healthcare as a benefit/privilege?

[metis]

Yes I want to extend medicare. I don't like socialised medicine, but if we are going down that road lets do it right.

I've felt for roughly 50 years now that this is what we should have been doing all along, so you and I very much agree here. If charities alone could handle those without insurance, I'd be all for doing that instead, but we know they can't.

One major benefit of moving in the direction of a single-payer system is that it will help our private sector compete better both internationally and domestically since health-care and legacy costs really do hurt us in the global market.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Does this mean you agree that Obama could've gone against the Bush agendas instead of continuing it?

I think I was clear enough. Many of the programs aren't simply done away with...with the swipe of the Presidential pen (executive order). When he took office there was some revisions, oversight and accountability added to some of these programs....Obviously there could have been more...but much of what we're now finding out went into effect decades before he took office.

Are you trying to claim special cloak & dagger expertise? Perhaps you & my hired
hand
(the retired auto parts salesman who knows of secret fed gov plans) served together, eh?

Nope.....I just know that my level of access to information was far deeper than yours. In light of Snowden a very small fraction of this information has been revealed.

In post #155 you referred to capitol "L" Libertarians, as opposed to the small "l" types.

True... But I never said your party is feckless nor did I say or suggest "your party" is the cause of the dysfunction that currently exist. Your party's ideals resonates with a select few but is hardly in a position to effect public policy.

This is to carp about election games that both sides play.
But is it a tacit admission that Dem leadership is weak?

In comparison to those who would seek to spend billions...sure we're weak in that area. I'm for limiting such large amounts of money when it comes to the political process. Others disagree. The courts have ruled it acceptable to be able to spend like this and there's another court case launched that the SCOTUS will hear that goes further in what corporations can spend. All parties have their strengths and weaknesses....

It seems that you should become dissatisfied with the Big Two also.

I find faults in ALL parties.....but accept that many of my views are liberal.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What makes it so bad is that the ACA isn't necessarily a bad program; it's a solid idea and could be quite effective. But that would require our politicians to actually work together to hammer out solutions and to tweak everything in the right directions.

This is spot on.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think I was clear enough. Many of the programs aren't simply done away with...with the swipe of the Presidential pen. When he took office there was some revisions, oversight and accountability added to some of these programs....Obviously there could have been more...but much of what we're now finding out went into effect decades before he took office.

Clear as mud.
But l don't exculpate Obama for making choices I disagree with.
He chose not to summarily ending the wars or end don't-ask-don't-tell.

Nope.....I just know that my level of access to information was far deeper than yours. In light of Snowden a very small fraction of this information has been revealed.

You presume this, but you don't know it. You're just a guy on the internet talking to another guy on the internet.
Neither of us knows the other's background in detail or for certain.

True... But I never said your party is feckless nor did I say or suggest "your party" is the cause of the dysfunction that currently exist. Your party's ideals resonates with a select few but is hardly in a position to effect public policy.

You're getting things backwards again. Is this the opposite game again?
I'm the one who argues we're feckless, while you were carping about our causing the status quo.

In comparison to those who would seek to spend billions...sure we're weak in that area. I'm for limiting such large amounts of money when it comes to the political process. Others disagree. The courts have ruled it acceptable to be able to spend like this and there's another court case launched that the SCOTUS will hear that goes further in what corporations can spend. All parties have their strengths and weaknesses....

This is a red herring, since both side spend great sums...with Dems raising comparable amounts (more in many cases).
Once you win power, this spending by the other side cannot stop you from having your way. Something else is.

I diagnose that you'd want Obama to do some of the things I'd want him to do,
but you feel compelled to defend one of your fellows by conjuring excuses.
I prescribe abandoning the need to defend the indefensible.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Clear as mud.
But l don't exculpate Obama for making choices I disagree with.
He chose not to summarily ending the wars or end don't-ask-don't-tell.

Oh, so you fault the man for not doing it fast enough for your taste...? Come on now. GWB nor dems and repubs before Obama effectively dealt with DADT. Dems coward away from the subject and many repubs wanted to and still want to perpetuate that line of thinking. At least he and his administration backed the idea from as far back as his first term to deal with it.

