The Watering Hole

No, this is not a bashing the healthcare thread.

I just have a quick question. The healthcare law says that a person can't be denied healthcare because of a previous illness or illness in general, right?

So, what is to stop the healthcare companies from pricing policies out of reach of the customer?

As opposed to what's been stopping them all along?  he he he h



It looks like when the "exchange" happens, if it happens, you get to use it to get "affordable" coverage.  

Until then:

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/provisions/preexisting/index.html

This program may be able to help you, if you’ve been locked out of the insurance market, until 2014.  In 2014, you will have access to affordable health insurance choices through a new competitive marketplace called an Exchange.  You can no longer be discriminated against based on a pre-existing condition.

The program:

Covers a broad range of health benefits, including primary and specialty care, hospital care, and prescription drugs.  All covered benefits are available to you, even to treat a pre-existing condition.
Doesn’t charge you a higher premium just because of your medical condition.
Doesn’t base eligibility on income.


but isn't it all getting repealed anyway...

Thanks Binge.

Mebee this kicks in after repeal as well...


NEW CONSUMER PROTECTIONS

No Discrimination Due to Pre-Existing Conditions or Gender
Effective January 1, 2014

The law implements strong reforms that prohibit insurance companies from refusing to sell coverage or renew policies because of an individual’s pre-existing conditions. Also, in the individual and small group market, it eliminates the ability of insurance companies to charge higher rates due to gender or health status.


I coulda sworn I saw Mikee More clamin' that they can still dump you and pay a daily fine or something anyway...

I remember something about that too.

Maybe one day I can win the lottery and hire an attorney to figure out these thousand page plus bullshit laws.  ;D

Hookbender — Dec 30, 2010I remember something about that too.

Maybe one day I can win the lottery and hire an attorney to figure out these thousand page plus bullshit laws.  ;D

I know you're kidding, but complaining about the SIZE of a bill/law is moronic compared to complaining about its actual content.

How about perusing www.heathcare.gov ? There's a TON of good information (and some practical examples) on how the law changes things.

Not enough, in my view, but that's because when it comes to healthcare, I'm a European Socialist. ;)
Tripper

1000 page leglislation on a complex issue.

Have to keep it simple - simple I tell you.
If it is simple then it is easily understood.

So the clever folk in congress can sensibly vote on it.

It's unfair to expect them to pass a complicated thing of 1000 pages - when there are million of pages of laws for them to consider at the same time.

It is those damn libertards

Why look - the law for the itty bitty Homeland security bill was just 500 pages - something as serious as that
required much less than this Health Care thing.

Just too many pages.

That fact alone defeats what it contains I am afraid.
remember

Keep it Simple Stupid.

And when it's complicated - don't bother the natives.

Well since you brought it up....

It is a complex issue, I agree. Much to consider.

Which is why the first steps should have been simple. Instead of spending an entire year half assing the bill to start with. Just requiring insurance companies to eliminate the pre-existing thing. That would have been good. Probably would take what, a week to get that done?

Your right. Keep it simple. Cause at the time, and at this time, there are more important issues that need attention.

But I'm glad they at least have a fix so the insurance companies don't have a loop hole.

And hey, passing a bill that hasn't even been written yet??? Pretty cool, don't ya think? We need to pass the bill so we can see what's in it?? Nancy's real intelligent.  ;D

Apparently satire is something foreign to our friend Hookbender...  :D
Tripper

Hookbender — Dec 31, 2010And hey, passing a bill that hasn't even been written yet??? Pretty cool, don't ya think? We need to pass the bill so we can see what's in it?? Nancy's real intelligent.  ;D

"...so YOU can find out what is in it..." That's what she actually said (watch the video). Not the most artful explanation of what she meant, but in context (something people that inform you apparently don't really "get"), it's fairly clear what she meant. It means that when the bill is passed, it's done, and the American people can then understand better what the legislation is all about because all of the complicated points in the bill have to be enacted and explained (through the lovely site "healthcare.gov").

Right-'tards always manipulate the quotes and ignore context to make people look bad and make them say things they didn't say, while ignoring all the completely FUCKED UP things their preferred legislators have said, so long as more recently the same liars have said the opposite.

And you are the victim of this, because you are quoting something she didn't even say. Well done!

I don't particularly care for her, but Nancy's a lot smarter than you think. She just sucks at expressing herself publicly, which is why the right goes apeshit about her. Well, that and they don't want to fuck her because she's old and botoxy. They'd be a bit more forgiving if she was hot.

Maybe...
Tripper

I know. I was kidding around.

I dislike the democrats and republicans as much as the media, all the news media. They don't serve the public with information, as they should, they push their own agenda. Mainly Fox and MSMBC. They both disgust me.

Hookbender — Dec 31, 2010I dislike the democrats and republicans as much as the media, all the news media. They don't serve the public with information, as they should, they push their own agenda. Mainly Fox and MSMBC. They both disgust me.

But CNN should disgust you, too. So should every other half-assed American news organization in existence (which includes all the broadcast networks and all the 24-hour news channels).

The mere fact that you (like many) make the false equivalence between Fox and what you call "MSMBC" (something only right-wing retards do, unless that was a typo) shows that you really don't understand the problem with news media or the actual failure of the fourth estate in doing their job.

From what I've seen, the only shows that actually do their job as journalists are on "MSMBC" and maybe two shows on CNN. And all are basically opinion shows, so those who can't understand where editorial content ends and actual news begins, and how the two CAN live together in a news broadcast (though they really shouldn't, IMO), won't get that these shows are actually doing their job, unlike the rest of the news media.

Fox SHOULD disgust you. They're completely full of shit. They shill for Republican candidates and spew party talking points all day, and when their hosts even come close to bashing a Republican, it's a huge thing.

MSNBC, however, shouldn't, because if you actually had the base of knowledge required to do a little fact-checking, you'd see that they actually do get it right most of the time, and when they don't, MOST SHOWS ON MSNBC ACTUALLY APOLOGIZE AND CORRECT THE MISTAKE. They also bitch-slap Democrats OFTEN, especially when they're not doing right by the American people. That's nothing like Fox. They're on YOUR side, whether you like it or not.

You said in the past that you've watched MSNBC, but I really don't think you have, because I doubt you'd make the false equivalence of it being the left-wing version of Fox if you have actually watched the channel for any great length...

My passion is media. I studied journalism. I know what it is. I know what it requires, and how it is supposed to be done. Few organizations in the electronic media practice it these days. And it's a shame. I'm sure that's something we can agree on.

The sad truth is that we get better information about what's going on in our country from FOREIGN media than from our own.

And that's because media is just another advertising portal. Pushing the products is king, and any content which might scare a corporation who sponsors the show might result in lost money for the corporations that own the media.

That's the reason state-funded news media tends to do a better job, so long as it's not state-RUN news media.
Tripper

Your right. I know little about the media. I agree that MSMBC is, at times, getting it right. But the characters they play between real news and being arrogant pricks disgust me to the point I can't tollerate watching them. I'd rather read their shit on the website.

The media has, imo, pushed people searching for real news to the internet. And one must really pay attention to the shit they read or they'll get the same crap there.

The media has become entertainment. You can tune in to any of them to find out the latest subject though. Then you have to go elsewhere for truth, except for MSMBC at times. If you can tollerate the idots relaying the truth, I can't. Massive entertainment.

Of course the media is entertainment.  They have advertising budgets.  They pay attention to ratings.  That's why I get my news from NPR.

I read somewhere that even NPR was getting a little shaky lately. Is that true?

Hookbender — Jan 05, 2011I read somewhere that even NPR was getting a little shaky lately. Is that true?

The issue with NPR is that they don't have the budget for actual journalism that the corporate media has, and they are constantly being attacked by the right who see NPR as something that shouldn't exist - Socialist radio. I can't wait to see how the new GOP Congress treats their budget requests...

Because of their lack of proper funding, they end up (to an extent) reliant on the reporting of mainstream sources and it taints their reporting a bit.

But they do try really hard to get things right...I'll give them that.
Tripper

Hookbender — Jan 04, 2011Your right. I know little about the media. I agree that MSMBC is, at times, getting it right. But the characters they play between real news and being arrogant pricks disgust me to the point I can't tollerate watching them. I'd rather read their shit on the website.

I'll give you the arrogance...but there's a built-in arrogance born of the confidence in actually having done the work and knowing shit instead of making it up and hoping no one notices. At least the arrogance isn't unfounded. That's half the reason people think I'm arrogant.

I do think you miss a lot of the intentional hyperbole that MSNBC's hosts use, though.

You do know it makes you look like a right-wing retard when you call them MSMBC, right? Just wanted to state that again.
Tripper

Doesn't hurt anyone if I"m a little pissy towards them does it? ;D I'm glad you noticed that though. It was actually purposely done for a change. :)

What "newsperson" or politician or pundit isn't arrogant these days?  Few and far between, I'd say.  Remember when they used to make a big deal about telling you that an editorial was about to go down on the news and the opinions of the dope talking weren't the opinions of the station?  Now it's mostly opinion.

MSNBC takes a more honest approach to being comedy compared to their competition but, show for show, make more sense to me.  I actually enjoy the young turks cat more than the rest of the infotainment crews.

Well, then again, FOX has Red Eye for honest comedy...and extreme arrogance throughout!

As for the net, it's like the bible...you can find anything you want here.


What's MSMBC?  That shitz nowhere near as silly as "bathtub boy and the gay girl" or whatevs...you've come a long way baby!


Back to healthcare....Hook, how much time do you think should be spent on repealing and replacing the job killing healthcare law, or trying to, before "job creation" bills are worked on?  Didn't they "waste" a lot of time working on the first one instead of on job creation?  You'd think it would be at the top of the list. heheh heh

Today's jobs report is really going to hurt the repeal of the "job-killing" healthcare bill.

BTW, people with big, fat, lucrative jobs killed more jobs in 2007 and 2008 than any bill ever could.

True dat.

The first thing that should be done is complete attention to the economy. That's also the first thing that should have been done 2 plus years ago.

Including for the new Pub masters?  I think they want to focus on healthcare.

Whaddya want them to do?  Pass a law that businesses have to hire people if they are making shitloads of money?  Give businesses tax breaks to hire people?  I'm asking because I see no solution to the problem.  From a corporate perspective, the economy is doing just fine.  They are making plenty of money.  What can the government do to compel them to hire more people to make that money?  This is not a rhetorical question.  I just don't see a good solution.

Well, they could also work on repealing "Wall street reform" and cut spending on regulation across the board.  I'm sure that'll bring the jobs.  hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Hahahahahahaha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmlKCtvRet8

Is is a monty python sketch

Hahahahahahha - Hookbender I can see how you voted  ;D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6etf_z60pM&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrID_N_FQ_o&NR=1

"Making sure that the 2%'s kids have the American dream"

There's a reason the "American dream" isn't called the american reality.

This was some good crying too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVOS1CC6V5I

Wow - He's having a difficult conversation with the American people.

But didn't complete it.

Republicans -  this election is lost anyway,trust me, it will be rebranded the Obama deficit in 6 months time.
Sniffle and a boo hooo ;)

Hahahaha, a Hookbender is interviewed at the end  ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nunTTyfCr8Y&NR=1&feature=fvwp

fingers — Jan 06, 2011Republicans -  this election is lost anyway,trust me, it will be rebranded the Obama deficit in 6 months time.
Sniffle and a boo hooo ;)

A planned loss with insider information.

charger — Jan 06, 2011Including for the new Pub masters?  I think they want to focus on healthcare.

Whaddya want them to do?  Pass a law that businesses have to hire people if they are making shitloads of money?  Give businesses tax breaks to hire people?  I'm asking because I see no solution to the problem.  From a corporate perspective, the economy is doing just fine.  They are making plenty of money.  What can the government do to compel them to hire more people to make that money?  This is not a rhetorical question.  I just don't see a good solution.

Not sure I know the answer. But the jobs report is encouraging. Maybe things will pick up.

Just an observation...the bush tax cuts get extended.....the job reports show significant good signs. Maybe it's stability their looking for. Like I said months ago.

Or just to make people feel that putting pubs in place leads to a better America!  

Wait, weren't you against the tux cuts?


What period did the jobs report cover?

BINGEWOOD — Jan 07, 2011Or just to make people feel that putting pubs in place leads to a better America!  

Wait, weren't you against the tux cuts?

Everyone should be against tux cuts!  ;) :D

BINGEWOOD — Jan 07, 2011Or just to make people feel that putting pubs in place leads to a better America!  

Wait, weren't you against the tux cuts?


