90 Accomplishments of Pres. Obama Which The Media Fails to Report....

How so? Really?????? Did he sit & read while the country was attacked instead of calling in the military? Did he sit by while New Orleans residents stood on their roof tops for a week, eventhough he was warned of the storm in advance? NO, because you've got him confused w/the old guy.

FYI: When all you have are insults in place of fact, you've lost the arguement.

I believe you meant to say "fly by" while New Orleans residents stood on their roof tops. :)

I could have said that or partied w/Mccain for his 109th birthday.

a. do you really think that when the country is attacked that the military is actually waiting for the president to tell them what to do before they do anything?

b. if Bush was warned of the storm in advance, why werent the people of New O warned.... oh thats right, they were...but they chose not to leave even though they were told to, but that im sure is bush's fault also.

c. the only thing that is happening that is difficult to deal with right now is unemployment, and obama has handled that by creating trillions of dollars of debt with China.

d. if you spend your entire life excusing this (or any other administration) based on the failures of the previous it will never get better.

Obama is most certainly NOT the only president who created "trillions of dollars of debt" with China. If you accuse one administration and give the previous ones a pass, that makes you a hypocrite, and also does nothing to make it better.

while America burns

You mean while America burns because of the Bush regime. Complete sentences please.

Please tell me, at what point does all the Pres. Bush blaming stop?

fiery one.... he is the only one who did so in less than 200 days in office. also, pleae read the entire post. you will see that your comment is nearly a plagerized version of my D.

Please tell me, at what point does all the Pres. Bush blaming stop?

Prophat: Ah....that would be never. Obama is even trying to blame Bush for Holder's (wink wink) decision to try war criminals in civilian courts.

California Militia, I put what I took directly from your post in quotes. :-)

Did he sit & read while the country was attacked instead of calling in the military? Did he sit by while New Orleans residents stood on their roof tops for a week, eventhough he was warned of the storm in advance? No, because you've got him confused w/the old guy.

You forgot date night in N.Y. and Valentines Day in Chicago and signing the spendulas bill in Denver, and the show with Jay Leno and the trip to Denmark, so on and so forth. Oops, my bad. That was Obama. Never mind.

Prophat-

It will never stop. Sorry but he's the worst president we've ever had.

leafydebater...

not to seem obtuse, but you cannot say he is the worst president ever. It annoys me to no end when people do that "ever" thing.

He hasnt even been president for half a term and you call him the worse ever.

So then what would do you know of other presidents. what would be your opinion of Jackson marching the Cherokee to their deaths... What did Jackson do that no other president has done... and by the way, he did something very very impressive... I mean other than killing indians by the tens of thousands....

People seem to lack the understanding that major changes take TIME to happen. This economy was never going to get back on its feet within a year, anyone that thought otherwise is quite naive. How long did it take to recover from the great depression? True this wasn't quite as bad, but it is still going to take time.

That said, I am not defending Obama, or Bush, or any of the politicians that have held that seat in the White House. This country's political system has become entirely too focused on just plain opposing whatever the other side's views are. We need our 'leaders' to quit acting like little children and actually LOOK at a bills merrits and pass it based on the amount of good it could do for the country. Not pass it because 'well its definitely a democratic/republican bill, so I support/oppose it because that will get me votes!'

Brokin,

I agree 100% with your second paragraph. The first paragraph I would agree with if it wasn't related to this story.

Sure, it will take time to recover the economy... but until you fix the economy, you can't claim that you accomplished it just because you announced an intention to do so and threw some money at the problem. This whole article is about listing accomplishments, when very few things on the list have actually been accomplished. If the author had said "here is a list of things Obama has done or has said he wants to do..." that would be different. As is though, the entire column is just a bunch of crap.

My beef is mainly with the KOS though and not your remarks. I have a feeling we probably see eye to eye on things here.

Patriotic American - I'll agree with you on that, (should have written that first paragraph a lil more clearly), this list does not include many accomplishments and is extremely biased. You know the saying: The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Applies perfectly to this list. HOPEFULLY I am wrong and Obama will manage to turn this economy around. Even though I don't agree with many things he is after, I always want to see our country doing well, regardless of which party is at the helm.

But yes, only time will tell if this list will actually hold merit in the future, but right now its just hopes and dreams.

People seem to lack the understanding that major changes take TIME to happen. This economy was never going to get back on its feet within a year, anyone that thought otherwise is quite naive. How long did it take to recover from the great depression? True this wasn't quite as bad, but it is still going to take time. ---

Yes change does take time. I personally don't think anything will change, for the better imho. And i don't think Obama's spending policies are going to get us out of it. It didn't help or work when Bush spent us into Oblivion and It's not going to work when Obama does it. This economy most likely will not recover much, if at all, for the rest of Obama's term, but then again, what do i know, I'm only using common sense. And as far as the great depression goes: there are plenty of reasons it happened, but it also was prolonged wayy longer than it should have lasted. "Don't let a good crisis go to waste!" ring a bell?

That said, I am not defending Obama, or Bush, or any of the politicians that have held that seat in the White House. This country's political system has become entirely too focused on just plain opposing whatever the other side's views are. We need our 'leaders' to quit acting like little children and actually LOOK at a bills merrits and pass it based on the amount of good it could do for the country. Not pass it because 'well its definitely a democratic/republican bill, so I support/oppose it because that will get me votes!' ---

Very well said my friend, you seem to be a voice of reason. It is very true, the game of politics is what has ruined Washington. Goood point.

California Militia

I would like to know what Jackson did. I just read about him on whitehouse.gov and did not find anything that spectacular other than he wanted to ban the electoral college but was not succesful.

He was the first president to pay off all of the nations debt. Never before and never since has this ever been done.

it didnt last long, and the numbers were much smaller back then but I believe he is the only President in history who can claim this.