As far as the wars...well I'm happy we're not continuing the lie that got us involved in Iraq..and while I like the idea of our troops coming home from Afghanistan I'm as upset and many of my fellow dems that we're trying to negotiate with Hamid Karzai for a small occupation. I hope Karzai continues to say no...so that we can get the heck out of there. But the position to even leave...even if he set a date is far more than the critics in the Senate/House are doing. Many of them are suggesting we don't leave, calling for more sanctions on Iran and if left up to many of these war mongering Rhinos...we'd be going to war with them as well.

Just last week or so Senator Thune (R) was calling for more multi-million dollar planes and ships to be built...Why?....For what purpose...?...The military needs to be substantially reduced. The surveillance industrial complex needs to be substantially reduced and consolidated. This hodgepodge of healthcare programs need to be eliminated and rolled into one system.

You presume this, but you don't know it. You're just a guy on the internet talking to another guy on the internet. Neither of us knows the other's background in detail or for certain.

You're right....and I should just leave it at that for now....

You're getting things backwards again. Is this the opposite game again?


I'm the one who argues we're feckless,

I don't agree that your party is "feckless". That's a harsh word and not one that I ascribe to especially when talking about parties. I think there's much about your party that appeals to a particular segment of the population.

This is a red herring, since both side spend great sums...with Dems raising comparable amounts (more in many cases). Once you win power, this spending by the other side cannot stop you from having your way. Something else is.

Actually Dems have not spent more than Repubs....but we can save that for a different debate.

I diagnose that you'd want Obama to do some of the things I'd want him to do,
but you feel compelled to defend one of your fellows by conjuring excuses.
I prescribe abandoning the need to defend the indefensible.

Obama has done many of the things I've wanted him to do. He's done the things you cited....just not fast enough for you. I'm ok with the fact that he and his administration at least addressed the issues...where others haven't or were too busy crafting the laws he now has to deal with (i.e. LGBT rights, DADT, Afghanistan & Iraq....etc)....And just what else do you want him to do that wouldn't involve the Do Nothing Republican House Of Representative getting involved?

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, so you fault the man for not doing it fast enough for your taste...?

Is that not abundantly clear?

Come on now. GWB nor dems and repubs before Obama effectively dealt with DADT.

And I faulted them for it too.
Are you trying to excuse Obama with something along the lines of....
"Obama is no worse than Bush!"
Faint praise indeed!

As far as the wars...well I'm happy we're not continuing the lie that got us involved in Iraq..and while I like the idea of our troops coming home from Afghanistan I'm as upset and many of my fellow dems that we're trying to negotiate with Hamid Karzai for a small occupation. I hope Karzai continues to say no...so that we can get the heck out of there. But the position to even leave...even if he set a date is far more than the critics in the Senate/House are doing. Many of them are suggesting we don't leave, calling for more sanctions on Iran and if left up to many of these war mongering Rhinos...we'd be going to war with them as well.

And despite Bush's lie, we're still there.

Just last week or so Senator Thune was calling for more multi-million dollar planes and ships to be built...Why?....For what purpose...?...The military needs to be substantially reduced. The surveillance industrial complex needs to be substantially reduced and consolidated. This hodgepodge of healthcare programs need to be eliminated and rolled into one system.

I still favor a strong military, & that means continually building new weapon systems. The questions of
which ones, how quickly & how many are difficult. And the problem is gov's temptation to use it unwisely.

I don't agree that your party is "feckless". That's a harsh word and not one that I ascribe to especially when talking about parties. I think there's much about your party that appeals to a particular segment of the population.

Yes, It is a harsh word, but I use it to mock our being ineffective.
(As a party member, I'm permitted to do that.)

Obama has done many of the things I've wanted him to do. He's done the things you cited....just not fast enough for you. I'm ok with the fact that he and his administration at least addressed the issues...where others haven't or were too busy crafting the laws he now has to deal with (i.e. LGBT rights, DADT, Afghanistan & Iraq....etc)....And just what else do you want him to do that wouldn't involve the Do Nothing Republican House Of Representative getting involved?

End the wars.
And continue staying out of war with Iran & Syria.
There are other things I'd like him to do, but the above ones are the only ones possible.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Is that not abundantly clear?

Nope...but thanks for clearing it up.....It's not that he hasn't dealt with DADT but he was too slow on it for you...OK...got it.

And I faulted them for it too.
Are you trying to excuse Obama with something along the lines of....
"Obama is no worse than Bush!"
Faint praise indeed!

But what was his fault with DADT....? He spoke openly about eliminating it...and now it's gone.

Obama Administration Policy, Legislative and Other Advancements on behalf of LGBT Americans | Resources | Human Rights Campaign

Over the last four years, President Obama has led the way on significant advancements in equality for the LGBT community. From his historic endorsement of marriage equality, to repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” to hospital visitation for same-sex partners and numerous other administrative changes throughout the government, President Obama has done more to improve the lives of LGBT people than any president in our nation’s history.

See the list.....and add the current bill (ENDA) in the House that Boehner says he won't bring up for a vote....that this administration supports.

Gay rights bill 'unnecessary,' says Speaker Boehner | TheHill

“I am opposed to discrimination of any kind in the workplace or anyplace else, but I think this legislation … is unnecessary and would provide a basis for frivolous lawsuits,” Boehner said at a Capitol press conference, signaling the bill had no future in the House. “People are already protected in the workplace.”

So it's easy to say this administration isn't handling the situation but the facts says something completely different. The advocacy groups say something completely different than the picture you paint and seeing as though my wife and I are members of the HRC we know where this administration, compared to others, stand on LGBT issues.

And despite Bush's lie, we're still there.

We're no longer in Iraq fighting a senseless war the previous administration lied us into.....And I'm hoping Karzai sticks to his (NO) mantra because we'll be out of there as well.

I still favor a strong military, & that means continually building new weapon systems. The questions of which ones, how quickly & how many are difficult. And the problem is gov's temptation to use it unwisely.

Our military overall is a wasteful dumping ground of unwanted and unneeded surplus. Back in 09' it was almost $2 Billion to be spent on unwanted F-22's and the Army turns around and tells Congress no thank you to more tanks costing the taxpayers upwards of $500 Million Dollars.....and the wasteful spending continues........Lawmakers force Pentagon to buy tanks, keep ships and planes it doesn't need - Washington Times

Yes, It is a harsh word, but I use it to mock our being ineffective.
(As a party member, I'm permitted to do that.)

Noted....Then proceed. I won't use it to describe to describe the political shortcomings of your party.

End the wars.

But what war(s) are you referring to. At best we're still in Afghanistan. We have a time frame we set to be out of there. I'd like to be out of there much sooner.....But what other "wars" are we engaged in....

And continue staying out of war with Iran & Syria.

So far that's the plan. Negotiated peace talks with Iran and have them agree to a set of guidelines or keep up with the sanctions. Standing back as Syria works on the world stage to turn over their chemical weapons to be destroyed.

There are other things I'd like him to do, but the above ones are the only ones possible.

So at best...they're not moving out of Afghanistan fast enough for you.

Obama Mulls Pulling All US Troops Out of Afghanistan

There are currently 63,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. That number is slated to drop to 34,000 by February 2014, with few left at all by the end of the year. But that might be accelerated under the current circumstances with all troops out by summer.

If the United States ends up removing all troops, Western allies such as Germany and Italy would likely follow suit, with smaller nations having no choice but to go along.

Afghanistan could also expect to see a serious drop in the $8 billion in aid it currently enjoys, The Times said. The money makes up more than half the country's annual budget.

And this is where I stand on the issue. Let Karzai have his Afghanistan. Our troops need to come home as soon as possible.....while reserving any money would would be giving that country.

You can respond to all of this if you like but I have digressed from the OP and will be getting back on subject.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope...but thanks for clearing it up.....It's not that he hasn't dealt with DADT but he was too slow on it for you...OK...got it.

It's actually worse than you infer.
Obama refused to do it himself, & waited for Congress do it.

Over the last four years, President Obama has led the way on significant advancements in equality for the LGBT community. From his historic endorsement of marriage equality, to repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” to hospital visitation for same-sex partners and numerous other administrative changes throughout the government, President Obama has done more to improve the lives of LGBT people than any president in our nation’s history.

Meh....some other people praise Obama.
What else is new?

We're no longer in Iraq fighting a senseless war the previous administration lied us into.....And I'm hoping Karzai sticks to his (NO) mantra because we'll be out of there as well.