What period did the jobs report cover?

Against tax cuts? Yes. Depending. Against Extending the Bush tax cuts? No. Technically, right now, extending the Bush tax cuts isn't a cut. Tax rates staying the same aren't cuts. I feel the taxes on the rich should have been increased, that they rise above the current rates.

Probably December. Just a guess. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Hookbender — Jan 07, 2011[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1293587654/25#31 date=1294362994]
Against tax cuts? Yes. Depending. Against Extending the Bush tax cuts? No.

Doublethink rox!





On jobs, I truly hope that jobs are on the rise but December is always a month of temp hiring.  Do you really think that two more years of the bush tax cuts caused this hiring?  Employers had two more years two years ago and ten years ten years ago...it didn't bring jobs over those years, it dumped 'em.

Hookbender — Jan 07, 2011Just an observation...the bush tax cuts get extended.....the job reports show significant good signs. Maybe it's stability their looking for. Like I said months ago.

Are you just going to be belligerently retarded from now on?

The extension of the Bush tax cuts will not have an effect on the job numbers in the report that just came out. It might affect the NEXT one, but the "uncertainty" (abject horseshit, since corporations large and small are doing very well with their trimmed-down overhead thanks to recession-era jettisoning of workers) would have directly affected this one.

Stop being STUPID...for fuck's sake... ::)

I'm changing my avatar back. You really should consider using it.
Tripper

;D ;D ;D

I shouldn't have put that word in my post. (Bush) ;D ;D ;D

Hookbender — Jan 08, 2011 ;D ;D ;D

I shouldn't have put that word in my post. (Bush) ;D ;D ;D

You would have gotten exactly the same response had you left it out.

Militant stupidity on the economy is on the march, and you're in the crowd. :)
Tripper

The economy has been recovered for a while, the recession has been over for more than a year.  The jobs have not come back.  And they may never recover.  There's no reason to hire people to do work if you can make even more money by not hiring and just squeezing the workers you have harder.

What you seem to advocate for is 100% employment, or that the government has some role in making 100% employment happen.  They don't.  That's called socialism.

What we have here is "capitalism". What that means is you want to increase your capital.  There is no good reason to hire people when you get the bonanza employers have had for the last couple of years, and that bonanza is: people grateful to have jobs, coupled with the ability to cut and freeze salaries, coupled with the fact that people who feel like their jobs are not secure are more willing to be more productive.  Essentially, the unemployment numbers have become a factor in capitalist market forces, and they are working out really fucking well for employers.

Hookbender — Jan 07, 2011[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1293587654/25#31 date=1294362994]Or just to make people feel that putting pubs in place leads to a better America!  

Wait, weren't you against the tux cuts?


What period did the jobs report cover?

Against tax cuts? Yes. Depending. Against Extending the Bush tax cuts? No. Technically, right now, extending the Bush tax cuts isn't a cut. Tax rates staying the same aren't cuts. I feel the taxes on the rich should have been increased, that they rise above the current rates.

Probably December. Just a guess. ;D ;D ;D ;D



But you argued for the view that opposed that policy, send Obama a message you said.
Republicans assumed a mandate to play the "or else" political card  - i.e. that the 98% lose their tax cut if the rich don't get it as well.
Then you lay blame for it as an Obama failure, while voting for the failure.
Then you don't want it.

And screw your argument about whether you voted or not, it's as irrelevant as your vote.
You support the "give Obama a message"

So you support the manifesto

This is about you = your opinions, you can't argue for something and be against it at the same time.

It is so obvious that it is pretty pathetic that it needs to be pointed out to you.

I like the parroting.  


"Maybe it's stability their looking for. Like I said months ago."   You said it all right, but only after constant right wing repetition of the phrase.


"They aren't tax cuts, they're the current rates."  Another phrase I've heard for months from republipundits and politicos.  

They were temporary and set to expire by those which created them like they are set to expire again in two years.  I know "conservatives" wish them to be permanent but they couldn't get the votes for that...much like the votes not being there for continuing these tax cuts for the "middle class" and below only.

Doubleplusgood duckspeak!

Tripper — Jan 09, 2011[quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/25#37 date=1294496698] ;D ;D ;D

I shouldn't have put that word in my post. (Bush) ;D ;D ;D

You would have gotten exactly the same response had you left it out.

Militant stupidity on the economy is on the march, and you're in the crowd. :)
Tripper

Groovy. I was starting to feel lonely. ;D

fingers — Jan 09, 2011[quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/25#34 date=1294444132][quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1293587654/25#31 date=1294362994]Or just to make people feel that putting pubs in place leads to a better America!  

Wait, weren't you against the tux cuts?


What period did the jobs report cover?

Against tax cuts? Yes. Depending. Against Extending the Bush tax cuts? No. Technically, right now, extending the Bush tax cuts isn't a cut. Tax rates staying the same aren't cuts. I feel the taxes on the rich should have been increased, that they rise above the current rates.

Probably December. Just a guess. ;D ;D ;D ;D



But you argued for the view that opposed that policy, send Obama a message you said.
Republicans assumed a mandate to play the "or else" political card  - i.e. that the 98% lose their tax cut if the rich don't get it as well.
Then you lay blame for it as an Obama failure, while voting for the failure.
Then you don't want it.

And screw your argument about whether you voted or not, it's as irrelevant as your vote.
You support the "give Obama a message"

So you support the manifesto

This is about you = your opinions, you can't argue for something and be against it at the same time.

It is so obvious that it is pretty pathetic that it needs to be pointed out to you.






I argued for what view on what policy? When? I can't respond to out of thin air charges. Give me a direct quote so that I can either agree with you or argue against your accusations. I know what republicans did.

It seems my argument about not voting is relevant. Your bringing up again gives it relevance.

What am I arguing for and against at the same time?

Your gonna have to point it out in a way that I can directly respond to whatever your talking about, directly.

BINGEWOOD — Jan 09, 2011I like the parroting.  


"Maybe it's stability their looking for. Like I said months ago."   You said it all right, but only after constant right wing repetition of the phrase.


"They aren't tax cuts, they're the current rates."  Another phrase I've heard for months from republipundits and politicos.  

They were temporary and set to expire by those which created them like they are set to expire again in two years.  I know "conservatives" wish them to be permanent but they couldn't get the votes for that...much like the votes not being there for continuing these tax cuts for the "middle class" and below only.

Doubleplusgood duckspeak!

So you like birds. Cool.

I don't wish the tax cuts to be permanent. I do agree with the cuts being extended, but not for the rich. Obama did exactly what he campaigned against, bowing to pressure. He did the same thing any normal washington politician would do. I didn't vote for that.

What would you have wanted an "abnormal" politician to do?  heh heh

Hookbender — Jan 10, 2011[quote author=fingers link=1293587654/25#40 date=1294537014][quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/25#34 date=1294444132][quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1293587654/25#31 date=1294362994]Or just to make people feel that putting pubs in place leads to a better America!  

Wait, weren't you against the tux cuts?


What period did the jobs report cover?

Against tax cuts? Yes. Depending. Against Extending the Bush tax cuts? No. Technically, right now, extending the Bush tax cuts isn't a cut. Tax rates staying the same aren't cuts. I feel the taxes on the rich should have been increased, that they rise above the current rates.

Probably December. Just a guess. ;D ;D ;D ;D



But you argued for the view that opposed that policy, send Obama a message you said.
Republicans assumed a mandate to play the "or else" political card  - i.e. that the 98% lose their tax cut if the rich don't get it as well.
Then you lay blame for it as an Obama failure, while voting for the failure.
Then you don't want it.

And screw your argument about whether you voted or not, it's as irrelevant as your vote.
You support the "give Obama a message"

So you support the manifesto

This is about you = your opinions, you can't argue for something and be against it at the same time.

It is so obvious that it is pretty pathetic that it needs to be pointed out to you.






I argued for what view on what policy? When? I can't respond to out of thin air charges. Give me a direct quote so that I can either agree with you or argue against your accusations. I know what republicans did.

It seems my argument about not voting is relevant. Your bringing up again gives it relevance.

What am I arguing for and against at the same time?

Your gonna have to point it out in a way that I can directly respond to whatever your talking about, directly.


for example

Hookbender — Jan 10, 2011[quote author=fingers link=1293587654/25#40 date=1294537014][quote author=Hookbender link=1293587654/25#34 date=1294444132][quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1293587654/25#31 date=1294362994]Or just to make people feel that putting pubs in place leads to a better America!  

