Jedno sasvim novo i drugačije Presidency..

[Прслин]

Прочиташ ли читав Тајмсов чланак о овом догађају, видећеш да је и тај податак о обичају наведен, али 22 оловке за 18 слова?

[ObiW]

Dobro.

[Прслин]

Немој да се љутиш, капирам ја да је овај догађај од невиђене историјске важности за САД, да су на овом ораху зубе сломили многи пре Обаме, да његов мандат од овог тренутка престаје да буде само маркетинг и да значи квалитативни помак у животима милиона људи, али сам љубитељ тривије и овај заиста неважни детаљ ми је привукао пажњу. Ево, бићу озбиљан док не стекнем твоје поверење, а онда ћу опет да лупим нешто и тако у круг. Коначно, на форуму смо. Дакле, оно што ме заиста занима је однос према абортусима. Чак и на овом топику се то спомиње (углавном иронично), али из вести које сам ја видео последњих 7 гласова је дошло од демократа који су тражили да се изузме финансирање абортуса од стране државе. Ако је то тако, зашто су Обами онда узвикивали "децоубица"?

[Roger Sanchez]

Ne njemu, nego Bartu Stupaku - kojeg su kao protivnika abortusa najviše i htjeli dirati™.

[korindjar]

prasline bas se razumes

Edited March 24, 2010 by Hustler

[ObiW]

Дакле, оно што ме заиста занима је однос према абортусима. Чак и на овом топику се то спомиње (углавном иронично), али из вести које сам ја видео последњих 7 гласова је дошло од демократа који су тражили да се изузме финансирање абортуса од стране државе. Ако је то тако, зашто су Обами онда узвикивали "децоубица"?

Nije Obama uradio ništa novo u vezi abortusa. U sadašnjem zakonu postoje ograničenje finansiranja abortusa parama iz budžeta. On je samo napisao predsednički ukaz koji kaže da će ta ograničenja ostati na snazi. Jedino što je tu novo je što su republikanci za vreme debate u skupštini rekli "znamo mi da je on rekao da će doneti ukaz, al' će on nas prevariti kao što tu ovek radi". U suštini cela ova priča - ako izuzmemo "istorijski trenutak" - je dramatizovana od strane republikanaca jer je ovo tek treći put u poslednjih 16 godina da su u skupštini doživeli poraz na glasanju o nečemu što im je bilo vrlo bitno (balanced budget 1994, impeachment 1999, health care 2010). Bez obzira da li je na vlasti bio predsednik - demokrata, bez obzira kakavu većinu su demokrate imale u skupštini, republikanci su uvek uspevali da ubede demokrate da "ne valja" da se gura zakon bez njihove podrške. O tome je MekKejn pričao kada je govorio da "on ume da sarađuje sa demokratama": prevedeno na srpski, MekKejn ume da ih žedne prevede preko vode. A kada se događalo da su republikanci imali većinu, ma koliko tanka ona bila, uopšte se nisu sekirali kada su gurali svoje zakone bez podrške demokrata. Zato se sada diže ovolika galama: republikanci mogu da podnesu poraz na izborima, ali ne i u skupštini. Edited March 24, 2010 by ObiW

[korindjar]

Deo intervijua sa Axelrodom:One of the president's closest advisers said on Tuesday that Republican opponents of health care reform let down their guard following Sen. Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts, in the process allowing Democrats and the administration to make a final, successful push for the bill.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/axelrod-health-care-passe_n_511279.html

[Roger Sanchez]

Stupak, the Michigan Democrat whose last-minute compromise on abortion guaranteed passage of the bill Sunday, said callers have left messages for him saying, “You’re dead; we know where you live; we’ll get you.” “My wife still can’t answer the phone,” Stupak told POLITICO on Tuesday. The messages are “full of obscenities if she leaves it plugged in. In my office, we can’t get a phone out. It’s just bombarded.” Stupak, a former police officer, said he’s not fazed by the threats or by the prospect of protests at his district office this weekend. “I’ve looked down barrels of guns,” he said. “I’ve talked my way out of it.”Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz0j7jaUh3v

[WTF]

Pa to je onaj "poturica gori od Turcina" sindrom. Sad im je Stupak kao public enemy #1. Da nije njega, nasli bi nekog drugog da krive. Ali sta da mu radim, da je skupio muda i u startu rekao da ce da glasa za health care bill, sad bi ga manje maltretirali. Generalno, to je problem sa Demokratama sto nemaju muda, sto se svega plase, sto hoce da svima ugode, ukljucujuci tu i GOP. I uvek im se obije o glavu. Evo gledam ovde kod mene 3 Demokrate glasali protiv, 1 od njih dovoljno geografski blizu, pa pogledam neke lokalne forume gde se skuplja GOP/konzervativna ekipa, mnogi iz njegovog districta. I sad mislis da je on pridobio neke simpatije, neku dobru volju takvih sto je ipak ustao™ protiv Obame i Pelosi, sto je "pokazao da ima kicmu"? Jeste, ali ne! 90% komentara u stilu "ma da im je trebao njihov glas, da nisu imali dovoljno, on bi legao na rudu i glasao YES, ovako su ga pustili da se ne kompromituje kao liberal sto ustvari jeste, blah blah, blah..". A 2008 je pobedio a 10%, u ljubicastom™ distriktu zahvaljujuci minority/youth izlasku na glasanje. Videcemo sta ce biti ovog Novembra.

[No7]

Why I Broke Rank And Voted "No" On Health CareRep. Stephen LynchThis statement was released by the Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA).) This week concluded a long and difficult debate over the shape and substance of our nation's health care system.After many twists and turns the Senate put forth, and I opposed, a bill that cost almost a trillion dollars but which in my opinion, offered little to reform the current skyrocketing costs of the fee-for-service system that is dominated by the insurance industry.The basic premise for our health care reform effort was that if we could introduce real cost containment and competition; if we could challenge the dominance of the insurance companies and push down prices, we could then use those savings to provide access to health care for every American. That was our goal. In the beginning.Those goals were met in the House version of health care H.R. 3962, which I supported. First, H.R. 3962 repealed the antitrust exemption that allowed insurance companies to operate as monopolies and cartels in restraint of trade. Secondly, the House version allowed each State to establish a true public option with the object of offering low-cost insurance plans, thereby forcing insurance companies to compete. Lastly, the House version provided a progressive funding structure that asked individuals making over $500,000/yr or couples filing jointly and earning over $1,000,000/yr to pay a health care surcharge to pay for expanded coverage for the uninsured. That is the bill that I supported and the House passed and sent to the Senate.In contrast, the Senate bill, H.R. 3590, then stripped out much of the reform that the House bill offered. First, it restored the antitrust exemption for insurers allowing them to continue to operate as monopolies. Secondly, the Senate Bill eliminated the modest opportunity for states to establish public options. And lastly, the Senate removed the tax on those with incomes above $500,000 and instead placed that tax on people who already have high cost health care plans. This includes many large employers and union health plans where, over the years, members opted for less money in their paychecks or stood on picket lines to gain health benefits for their families. For many years government regarded health coverage as a basic necessity, almost like food, and refused to tax it. Guess what? Those days are over.Maybe it was because we lacked the discipline to stay in the fight, perhaps it was because we lost the message war, I'm not sure. But in the end we allowed the insurance companies to prevail.Yes, we have added 32 million people to the insurance rolls and that is noble. My fear however is that we have added them to a system that teeters on a state of serious dysfunction. And now we need to figure out how to control the costs of this system and to pay for this massive expansion of services, as prices continue to rise precipitously- and they surely will.In a world of finite resources, health care costs, quality and access cannot continue to rise together indefinitely. Something has to give. In the recently adopted Senate Bill, costs did not give way.In essence, we have paid the ransom but the insurance companies are still holding consumers hostage. The passage of time will make this increasingly apparent. One need only watch the quarterly profits of insurance companies spike in the coming months and years.Again, the basic premise for our effort was to introduce real reforms to challenge the dominance of insurance companies and push down prices, so we could use those savings to provide health care for every American. That was our goal. In the beginning. It remains our goal.I congratulate President Obama for the serious work that he has done to try to find a solution that serves the needs of this nation.I will continue to work to fix the bill that was just passed. We certainly have a lot of work to do.

И један коментар,

RomneyCare was passed exactly 4 years ago and has been kept afloat by Stimulus money and federal grants. Health care spending has increased 50% and premiums have grown at double digit rates all 4 years to make Mass the most expensive state in the country to get insurance. It was predicted ER costs would drop 75%- it's risen 18%.

Волео бих када би ово Димитрије искомeнтарисао али неће. Edited March 25, 2010 by No7

[barrcode]

Historic US healthcare bill must be voted on again because of technical violations

[Прслин]

prasline bas se razumes

Не разумем.

Хвала на објашњењу.

Historic US healthcare bill must be voted on again because of technical violations

22 оловке нису биле довољне? :o јбг, нисам издржао Не делује ми да су те две ситнице које су републиканци ископали нарочито важне, чак је и Фокс као хедлајн гурнуо Иран, а не вест о овом новом гласању.

[korindjar]

busch je car. rukuje se sa stanovnistvom na haitiju i onda obrise ruku o klintonovu majicu

[Roger Sanchez]

Vidiš li ti što radiš praslinu?Prasline, nije riječ o potpisanom zakonu, koji je sad ZAKON, nego o ovom zakonskom prijedlogu koji sadrži popravke. On treba ponovno u House na glasanje.

[Roger Sanchez]

Piše 'vako Frumova žena, dijagnoza je tu (ovdašnji Ameri su vjerojatno & nadam se čuli za Frumgate):

We have both been part of the conservative movement for, as mentioned, the better part of half of our lives. And I can categorically state I’ve never seen such a hostile environment towards free thought and debate–the hallmarks of Reaganism, the politics with which we grew up–prevail in our movement as it does today. The thuggish demagoguery of the Limbaughs and Becks is a trait we once derided in the old socialist Left. Well boys, take a look in the mirror. It is us now.