Aa
Aa
A
A
A
Close
649848 tn?1534633700

It's a 50-50 nation, give or take

http://www.medhelp.org/posts/new_with_new_subject?forum_id=621

Nov 7, 11:05 AM (ET)

By CALVIN WOODWARD


WASHINGTON (AP) - The election laid bare a dual - and dueling - nation, politically speaking, jaggedly split down the middle on the presidency and torn over much else. It seems you can please only half of the people nearly all of the time.

Americans retained the fractious balance of power in re-electing President Barack Obama, a Republican House and a Democratic Senate, altogether serving as guarantors of the gridlock that voters say they despise. Slender percentages separated winner and loser from battleground to battleground, and people in exit polls said yea and nay in roughly equal measure to some of the big issues of the day.

Democracy doesn't care if you win big, only that you win. Tuesday was a day of decision as firmly as if Obama had run away with the race. Democrats are ebullient and, after a campaign notable for its raw smackdowns, words of conciliation and healing are coming from leaders on both sides, starting with the plea from defeated Republican rival Mitt Romney that his crestfallen supporters pray for the president.

But after the most ideologically polarized election in years, Obama's assertion Wednesday morning that America is "more than a collection of red states and blue states" was more of an aspiration than a snapshot of where the country stands.

Compromise was a popular notion in the hours after Obama's victory and an unavoidable one, given the reality of divided government. But the familiar contours of partisan Washington were also in evidence, especially the notion that compromise means you do things my way.

As Democratic Rep. Steve Israel of New York put it, "If you refuse to compromise, we are going to beat you." Israel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said the election showed "if you are an extremist tea party Republican, you are going to lose."

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky was grudging in interpreting the election as any kind of mandate for Obama, saying voters "have simply given him more time to finish the job they asked him to do together" with Congress, and did not endorse his "failure or excesses."

In New York's bustling Times Square, hope, skepticism and familiar polarities were all to be found when people talked about the president. "He may not have done a great job in my mind but I kinda trust him," said Jerry Shul. "I have faith he will get with the Republicans and get something done."

A less-flattering George Dallemand called this "a moment of truth" for the country. "I guess we have to wish for the best now, but I still think he is socialism."

In Miami, Karen Fitzgerald, 55, wore a black dress and said she was in mourning over Romney's defeat.

"It's an upsetting day," she said. But she took some comfort from her Democratic friends on Facebook, who have stopped chiding the other side in their posts. "Now they're all saying we need to work together and be united," she said. "Maybe we can."

In Chicago, Obama supporter Scherita Parrish, 56, predicted the president will reach out to Republicans but may not get much back.

"But the people have spoken," she said. "They need to lick their wounds, get on with it and start working with the president."

Indeed, unity is a challenge not just for Obama but for the Republicans, who won less than 30 percent of the growing Hispanic vote and not even one in 10 black voters. Obama built a strong Electoral College majority, if only a narrow advantage in the popular vote, despite losing every age group of non-Hispanic white voters.

Surveys of voters found Obama's health care law to be as divisive as ever, with just under 50 percent wanting it repealed in whole or part, and 44 percent liking it as is or wanting more of it.

But democracy doesn't care about exit polls, either, and the election almost certainly means Republicans can forget about trying to roll it back now.

In reaffirming divided government, though, Americans all but ensured colossal fights are ahead over the shape of government and Obama's agenda. He is out to break a wall of Republican opposition to tax increases on the wealthy - a move that about half the voters in exit polls thought was a good idea. And extraordinarily difficult negotiations are imminent as the president and Congress try to make a deal to avoid the "fiscal cliff" - steep spending cuts and a variety of tax increases in January.

In the end, voters split about equally on whether Obama or Romney would be better at handling the economy.

Then again, they were divided down the middle on whether Obama or his predecessor, George W. Bush, deserves most of the blame for the economy's problems.

So it goes in the 50-50 nation, give or take.

---

Associated Press writers Christine Armario in Miami, Michael Tarm in Chicago and David Martin in New York contributed to this report.

88 Responses
Sort by: Helpful Oldest Newest
973741 tn?1342342773
Yes, some parts of obamacare are needed and I appreciate that but have the same fears ng does.  We'll see.

Teko, I don't know how I feel about it.  We are having a rough time personally right now so wish it would be held off a little but then I don't know how the future will be either. Rip the band aid off now or later.   And I do understand that the country needs the money.  So, it is what it is.  

I just wish that tax money would go to get us out of debt rather than expand programs.  At our house, we try to pay down the debt before we aquire any more if that makes sense.  Hey, maybe that is the plan.  I hope so!!  I hope they use the tax money wisely.  
Helpful - 0
480448 tn?1426948538
My BIGGEST fear with Obamacare is that the quality of our HC will suffer, in terms of research, technology, etc.  There's just not going to be the same interest in funding a lot of those projects, IMO.

While Obamacare isn't a 100% nationalized system, there will be a lot of aspects of it that will be.  Also, as a small business owner, I'm anxious to see how this will affect me.  The initial plan was very strict and aggressive, with hefty fines for ANY employer who did not offer HC to their employees.  Then, it lightened up a bit and there were some minimal requirements put in place for businesses (especially with a small # of employees).  I have yet to receive ANY kind of instructions about any changes I'll have to make.

I HAVE researched insurance for employees recently, it aint pretty.  I'm not sure what's going to happen, but I have a feeling that a lot of companies will just choose to pay the fine, if the costs do not become more competitive.  In theory, OC should make it more affordable....I hope so.  That's one of the fundamental problems I see with OC..they are going to try to implement these employer rules before a lot of changes are made that would allow the COST of acquiriing HC for employees to go down.  That could be disastrous to small businesses.

There are some aspects I think are great...the pre-exisiting clause for one, is great.  That has turned into a witch hunt in HC.  It was basically designed to keep people from abusing the system but turned into a way that insurance companies get out of paying for every little thing they can.

I think people being able to stay on their parent's policies a little longer is also a good thing, but I think there should have to be somewhat of an effort to show that the person is either still in school, or seeking a job.  People could run with that as well.  Overall, the sentiment is a good one, as obviously, people aren't getting jobs right out of school.

I think that one of the ways OC could be improved is to encourage more compeition among insurers.  That was one of Romney's ideas, and it's a good one.  That COULD be incorporated into Obamacare.  The last thing that we should want is less competition...that's going to lead to a nationalized HC system by default, because what will happen is, private insurance will remain unaffordable and unattractive (and actually become more so), so people will automatically go with the gov't plan.  

More competition would help everyone...less burden on the gov't, as they should want and encourage as many people as possible to retain their private insurance co.  That will keep costs down, keep HC the same in many ways so that quality isn't jeopardized, and still give uninsured an option to get the gov't plan.  That's my issue...take the good things from BOTH sides, and make a better plan.  This is a HUGE change in our country...the better plan we have, the more successful it will be.

The last thing we want to do is jump into something that could cost a LOT of money, potentially sacrifice the amazing high quality care we have here, and end up not being able to revive private insurance companies IF OC turns out to be unsuccessful.  Just the increase in competition will keep them in check, force them to keep prices and policies fair.  Right now, there are too many monopolies.

Medicare and Medicaid are a bleeding wound for this country.  Changes need made bigtime there...especially with Medicaid.  

Just my take.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
Actually, that would not bother me one iota. They were meant to be temporary and should have xpired long ago and will take billions off the deficit!

See! Im easy! lol
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
I think both of us need to remember we are always going to hear the horror stories - human nature right?  For most Canadians our system works or there would be screams to change it.  I'm sure its the same in the US, that for most the system works, and what we hear are the horror stories.

Well said, Adgal. I really appreciate what you have to say.
Helpful - 0
377493 tn?1356502149
Awww, respect you and love you too.  

You know, in reading your's and Barb's comments on healthcare, something struck me.  Do you realize that the things you hear about our healthcare system (the negatives) are almost exactly the same thing we hear about yours?  Difference is, you hear that we have these longs waits and trouble getting certain tests due to ours being Nationalized and gov't interference.  We hear that you have the same issues due to Insurance Companies intereference.  Sort of ironic really.  You meet people on the forums who complain about our system, and I meet people who complain about yours.  Interesting and I guess it goes to show that no matter how you do it, your not going to please everyone.  But of course I have to respond.....ha

The long waits can happen in some areas.  It's not an issue where I live, but in small rural areas where there are fewer Dr.s it can happen.  Mammograms - we also stuck to the standard of 40, but if your Dr feels you need one earlier (perhaps family history or something) you get it.

I had to have surgery almost 2 years ago for a condition called VIN, which is a precancerous condition.  From diagnosis to surgery, I waited about a week.  

I think both of us need to remember we are always going to hear the horror stories - human nature right?  For most Canadians our system works or there would be screams to change it.  I'm sure its the same in the US, that for most the system works, and what we hear are the horror stories.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
Give it a rest...
Helpful - 0
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.

You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group

Didn't find the answer you were looking for?
Ask a question
Popular Resources
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.