I hope he gives you nightmares.

sorry bout your luck - no nightmares here.

sorry bout your luck - no nightmares here.

Exactly! So sit back & enjoy the next 7+ years!

rank . . I think him and his handlers will give a LOT of americans nightmares in the next few years. . . . you could be just one of them. . . . . be careful what you wish for . . .

too bad Bush & Cheney didn't have handlers, Bush could have used a leash so he couldn't piss all over us & Cheney still needs muzzel to keep from groweling.

BO,Biden,Bush,Cheney=4 failures nuttin to argue bout now.

your missing the point. . . you don't think they didn't have the same handlers? . . . wow. your pretty naive

What does any of this have to do with the list of 90 "Accomplishments"? Nothing. Quit deflecting and blaming Pres. Bush.

What does any of this have to do with the list of 90 "Accomplishments"?

Exactly, so you are welcome to discredit them all. Balls in your court guys.

Im at work so i cant take em all, but here is my take on the top 10 (Dont know if the top ten are supposed to be the biggest accomplishments or not).

1.Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending. Not an accomplishment until something actually comes of it. What happens when the study is done will determine if anything was accomplished. What if they come up with nothing, will you call this a failure.

1. Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices. When the review is done, what will have been accomplished. Only the review, which in itself really isnt an accomplishment. Its when the wasterul spending stops......

1. Instituted enforcement for equal pay for women. This was on the books already. Not sure how much credit he gets for this.

1. Beginning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. I will give him this one. This is being done, weather or not they are coming home, they are leaving Iraq.

1. Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB. If this is true I give this an A+. Our military and their families do not get enough support from the rest of us considering what they do for us all.

1. Ended media blackout on war casualties; reporting full information. I would call this an accomplishment, but its not much really. No real benefit to anyone.

1. Ended media blackout on covering the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB; the media is now permitted to do so pending adherence to respectful rules and approval of fallen soldier's family. If they need the families permission, then he didnt end the blackout, he just shifted the responsibility of it to citizens.

1. The White House and federal government are respecting the Freedom of Information Act. since when is respecting something an accomplishment.

1. Instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible. instructing someone to do something is not an accomplishment, its giving direction. since we have just recently seen that the transparency of the stimulus package money site was filled with errors, cant really say this has been accomplished, but is at least a work in progress.

1. Limits on lobbyist's access to the White House. This is nothing. Increased limits, decreased limits... dont get how this is an accomplishment. I would rank this with the lifting of the blackout. What is the benefit to this accomplishment.

California Militia

Beginning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. I will give him this one. This is being done, weather or not they are coming home, they are leaving Iraq.

I agree with most of what you've said, but just an FYI, read up on the Status of Forces agreement with Iraq. I'll use Wiki as my initial reference, but give a link to the actual agreement if anyone should care to read. Obama is taking credit for the withdrawal from Iraq, but it is BULLSH**.

The U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: "Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq") is a status of forces agreement (SOFA) approved by the Iraqi government in late 2008 between Iraq and the United States. It establishes that U.S. combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011, subject to possible further negotiations which could delay withdrawal and a referendum scheduled for mid-2009 in Iraq which may require U.S. forces to completely leave by the middle of 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

To those who actually care to read the ACTUAL document that is signed in NOVEMBER 2008 (three months before Obama took office)

https://www.mnf-iraq.com/images/CGs_Messages/security_agreement.pdf

Otherwise I agree with everything you've said. This misconception is just a case of the media keeping it hush-hush until Obama took office, and then exploding with it so it seems like HE was the one who arranged it.

I didn't know that.... so he has done even less....

Isn't there some kind of law against for taking credit for someone else's work?

I didn't know that.... so he has done even less....

Isn't there some kind of law against for taking credit for someone else's work?

Probably not in the political spectrum of things.

There actually was an article somewhere about six months ago (I've tried finding it again, and haven't been able to, I'll look some more) that talked about how Obama tried keeping the SoF agreement under wraps, and even tried convincing the Iraqi government to NOT sign it in the first place, so they could sign it once he got into office. That didn't happen, so the media kept it under wraps completely.

I'm actually going to write an article on here about it, probably either this evening or tomorrow. I have seen thousands of people try to credit Obama for the Iraq withdrawal and timeline, but he had nothing to do with it.

So sit back & enjoy the next 7+ years!

Talk about a nightmare.

California militia, I think you mean plagirism, and that is taking someones work and presenting it as your original idea. But, I see people crediting Obama for the withdrawal, not him saying he signed the agreement, therefore, he is doing nothing wrong.

Exactly! So sit back & enjoy the next 7+ years!

LOL

Obama is one term. he is the one who should be expecting change the next election

not him saying he signed the agreement, therefore, he is doing nothing wrong.

So when he publicly told the Marines at Camp Lejeune that he was bringing them out of Iraq, he wasn't taking ownership for it?

http://www.rferl.org/Content/Analysts_Obama_Iraq_Timeline/1505368.html

Given the wild fluctuations in violence of the past six years, can Obama expect to be able to stick to his timeline?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29371588/

CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. - Even as President Barack Obama on Friday promised to end the combat mission in Iraq in 18 months,

six weeks in office, Obama drew a finish line for the Iraq war, setting a date for the end of the combat mission and vowing to follow that by pulling all troops out by the end of 2011 as per an existing accord with Iraq.

This is the ONLY place I have ever seen him (or others such as the websites that list his promises kept and accomplishments done) taking credit for the act (he drew a finish line for the war, and HE set the date? Nope, sorry that was already done.....) and while downplaying it, actually admitted that it was already in existance.

So yes, it is the case of him virtually taking ownership....or at least trying to enough to where people think it WAS his.

I had actually heard about this either before or while the election was going on. I totally remember this. I'm pretty sure Fox is the one that even reported it what do you know. But it don't matter most people believe what they want to believe.

Is there such a thing as a true NEWS agency these days? Or has every last news provider become biased to the left and right?