There has been slow progress, but costs will continue to accrue more than I'd like.
Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson Institute Study

Our military overall is a wasteful dumping ground of unwanted and unneeded surplus. Back in 09' it was almost $2 Billion to be spent on unwanted F-22's and the Army turns around and tells Congress no thank you to more tanks costing the taxpayers upwards of $500 Million Dollars.....and the wasteful spending continues........Lawmakers force Pentagon to buy tanks, keep ships and planes it doesn't need - Washington Times

I'm not wading into the F-22 vs F-35 vs UCAV debate, since I'm too out of touch. (Though my money would be on the UCAV.)

Noted....Then proceed. I won't use it to describe to describe the political shortcomings of your party.

I was objecting to your praise of us.

But what war(s) are you referring to. At best we're still in Afghanistan. We have a time frame we set to be out of there. I'd like to be out of there much sooner.....But what other "wars" are we engaged in....

I see Iraq as a war in the costly post-fire-fight phase.
My beef is over the tardiness of exiting (if we really eventually will) & the enormous cost.

 

[BHSU_Student]

I've always believed that healthcare should be a right given to everyone simply because we're all human. Yet throughout this whole ACA thing I've been hearing opponents talk about healthcare as a "benefit" or worse yet a "privilege" as if it's something that should be "earned".

Seriously? We're not talking about a christmas bonus or being able to move into a bigger house. We're talking about people's lives here. I could understand people being against it because they think it will be less effective than our current system or far to costly to maintain (both of which are bogus as has been constantly shown, but that's not what this thread is about). But to be against universal coverage because you consider healthcare a benefit or privilege? That just seems so... heartless to me. Is it just me? Has anyone else come across this? Can any of those who favor it offer any justification?

Hardly anyone knows how healthcare works.

You know what sort of stuff occurs behind the scenes? Private companies want to maximize earnings, so they pressure the hospital employees to rush patients into an early discharge, that way they can pocket the money from the insurance companies by decreasing expenditures that were meant for the patients. The employees don't say anything, in fact no one says anything despite how unethical it is. It happens often.

Insurance companies will deny healthcare bills, just to avoid running at a loss. They have to maximize profits, so even people with insurance may be denied badly needed services.

It's all about the money. U.S. healthcare has the worst outcomes out of all the industrialized nations

The costs keep on rising, and healthcare will only be for the wealthy. Nevermind the "middle class" or the poor.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It's actually worse than you infer.
Obama refused to do it himself, & waited for Congress do it.

:sarcastic.....Do you have evidence he could have repealed this law (DADT) without Congress? Plus...take note that it took less than a month from Nov. 2010 to Dec 2010 under the 111th Congress to present, argue, filibuster and amend the bill before Democrats sent it to the President's desk to be signed. He signed it right before the 112th (Do Nothing Congress) was sworn in......That's pretty fast for a bill to be presented, passed and signed into law.

Meh....some other people praise Obama.
What else is new?

But you seem to insist that either he hasn't done much..or not enough...but the long list of administration accomplishments does not go unnoticed by the LGBT community that has been working with the administration on a number of key issues over the years...which is why I posted them along with the ENDA bill. Those of us involved in various LGBT causes don't mind acknowledging these advances and those who helped to advance those causes along the way.

There has been slow progress, but costs will continue to accrue more than I'd like.
Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson Institute Study

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. This was an unfunded war that had/has to be paid for. I was totally against it from the start. I agree that it has cost us a lot of money.....but my point was this is a war that we're no longer fighting....We don't have massive troops on the ground like we do in Afghanistan. Our focus should be and has been on ending our occupation in Afghanistan like we did under this administration with Iraq. These two wars started under the previous administration and should have never happened. We've gotten out of one under this administration and the second one is nearing a point where troops will be coming home.

I'm not wading into the F-22 vs F-35 vs UCAV debate, since I'm too out of touch. (Though my money would be on the UCAV.)

All I'm saying is that there is a tremendous amount of money being wasted and awarded to contractors etc... for a massive amount of surplus the military has no plans on using. I see no need to continue to spend like this.


Foreign Policy | Libertarian Party

If the US military budget were cut in half, it would still be the largest in the world. Then, if it were cut in half again, it would STILL be the largest in the world. Then, if it were cut in half a third time, reduced to only one-eighth its current size, it would STILL be the largest in the world. And that's using the conservative measure.

I see Iraq as a war in the costly post-fire-fight phase.
My beef is over the tardiness of exiting (if we really eventually will) & the enormous cost.

But the fact that we're no longer there with massive amounts of troops on the ground under this administration shows that we've reduced our spending on that front. Again, no one had a clue as to how much this war was going to cost. There were no talk from Dems or Repubs about offsets back then.....so it was foolish to enter into such an adventure...with no strategy, no way to pay for it, no real objective and no discernible exit strategy. But this is a moot since point you and I actually have some shared views on this whole thing.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Hardly anyone knows how healthcare works.

You know what sort of stuff occurs behind the scenes? Private companies want to maximize earnings, so they pressure the hospital employees to rush patients into an early discharge, that way they can pocket the money from the insurance companies by decreasing expenditures that were meant for the patients. The employees don't say anything, in fact no one says anything despite how unethical it is. It happens often.

Insurance companies will deny healthcare bills, just to avoid running at a loss. They have to maximize profits, so even people with insurance may be denied badly needed services.

It's all about the money. U.S. healthcare has the worst outcomes out of all the industrialized nations

The costs keep on rising, and healthcare will only be for the wealthy. Nevermind the "middle class" or the poor.

You make and interesting point.....

These companies see you as a $ sign.....not a friend. We're seen as data points that have the potential to affect their bottom line in a negative or positive way.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Hardly anyone knows how healthcare works.

You know what sort of stuff occurs behind the scenes? Private companies want to maximize earnings, so they pressure the hospital employees to rush patients into an early discharge, that way they can pocket the money from the insurance companies by decreasing expenditures that were meant for the patients. The employees don't say anything, in fact no one says anything despite how unethical it is. It happens often.

Insurance companies will deny healthcare bills, just to avoid running at a loss. They have to maximize profits, so even people with insurance may be denied badly needed services.

It's all about the money. U.S. healthcare has the worst outcomes out of all the industrialized nations

The costs keep on rising, and healthcare will only be for the wealthy. Nevermind the "middle class" or the poor.

As a former employee of a hospital we knew nothing of this. Or at least not on the nursing level. Doctors might know of it but from my experience that wasn't the biggest pressure to have early discharge. I agree that they are for making money and this is the root of half of our problems but I don't think that its down to the employee level. Don't go assuming your nurse is unethical or is trying to squeeze money out of you. 99% of the time the nurse doesn't give a damn what makes the hospital money.

 

[Revoltingest]

:sarcastic.....Do you have evidence he could have repealed this law (DADT) without Congress?

He stated that he didn't want to do it by fiat as commander in chief.
He wanted Congress to do it.

Plus...take note that it took less than a month from Nov. 2010 to Dec 2010 under the 111th Congress to present, argue, filibuster and amend the bill before Democrats sent it to the President's desk to be signed. He signed it right before the 112th (Do Nothing Congress) was sworn in......That's pretty fast for a bill to be presented, passed and signed into law.

I do approve of his coming around to being more pro LGBT (& what other
letters have been added lately). Now he's as progressive as Dick Cheney was.

But you seem to insist that either he hasn't done much..or not enough...

My complaints are more specific than that. Let's not over-generalize.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. This was an unfunded war that had/has to be paid for. I was totally against it from the start. I agree that it has cost us a lot of money.....but my point was this is a war that we're no longer fighting....We don't have massive troops on the ground like we do in Afghanistan. Our focus should be and has been on ending our occupation in Afghanistan like we did under this administration with Iraq. These two wars started under the previous administration and should have never happened. We've gotten out of one under this administration and the second one is nearing a point where troops will be coming home.

I agree, except that we're still spending on 2 wars.

All I'm saying is that there is a tremendous amount of money being wasted and awarded to contractors etc... for a massive amount of surplus the military has no plans on using. I see no need to continue to spend like this.

I've no argument against better a military spending strategy.

Foreign Policy | Libertarian Party

No wonder those rascals don't win power.
What a ridiculous platform!

But the fact that we're no longer there with massive amounts of troops on the ground under this administration shows that we've reduced our spending on that front. Again, no one had a clue as to how much this war was going to cost. There were no talk from Dems or Repubs about offsets back then.....so it was foolish to enter into such an adventure...with no strategy, no way to pay for it, no real objective and no discernible exit strategy. But this is a moot since point you and I actually have some shared views on this whole thing.

Detente?
No, that would bore our fellow posters.
I must call you "poopy head".
There...all is good.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

He stated that he didn't want to do it by fiat as commander in chief.
He wanted Congress to do it.

I'm still not seeing the problem. He wanted the political process to work like it should....and it did...and in shorter time than one could actually expect. He and his administration ended DADT in 13 months of his first term....

I do approve of his coming around to being more pro LGBT (& what other
letters have been added lately). Now he's as progressive as Dick Cheney was.

Dick Cheney never counseled Bush to affect policy. So as pro LGBT as you say Cheney was/is...they never made a move to eliminate DADT. In fact back in 2000 Bush was against gay marriage and Cheney said that he would "defer to his running mate on the matter"..

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/10/u...nning-mate-cheney-s-marriage-remarks-irk.html

Gov. George W. Bush has said flatly that he opposes same-sex marriages. And in an interview today aboard his campaign plane, Mr. Cheney said he would defer to his running mate's views on the matter. ''The governor sets the policy for a Bush administration, and I'll be happy to support his policy,'' he said.

Also note that during that time he never publicly came out in support of gay marriage itself. All he said back then was (freedom is freedom for everybody) and (people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into)....But we knew this before his declarations here. He also said that gay marriage should be left up to the states. Yet this contradicts the phrase (freedom is freedom for everybody). Obviously it isn't if a state has an outright state constitutional ban.

When Obama got into politics he favored more of a middle ground (civil unions). Now he supports gay marriage. So he's actually more progressive than Cheney. Cheney, that I recall, has never explicitly supported civil unions and it wasn't until after his stent in office he came out in support of gay marriage on behalf of his daughter. Obama's support of civil unions goes back to 06'-07'. The difference between the two is that Obama actually came out (more like forced to come out) in support of gay marriage...but Obama did it while in office and running for a second term.

Since Bush back then didn't support gay marriage and he was the headliner on the ticket...Cheney would have had no direct affect on policy so it might have been easier for voters to vote for Bush. Biden came out in support. Then Obama and they did it in the middle of a second term bid for the Whitehouse.


Part I: CNN/YouTube Democratic presidential debate transcript - CNN.com

OBAMA: Well, I think that it is important to pick up on something that was said earlier by both Dennis and by Bill, and that is that we've got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law. And the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples.


Now, with respect to marriage, it's my belief that it's up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal.

No wonder those rascals don't win power.
What a ridiculous platform!

Hey...I didn't say it...but it appears that some in your party suggest the military..even if reduced significantly would still be the largest military in the world. I just happen to agree that such a large military industrial complex is not needed today. It makes no sense to continue to prop up the military the way we have if the goal by libertarians and even many democrats is to reduce/eliminate foreign adventurism...So I agree with the statement in the article that if we reduce the military we'll still have the largest military. And reducing it could mean reducing the billions we waste on them every year.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm still not seeing the problem. He wanted the political process to work like it should....and it did...and in shorter time than one could actually expect. He and his administration ended DADT in 13 months of his first term....

Of course it's not a problem for you.
I wanted him to do it sooner by fiat.

Dick Cheney never counseled Bush to affect policy. So as pro LGBT as you say Cheney was/is...they never made a move to eliminate DADT. In fact back in 2000 Bush was against gay marriage and Cheney said that he would "defer to his running mate on the matter"..

You're entirely ignoring the fun fact that Dick Cheney was more
progressive than Obama or Clinton, who had to catch up with him.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Of course it's not a problem for you.
I wanted him to do it sooner by fiat.

Had he done that then surly people would have been calling him a dictator...right?

DADT was a very important bill to repeal....and within five weeks of the bill hitting the Senate/House floor it passed and the President signed it.....I'm sure before that he was a little busy dealing with an economy in freefall....Even so....that law is history and it didn't take long for this administration to nix it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Had he done that then surly people would have been calling him a dictator...right?

Oh, no!
Not name calling!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course it's not a problem for you.
I wanted him to do it sooner by fiat.

I wanted him to do the same with DOMA, too. On that one, Obama decided to actively push to keep it on the books

 

[dawny0826]

Hooray! We agree on something!

I don't think that what he just said translates to "I want single payer universal heatlh care".

He said he wants medicare extended, as most of us do.

 

[MoonWater]

I don't think that what he just said translates to "I want single payer universal heatlh care".

He said he wants medicare extended, as most of us do.

Extending medicaid is the easiest way to obtain single payer universal healthcare