This is factually incorrect

Obamacare didn't fail. The site did. The performance of the site (which is now working) had nothing to do with the law.

The "you can keep your healthcare" mess up only affected like 3% of the population.

It wasn't that big of a deal.

Good grief. Just looking how so many ppl blindly follow Obama in this thread just goes to show how the government has gotten where it's at.

In some people's eyes, Obama can do no wrong. He's Godsent. He must be! Everyone gets a cellphone so he can't be bad!

America needs to wake up or the future looks grim. Thank God he has only 3 more years left. America is gonna end up like Chicago.

I think there is a balance that can be found.

I really do believe that we are on the verge of defeating some of the great diseases of our time, and as much as I want low cost drugs for the 3rd world I don't think stealing from the drug creators is the answer.

What makes it even more hilarious is that Obama wanted single payer, and was forced into the current "Obamacare" by the Republicans and insurance companies

He can do plenty wrong (and has) but it's not mostly his fault why things are ****ed up.

Obamacare was a failure from the start Not getting a single-payer system, letting the health insurance and drug companies write the bill, etc I never liked it, and the website flopping was just whipped cream on turd pie. + the "You can keep your healthcare" line was never a big deal to me, though politically it was stupid.

The free press scandals: Those are really big deals because it shows the type of person that Obama is/surrounds himself with Clinton and Bush were dragged a-plenty in the media, but they never resorted to stifling and trying to destroy the free press who were publishing all these things.

It makes you wonder what else they are trying to hide.

Give me a break. Not one post you have made in this thread has has any real content. It is hyperbole on top of hyperbole.

Not one person in this thread is calling him a saint. However, it is VERY easy to cast stones from a distance and blame him for everything bad that happens. It is much harder to come up with a reasonable plan yourself. Somehow I doubt that you would be that great of a president.

Don't watch too much Faux News, it's making people believe doomsday is close.

That channel is a serious threat for americans' sanity.

Case in point.

That part was not true at all.

Presidents throughout history have been in a wrestling match with the press. There is really nothing unique about Obama in this re-guard.

The race card plays well EVERYTIME.

Sis, do you really think they would realize a fully curing drug anytime soon? They probably lost billions by simply curing polio. Think of how much in rolling profits something like the common cold can generate each year. Treating the symptoms of the disease and making it liveable will always be more profitable and thus more interesting to Drug corporations than actually solving any real medical mysteries. I mean, why has it been 60 years since we actually cured a disease?

he wasn't "forced" into anything. He had a supermajority. If he caved to their angry bitter voices, it's because he was weak.

Wrestling (calling out the press and arguing with them) =/= sicking the DOJ on them, and having people spy on their emails and phone conversations

http://www.theguardian.com/world/200...ions2004.usa16

Idk care what the % was. The gap was the biggest.

I never used the word cure.

"Defeated" means more along the lines of being able to live a complete and full life despite the disease. I don't think HIV or Cancer are going to be cured any time soon, but having them reduced to inconveniences is almost as good, and it is 100% in the drug companies best interests to keep people alive and on their drugs as long as possible.

Not to mention that patents only last 10 years or so. After that profits drop through the floor providing incentives for the next round of innovations.



I also don't think you are totally correct that a cure would not be profitable. Lets say someone invents an HIV vaccine. For it to be effective in destroying the disease it would need to be administered to EVERY person on earth for several decades (longer than the patent would hold anyways) so there is plenty of money to be made.

He couldn't gt Blue Dog Democrat support to pass single payer with the Republicans shrieking socialism every five minutes. They'd be voted out of their more conservative districts

Ummm. That happened all the time. During the Bush administration it came up several times where they arrested journalists for not giving up their sources.

Obama is softball compared to what happened during the Civil War, both World Wars, and the Nixon Administration.

So Obama ****s up, fault falls on Congress.

Bush ****s up, the fault falls on him?

The double standards are ridiculous.

I'm not completely opposed to your first part because at this point, keeping people alive and healthy should take precedence in the short term.

However, a cure/vaccine would definitely not be profitable. Chemo/Radiation treatments are a huge money making part of hospitals, drug companies, and insurance companies' bottom lines. Same with the dozens of drugs used to create HIV drug cocktails, not to mention the domino effect a cure could present to the booming condom industry. A cure would make a lot harder for plenty of scientists, doctors, executives, etc, not to mention the government, which takes taxes from the earnings of all of these individuals.

I agree. There is a double standard.

There is truth on both sides. No one is perfect.