Right on the money, Brokin. We're in an era of Yellow Journalism the likes of which would make W.R.Hearst proud. Very few people trust that the media is objective and non-partisan anymore. There is nothing that could personally persuade me to believe that MSNBC, CNN, ABC etc. are not just media arms of the DNC, and drooling obama disciples. The divide between left and right is so severe that I cannot imagine compromise or reconciliation anytime soon. It's a downward spiral. Each side keeps moving further from the middle. I don't think the left fully understands the level of resentment and intensity of disgust that we feel for their having given us an obama. So naturally, the right now feels and urgent desire for retaliation, and is very motivated to deliver 'payback'. It's only gonna get uglier.

Is there such a thing as a true NEWS agency these days? Or has every last news provider become biased to the left and right? ---

Umm not really, it's almost impossible to find a news agency without bias. I mean except like local news.
And yeah mostly every provider is either left or right, you have it right.

Right on the money, Brokin. We're in an era of Yellow Journalism the likes of which would make W.R.Hearst proud. Very few people trust that the media is objective and non-partisan anymore. There is nothing that could personally persuade me to believe that MSNBC, CNN, ABC etc. are not just media arms of the DNC, and drooling obama disciples. The divide between left and right is so severe that I cannot imagine compromise or reconciliation anytime soon. It's a downward spiral. Each side keeps moving further from the middle. I don't think the left fully understands the level of resentment and intensity of disgust that we feel for their having given us an obama. So naturally, the right now feels and urgent desire for retaliation, and is very motivated to deliver 'payback'. It's only gonna get uglier.

Yes, that's why i like to watch both sides spin, if i even watch tv for news anyways, (which i rarely do). It's like being a jury hearing both sides of a story and making an informed opinion and judgement. You make a good point too.

it's almost impossible to find a news agency without bias

If you think about it, who OWNS the news agencies?

News stations such as MSNBC, CNN, etc are all operated as entertainment, not true unfiltered news. They churn a profit just like the next business.

to independantandproud.

actually, its plagiarism. its one thing to spell a word wrong, its totally another to spell it wrong when correcting someone.

LOL...

Sorry if I dont have impeccable spelling. I dont try hard on forums/blogs like Newsvine.

And I wasnt correcting you, you asked if it was against the law to take credit for someone elses work, so I said yes, its called plagiarism. Sheesh, lighten up.

independant.... it was my bad.... for some reason when I read your post i thought you were trying to correct me. I just thought it was funny to correct someone with a mistake. but since that isnt what happened, its not quite as funny

we all make spelling errors.

sorry for the attack on your intelligence.

the fact that a post that says nice find gets 21 votes just shows what kind of sheep people are...

LOL at another failure.

awww your just jealous. :-)

i voted for you for that one....

Thanks! I've given you one too.

careful, i will try to add you to my friends list.....

ohhhh nooo, can't have a friend with a different point of view. Request sent.

Christ...get a room, you two.

Christ...get a room, you two.

Right or wrong, that caused a major belly laugh!

Funny Walt!

So if you dispute them, please source why...hurry up, there are 90 for you to disprove.

Read my comments in #1.7 and zanilths in #17

Saw it. $ or 5 listed of which I do not fully agree (health care arguement laughable), 86 to go...waiting.

this whole thing has to be a joke seeding. Accomplishments? rising unemployment, stimulus that counts 6 million jobs that when reality is used to look at them shows it probably is 10% of that, cozying up to america's enemies like Hugo Chavez but complaining when Honduras tries to prevent totalitarian takeover and showing fear of Iranian mullahs when citizens demonstrate against lack of freedom. Quite a list

It's a sad state of affairs when someone feels the need to publish a list of so-called "accomplishments" to defend themselves or their party from the liberal main stream media!

Or maybe (here's a shocker) the mainstream liberal media isn't as radically liberal as Rush keeps telling you. They went after Bush pretty hard, but they also covered quite a few negative stories about Clinton (whitewater, Flowers, Lewinsky, Paula Jones, coffeegate, chinagate, etc) and Carter (food for oil, Bert Lance, Billygate, Andrew Young and the PLO). Most of the media (except FOX and conservative talk radio) tends to be critical of the sitting government... whoever it is.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly et all (Yeah, the media is REALLY liberal) used the fact that the non-hardcore-conservative media was always attacking the GOP presidency as their proof of a liberal bias. Maybe they weren't questioning the GOP as much as they were questioning the presidency, which just happened to be Republican for nearly the last decade.

Now that the honeymoon is over with the new administration, the media returns to being critical of the presidency... just like they've done for the last 30 years or more (my first-hand memory of following news only goes back that far). Instead of ceding the fact though that non-partisan media will question Obama just like it did Bush, conservative lemmings will say that Obama is soooooo radical that even the radically liberal media can't hide what a lousy president he is.

Presidents (and popular candidates) usually do have a few months of "honeymoon" time with the media before the dogs are let loose. Bush just didn't get that concession because of the way he came into power (losing the election but still taking the presidency). The honeymoon is just over with Obama is all and now he is starting to have to answer some tougher questions.

BTW, before you peg me as another liberal nut-job who blindly follows Obama... I voted for McCain and still stand by my decision that he would have made a better Pres.

The fact that the GOP had been the sitting White House for nearly a decade

Then start laughing.

we already are haha

Again, if you dispute them, please source why...hurry up, there are 90 for you to disprove.

Burden of proof is yours...

Burden of proof is on the writer who has no proof at all, no links to success and for all anyone knows, pulled it straight out of his a$$. You could write this exact same article about Nixon, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, etc... there is no proof any of these items are done, not even one. The burden of proof by most on newsvine has always been left to the authors not to the non believers. Global warming is prime example, anytime some author has a link showing no man made global warming, it has always been their burden to back it up or get torn down. Same here. Anyone can write an article but there is no proof ANYTHING is true. Just provide the links to any truth and we can believe. Just sayin.....

SH you have like five comments on here saying the exact same thing.

And those five comments have tons of votes! That should tell you something about most of the readers of this thread!

Oh it does, that pointless comments are what these guys have.

Since when did we accept the KOS as an objective news outlet?

Since the seeder of this article has posted many items from KOS, and their vine domain is objectivity.newsvine.com, they apparently believe that KOS and that he is objective!

That's nice huh!

When will the liberals learn that thinking about a "thing" and doing a "thing" are two different "things"?

They won't they ALL praised Pres. Obama for his eloquent speaking abilities and at the same there was nothing in his Senate record to really praise him for, other than being consistently late for meetings and his "present" vote!

And Fox is like the freaking bible......spare me.

btco, I didn't say anything about Fox. What's with you?

btco, I didn't say anything about Fox either.

Dispute the list if you will, but burden of proof is yours...get going you have 90....

You are obviously racist cromagnnman! It's not possibile to disagree with Pres. Obama's policies - he is after all, the Messaih - you just don't like him because he is black!

(I hope I layed the sarcasm on thick enough!)

I am SOOOOO Happy with Barrack's efforts on illegal immigration reform!!!!! If we make them all legal, they won't be illegal anymore! Why didn't I think of that?????????

because president Reagan thought of it before you?

Come on greck, the wheels are falling off the wagon and you know it. Nobody even bothers standing up for Obama's policies anymore. All the left has in the tank is:

• But Bush.....
• But Palin......
• But Reagan......

When someone rationalizes Obama's decisions, then I'll listen.

Come on greck, the wheels are falling off the wagon and you know it.

I'll agree it was nice to hope for a while there, but we all knew that we were headed to this exact point one year ago. We elected president Obama knowing the crap storm that was coming our way because we understand the importance of keeping a positive outlook during tough times; and we knew that we'd been buying good times on credit for the last few decades.

There's nobody who could remain popular during times like these and frankly I'm pretty impressed that he's as popular as he is still.

My criticism of President Obama is that he hasn't been more aggressively liberal. This upcoming jobs bill needed to be done six months ago and needed to be VERY liberal, will uptick his popularity; but I also see how he's sacrificed some (alot of) popularity to get healthcare reform passed. The thing republicans know is that if something like single-payer healthcare was ever passed, it would become sacred, people would love it. THAT'S why reform is being fought tooth-and-nail (republicans are scaring seniors by telling them that reform will cut MEDICARE for gawd's sake, Medicare, that thing that President Reagan said would bring about the downfall of our society! Republicans HATE medicare and would do away with it altogether if they could)

Anyway, none of this should come as a surprise to anyone. We knew where we were headed and we need to remember why we made the decision we did regarding who should capitain the ship. I believe we will, because I really really don't think there's anyone out there who would have been or could be better than our current president.

and do you honestly think that Mr. all-capitals and million question marks up there deserved any better analysis than I gave him?

The thing republicans know is that if something like single-payer healthcare was ever passed, it would become sacred, people would love it.

I wonder what people in Massachusetts or Eurpope think of their health care? Oh yeah, that's right, most of them hate it!

Really? Please provide a source. You are polite & respectful & I like that but your claims are just claims...you can't debate without facts, please provide some.

Oh yeah, that's right, most of them hate it!

you should have no difficulty providing proof of that if it's as prevalent as you say.

I've just never heard that there's any movement to emulate our system in any country out there.

so anyway, proof would be nice.

Canadians Back ‘Public Solutions' to Improve Care,

Poll Finds “Canadians have told us they want to keep our health-care system public and to improve it with made-in-Canada solutions. They also have told us they flat-out reject Dr. Ouellet's proposal to provide us with American-style two-tier medicine,” he said.

SH-2000 -

I don't remember bringing Canada into any of this.

Here are some specific examples the failures of the NHS across multiple medical disciplines of patients using the Brittish NHS.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-nhs-failures-425056.html

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/161650.php

http://www.hsj.co.uk/mental-health/distressing-failures-in-nhs-care-for-people-with-learning-disabilities/2007502.article

http://www.nowpublic.com/health/mental-health-nhs-homicide-report-shows-devastating-failures

http://www.expressandstar.com/2008/07/03/sad-tales-of-nhs-failure/

And here where the NHS actually defends providing private care for NHS employees. (Sound familiar?)

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/10/20/want-private-health-care-work

In Europe here are some interesting points for you regarding their socialist health care (which in some cases is turning to the private sector to provide).

Americans will probably be surprised to learn from the remarks that follow that Switzerland's health care system relies almost entirely on a system of private insurance. They might be surprised to learn that there is a growing reliance on the private sector in the financing and delivery of health care in Europe, particularly in the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden. Even the Labor government in Britain has entered into an agreement with representatives of the private health care industry to improve health care delivery in certain vital areas.

Reforms in Europe, where they are diligently pursued, have taken on a certain urgency. A major factor affecting recent health care policy making in Europe, including privatization efforts, is the rapid aging of the European population. Continental Europe is comprised largely of countries that have rapidly aging populations. Although life expectancy has increased, fertility rates have decreased, and much of Europe faces demographic stagnation. This unfavorable ratio of old to young persons is far worse in major European nations than in either Canada or the United States.

Some Lessons
For Members of Congress and state legislators, there are some valuable lessons from the European experience that should be less surprising.

• If you insist on government management of the health care system, do not expect freedom from waste, inefficiency, or inequity in the delivery of care (look at France).
• If you want to promise citizens a national or state program of universal insurance coverage, don't expect that you will be able to deliver universal access to high-quality health care. You won't and you can't (look at Britain).
• If you want to fix prices for medical services, prescription drugs, or other medical devices, don't expect demand for these goods and services to be met or investment in research and development to continue apace. It won't (look anywhere).
• If you insist, with a straight face, that in a government-run health care system, all of your fellow citizens will be treated equally--regardless of their class, station in life, or disease condition--you are not merely enthusiastic or well intentioned. You are lying.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/HL711.cfm

In Britain, France, Switzerland and elsewhere, public health systems have become political punching bags for opposition parties, costs have skyrocketed and in some cases, patients have needlessly suffered and died.

Critics fear Obama's reforms will lead to more government control over health care and cite problems faced by European health systems as examples of what not to do.

Other experts say Americans could learn from countries like Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland, especially in the debate on how to reorganize health insurance.

More serious problems in Britain's health care were reported last month, when cancer researchers announced that as many as 15,000 people over age 75 were dying prematurely from cancer every year. Experts said those deaths could have been avoided if those patients had been diagnosed and treated earlier.

"There is nothing inherently different about cancer in the U.S. and Britain to explain why more people are dying here," said Dr. Karol Sikora, of Cancer Partners UK.

A World Health Organization survey in 2000 found that France had the world's best health system. But that has come at a high price; health budgets have been in the red since 1988.

In 1996, France introduced targets for health insurance spending. But a decade later, the deficit had doubled to 49 billion euros ($69 billion).

"I would warn Americans that once the government gets its nose into health care, it's hard to stop the dangerous effects later," said Valentin Petkantchin, of the Institut Economique Molinari in France. He said many private providers have been pushed out, forcing a dependence on an overstretched public system.

Similar scenarios have been unfolding in the Netherlands and Switzerland, where everyone must buy health insurance.

"The minute you make health insurance mandatory, people start overusing it," said Dr. Alphonse Crespo, an orthopedic surgeon and research director at Switzerland's Institut Constant de Rebecque. "If I have a cold, I might go see a doctor because I am already paying a health insurance premium."

Cost-cutting has also hit Switzerland. The numbers of beds have dropped, hospitals have merged, and specialist care has become harder to find. A 2007 survey found that in some hospitals in Geneva and Lausanne, the rates of medical mistakes had jumped by up to 40%. Long ranked as having one of the world's top four health systems, Switzerland dropped to 8th place in a Europe-wide survey last year.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-07-05-europe-health_N.htm

My criticism of President Obama is that he hasn't been more aggressively liberal.

Agreed...that's my main complaint with President Obama as well. There are many of us that actively seek a "liberal" or "progressive" agenda and believe that will be the best for the country and the people. I do understand, however, that the President and Congress must work within our government framework, which is unfortunately and necessarily is designed to slow down any change.

did you see the article in yesterday's wall street journal how the German health care system(one of those often held up as an example by dems) is running out of money, going to have to raise costs to citizens, ration care. This is what we will face with the out of control bills coming out of the democatic controlled congress. We will pay more, get less but that is ok because the unions dont have to pay a penalty for their cadillac plans and we are going to stick it to the people that work.

I thought this "reform" was supposed to make insurance affordable and control long term costs. The only way the dems show it not breaking the budget is to have us pay 10 years worth of costs for 7 years worth of benefits. Wonder what they would say if an insurance company gave us that kind of coverage?

German health care system(one of those often held up as an example by dems) is running out of money, going to have to raise costs to citizens, ration care.

so Germans are now gonna have to pay more than we do for health care?

they now spend about 13% of gdp on health care vs our 17% , with the increases being discussed they will be paying more until the health care bills being put forth by congress kick in , then we will pay more than them again.

In the same issue of the Wall St Journal the president of Harvard Medical school states that nothing in the current congressional bills does anything to address either rising health care costs or increase the quality of health care, in fact they do the opposite

Germany's gdp is about 25% of what ours is. Their population is about 27%, all of them insured. they're paying less to insure more people.

The thing republicans know is that if something like single-payer healthcare was ever passed, it would become sacred, people would love it.

The reason the majority of the people are against this(not just republicans) is because this bill would be a sacred mess. We are taxing people for 10 years to provide 7 years worth of service. What happens after that, we suspend national health care for a few years to save up for it and repeat the cycle??? The bill hasn't even been properly scored and the lowball estimate is 849 Billion. Do you remember the numbers quoted for medicare needs? We are saying No because the numbers nor policy add up! We are being sold a bill of goods under wishy washy change and no substantiative policy.

There is nothing evil about their discontent, it is all rooted in common sense. We know this bill is going to increase cost while providing the government with a huge power grab. That pesky constitution that slows change (massive government take-over in liberal terms) is the foundation that allowed THIS GREAT COUNTRY to succeed FAR BEYOND those without its protection.

I remember a few months ago when the Republicans and MANY others opposed the TARP bill and the Stimulus bill. They didn't say NO. They said NO, you are doing it the wrong way. Does Japan ring a bell? Now we (many republicans, democrats, and independents) are saying the same thing - YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG!!!! And all you can talk about is sacred change - whatever that is.

hey Prophat:

I missed the part in any of those articles that says that "most of them hate it"

I see evidence that it's not perfect, but your supposition was that the majority of people in these countries hate their system.

so, again, proof would be nice.

Agreed!

Yeah, that last guy was all wee wee'd up. Not sure on the exact spelling of "wee wee'd".

I'd bet a hundred bucks that Bush didn't get that one

Actually, I think that was Clinton who had the problem with keeping his pants on.

By definition a plan a study . . . is how change begins.

Maybe if Bush had a plan about 9/11 when he was warned it would have stopped it from happening...

Maybe if Pres. Clinton took Osama Bin Laden from Sudan when they offered him up to the US, it would have stopped it from happening...

Maybe if Pres. Clinton took Osama Bin Laden from Sudan when they offered him up to the US, it would have stopped it from happening...

Hey, would one of you republicans tell this guy it's off limits to blame past presidents?

and if newt wasn't accusing him of wagging the dog and impeaching the president for his personal life, something newt was guilty of, maybe he would have.

Maybe if Pres. Clinton took Osama Bin Laden from Sudan when they offered him up to the US, it would have stopped it from happening...

And that excuses Bush how?

If Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld hadn't taught Osama Bin Laden how to fight with US weapons, maybe none of this would have happened.

Rank - if a plan is an accomplishment, the recession is over, we all have free healthcare, the Taliban is defeated, Iran has disarmed, and we all have jobs.

Stay tuned. In fact, print out the list of 90 "accomplishments" and post them on your wall and check off the ideas and dreams as they become accomplishments. I predict the 90 accomplishments listed here today will still be plans on January 19, 2013 as the obama's head out the door.

greck - you apparently didn't read the comment prior to mine?

Maybe if Bush had a plan about 9/11 when he was warned it would have stopped it from happening...

JalJones - the president wasn't impeached for ANYTHING in his personal life, he was impeached for obstruction of justice, perjury and abuse of power, that is if my memory serves correctly.

SH - it doesn't. However, Pres. Bush wouldn't have needed an excuse. Pres. Bush doesn't get off scott-free in my opinion. It was one of the many failures of his presidency.

But it also begs the question, if Pres. Clinton and his Administration knew about the attacks, why didn't they do anything to stop them either?

To the blame solely on Pres. Bush for the 9/11 attacks is disingenous. It's not as if the terrorists said, "Oh now Bush is President, let's fly planes into the WTC and the Pentagon." That was obviously something that had been in the works long before Pres. Bush took office.

((Off topic for a sec, sorry.))

That was obviously something that had been in the works long before Pres. Bush took office.

You know, that just made me think of this on a different spin on the 9/11 stuff. You have people who will argue until they are blue in the face that Bush set up 9/11.

I don't think I've ever heard someone make the point that if that were the case, then he must have been omnipotent. In order for him to know as much detail as went into these things with enough advance notice to get them in place and pull it off less than a year after getting into office? Yeah, thats BS.

Sorry, back on topic now. :)

To the blame solely on Pres. Bush for the 9/11 attacks is disingenous

As is blaming Obama for the debt, two wars and the mess we now face.

I can blame Obama for HIS actions. Can you tell me what his actions have done? They aren't reversing the trend. They are perpetuating and snowballing it. Bad decision after bad decision.

All I have to say is Change and people disarm all reason.

No sources for that again Crom. History of past recessions will show that the economy will not be able to be reversed quickly at all. Bush's bailout and Obama's stimulus plans may have slowed the fall, but there was little they can actually to to save us. When an economy starts to fall, it snowballs. You can't blame Obama for that.

I thought no sources were necessary in this instance. I thought it was common knowledge that the stimulus package was nothing of the sort. It was more like a blank check from the taxpayers. Slowing the fall huh?

Did you see the pork in omnibus? Are you looking at the budget costs for the healthcare proposal? I know it doesn't count b/c it is an unfunded liability. It does not apply to his budget proposals anyhow. Maybe if we increase governments role in every sector, they will run things just like the post office ;) Don't forget the massive draining of taxpayer funds to "non-profit" organizations and unions.

I am still waiting for us to spend our way out of debt. Still waiting...

With policies and legislation like this, a V shaped recovery is lunacy.

Oh yeah, I forgot, being popular is what it is all about!

By the way Bill, did you know his popularity is decreasing, or do you ignore all those polls and news reports too?

Just today on Morning Joe the were saying how amazing the presidents approval ratings were & that was from a consertative...we have two wars & a recession & his numbers are still very good; name one person from the right w/those numbers?

Exactly the poll I was thinking about SH-2000. I also saw that on Morning Joe.

74% of the nation like Barack ...and that number is growing not diminishing ProFat.

It's possible that the repiglicon party could get some traction by refuting his policies, but by attacking the man only the backlash has people leaving the party of "no" in droves.

Why the name calling Bill? Have I disrespected you by calling you names?

74%! I haven't seen ANY poll that gives his approval rating that high!

If that is indeed the case, please explain this.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/presidential-approval-tracker.htm

and this

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.php

and this

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/1014-president-obama%E2%80%99s-approval-rating-at-53loses-more-ground-among-independents/

and this

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html#chart

It's possible that the repiglicon party could get some traction by refuting his policies, but by attacking the man only the backlash has people leaving the party of "no" in droves.

Have I ONCE attacked the man? No, I have refuted his policies like I am doing right now! You are the one that while refuting my claims (by posting a percentage from some radio show) attacked me, the man, not my claim, but me personally!

Your level of discourse and the level of many other "viners" (Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Socialist, Conservative, Independent, Moderate, etc) is appalling.

If ANY of us want to fix the problem. There has to be some level of civility in the discussion. But that just doesn't happen here on the vine, at least not very often.

So I researched the 74% number you threw out. That number is from a Quinnipiac poll taken just one week after Nancy Pelosi pushed the health care bill through Congress and there were 2518 respondents to the poll.

http://247.newsvine.com/_news/2009/11/19/3520542-obamas-popularity-is-higher-than-his-policies-poll-finds

Here are the rest of the numbers from the poll you mentioned.

Only 35% approve of the health care overhaul passed by the House which Pres. Obama has endorsed.

51% disapprove.

Voters disapprove 53-41% of Pres. Obama's handling of health care.

44% said that his endorsement makes NO DIFFERENCE, while only 24% say it makes them view him more favorably and 30% say it makes them view him less favorably.

Where is that 74% number you ask?

74% like Pres. Obama as a PERSON! It's pretty clear that they are disagreeing with his policies, and not attacking the man!

That's definitely not an approval rating as Bill, SH-2000 and Morning Joe suggested!

