Bachmann's Obama jihad
by Kevin_Foley
 Politics Progressive
March 26, 2013 10:27 AM | 1382 views | 20 20 comments | 15 15 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink
Rep. Michelle Bachmann, a short-lived Republican presidential candidate last year, barely survived re-election in November. She won by just 4,000 votes in a heavily Republican Minnesota district and her Democratic opponent is thinking of running against her again in 2014.

 

With her stock dropping, Bachmann is desperate.

 

First, she offered legislation to repeal Obamacare, "the law of the land," according to House Speaker John Boehner. That fizzled, so at CPAC she charged the president with living a lavish life style on the taxpayer dime.

 

He has Air Force One chefs, a dog walker, and all the other presidential perks, she huffed.

 

That won her a few minutes of TV news time but it's not the first such attack on Obama. The far right has characterized Obama as lazy and inclined to party with black celebrities and hip hop artists before, so livin' large on the public buck fits the stereotype Bachmann is pushing.

 

It's more jive from a conservative politician with little to show for her years in congress and nothing much to offer today. When confronted by a CNN reporter about her dog walker remarks, Bachmann ran like the wind from the microphone.

 

By the way, I'm fine with Bachmann blowing the racial dog whistle.

 

Let Michelle run her silly mouth. Let her chase away more minorities from the GOP. Let Bachmann continue to damage the conservative brand even more than she has, and more power to her.

 

But even Fox News is getting fed up with her. Primetime blowhard Bill O'Reilly took Bachmann to task last week.

 

“Every other president in history has lived in comfort," Billo opined, "and it looks like President Bush the younger had a bigger White House budget than Barack Obama does. This is a trivial pursuit and Michele Bachmann made a mistake pursuing it.”

 

Well, Bill, Bachmann is pretty trivial, so what do you expect?

 
Comments
(20)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
CobbCoGuy
|
April 18, 2013
And therein lies the beauty of free markets.

Instead of a Gubmint bureaucrat determining, based on sketchy Gubmint statistics, what constitutes a "small" risk, the insured decides for himself and buys the policy with the deductibles best suited for his situation.

For those who are truly destitute and/or have very high risk health issues, states could create a high-risk (or assigned risk) pool, not unlike what's available in the auto insurance market.

Of course, careful thought would be required to come up with good workable definitions of "destitute" and/or "high risk."

See, conservatives do belive in safety nets. It's just that we don't want the safety net to become a backyard "hammock." Know what I mean?
Lib in Cobb
|
April 08, 2013
Yes, you are correct, "healthcare perils are more financially devastating". Exactly the reason why ACA is needed. If the insurance companies were willing to make healthcare for all available they would have done it decades ago. So far they have not been on board with the ACA.

"take on small risks". To the working poor what is a small risk? or What is a small risk to the elderly living on a low fixed income? Should the elderly have to make a choice between food and medication? Should our veterans be dependent on the badly broken VA system? We as a family have health insurance the deductibles have increased 30% over last year and the co-pays have increased dramatically from last year. Is that a small risk?

I don't want the US to be the only industrialized nation on earth without healthcare for all.

My friends baby, survived and is now a very productive and happy adult. Thank you for asking.
CobbCoGuy
|
April 06, 2013
I'm afraid your logic doesn't hold water. The private health insurance market is not filling a need because healthcare perils are "more financially devastating?"

Insurance can be underwritten for any peril. The premium might be through the roof, but it can be done. That said, the premium can be reduced greatly if the insured takes on the small risks via deductibles and takes any measures possible to mitigate the risk. The insurance company can spread their risk through the use of reinsurance.

The private sector can deal with it if the Gubmint would get out of the way.

I hope your friend's baby is doing well. This is precisely the type of situation that could have been handled by a catastrophic medical policy.
Lib in Cobb
|
April 04, 2013
The argument falls short for one very basic reason. In most instances home owners insurance is mandatory. If home owners insurance is not mandatory and that home owner does not have insurance it could be financially devastating. If one does not have healthcare insurance it could be more financially devastating. Many years ago a good friend had a baby born prematurely, the baby was in Neonatal Intensive Care for a month, my friend did not have insurance, the bill from The Brigham and Women's Hospital was well over $150,000. He and his wife were put on a 15 year payment plan. That is devastating. The home owner who is not required to have insurance is a fool if he/she is uninsured.

The ACA will be a benefit to all.
CobbCoGuy
|
April 03, 2013
Please explain to us how the argument falls short.
CobbCoGuy
|
April 03, 2013
Time, Joe Klein, April 2, 2013...

The title:

Obamacare Incompetence.

First paragraph:

"Let me try to understand this: The key incentive for small businesses to support Obamacare was that they would be able to shop for the best deals in health care super-stores—called exchanges. The Administration has had 3 years to set up these exchanges. It has failed to do so."

Further into the piece:

"...as a Democrat—as someone who believes in activist government—he [Obama] has a vested interest in seeing that federal programs actually work efficiently. I don’t see much evidence that this is anywhere near the top of his priorities.
Lib in Cobb
|
April 03, 2013
@CobbGUY: Yes, I have home owners insurance. This argument has been used in the past and it has always fallen short of a valid explanation for not having The ACA.
CobbCoGuy
|
April 03, 2013
Do you have homeowners insurance?
Lib in Cobb
|
April 03, 2013
Healthcare for all has been discussed by every president since and including Reagan. DISCUSSED is the important word.

President Obama did something about it, finally, now he is The Anti Christ, The Socialist in The White House. Did the GOP have any act which passed equal to or resembling healthcare for all prior to January 2009? or Did they come up with an alternative plan other than repealing the now very legal Affordable Care Act?

