Galt's Gulch

FLOTUS strikes again-her radical past at Princeton

Posted by Non_mooching_artist 11 years, 5 months ago to News
21 comments | Share | Flag

Read the comments. One is posted by a man whose father was a professor there. He is Jewish. This is pertinent to the article.
SOURCE URL: http://patriotupdate.com/2013/10/michelle-obama-cgi-federal-executive-belonged-student-group-princeton-hosted-pro-terrorist-speaker/

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 5 months ago
    This should be two articles, one about Michelle Obama's ties to radicals and another about the contract process. The contract thing could be a scandal or could not be. Most business to my wife and me comes from people we know. We'd rather work with venders who we know personally. When it's the gov't spending, obviously they need to be watched closely.

    The part about "terrorism" is problematic. The word "terrorism" has almost no meaning, so they need to talk about specific crimes and what Michelle Obama did in connection with all this. It has the appearance of someone digging up any negative association to attack her for political reasons.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by khalling 11 years, 5 months ago
      good points. they said the firm received the the ability to fast track the contract process (which is in and of itself not competitive) before Obama was President. The crony part happens after. You place your operative high up in a firm you already know will get the contract. the crony part stinks, but the ineptitude of simple due diligence on how a firm performs-that's what is striking to me. If you really wanted Obamacare to roll out looking smart and fit, thereby duping millions into actually liking it they had to sign up, you'd make sure the companies responsible had decent performance records. Instead, you have millions dubious, frustrated, angry-your own supporters even. this whole thing is either a hollow shell or a massive feint. you know, pass around the wealth to all your friends quick as possible before we all crash and burn.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 5 months ago
        Most people going to the website are people not happy with their current health insurance / healthcare. People who were happy before, like me, never gave it a second thought. (My premiums are going up, but I have no reason to go to the website.) PPACA critics say the website quality is a huge issue. If they had their way, though, there'd be no website. People who feel they need the website will be happy with a crappy gov't website vs. no website.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by khalling 11 years, 5 months ago
          where are your facts on that one? I was under the impression, millions have lost coverage based due to thresholds Obamacare puts into place for plans, leaving them little choice, or those whose employers dropped, or those like me who are forced to have Obamacare even though I live outside the country. Millions will be paying more, not keeping their current desired plan or forced to have double insurance or pay a penalty. Surely you can at least agree there have been MAJOR unintended consequences to this forced purchase. Consumer Reports advises people NOT to sign up citing security issues with patients' most sensitive information-health issues be damned! we are talking SS#s, dates of birth, etc. due to password un protections. I will allow that there also those who willingly want to sign up- but how do we know what percentage those are? and even if they willingly sign up, the only ones who are seeing decreases in premiums are those with significant health concerns. everyone is seeing increases for like coverage if they want catastrophic coverage-which is the whole point of insurance in the first place!
          before, adding in coverages with free annual exams, reduced prescription costs, were offered by the discretion of one's employer wanting to give an employee a BENEFIT not a need. now we live in a world where everything is a need and a right. insane
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 5 months ago
            Insurance contracts are required to have more benefits and no underwriting, which will make my insurance increase almost 50% from what it was before the required benefits phased in. I don't enjoy that, but I'm confused how this state of affairs inspires people to go on a gov't website.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by Rocky_Road 11 years, 5 months ago
          Read this, if you dare:

          Docs resisting ObamaCare
          http://nypost.com/2013/10/29/docs-resist...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 5 months ago
            I agree. I would never pay for medicine through a "plan". We have always (really since our first kid was born b/c we didn't use much medicine before that) told our providers not be limited by what our plan would cover. We almost never hit the deductible anyway, so it was a moot point.

            This is only an issue for people with no money. They'll have trouble affording things no matter what "system" is in place. When I was broke 20 years ago, I would have been happy w/ whatever crappy charity was available. I don't get why people are so indignant that an effort to provide healthcare to the poor, outside of having them present at the ER, isn't that great.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by Rocky_Road 11 years, 5 months ago
              Medicaid addresses the "poor" that you are concerned about. This program could have been expanded without socializing the entire industry.

              Obamacare was never about helping the poor....
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                -
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 5 months ago
                I made that point about Medicaid to my Congresswoman when they were still working on PPACA.

                They didn't socialize the entire industry, but they did socialize the ways we're allowed to insure against sickness-- in other words we sort of eliminated medical "insurance" b/c you can't call it insurance if it protects against things that already happened. This is something I think we were going to have to do anyway to insure against non-accident sicknesses as genetic testing gets more predictive.

                I am confident my Congresswoman, who was involved in earlier healthcare initiatives and on the periphery of PPACA, was entirely focused on helping the middle class and poor with PPACA. I suspect that was true for most people. It was not a power grab. They had to sell it as a program to help the middle-class manage their lives, which is a very corrosive attitude. The cost of people turning a segment of their lives over to someone else is huge and hard to calculate.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  -
                • Posted by Rocky_Road 11 years, 5 months ago
                  How do you justify the fact that it is the middle class that is getting hit the hardest?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 5 months ago
                    I reject the premise. The middle class is getting a fix for real existing problems AND a promise that someone else will manage this aspect of their lives. The problem fix is good, but the idea of turning over a big chunk of your family budget to the gov't is awful. Many people are sold on "this is pain; let us manage it for you." That's bad, but they're not getting hit since they can still manage their own healthcare spending if they want to.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                -
              • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 11 years, 5 months ago
                Correct. It's about wealth distribution with a nicer name. It's a way way for the IRS to get more of our money. If its not, then why are they involved in the first place? It's unfettered bureaucratic money grabbing. A way to track people's money, and an insidious way to to track firearms. Docs are required to ask if there are any in your household under this debacle.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 11 years, 5 months ago
      Yes, I agree that it was disjointed. The funneling of such a huge contract to a personal contact, without ANY bidding is unacceptable use of my money. I, too receive business from recommendations, but I am not publicly funded.
      Maybe "terrifying" would have been a more appropriate word, but the demeaning, threatening behavior cannot be excused, as it eventually devolves into terror, as has been shown perpetually throughout history. Mao, and the Cultural Revolution, which was just a systematic erasing of history and art. Fascism. It all stems from using fear as a weapon. Terrorism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 5 months ago
        I agree on gov't contracts.

        Regarding terror, terror is a feeling. If "terrorism" just means using fear as a weapon, all warfare is terrorism. This goes back to the Art of War and is true today. You need to make the enemy not know what's coming next and be freaked out. To me terrorism is a meaningless word.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo