Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: HPilot who wrote (8411)	8/19/2009 9:35:07 AM
From: Peter Dierks	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Health care debate confirms this is not the Barack Obama we elected Wednesday, August 19th 2009, 4:00 AM Taking the stage for a town hall meeting on health care the other day, President Obama emerged from behind a curtain in a fake jog. He pumped his arms in an exaggerated fashion, but his smile looked forced as he waved and shook hands with a few audience members. It all seemed a campaign ritual, dulled by time and beleaguered by circumstance, prompting a flashback in my head to the Paul Simon song about Joe DiMaggio. Where have you gone, Barack Obama? Where is the sunny-side-up young man who promised to inspire and unite an unhappy nation? Gone into the partisan sinkhole of Washington, that's where. Like some novice swimmer too confident of his own ability, Obama is suddenly finding himself in water over his head. His flailing, including a foul habit of demonizing dissent, is not pretty. And that brief foray into e-mail tracking of critics showed a win-at-any-cost side. Where is the appealing man we elected? Where is that Barack Obama? Let's find him quick because the whole nation is paying the price for this impostor's irrational exuberance. Or hubris. Americans, more of them every day, are growing disenchanted with the expansion of government and the massive pile of debt. Yet the President, certain he can change their minds if only he talks to them again, keeps trying to sell bigger as better. The public's not buying it. And as a measure of the nation's mood, a recent poll was practically cruel: Nearly half think the President is on television too much. Ouch. Obama fatigue occasionally surfaced during the campaign, but this is different. He's the President, and if the country tunes him out, there is no Plan B. He's the rock star-turned-salesman, and everything in his administration depends on his stage act. That the novelty is wearing thin is obvious. The danger is that the health care fiasco turns him into an unpopular and ineffective President. Those who say it can't happen should study a recent New York Times/CBS poll. Among the lowlights: * Sixty-nine percent believe Obamacare will hurt the quality of their own health care. * Seventy-three percent believe they will have less access to tests and treatment. * Sixty-two percent believe Democrats' proposals would force them to change doctors. * Seventy-six percent believe Obama's changes will mean higher taxes for them. * Seventy-seven percent expect their health care costs to rise. All those findings run counter to the claims Obama makes. Even as he talks in vague ways about what exactly he favors, he promises the bill that emerges from Congress' sausage factory will be a magic elixir. Writing in The New York Times, he guaranteed everything for everyone: "If you don't have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need. "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." Those claims would be credible if they were a multiple-choice question, where only one is true. To say they can all happen at once is a crock, and the country knows it. Heck, throw in a free puppy for everybody, too. With stubborn wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and an economy still bleeding, you'd think a new President would have challenges enough. Yet Obama has plunged into the health care mess as though it is a battle of absolute necessity. It isn't. It is his choice. And it is a mistake. If he's the man we thought he was, he'll now choose to make peace, before the country concludes he's the mistake. mgoodwin@nydailynews.com Read more: nydailynews.com From: jlallen

To: HPilot who wrote (8411)	8/19/2009 1:51:16 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

If you posted the entire sentence it would be clear that I left out the word not, as in. LOL. That there was a "not" missing never occurred to me. As for "the word not, as in," I have not clue what the "as in" is about. Trying to find context to help isn't doing the job. I can, however, figure out despite the punctuation errors that "not" is in apposition to "word" even though "not" is neither set off by commas as required to show apposition nor in quotes to show that the word is a quotation, not a normal part of the sentence. The above string of words is another example of where it helps to write English sentences if one expects to be understood. Spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors are generally ignored in these types of fora as long as the language is intelligible. However, it's unreasonable to accuse folks of lying when they cannot interpret unintelligible sentences in the way you had in mind. You have to either get your typed words closer to your intent or not judge readers so harshly when they have not come up with your preferred interpretation. They did believe that COMMUNISM was not good for the people, Lenin called COMMUNISM and propaganda a tool. As for the form, at a minimum, the comma is still wrong. Should be either a semicolon or a period. However, based on further context provided by you, I think what you meant was "Since Lenin referred to communism and propaganda as "tools," I conclude that they did not believe that communism was good for the people. As for the correctness of your conclusion, I offer this quote from Wiki, since you seem to find it credible: "A communist revolution is a proletarian revolution inspired by the ideas of Marxism that aims to replace capitalism with communism, typically with socialism (state-run means of production) as an intermediate stage. The idea that a proletarian revolution is needed is a cornerstone of Marxism; Marxists believe that the workers of the world must unite and free themselves from capitalist oppression to create a world run by and for the working class. Thus, in the Marxist view, proletarian revolutions need to happen in countries all over the world; see world revolution." Sounds to me like the communist revolution was founded on a belief that communism was in the best interests of the people. That damn capitalism is just too oppressive. <g>