Great efforts have made by "whistle nuts" like Michelle Bachmann, to begin the repeal process of The ACA, weeeeeeeeeee!. In fact the repeal of The ACA has been voted on more than 30 times, with no success. All those failed votes were a GOP effort to waste more of our time and money.

The GOP is fracturing at the seams, the very expensive post mortem of the GOP has been completed, with less than admirable results. The list of needed changes is lengthy. BTW, most any Democrat could have told you on the cheap what changes were needed.

In short, The ACA is the law of the land. Thank you.



Lib in Cobb
|
April 03, 2013
@CobbGuy: The private sector will not develop a health plan for all because they like things as they are. The profit margins to insurance companies are too great for them to work toward any plan which would eat into those margins. Insurance companies are not interested in providing product to those in need.
CobbCoGuy
|
April 02, 2013
@Lib

You and I want the same thing - access to healthcare for all. It's the implementation and delivery where we part.

If I may speak on your behalf, you feel the Gubmint should deliver; I believe the private sector is better suited.

We need Gubmint meat inspectors, bank examiners and air traffic controllers. No argument.

My beef is when the Gubmint gets into the business of providing a service - the post office, Amtrak, Medicare. It just isn't very good at it.

But, you say, we tried free market healthcare and it didn't work.

No, we didn't. It wasn't a free market - 3rd party payer, mandated coverages and restrictions on competition (the selling across state lines thing).

What say you?
Lib in Cobb
|
April 02, 2013
@Cobb Guy: You have referred to the Affordable Care Act as an abomination. Is it also an abomination that thousands of people die each year because they lack coverage.
CobbCoGuy
|
April 01, 2013
New York Times, Robert Pear, April 1, 2013

The title:

Choice of Plans Under Health Law Delayed for Small Firms

First paragraph:

Unable to meet tight deadlines in the new health care law, the Obama administration is delaying parts of a program intended to provide affordable health insurance to small businesses and their employees — a major selling point for the health care legislation.

And further down in the article:

Insurers said that the administration was partly responsible for the delay because it did not provide detailed guidance or final rules for the small-business exchange until last month.

And now I'm "speaking" again:

Passing grandiose laws is one thing. Writing the regulations for said laws is another. You know what they say - The devil's in the details. Look, even tho' the law is out there, regulations are still being written and businesses don't dare make a move until they know what the Gubmint is gonna do. Ergo, business doesn't hire. Business doesn't invest. Business is paralyzed. But, this abomination is unraveling.
CobbCoGuy
|
April 01, 2013
Well, folks, our progressive friends have been havin' a swell time since the election poking fun at our GOP woes. Yup, they do have a point; some retooling is in order (or, should I say reloading).

But, dear readers, all is not well in Progressive Land. You see, they have divisions and problems as well. For example...

Keystone Pipeline - the unions want it, but the enviro-extremists believe fossil fuel will bring Armageddon.

Gun Control - we know how they feel about this, but The Stormin' Mormon Harry Reid didn't schedule a vote. Whassup wit dat, Harry?

Obamacare - unintended surprises continue to pile up. Remember - only the "good" things have thus far been implemented. The bill is coming due soon and it ain't gonna be pretty.

The "Blue Model" is breaking down; more and more cities are facing bankruptcy. Thank you, public sector unions.

And, Obama, who loves to rail against the 1%, is living like the 1%. As Joseph Curl wrote, "They won the White House and, by God, they’re going to enjoy their time there, no matter the cost. And who cares what you think, anyway?"

Read Curl's entire piece in the Washington Times.

Keep smilin' my wingnut friends! The 2014 mid-terms are gonna be a blast!
Lib in Cobb
|
April 01, 2013
@CobbGuy: Worth every dime, just to watch the winger heads explode. Enjoy the law of the land.

It seems that you are OK with thousands dying each year because they have very limited access to healthcare. It seems that you are OK with this nation having been the only industrialized nation on earth without healthcare for all.

Please don't wonder any longer why the GOP lost in the last two presidential elections.

CobbCoGuy
|
March 28, 2013
Oh, I forgot to mention that Obama will not be in a position to blame this on Bush. He owns it lock, stock and barrel.
CobbCoGuy
|
March 28, 2013
The Unaffordable Care Act (UCA) aka Obamacare.

There is quite a bit of recent reporting about unexpected costs, unintended consequences, and other various and sundry problems. For each dilemma, the Left has a rebuttal.

Fair enough.

But, one area that has not received as much detailed coverage is the implementation of UCA, specifically, the IT requirements.

Are there any readers out there in the IT field? If so, please search for, and provide comment on, Michael Barone's recent columns:

March 18 - "Implementing Obamacare? Impossible Endeavor", and

March 20 - "More on the Obamacare IT Nightmare."

I think when UCA really hits next year (well, if it even gets off the ground), it will lead to another shellacking in the 2014 mid-terms.
Kevin Foley
|
March 28, 2013
Conservative 2 - Bless your heart! DOMA is in the SCOTUS right now and most likely will be overturned as unconstitutional.

You're a conservative. You're all about liberty, right? Good. Americans should be able to marry who they want without the government morality police telling them what to do.

Obamacare has been ruled constitutional by SCOTUS. Law of the land.

Conservative 2
|
March 27, 2013
Interesting how you fondly remind people that Obamacare is the "law of the land" yet can't seem to remember that fact when it comes to other laws such as the Defense of Marriage Act the Obama Administration refuses to enforce. Like most liberals, you pick and choose the laws you want to support.
Lib in Cobb
|
March 26, 2013
Well said Kevin. Thank you.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides