Cleo's Mom

I thought this letter to the editor made some very valid points while refuting those of a previous letter writer: Who we are In a recent letter, Susanne Kline of Mt. Lebanon states that a less emotionally sensitive location should be found for the proposed Cordoba House project in New York City, and that the issue is not Islamaphobia, but "common sense and decorum." She asks "when do those different from us need to be tolerant and accepting of us, our values, our traditions" and she states that a proposed Roman Catholic church in Mecca would encounter greater vitriol. Ms. Kline must have a very narrow definition of "us." My understanding of America includes the belief that Muslims, in fact, are us, just as non-believers, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Jehovah's Witnesses and a long list of others are "us." And, yes, a Roman Catholic church in Mecca would encounter greater vitriol, but this only makes America shine by example. Saudi Arabia is no democracy and does not even pretend to be, so the comparison is totally invalid. As for common sense and decorum, if this was really the issue, the people who are protesting this project would be focusing their attention on the "gentleman's club" in the neighborhood. If this were any other group besides Muslims, conservatives would be defending private property rights for the building owners to build as they choose. Finally, fortunately, here in the United States, our constitutional and civil rights do not depend on anyone's particular emotional sensitivity or personal definitions of "common sense and decorum;" these are subjective and can be used intentionally or unintentionally to foment fear of diversity and bigotry. American religious freedom, in Thomas Jefferson's own words, was and is for "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindu and the Infidel of every denomination."

If they are then we have lousy and ineffective intelligence. And that should be a bigger concern than all of this. And as far as one mosque 4 blocks away being enough - well would only one catholic church within four blocks away be enough? Also, this building won't just be a mosque, it will be a community center with a library, swimming pool, etc..

In my state it is not easy to sue for medical malpractice. You have to have a very compelling case or an attorney won't even take it. And even then it might not make it to a trial if a judge deems it to be without merit. And an attorney isn't going to take a case that doesn't have merit because he doesn't get paid unless he wins. So he would have to invest a lot of time and money and he's not likely to do that if it's just a "I want to be a millionaire, I'm going to sue my doctor" baseless case. And lawyers know that in medical malpractice the doctor wins in 85% of the cases, so he better have some very compelling and solid evidence or he's doing more than chasing ambulances, he's losing money. And again, none of this, nor tort reform, addresses the cost of defensive medicine in our health care nor does it limit those who seek to sue (even if their case never makes it).

No one is asking that you go there or visit it or associate in any way with any Muslim or eat their food or accept them. But some people might want to and so what? People are very fickle. They need something to be angry about. Whether it's Obama, the mexican immigrants or now the Muslims in NYC (and elsewhere). It will be something else or someone else next week or next month. Remember when people hated France? Remember the stupid freedom fries? Turns out they were the smart ones not to be duped into bush's unnecessary war in Iraq.

When it was first being debated that's what the people wanted. Some government entity to stop it. NYC has commissions set up to approve these kind of buildings and the commission approved it. The people wanted them to deny the building of it. And yes, they have asked the owner to build elsewhere. Maybe two more blocks away where the other mosque is? Is four blocks okay but not two blocks? Also, al-qaeda jihadists are not building the mosque and that's who attacked us on 9/11.

Tort reform is about limiting the awards a jury can give in a medical malpractice suit. This happens after a lawsuit has been filed. How will this impact doctors practicing defensive medicine to reduce the liklihood of their being sued in the first place? And how will it affect malpractice premiums since it has been shown that they are tied to investment losses? Will a doctor not order a CT scan to look for cancer if he knows a jury can only award $500,000 if he misses the cancer? And what about his reputation once the lawsuit is filed and he has to defend himself in court? And his lawyer fees and time lost? How does tort reform stop all of this?

But we don't make legal decision based on polls or popularity. We can't enforce the constitution just when it's convenient. The tea party is alway yapping about the constitution when they think THEIR rights are being abridged. And they're alway yapping about big government taking those rights away (they are never specific, though) but now they want - who? - that's right - the big government to step in and say NO. How hypocritical. It is an inflammatory issue to be sure and it is being fed by the big money on the right. People need to look beyond this. So what that they build this mosque. The sun will still rise tomorrow, people will still go about their work in NYC and someday we will have an awesome world trade center bigger than the mosque and more impressive. Now, that takes me to my next point. I am actually more PO-ed about what is taking so long for this world trade center building and memorial to be built. I mean 9 years? Come on, folks, it could have and should have been built by now. And then maybe we wouldn't be having this debate. Did you know there are strip clubs next to ground zero? Anyone oppose them?

The best fix for healthcare, IMO, still would have been insurance reform. Now I know that because cm thinks I'm a conservative that that means I want no government whatsoever and no government regulation whatsoever. For some reason she can't see that there is a happy medium somewhere along the line. Had we made some strict regulations for ins companies, got rid of the pre existing conditions restrictions, and had some MAJOR tort reform, most of this could have been fixed. That's what we got. Without the public option we have no real competition and therefore price control. We got rid of the worst insurance abuses. And tort reform won't really lower malpractice insurance premiums. Read the article I posted. Insurance companies need to raise rates to recoup investment losses.

I agree with much of what you say. To those who say "I don't want to pay for other people's healthcare" - I say - we all pay for each other benefits. If you work for a private company that depends on government contracts (like Westinghouse research or Boeing or Lockheed Martin) then my tax dollars go to pay for your job. If your congressman takes federal dollars back to your district for some project then my tax dollars are being used to help the people in your district and visa versa. That's what redistribution of tax dollars is all about. You have the right to contact your rep if you don't like where your tax dollars are going. For social security - the deduction you pay now from your paycheck is going to today's recipients and when you retire and receive SS it will come from that time's current worker's contributions. The problem is that when SS was started there were 13 workers for every recipient and today there are 3. Plus only the first $106,000 in wages is taxed. How stupid is that? Why should Bill Gates only pay SS taxes on the first $106,000 of his earnings? Tax 100 percent of earnings. Most people earn under $106,000 anyway so it won't affect them.

Tort Reform Myth: The Legal System Causes High Malpractice Insurance Premiums Wayne Parsons Attorney What causes high premiums for doctors' malpractice insurance? The insurance industry would have you believe that the cause is the legal system. The truth is that insurance company investment practices are the cause. Americans for Insurance Reform - one of the leading consumer advocates for regular people not the privileged and powerful, has issued a series of fact sheets on these tort reform myths: INSURANCE INDUSTRY’S INVESTMENT PRACTICES – NOT THE LEGAL SYSTEM – CAUSE HIGH MALPRACTICE INSURANCE COSTS Here are the facts, not the insurance industry hype: THE INSURANCE CYCLE, NOT THE LEGAL SYSTEM, DRIVES UP RATES Typical Soft Market : Insurers make most of their money from investment income. During years of high interest rates and/or excellent insurer profits, insurance companies engage in fierce competition for premium dollars to invest for maximum return. Insurers severely underprice their policies and insure poor risks (where there likely will be claims to pay) just to get premium dollars to invest. This is known as the “soft” insurance market. Americans for Insurance Reform, Stable Losses/Unstable Rates 2007. Typical Hard Market : When investment income decreases because interest rates drop or the stock market plummets, or price cuts during the soft market make unbearably low profits, the industry responds by sharply increasing premiums and reducing coverage, creating a “hard” insurance market usually degenerating into a “liability insurance crisis.” Americans for Insurance Reform, Stable Losses/Unstable Rates 2007. Periodic Cycles: Such “liability insurance crises” associated with “hard markets,” have occurred three times in the last 30 years – in the mid 1970s, in the mid-1980s, and between 2002 and 2006. Eventually, rates stabilized and availability improved everywhere as the “soft market” took hold. Americans for Insurance Reform, Stable Losses/Unstable Rates 2007. With each new hard market, insurers have tried to cover up their investment losses by blaming lawyers and the legal system. To buy this position, one would have to accept the notion that juries engineered large jury awards in the mid-1970s, then stopped for a decade, then started again in the mid-1980s, stopped 17 years and the started again from 2002-2006. This is ludicrous, and not true. At no time did claims or payouts spike during these period and since 1975, medical malpractice payouts have risen almost precisely in sync with medical inflation. Americans for Insurance Reform, Stable Losses/Unstable Rates 2007. Today. Investment losses throughout the industry now threaten to cause another hard market.Kathy Chu and Sandra Block, “Insurance premiums rise on sour profits,” USA Today, April 20, 2009. The facts produced by Americans For Insurance Reform are devastating to anyone who cares about the truth - journalists and elected politicians, are you listening and reading and thinking? The fact is that insurance company insiders have agreed: Victor Schwartz, General Counsel, American Tort Reform Association: “Insurance was cheaper in the 1990s because insurance companies knew that they could take a doctor's premium and invest it, and $50,000 would be worth $200,000 five years later when the claim came in … An insurance company today can't do that.” Honolulu Star Bulletin, April 20, 2003. National Underwriter : Standard & Poor’s Rating Service in London, recognizing problems created by “historic highs and lows of cyclical underwriting,” is calling for the industry to change its underwriting practices. S&P’s Christian Dinesen says, “A less cyclical insurance market would be revolutionary for the industry, with such fundamental change promising a more stable underwriting environment.” National Underwriter Online , October 29, 2002. Wall Street Journal: “[A] price war that began in the early 1990s led insurers to sell malpractice coverage to obstetrician-gynecologists at rates that proved inadequate to cover claims.… Some of these carriers had rushed into malpractice coverage because an accounting practice widely used in the industry made the area seem more profitable in the early 1990s than it really was. A decade of short-sighted price slashing led to industry losses of nearly $3 billion last year.” Wall Street Journal , June 24, 2002. Donald J. Zuk, chief executive of Scpie Holdings Inc. : “I don’t like to hear insurance-company executives say it’s the tort system – it’s self-inflicted.” Wall Street Journal , June 24, 2002. Charles Kolodkin, Gallagher Healthcare Insurance Services : “The [medical malpractice insurance] market is in chaos…Throughout the 1990s…insurers were…driven by a desire to accumulate large amounts of capital with which to turn into investment income. Regardless of the level of…tort reform, the fact remains that if insurance policies are consistently underpriced, the insurer will lose money.” “Medical Malpractice Trends?”, September 2001. National Association of Attorneys General: “The facts do not bear out the allegations of an ‘explosion’ in litigation or in claim size, nor do they bear out the allegations of a financial disaster suffered by property/casualty insurers today. They finally do not support any correlations between the current crisis in availability and affordability of insurance and such a litigation ‘explosion.’ Instead, the available data indicate that the causes of, and therefore solutions to, the current crisis lie with the insurance industry itself.” Analysis of the Causes of the Current Crisis of Unavailability and Unaffordability of Liability Insurance , Ad Hoc Insurance Committee of the National Association of Attorneys General, May 1986. Maurice R. Greenberg, them President and CEO of American International Group, Inc. - AIG: “The industry’s problems were due to price cuts taken ‘to the point of absurdity’ in the early 1980s. Had it not been for these cuts, Greenberg said, there would not be ‘all this hullabaloo’ about the tort system.” Business Week, March 31, 1986. The tort reform movement is brought to you by the insurance industry - AIG and the same band of scoundrels who took Wall Street down with their financial misconduct and accept your premiums and deny your claims. Do you believe the falsehoods they spread? And where is our news media on these issues. The truth is easy to prove. Does Major media care about anything but ratings and getting sponsors? The news? Oh, that. Who cares. So you have to get it here and on The Daily Kos, The Huffington Post and The Injury Board. Americans For Insurance Reform are just getting into the fray. They are great at documenting the truth. Go to their website and support them. They make a difference in breaking down these insurance company tactics. So, malpractice premiums go up when the insurance companies lose money in the stock market just like the rest of us, but we don't have a way to recoup those losses. They do. It's not because of rising jury awards, which, at least in my state, have decreased.

Our foreign aid to children is really only a small part of our government spending compared to what we spend on aid for children here, whether it's aid to families with dependent children, SCHIP, or subsidized school lunches, among others.

Monday, Aug 16, 2010 07:01 ET How the "ground zero mosque" fear mongering began A viciously anti-Muslim blogger, the New York Post and the right-wing media machine: How it all went down Video By Justin Elliott AP Blogger Pamela Geller and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf A group of progressive Muslim-Americans plans to build an Islamic community center two and a half blocks from ground zero in lower Manhattan. They have had a mosque in the same neighborhood for many years. There's another mosque two blocks away from the site. City officials support the project. Muslims have been praying at the Pentagon, the other building hit on Sept. 11, for many years. In short, there is no good reason that the Cordoba House project should have been a major national news story, let alone controversy. And yet it has become just that, dominating the political conversation for weeks and prompting such a backlash that, according to a new poll, nearly 7 in 10 Americans now say they oppose the project. How did the Cordoba House become so toxic, so fast? In a story last week, the New York Times, which framed the project in a largely positive, noncontroversial light last December, argued that it was cursed from the start by "public relations missteps." But this isn't accurate. To a remarkable extent, a Salon review of the origins of the story found, the controversy was kicked up and driven by Pamela Geller, a right-wing, viciously anti-Muslim, conspiracy-mongering blogger, whose sinister portrayal of the project was embraced by Rupert Murdoch's New York Post. Here's a timeline of how it all happened: Dec. 8, 2009: The Times publishes a lengthy front-page look at the Cordoba project. "We want to push back against the extremists," Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the lead organizer, is quoted as saying. Two Jewish leaders and two city officials, including the mayor's office, say they support the idea, as does the mother of a man killed on 9/11. An FBI spokesman says the imam has worked with the bureau. Besides a few third-tier right-wing blogs, including Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs site, no one much notices the Times story. Dec. 21, 2009: Conservative media personality Laura Ingraham interviews Abdul Rauf's wife, Daisy Khan, while guest-hosting "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox. In hindsight, the segment is remarkable for its cordiality. "I can't find many people who really have a problem with it," Ingraham says of the Cordoba project, adding at the end of the interview, "I like what you're trying to do." (This segment also includes onscreen the first use that we've seen of the misnomer "ground zero mosque.") After the segment — and despite the front-page Times story — there were no news articles on the mosque for five and a half months, according to a search of the Nexis newspaper archive. May 6, 2010: After a unanimous vote by a New York City community board committee to approve the project, the AP runs a story. It quotes relatives of 9/11 victims (called by the reporter), who offer differing opinions. The New York Post, meanwhile, runs a story under the inaccurate headline, "Panel Approves 'WTC' Mosque." Geller is less subtle, titling her post that day, "Monster Mosque Pushes Ahead in Shadow of World Trade Center Islamic Death and Destruction." She writes on her Atlas Shrugs blog, "This is Islamic domination and expansionism. The location is no accident. Just as Al-Aqsa was built on top of the Temple in Jerusalem." (To get an idea of where Geller is coming from, she once suggested that Malcolm X was Obama's real father. Seriously.) May 7, 2010: Geller's group, Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), launches "Campaign Offensive: Stop the 911 Mosque!" (SIOA 's associate director is Robert Spencer, who makes his living writing and speaking about the evils of Islam.) Geller posts the names and contact information for the mayor and members of the community board, encouraging people to write. The board chair later reports getting "hundreds and hundreds" of calls and e-mails from around the world. May 8, 2010: Geller announces SIOA's first protest against what she calls the "911 monster mosque" for May 29. She and Spencer and several other members of the professional anti-Islam industry will attend. (She also says that the protest will mark the dark day of "May 29, 1453, [when] the Ottoman forces led by the Sultan Mehmet II broke through the Byzantine defenses against the Muslim siege of Constantinople." The outrage-peddling New York Post columnist Andrea Peyser argues in a note at the end of her column a couple of days later that "there are better places to put a mosque." May 13, 2010: Peyser follows up with an entire column devoted to "Mosque Madness at Ground Zero." This is a significant moment in the development of the "ground zero mosque" narrative: It's the first newspaper article that frames the project as inherently wrong and suspect, in the way that Geller has been framing it for months. Peyser in fact quotes Geller at length and promotes the anti-mosque protest of Stop Islamization of America, which Peyser describes as a "human-rights group." Peyser also reports — falsely — that Cordoba House's opening date will be Sept. 11, 2011. Lots of opinion makers on the right read the Post, so it's not surprising that, starting that very day, the mosque story spread through the conservative — and then mainstream — media like fire through dry grass. Geller appeared on Sean Hannity's radio show. The Washington Examiner ran an outraged column about honoring the 9/11 dead. So did Investor's Business Daily. Smelling blood, the Post assigned news reporters to cover the ins and outs of the Cordoba House development daily. Fox News, the Post's television sibling, went all out. Within a month, Rudy Giuliani had called the mosque a "desecration." Within another month, Sarah Palin had tweeted her famous "peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate" tweet. Peter King and Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty followed suit — with political reporters and television news programs dutifully covering "both sides" of the controversy. Geller had succeeded beyond her wildest dreams. We have allowed one or two right wing extremists to affect groups and people in this country - first that guy who shut down ACORN with his edited videos (and who later posed as a telephone repairman to get into a democratic congressman's office to apparently bug the phones and was arrested), that Breitbart guy who edited Shirley Sherrod's video and now we have this woman pushing this issue. I will not be duped by these people or sucked into their extremist right wing political agenda.

BJean and I usually agree on most things but we are going to differ on this issue, which is okay. That's what makes this country great. You're entitled to your own opinion. I think that when the world trade center is rebuilt it is going to be an awesome tribute not only to those who died on 9/11 but to what America stands for. I think it is going to overshadow this mosque both literally and figuratively. I think it will say to the world: You can destroy our buildings but you can't destroy our freedom. We will rebuild and our nation will be stronger for it. So build your mosques, build your synagogues, build your churches and pitch your revival tents. That is who we are as America and nothing you do will diminish this. There is also a mosque 4 blocks from ground zero and I don't think any of us heard about that one. Two blocks more makes all the difference?

Clear Pattern of Obstruction This is all part of the Republican plan to deliberately stop government from working, as part of a playbook to retake Congress and hamstring the change voted for in 2008, and one that is eerily similar to the one they used in 1994. This playbook consists of 5 distinct steps: Step 1: Avoid Responsibility for GOP Failures Step 2: Increase Negativity Step 3: “Throw the Bums Out!” Step 4: The New Contract on America Step 5: Retake Congress Where the filibuster should have a legitimate role in a functional democracy to protect minority rights, it is a procedure that is highly susceptible to abuse. In the past, this was always kept in check by the morality of individual senators, but in the 111th Congress, the sheer number of times it has been used indicate a clear pattern and dangerous precedent. Reaction to Obstruction Lou Gerber, the Legislative Director of the Communication Workers of America writes, “Under Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Republican Senators have instituted “new math” in which 60 votes have replaced 51 votes as the required majority to pass legislation.” Ali Frick of ThinkProgress adds, “The Republicans have become experts at using Senate filibusters — or often just the threat of filibusters — to block the Democratic agenda while in the minority.” This congress has had a record number of filibusters.

Another example: Mitch McConnell is asked why seven of the Republicans who co-sponsored the Conrad-Gregg fiscal commission turned around and voted against it. McConnell says he now wants a spending reduction commission because heaven forbid we can't have them considering any tax hikes for the rich. Leave it to Republicans to take a bad idea and make it worse.

Republicans want President Obama to fail -- at least that's how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sees it. "It's very clear, they've made a decision they want President Obama to fail," the Nevada Democrat told reporters Tuesday. Reid would not name names, but said "there's a significant number of Republicans out there who want the president to fail." "I think it's very clear as a result of actions since Obama was elected that people want him to fail," Reid said. "Some have said so. Others have just acted accordingly." huffington post: 3/4/2009

You can cut and paste articles that support your opinion and I can do the same. If we aren't a country that provides for health insurance for all of our people then what are we? Who are we? If we tell a little 8 year old girl that her diabetes can't be treated because we don't have insurance or the money to pay for it and there is no government program, what does that say about us? If we tell the young person who needs dialysis that they can't get it because there is no insurance and no program to pay for it and they will die without it - what does this say to the world about what kind of people we are? The republicans want everything to be about privledge - the haves and the have nots. Of course they are the haves. If you have the money then you can get medical treatment. If you don't - too bad. This is what Rep. Alan Grayson (I really like him, btw) said about the republican healthcare plan: Don't get sick and if you do, die quickly. He nailed it. That is the mean-spiritedness of the elected republicans - all of whom have healthcare of course. If I have the money to buy health insurance, or it is a job benefit, then I deserve it. If you're stupid enough not to have the money to buy it or a job that provides it then you deserve to die. Tough luck. But I wonder how many of the doctors or others who oppose "socialized" medicine accept medicare patients? And who will themselves accept social security and medicare when they turn 65. My local state senator - a republican woman - had a town hall meeting that I attended. Her husband is a doctor and she said he only accepts medicare patients. I think he is a kidney specialist or something. I wonder why- if this socialized medical program is so bad? I think we saw the contempt for the unemployed when some elected republicans said they were hobos or lazy or just didn't want to look for jobs and they didn't want to extend unemployment benefits while at the same time championing for extended tax cuts for the rich. Of course the doctors would be opposed to anything democratic. Because the democrats want the top 2-3% wage earners to go back to the fairer tax rate that was in place under Clinton when 22 million jobs were created. As opposed to the 8 million jobs that were lost in the last 10 years while the 2 bush tax cuts have been in effect.

Dingell: Health Care Should Be a Right, Not a Privilege By Rep. John Dingell Special to Roll Call March 23, 2009, 12 a.m. Related Content Health Care Policy Briefing In my more than 50 years of serving in the House, no issue has captured my attention or passion quite like health care reform. Since my first day in office, I have been committed to this issue, and today, more than five decades later, my commitment remains steadfast. The resolve to achieve universal health care is just as noble as it was when I first entered Congress, but the urgency is far greater. I work from the driving principle that health care should be a right, not a privilege, a belief that my father shared during his 23 years as a Member of Congress. Every new Congress since 1956, I have carried on my father’s torch by introducing H.R. 15, a bill he once championed that would provide universal health care for all Americans. He laid the groundwork for national health insurance, and I have devoted my career to seeing it happen. Over this time, I have witnessed major gains in expansion of health care coverage, and have also seen opportunities lost. Take 1935 as the first example. After the establishment of Social Security, President Franklin Roosevelt, working with my father, who also served in Congress, planned to address health care for all. But — and this will sound familiar — an impending recession and the impending danger of international conflict, coupled with partisan political battles over enlarging the Supreme Court, forced our leaders to pass on the issue of health reform. I remember my father talking with former UAW President Walter Reuther about how this issue could someday break the back of the auto industry. Under the bold leadership of President Lyndon Johnson, I helped move Medicare and Medicaid through Congress in 1965. We hoped the success of these programs would catapult a call for further reform into the national conversation, but Vietnam prevented that from happening. It took almost 30 years before another president came along and committed to providing all Americans quality and affordable health care. However, President Bill Clinton’s efforts were met with grand resistance and millions of dollars to wage a campaign of misinformation against the plan. A series of television advertisements claimed we couldn’t afford it and that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare that would pry patients away from beloved family doctors. The effort died in my committee when it failed by one vote. With our economy under strain and our patients, businesses and states suffering, we now have another opportunity to accomplish our mission of comprehensive health care reform. The stars have aligned in favor of progress, and this time if for no other reason than economic necessity, we can be successful, because we must be. If we do not act now, we risk missing a tremendous opportunity, and history has shown us that ignoring the problem does not cure our health care woes. For economic and humanitarian reasons, we need health care reform now — and waiting will only make it harder to do, as well as more damaging to the nation we live in. We spend more on health care than any other nation on Earth and have less to show for it than any other Western country — yet we keep delaying reform. Health care spending continues to rise at the fastest rate in our nation’s history, last year more than 7 percent — more than twice the rate of inflation. The United States spends more than $2.2 trillion on health care each year, approximately 16 percent of the total economy. The high cost of health care causes a bankruptcy every 30 seconds. By the end of the year, it will cause 1.5 million Americans to lose their homes. Premiums have grown four times faster than wages over the past eight years, and in each of these years, a million more Americans have lost their health insurance. Right now, an American company is laying off a worker it can’t afford to cover. Right now, a pregnant woman is forgoing prenatal care because of its high cost. Right now, a sick child is not being treated because a trip to the doctor is too expensive. As you read this newspaper, dozens of people are filing for bankruptcy in the wake of a serious health problem. And by the end of the day, two people in my home state of Michigan will be dead because they lack health insurance. In the budget plan he released earlier this month, President Barack Obama demonstrated that he has the courage to face one of the toughest challenges of our time — health care reform. The recent health care reform summit is a major step toward accomplishing this massive undertaking. Obama understands that we cannot fix our economic problems without reforming the nation’s health care system — the two are intertwined at all levels of our society. This is not just a humanitarian issue or just an economic issue — it is an urgent issue that we must face now. It is now time for Congress, providers, industry, advocates and the American people to meet Obama’s level of urgency and to do our part in showing that we are just as serious about providing quality, affordable health care for all Americans It is not going to be easy. My long history with health care reform has taught me to expect misinformation campaigns and an active and well-funded opposition. This process will be no different. However, with sustained, focused leadership from the president, swift action by Congress, an expectation of shared sacrifice from all interested parties, and continued pressure from the American people, this time we can pass comprehensive health care reform. I look forward to working with the president and his team in crafting a plan that will make quality and affordable health care accessible for all Americans. Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) is the chairman emeritus of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and will play a key role in the committee’s deliberations on health care reform.

Cleo's Mom - quote: And if he fails, the country fails, too, but they don't care. Ariscus99 quote: is how you put it. Same thing basically. And you failed to prove this. I don't expect video of everything, I will expect real proof of outlandish statements like the ones you made tho. Just as you would. I don't need to prove this statement- it is my opinion based on the facts of how the republicans have voted.

If Obama's agenda to help this country out of the worst economic collapse since the great depression fails then American fails. If the stimulus had failed to pass, if the bailout of GM and Chrysler had failed to pass, if the cash for clunkers and the home buyers tax rebate had failed, if unemployment hadn't been extended, then America would fail and a lot more people would be suffering. And if the republicans cared then they wouldn't have voted no on everything and obstructed everything. If they were concerned about not having the wall street abuses that caused this collapse from happening again, they would have voted for financial reform. But they don't care, so they voted no. They sure care about extending the tax cut to the top 2% millionaires, though. These agenda items aren't perfect. I am sure Pres. Obama would have preferred to have inherited a budget surplus like bush inherited and spent his political capital on clean energy, education, transportation, infrastructure, etc...but instead he has had to tackle very difficult problems. Tough problems require tough solutions, but the republicans just vote no. They aren't interested in getting us out of the mess we're in. Why should they? They are the ones who got us in it. And I think I proved my point to my satisfaction. I can't find one vote on an agenda item that republicans voted for America to succeed.

In an interview with the New York Times McConnell said charges that he blocked the president’s agenda are okay by him because of the results. “I am amused with their comments about obstructionism,” McConnell said to the Times. “I wish we had been able to obstruct more. They were able to get the health care bill through. They were able to get the stimulus through. They were able to get the financial reform through. These were all major pieces of legislation, and if I would have had enough votes to stop them, I would have.” March 25, 2009 -- Updated 0737 GMT (1537 HKT WASHINGTON (CNN) -- -- It's OK for Republicans to want President Obama to fail if they think he's jeopardizing the country, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal told members of his political party Tuesday night. I didn't say every elected republican, I said leaders and mcconnell is the republican senate leader. Boehner is now the apparent de facto republican leader making major speeches and he has kept the republicans in the house in line and in lock step voting against every Obama agenda item. And Jindal wants to run for president. I have heard this claim made over and over again on MSNBC by Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann and others and I don't think the republican leaders have denied it because they are proud of wanting to block everything of Obama's and try to precipitate failure to the best of their ability. And it is unreasonable to expect videos for everything unless you, too, post them for everything you claim.

To answer your first question: Nothing. It is a fact that before Obama was sworn in the elected republican leaders said that their objective was to have Obama fail by voting no one everything. And if he fails, the country fails, too, but they don't care. They only look to enhance their re-election prospects. They want to take this entire country down with them, too. Strip it of all the social support systems that separates us from third world countries. Tax cuts for rich, deregulate big business and war at any cost. That's the republican plan. And the hell with everyone else. By the way, did you know that of all the programs that Pres. Obama and congress got passed they have never gotten more than 3 republican votes. Never before in the history of congress have we had such obstruction. And these are the people some want to elect more of? Pres. Obama was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2009 and on January 21, 2009 people wanted 8 million jobs created. I think the government has done as much as it can do to create jobs. Interest rates are near zero. There have been programs to help housing with tax credits, and it did for awhile. The stimulus has helped create and more so save jobs. But the private sector is lagging. Now it's time for the private industry to step up, stop sitting on two trillion dollar in assets and start hiring. It's not like there isn't work to be done. Just try to get some home improvement done and find out how long you have to wait. I had to wait 3 months for inside painting. I had to wait a week for AC repair. Businesses won't be happy until they have to pay zero taxes, no employee health insurance and have no regulations. They need to quit whining and start hiring. Ford knew he had to pay his auto workers more so that they could afford his product. Private business needs to hire so people will have money and spend it on their and other products. The economy won't improve until they start hiring so if they are waiting for the economy to improve before they do so - it won't. And the republicans are going to block anything to improve the economy because they don't want the economy to improve - because they believe a bad economy will improve their election prospects. And it will because people can't analyze the situation and see who is trying to dig us out of this hole and who got us in it in the first place. Now, is that enough ammunition for you, bob, so that you're not bored? LOL

You're both right. Goodbye patty and I hope you find a more suitable outlet for expressing your beliefs. Best wishes.

She's not gone anyway - Last Activity: Today 04:39 AM She's still cking in to see what pple have to say about her leaving :0) - so I guess God gave her another message.. I think those of us who knew her knew she would. She'll be back and tell us God told her to do so. That way she won't have to take responsibility for going back on her word.