Talk about EPIC FAILURE!!!!! The same poll they mention proves MY POINT!!!!

according to this one http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/presidential-approval-tracker.htm Obama is about exactly where Reagan was at the same point in his presidency. So maybe it won't turn out so bad after all. Give him a chance.

zanilth,

Nicely done. Stay safe over there.

Yet America has one of the most coveted health care systems in the world...

Please explain that statement to the families of the 45,000 that die here each year from lack of adequate health care.

http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage

And 45,000 is far more lives lost than in two combined wars yearly!

Or why many are going broke because of costs:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/145527.php

Yet America has one of the most coveted health care systems in the world...

I'd love to see you back that statement up. It should be no problem for you to find evidence that many many countries around the world are seeking to emulate our healthcare system. You know, since it is one of the most coveted and all.

There are some accomplishments for sure but most are inaccurate as Zanilth referenced in #17.

One that also stands out is to the effect of working on ME peace. Every president has tried this without success. So far BO has made no progress, in fact, Israel is defying him and Iran spits in his.

Johns Hopkins Children's Center reports that only 17,000 (I say only because that's a far cry from 45,000 per year) children have died because of a lack of insurance over 20 YEARS. And yet somehow we are supposed to believe this 45,000 number? I know it includes more than just children, but how many people died that would have still died if they had health insurance?

http://247.newsvine.com/_news/2009/11/12/3496051-study-lack-of-insurance-may-have-caused-17000-child-deaths-over-20-years-

Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health reports that 250,000 die because of medical errors.

http://247.newsvine.com/_news/2009/11/12/3496041-doctors-kill-250000-per-year

45,000 is small compared to the number of people that die from in-hospital related deaths. 195,000 per year alone.

http://247.newsvine.com/_news/2009/11/13/3497967-in-hospital-deaths-from-medical-errors-at-195000-per-year-healthgrades-study-finds-

Hell a report from the National Academies of Science's Institute of Medicine (IOM) shows that doctor's sloppy handwriting accounts for 7,000 deaths per year and injures more than 1.5 million!

http://247.newsvine.com/_news/2009/11/13/3497964-cause-of-death-sloppy-doctors

Then you have the government that comes out and tells women not to worry about mammograms until you are 50 years old, jumping up from 40 years old! Then under pressure from the American Cancer Society (ACS) and others, the government backs down on that guideline! So you mean to tell me that they didn't consult the ACS prior to making this new guideline? What was their motivation for changing the guideline? It seems pretty obvious doesn't it. It's just a part of their "lowering the cost of health care", simply by rationing it out!

http://247.newsvine.com/_news/2009/11/17/3511295-new-mammogram-advice-raises-concerns

17.2 & .3

And you want to trade what we have for one run by our government.. the same way our governments runs the VA ? or the stimulus? , or the school system?. ROTFLMFHO !!

Instituted enforcement for equal pay for women

"I think that has been around for quite some time. I do remember hearing something about how now a woman can go sue if she can prove she was discriminated against by pay 20 years ago or something. That is spectacular news? Why don't we give every black person here a few hundred thousand dollars because their relatives MIGHT have been slaves a hundred years or more ago."

So I take it you don't think we should be payed equally? I agree, I think women should be paid more especially if you are a mother.

So I take it you don't think we should be payed equally? I agree, I think women should be paid more especially if you are a mother.

Please explain your reasoning.

I find, at least in my experience that women who are mothers take much more time off work, are on the phone more, and do more personal tasks while at work than women that aren't mothers. I'm not going to pay them more, in fact, if it gets out of hand, there employment will be terminated.

Please tell me about your experience in the matter.

Yet America has one of the most coveted health care systems in the world...

Let me reword this, because my wording was off, not my meaning. America has some of the best health care in the world in terms of technology, educated doctors and staff, etc.

I never said people come over here for our health insurance.

While this website states that the numbers don't really mean anything, the fact is that people ARE coming to America for health care to avoid long wait times for treatment, less than pristine medical facilities, state of the art health care, etc. It also states that Americans go elsewhere for medical care as well, and what is the ONLY reason it listed for that? Money. So, Americans will go to where there is cheaper health care, whereas those coming to America for health care are coming for the facilities, treatment, and procedures that they probably can't get anywhere else.

http://healthcare.change.org/blog/view/traveling_for_care_--_outside_the_us

Something else I'd like to point out, this is copied from the above link.

Yet we in the U.S. have a burgeoning industry of our own in medical tourism. As noted on Patients Beyond Borders, a site dedicated to giving you the best travel options, a couple hundred thousand people travel abroad for “dental work, heart surgery, orthopedics, cosmetic surgery, neurosurgery, fertility treatments, LASIK eye repair, and cancer treatments.” Wait a minute – cancer treatments, the linchpin of the “I have X type of cancer – and I’d be dead if I lived anywhere but America” canard? Orthopedics, the famous source of “hip replacement surgery” that apparently yields unbearable wait times anywhere but the U.S.? Why go elsewhere for these medical treatments whose quality and efficiency are as American as apple pie? “The most common factor is that the patient is either uninsured or underinsured.” Ah, there you go.

You can afford to travel to another country for a medical procedure, but can't afford to insure yourself? That is twisted logic, and shows that people would rather pay for something that is needed then, instead of taking care of themselves by having insurance over the long run. So honestly the uninsured/underinsured issue here is more of a case of laziness than a lack of funds and ability to get insurance. I sure as hell couldn't travel elsewhere for any type of medical issues.

http://www.bloglog.org/bericht.php?entryid=1060485671&title=NewsBusters.org/nets+compare+america+to+third+world%2C+shocked+many+come+for+free+health+care+

While what this article is talking about in the first few paragraphs is spectacular (free health care facilities) one of the main reasons we are in the mess we are in now is because those who CAN afford it choose to take advantage of the help that is available for those less fortunate who CANNOT afford it.

http://crushliberalism.com/2007/07/30/canucks-come-to-america-for-health-care/

Cases like this abound, all that is needed to do is search.

So like I said, we have some of the best medical care here. Our insurance and payment system is relatively jacked up, but for MEDICAL CARE, or HEALTH CARE, we have some of the most coveted.

So I take it you don't think we should be payed equally? I agree, I think women should be paid more especially if you are a mother.

I think people should be paid based on their work ethic, skill, abilities, production level, knowledge, and reliability.

I do not think that a white man who is 27 years old, always worked at burger king, has no skills, late for work, has a negative attitude, etc should be paid the same as a 24 year old black female who has a college degree, always on time, excellent work ethics, etc. That goes for any classification of person you'd like to choose. That also borders on hiring laws for minorities and such. No one should get a job or pay based on the color of their skin or whatever swings (or not) between their legs.

Budinski

Yes, I worded it wrong, but you've hit the nail on the head. The reason we have such better technology and such, and our medical care itself is better here is because we have a free health care market. It isn't regulated by the government, so people can compete and grow, constantly finding newer and better.

I'm not saying our entire set up is perfect, but it is better than what they want us to go to.

Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health reports that 250,000 die because of medical errors.

Well, thanks for evidence that tort reform is a bad idea. Since, y'know, the main argument for tort reform is that doctors are spending too much money on tests to prevent mistakes.

I find, at least in my experience that women who are mothers take much more time off work, are on the phone more, and do more personal tasks while at work than women that aren't mothers. I'm not going to pay them more, in fact, if it gets out of hand, there employment will be terminated.

Go ask your wife.

She's not the business owner I am.

My wife stays home with our kids, besides she would probably agree with me!

And I am not the business owner here techinally my husband is, but I get that work & the job of running a home and raising two kids, it's 24-7 for the past 11 years...can't take a day off from that or a coffee break for that matter, if the kids need someone at 3 am they in most cases wake the mother, for example. Worked all my life & raised a family so I can tell you honestly a family is harder. On second thought, don't ask your wife I doubt she will agree fully & I don't want to get you in trouble, lol!

Really? Name one country with better health-care than the US.

Switzerland

How about we name 192 that cost less....
23 countries where people live longer....
36 who ranked better than us overall...

http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_performance_ranks.html

Really? Name one country with better health-care than the US.

Number one I recall is Singapore & even Cuba fairs better:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system#Cross-country_comparisons

Exactly, you cannot name one country with better HEALTH CARE. You cannot compare health care to life expectancy. There are way too many factors that play a role in life expectancy besides the quality of care a person receives. To state otherwise is just disingenous.

Remember, I said better health care, not better life expectancies!

Prohat - All those countries have BETTER health care than we do. ALL OF THEM.

Singapore's heath system can not be used as a comparision to the US for the following reasons:

"Singapore, a city-state with a population of just 4.6 million" Compare that to the 300,000,000 million plus in the United States.

"It may be hard to replicate Singapore’s system in the United States. After all, Singapore has a small, concentrated population, with a “backdrop of political stability, enabling successive governments [all of the same party] to introduce consistent measures relating to individual responsibility, compulsory savings, and regulatory control of healthcare services and costs.”

The people of sinapore are forced to save 20% of their income for heath care plus any additional taxes. source:

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/may-june-magazine-contents/the-singapore-model

And here is one for Cuba's outstanding health care system: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA557_Cuban_Health_Care.html

Contrary to what one hears in political discourse, the bulk of the research comparing the United States and Canada found a higher quality of care in our northern neighbor. Canadians, for example, have longer survival times while undergoing renal dialysis and after a kidney transplant. Of 10 studies comparing the care given to a broad range of patients suffering from a diverse group of ailments, five favored Canada, three yielded mixed results, and only two favored the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/opinion/26wed3.html

http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411947_ushealthcare_quality.pdf

Exactly, you cannot name one country with better HEALTH CARE.

No more can you explain why all other countries in the world are worse, which you would have to do to justify giving the US the #1 spot.

This writer is a total Obama supporter.

Yes, who do you expect to write it Karl Rove? There are 90, please provide 90 sourced facts to debunk.

And if the bumper stickers are gone...hey it's Texas, dosen't speak for the rest of us...I know that I lived there long enough.

SH2000,

You keep telling everyone:

There are 90, please provide 90 sourced facts to debunk

Plenty of Viners have opined to the "List" Try reading their posts. It's obvious that you worship Obama's path but bouncing around this page defending that Obama has initiated or continued an act or action is not being challenged. Wither these "accomplishments are beneficial and true is whats being discussed.

And your idea of women making more than men just because they are moms??? Where you the one at the DNC convention that thought Obama was now going to pay your mortgage and light bill as a trade for your vote?

Wither these "accomplishments are beneficial and true is whats being discussed.

Yes, but 99.9% present of the rebuttals offer no evidence that they are correct & the article is wrong. Debate without facts is just rhetoric; get it now?

And I prove my claim with your nasty baseless comment:

Where you the one at the DNC convention that thought Obama was now going to pay your mortgage and light bill as a trade for your vote?

Source where anyone said that?

Perhaps you might try the primate house next time where flinging BS is welcomed.

Yes, but 99.9% present of the rebuttals offer no evidence that they are correct & the article is wrong. Debate without facts is just rhetoric; get it now?

99.9% Perhaps in yourtunnel vision world. I got an idea, Why don't you in you in your infinite wisdom tell (with proof as you demand of others) us all how this list of accomplishments are indeed complete and of great benefit to the populous as a whole and not just another cyber brave dependant trolling for a fight on the Vine. You might try locking horns with #23 or #17 & #49. Try proving you have intelligence instead of just acting like it by demanding proof from others. Pound your factual brilliance in a text box and prove you are more informed and more intelligent that 99.9% of the others on this topic. YOU prove to us that the list is 100% accurate and of benefit to the majority. Hell the article itself didn't even try to.

Source where anyone said that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI