The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[El Guapo 8]

Until it happens to you Dagata.

Let's actually think about it for a minute. Say a person has a PPO with a lifetime payout of 1 Million dollars, they find our they have kidney disease. They go through, multiple surgeries and months of dialysis + other treatments and finally get a transplant 18 months later. The total cost of everything over that period of time is 1.2 Million, leaving them with a 200K bill, forcing bankruptcy, but they are alive. I am going to take bankruptcy, every time. How bout the rest of you?Bankruptcy laws in the U.S. let you start over. And guess what, your alive to be able to do so.(FWIW I didn't read anything that Nim or Jeep posted about any specifics)

[hblask 1]

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_brief...ource=a-sectionObama Revises Campaign Promise Of 'Change' To 'Relatively Minor Readjustments In Certain Favorable Policy Areas'WASHINGTON—In a slight shift from his campaign trail promise, President Obama announced Monday that his administration's message of "Change" has been modified to the somewhat more restrained slogan "Relatively Minor Readjustments in Certain Favorable Policy Areas." "Today, Americans face a great many challenges, and I hear your desperate calls for barely measurable and largely symbolic improvements in the status quo," said Obama, who vowed never to waver in his fight for every last infinitesimal nudge forward on the controversial issues of torture and the military ban on homosexuals. "Remember: Yes we can, if by that you mean tiptoeing around potentially unpopular decisions that could alienate a large segment of the populace." Washington insiders said that, while the new mottos are certainly in keeping with Obama's pledge of government transparency, they are significantly less catchy.

[Dagata 0]

Until it happens to you Dagata.

Ok let me try to explain this a bit better.You have two options here.1: You can live in a place where you cannot be bankrupted by medical bills, however, they do not have complex procedures that could save your life.2: Some of the most complex procedures can bankrupt you. However these procedures can save your life.If I get stricken with a disease that will cost me all my money, you bet i'll give them all my money and start over, does it suck? Hell yeah it sucks. You know what sucks harder? Dieing.

[strategy 4]

sorry to participate in the derail, but the solution stossel offers in this segment could probably go a ways to reducing costs so we can have it both ways... affordable care and complex life-saving procedures.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1Iobviously some reform on malpractice would do some good as well.

[irishguy 14]

Let's actually think about it for a minute. Say a person has a PPO with a lifetime payout of 1 Million dollars, they find our they have kidney disease. They go through, multiple surgeries and months of dialysis + other treatments and finally get a transplant 18 months later. The total cost of everything over that period of time is 1.2 Million, leaving them with a 200K bill, forcing bankruptcy, but they are alive. I am going to take bankruptcy, every time. How bout the rest of you?Bankruptcy laws in the U.S. let you start over. And guess what, your alive to be able to do so.

This may be better put in the health care thread but since the topic is present here... This is one of the things that always makes me laugh when I see news pieces on the U.S.A system often those who are complaining are walking around in more expensive shoes, clothes than me, driving better cars than me and yacking away on cell phones. Now I don't know the cost of coverage there but I suspect many folks could get rid of some of their "extras" in life and find a way to get it.Now I'm not saying I agree with your system but there are clearly ways to work within it. When I was young (early 90's) my Dad was offered a job in North Carolina and when mulling it over people would often bring up "but, but...the healthcare" and his response was always the fact that what he'd save in taxes by moving he'd be more than able to cover his family and have plenty to spare even if the company didn't cover it.Our system has a lot of good to it but like any also has the bad. On top of the complaints I see from $150 sneaker wearing American's about not being able to afford coverage I often hear "while nobody in Canada goes broke for medical reasons".I can tell you first hand that, that is a load of crap. I had a leg that was reconstructed when I was 16, I spent years working 80-100 hours a week on it. The plate/screws began to stick out through my skin, the bone bent, the muscles ripped etc. I was in a ton of pain daily (I won't take pills.) After finally going through the system I was scheduled for a surgery then my doctor got a better offer in the states and jumped ship. So I had to start over again.I was warned constantly that if I didn't do something asap I was in for a world of trouble down the road. AN appointment opened up with a well known trama surgeon and surgery was scheduled for nine months later. I had recently started going through a divorce and had left a job that I'd been at for years but I was told the recovery while tedious would take about three months. Instead of going out and finding a job that I would soon have to take a leave from I decided to pitter away on my savings and seek new employment when I was all healed. Surgery happened as schedule and on top of pain that I never new was possible things didn't go so well. I would need another surgery within six months and after that second surgery it was touch and go for over a year as to whether or not I'd lose my leg (thankfully I didn't).When the second surgery was approaching my savings were dwindling and I sought help. As some one who had payed taxes, ran business for years and owned property I was refused. Even though there are supposed to government programs in place to help in situations like this I was told (going against letters from Doctor's) that my surgery(s) were elective and therefore I didn't qualify for help. Awesome!Luckily many credit card company's had been stupid enough to give me a large amount of credit so I was able to get by. Even still I eventually had to sell my house and my debt became to much to handle. Almost exactly to the day when I found out that I could keep my leg I determined that I'd have to claim bankruptcy. It sucks but given the choice between my health and my credit rating I'd do it all again. I'm 31 and literally starting over again after working my ass off to reach some level of comfort, I'll likely never go back to my old profession of running restaurants as I've been warned that it will almost positively put me back on the operating table so tomorrow I start a shitty job for half of what I use to make while living in shitty conditions.My point isn't that our system sucks it's that there is suck in all of our system's but sometimes all you can do is do the best with what you've got.

[El Guapo 8]

Thank you so much for this post. These are the things people need to hear.First hand experiences. Rose (I am guessing we all know who that is now) had been waiting over 2 years for Gastric Bypass and had to come to the U.S. to get it done. Then she went back and had to fight with the government to get them to look at a gallbladder issue. For some reason she thought this was normal.Jeff_536373847 Had to get knee surgery. He was on a 3+ month waiting list just to get an MRI and considered coming to the U.S. and paying out of pocket over $1,000 to get an MRI. I think it ended up being 9 months before he got surgery.Sorry that you had to go through all of that. There is no perfect system and never will be one. You can't help everyone all the time, but things like what you described should not happen.

[vbnautilus 48]

Sorry that you had to go through all of that.

Me too, really tough story to hear, but man just take the pills when you are in that much pain for chrissakes!!

[Jeepster80125 0]

noise

sigh.

[Nimue1995 1]

sigh.

The reason that I normally don't bother to answer you Jeep. Because it's a waste of time.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

sigh.

Jeep, I thought by now that you'd know it is a waste of time to bother to answer that poster.

[brvheart 1,752]

The reason that I normally don't bother to answer you Jeep. Because it's a waste of time.

Jeep, I thought by now that you'd know it is a waste of time to bother to answer that poster.

Everyone agrees!

[brvheart 1,752]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23218.htmlInteresting article...."The impressive fundraising Obama demonstrated in 2007 was largely a result of the usual high-dollar contributors – not the small-dollar donors the campaign liked to hold up to the press.“It wasn’t the Internet,” admitted Penny Pritzker, Obama’s national finance chair."

[irishguy 14]

Thank you so much for this post. These are the things people need to hear.Sorry that you had to go through all of that. There is no perfect system and never will be one. You can't help everyone all the time, but things like what you described should not happen.

Thank you. At the end of the day I do feel that the government should provide healthcare for it's citizens however, there has got to be a better answer to just blanket socialized healthcare. I don't know the answer to the problem but our system certainly isn't perfect like it is often portrayed.Also I have no doubt in my mind that if I was raised in the States with your system I would've done everything in my power to have coverage instead of just complaining, living with out it and then suffering the consequences.

[brvheart 1,752]

Thank you. At the end of the day I do feel that the government should provide healthcare for it's citizens however, there has got to be a better answer to just blanket socialized healthcare. I don't know the answer to the problem but our system certainly isn't perfect like it is often portrayed.Also I have no doubt in my mind that if I was raised in the States with your system I would've done everything in my power to have coverage instead of just complaining, living with out it and then suffering the consequences.

Coverage is cheap, if you're under 40, and kids get free healthcare in most states if the parents make less than $50,000 combined.

[hblask 1]

Thank you. At the end of the day I do feel that the government should provide healthcare for it's citizens however, there has got to be a better answer to just blanket socialized healthcare. I don't know the answer to the problem but our system certainly isn't perfect like it is often portrayed.

Saying "the government" should provide healthcare is a lot different from saying "the federal government" should provide healthcare.There are many excellent local and state health assistance programs. Everything the federal government touches turns to crap. We don't want crap health care.The rules for government provided health care should be: it must be a small percentage of the total healthcare market (say 5 or 10 percent). It must only be available to those unable to provide for themselves.

[JustDoIt 10]

Update the ScorecardVenezuela Chavez says "Comrade" Obama more left-winghttp://www.reuters.com/article/ObamaEconom...ndChannel=10441Chinese students laugh at Geithner"Chinese financial assets are very safe," Geithner said. His response drew laughter from the audience.http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews...20090601?rpc=44American capitalism gone with a whimper http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/As far as health care, fix Social Security and Medicare first. Why would we turn health care over to people that have a history of destroying things?

[hblask 1]

http://reason.com/news/show/133914.htmlFor those of you who carefully have avoided piddling away your hard-earned dollars on a General Motors vehicle, resistance is futile. You're a majority "investor" now. Rejoice.Taxpayers, our president has decreed, are impelled to preserve a prehistoric, poorly run, unprofitable private corporation. Now the only question becomes: What does all this sacrifice mean?Will GM be run as profitably and efficiently as Amtrak? Will GM be paid not to produce, like the agricultural sector? Will it feed into an economic bubble like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Will it boast the negligible oversight and waste of the so-called "stimulus" package? Will it feature the fiscal irresponsibility of Social Security? Or will we see the runaway costs of Medicaid?So many options.President Barack Obama assures us that he has "no interest" in "running GM," going on to say, "When a difficult decision has to be made on matters like where to open a new plant or what type of new car to make, the new GM, not the United States government, will make that decision."Judging from contemporary history, one would not be out of line if one were somewhat suspicious. Up to this point, government has taken to micromanaging GM and the entire auto industry.You don't coronate a "car czar" for kicks.If Obama has no interest in running GM or the car industry, why did he support onerous and expensive social engineering via fuel standards at the time when the auto industry and consumers were suffering most?If Obama has no interest in running GM, why did his administration bankroll and nationalize the company while perpetuating the myth that it could save it, after nearly every expert on the planet understood its fate was bankruptcy?If the administration has no interest in making "difficult decisions," why did it push out GM's CEO, Rick Wagoner, and appoint yes man Fritz Henderson (who conveniently abandoned GM's long-standing opposition to economically destructive fuel-efficiency regulations)?If Obama has no interest in running GM, why, as The Wall Street Journal pointed out, did the administration give assurance to the city of Detroit that GM would not move its headquarters?And why did the Treasury Department strong-arm bondholders, wipe out all shareholders and magically erase almost all of the $172 billion of debt rather than allow these issues to be worked out impartially during a traditional bankruptcy?If it's not about having the Obama administration run things, why did the president hand the United Auto Workers, a rock-ribbed political supporter, a sweetheart ownership deal for pennies on the dollar?All of these shenanigans were justified to the public by the irrationally sentimental and flawed idea that taxpayers had a responsibility to save GM and that their saving it could shield the economy from job losses.Yet even with about $100 billion of taxpayer funds "invested" in the GM and Chrysler nationalization—with much more to come—as many as 1.3 million workers could lose their jobs during restructuring, according to the Center for Automotive Research.So in other words, we are exactly where we would have been had the government allowed the company to go bankrupt months ago (well, the same place sans state ownership). And for those who believe that affixing the word "new" in front of "GM" makes a difference, I've got a Yugo Cabrio for you to buy.If a car made in this country is worthwhile, efficient, comfortable, and safe, Americans will buy it. But the very presence of a nationalized GM undermines a truly competitive car market. Honda and Toyota, which have taken no taxpayer funding, no doubt will find it immensely problematic to compete against a company that can print money and take losses in perpetuity.Or, I should say, we will be taking losses in perpetuity.