Wait, weren't you against the tux cuts?


What period did the jobs report cover?

Against tax cuts? Yes. Depending. Against Extending the Bush tax cuts? No. Technically, right now, extending the Bush tax cuts isn't a cut. Tax rates staying the same aren't cuts. I feel the taxes on the rich should have been increased, that they rise above the current rates.

Probably December. Just a guess. ;D ;D ;D ;D



But you argued for the view that opposed that policy, send Obama a message you said.
Republicans assumed a mandate to play the "or else" political card  - i.e. that the 98% lose their tax cut if the rich don't get it as well.
Then you lay blame for it as an Obama failure, while voting for the failure.
Then you don't want it.

And screw your argument about whether you voted or not, it's as irrelevant as your vote.
You support the "give Obama a message"

So you support the manifesto

This is about you = your opinions, you can't argue for something and be against it at the same time.

It is so obvious that it is pretty pathetic that it needs to be pointed out to you.






I argued for what view on what policy? When? I can't respond to out of thin air charges. Give me a direct quote so that I can either agree with you or argue against your accusations. I know what republicans did.

It seems my argument about not voting is relevant. Your bringing up again gives it relevance.

What am I arguing for and against at the same time?

Your gonna have to point it out in a way that I can directly respond to whatever your talking about, directly.


How about this thread

http://www.chargermusic.com/wh/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1288747384/57#57

You seem to be pretty happy that republicans have the power to send Obama a message.

And they did - on tax cuts for the rich

You got what you wished for.

"Obama has a record of ignoring the people dude. He shoved healthcare through whether we wanted it or not, remember? Why in the hell would he consider giving tax breaks to rich fuckers if he were worried in the least about anything but getting re-elected. Cause it damn sure isn't what this country needs."

I'm saying the same thing in this thread. No tax cuts for the rich. I don't see any evidence of me arguing for and against the same thing. I have no idea what your talking about and I wonder if you do.

BINGEWOOD — Jan 10, 2011What would you have wanted an "abnormal" politician to do?  heh heh

What Obama said he would do. That would be abnormal. heh heh

Hookbender — Jan 10, 2011"Obama has a record of ignoring the people dude. He shoved healthcare through whether we wanted it or not, remember? Why in the hell would he consider giving tax breaks to rich fuckers if he were worried in the least about anything but getting re-elected. Cause it damn sure isn't what this country needs."

I'm saying the same thing in this thread. No tax cuts for the rich. I don't see any evidence of me arguing for and against the same thing. I have no idea what your talking about and I wonder if you do.

you can't read the thread - so I have to repeat it all here



Hookbender

I look to the republicans to see that Obama start addressing the debt first. He's been to busy spending to think about it so far. Something has to be done to get money moving again. Until that happens, not sure anything will change. However, printing 600 billion bucks and giving it to banks, who helped fuck us, probably isn't the answer.  


fingers

They'll repeal these OBama Mac Daddy tax cuts    


Hookbender

The republicans probably wouldn't if they were in charge of everything. But their not. And the only hope they have right now is to do something that creates a positive effect on unemployment, and the deficit. If they an somehow do that, their chances of electing a republican President increase big time. I don't care who's President, I just want positive effects. And, by the way, I doubt any positive effect is gonna be seen from printing 600 billion dollars. The dollar will go to shit right away, even worse than it is. this is a huge gamble that better pay off.

And no, I won't shut my shit, whatever that means.  

Obama has a record of ignoring the people dude. He shoved healthcare through whether we wanted it or not, remember? Why in the hell would he consider giving tax breaks to rich fuckers if he were worried in the least about anything but getting re-elected. Cause it damn sure isn't what this country needs.


Ok to spell it out to you, anyone can tell from those comments you think that the republicans winning the midterms is a positive development - you welcome it.

You are looking to the republicans
Obama doesn't listen
republicans may force  him to listen and change things.

you wished for it  and you got it.


And they do exactly what you wished for they made him listen and forced him  to change course.

Unfortunately it was on their priority of tax cuts for the rich. :-X


Then you  claim that he should have dug his heels over it, not listened and let the tax cuts expire for all.

but, this doesn't jibe with you looking to the republicans to make him listen and change course.

Which is it?