families with incomes between 133-400% FPL to purchase insurance through the Exchanges. The premium credits will be tied to the second lowest cost silver plan in the area and will be set on a sliding scale such that the premium contributions are limited to the following percentages of income for specified income levels: Up to 133% FPL: 2% of income 133-150% FPL: 3 Â 4% of income 150-200% FPL: 4 Â 6.3% of income 200-250% FPL: 6.3 Â 8.05% of income 250-300% FPL: 8.05 Â 9.5% of income 300-400% FPL: 9.5% of income Â Increase the premium contributions for those receiving subsidies annually to reflect the excess of the premium growth over the rate of income growth for 2014-2018. Beginning in 2019, further adjust the premium contributions to reflect the excess of premium growth over CPI if aggregate premiums and cost sharing subsidies exceed .54% of GDP. Â Provisions related to the premium and cost-sharing subsidies are effective January 1, 2014. You don't want to have insurance? Pay a $95 tax in 2014. For a $50k taxable income, the *maximum, fully phased in* tax penalty would be $1250 or something like 10-20% of what a family policy costs now. For the Galtian Overlords their *maximum, fully phased in* tax penalty would be $2085. You can't afford the insurance? No penalty. You have religious objections? No penalty. You're at or under 400% of the Federal Poverty Level? You get sliding subsidies to help pay for your policy if you choose to get one to limit your premium costs. Nobody is forced "to pay a corporation a profit to breathe." There's a lot of stuff in the bill that the insurance companies and Big Pharma and the rest don't like. That's one of the reasons why Wall Street hates Obama. But I'm sure we won't convince each other of any of this, so I guess I'll stop now. Cheers, Scott.
Post #351,541 by boxley 12/1/11 10:24:01 AM Reply	If wallstreet hates Obama why do they send him money? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #351,551 by Another Scott 12/1/11 12:36:37 PM Reply	Re: If wallstreet hates Obama why do they send him money? http://www.nytimes.c...ml?pagewanted=all HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #351,563 by boxley 12/1/11 5:22:49 PM Reply	Im not talking about campaign donations Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #351,564 by Another Scott 12/1/11 5:32:27 PM Reply	More words please.

Welcome to IWETHEY!