[El Guapo 8]

We had an economist come out to talk to our clients from JP Morgan earlier this week. He is Mormon so that makes this story even funnier.Setting: Library at Local Country Club.Attendees: 30+ all 60 - 85 years old.Topic: EconomyTurning point: Someone asks about GMThe economist turns around and asks us if he can be slightly Risque (previous we joked no dirty jokes, because he is Mormon). He proceeds to give a story about Nevada running the Mustang Ranch as when it was in Bankruptcy and finally had to close it's doors. And he closed with "If the government can't sell sex and whisky, how are they going to sell cars?"It was 10 X funnier to us, since we knew he was Mormon.

[brvheart 1,752]

We had an economist come out to talk to our clients from JP Morgan earlier this week. He is Mormon so that makes this story even funnier.Setting: Library at Local Country Club.Attendees: 30+ all 60 - 85 years old.Topic: EconomyTurning point: Someone asks about GMThe economist turns around and asks us if he can be slightly Risque (previous we joked no dirty jokes, because he is Mormon). He proceeds to give a story about Nevada running the Mustang Ranch as when it was in Bankruptcy and finally had to close it's doors. And he closed with "If the government can't sell sex and whisky, how are they going to sell cars?"It was 10 X funnier to us, since we knew he was Mormon.

This is pretty darn awesome.

[vbnautilus 48]

We had an economist come out to talk to our clients from JP Morgan earlier this week. He is Mormon so that makes this story even funnier.Setting: Library at Local Country Club.Attendees: 30+ all 60 - 85 years old.Topic: EconomyTurning point: Someone asks about GMThe economist turns around and asks us if he can be slightly Risque (previous we joked no dirty jokes, because he is Mormon). He proceeds to give a story about Nevada running the Mustang Ranch as when it was in Bankruptcy and finally had to close it's doors. And he closed with "If the government can't sell sex and whisky, how are they going to sell cars?"It was 10 X funnier to us, since we knew he was Mormon.

Everything is funnier coming from Mormons. But honest question here, will the government actually be involved in running GM? I mean aside from the ownership stake will they be involved in the actual decision processes the company makes?

[brvheart 1,752]

Everything is funnier coming from Mormons. But honest question here, will the government actually be involved in running GM? I mean aside from the ownership stake will they be involved in the actual decision processes the company makes?

They not only forced the resignation of the CEO at GM, but they have at several other companies as well. They have also told companies what they could pay all of their top level executives if those companies took government money.

[strategy 4]

And for those who believe that affixing the word "new" in front of "GM" makes a difference, I've got a Yugo Cabrio for you to buy.

yeah, I mean, selling off all their unprofitable stuff and keeping everything else, while getting massive concessions from the UAW and debtholders? pretty much the definition of unchanged right there imo.

They not only forced the resignation of the CEO at GM, but they have at several other companies as well. They have also told companies what they could pay all of their top level executives if those companies took government money.

if government feels inclined to step into business at all, I prefer it this way.

[brvheart 1,752]

if government feels inclined to step into business at all, I prefer it this way.

What way? Being able to set the pay levels of private companies? Or just the companies that they gave money to?

[strategy 4]

What way? Being able to set the pay levels of private companies? Or just the companies that they gave money to?

if a firm accepts government money to continue operations, there ought to be these kinds of consequences. I would be way, way more concerned if this stuff weren't going on in the bailed out companies.I'm against the intrusion and all of its extensions in principle, but seriously, fuck these guys. wagoner absolutely deserved what he got.

[brvheart 1,752]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...ings-bling.htmlSo... did the King get an ipod?