Post by Doctor Lauraclubfancy, your health care correspondent -

The purpose of this post is to get our readers updated on birth control – what Obama has done and what his opponents are saying.  Clashes about birth control coverage for women seem to have everyone talking, including Foster Friess, a primary contributor to Santorum’s Super PAC. He said, "Back in my days, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn't that costly." [i]

Per the Affordable Care Act, starting July 2012 most new health care policies, and eventually all insurance policies, will offer a list of preventive services for women WITHOUT COPAY OR DEDUCTIBLE [ii]. This includes all forms of FDA-approved contraceptives. (Bayer Aspirin is not on that list, Friess, you disgusting man.) This list of women’s services is based on recommendations from a July 2011 report from the Institute of Medicine, “Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps," which identified key components of women’s health services that have been shown to “improve well-being." [iii]

Yet some religious institutions, who offer insurance plans as employers, are upset that this interferes with their beliefs.  It should be noted, that many of the insurance plans that do not cover contraceptives do cover medications like Viagra. [iv]

So in response, Obama put a caveat in the policy that would allow institutions to opt out, but women will be guaranteed no-cost access to contraception by a requirement that the insurance company offer the coverage instead.

"The result will be that religious organizations won't have to pay for these services, and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly. But women who work at these institutions will have access to free contraceptive services, just like other women, and they'll no longer have to pay hundreds of dollars a year that could go towards paying the rent or buying groceries," says President Obama. [v]

In Wednesday’s Arizona Republican debate during discussions on this issue, Romney dogged (ahem) Obama and said, "I don't think we've seen in the history of this country the kind of attack on religious conscience, religious freedom, religious tolerance that we've seen under Barack Obama." [vi]

In this same debate, Santorum lamented about the birth control issue, stating that 40% of children are born outside of wedlock and that birth control is bad for women and society.  Wait.  Doesn’t birth control reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies?

Really, I could go on and on, but I think it is worth just taking a step back:  Why are we fighting about this?

Several months ago, I had a group lunch with a prominent physician from the World Health Organization who oversaw research studies in Cuba. I was very impressed with his descriptions of the quality health care and research in Cuba. He said, “Well, the Cuban government prioritizes two things: education and health. So that is where they most of their money goes, and it shows. The United States prioritizes (pause) other things.”

I support President Barack Obama because he is prioritizing women’s health, particularly preventive services that save lives. Birth control is a beautiful thing.

 

Post by Joseph M -

And so it continues...

As if it wasn't bad enough that Rick Santorum decided to criticize Obama's faith, Mitt Romney decided he needed to do the same thing yesterday.  My guess is that Romney saw Santorum's tactics as the straight and narrow path toward better poll numbers, and he demonstrated this today when he parroted Santorum at a campaign rally, claiming that Obama has "fought against religion" and has a "secular" agenda.  See the article here:

 http://news.yahoo.com/romney-says-obama-fought-against-religion-222645762.html

The Christian Right is at the heart of Romney's free-fall in the polls.  They don't like him because he's a flip-flopper; they don't like him because he's Mormon.  And Santorum seems at least smart enough to capitalize on this weakness.  He is the last standing alternative to Mitt Romney, and so he says what the Evangelicals want to hear; his comments about Obama's "phony theology" and his stand against prenatal screenings are just empty rhetoric meant to woo the Christian Right of the Republican party.  He knows that Arizona and Michigan are week away, next is Washington, and Super Tuesday is afterwards, (we so excited) and he has a chance to win big.

I thought Romney wouldn't go this route considering that Mormons are told that they aren't Christian all the time.  But this isn't the first time Santorum has done this.   He claims that if you are a liberal, you can't be 'religious' and you certainly aren't Christian.  (See link below where in 2008 Santorum claimed that there is no such thing as a liberal Christian).  So Sorry Eric, you do not exist.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/rick-santorum-obama-christianity_n_1291645.html

Both Romney and Santorum are on a roll (holy rollers).  They've found a cadence for the religious campaign stumping, and they can only go down from here.  The Crusades 2.0 are just beginning.

Here are Santorum's latest comments on Monday as reported on MSNBC's The Last Word:

"I don't know if you've been listening to the president, the secretary of state, and other members of the cabinet, when they talk about freedom of religion... They don't say that anymore.  They talk about freedom of worship; well, you folks all know there's a big difference between freedom of worship and freedom of religion.  Think about what I just said.  We have leaders of this country who are now narrowing the view of what religious liberty is in the first amendment."

What does this even mean?  Never mind that President Obama just talked about the importance of protecting "religious liberty" on February 10th at a news conference.  Regardless, it seems that using the term "freedom of worship" broadens the view of religious liberty.  Many people lead spiritual lives but are not connected to a specific religious institution.  Many people follow a moral or value-system but are not believers in a God.  So what of them?  Shouldn't their right to worship be valued, protected, and recognized?

I think Joseph Smith said it best, and Romney and Santorum might learn something here:

Articles of Faith 1:11 - We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Amen to that.

Over the last several debates, GOP contenders use the word socialist to describe their warped view of what the Democratic Party stands for.  They have leveled such attacks on "socialist" president Barack Obama, and have regularly used "socialist" in a derogatory tone against anything Democratic.  Redistribution of wealth is also married to the socialist label, as with any governmental benefit.  Not only do these candidates (and pundits) have little regard for the meaning of the word, they often demonstrate their ignorance in twisting its usage.

Socialistic theory encompasses government's choice to control capital.  The extremist form of socialism, communism, argues for complete control of capital, eliminating all private property.  Republicans follow and support many socialist platforms as a collective group and demonstrate socialistic behavior as government continued to grow at levels disproportionate to the economy.  Growth of government = increased control of capital = socialism.

Let me cite some specific examples of socialist support among Republicans:

The military is the largest socialist organization in our nation.  The military is not a privately run organization, nor does private capital control any equipment, technology, or weapons.  The government own all military capital, and provides all services.  It's quite interesting to watch Republicans discuss healthcare in the military with utmost respect, and then lash out at government controlled civilian healthcare.  Veteran benefits are socialistic programs, as is all wartime activity.  Think we can privatize the military?  Get ready to fork out serious payments if you want protection.

Unless you are coughing up the $20k a year for private tutoring, education is a socialist program.  Education is run and supported by the state and federal government, which spends roughly $7,000 a year on each enrolled student.  Even if you believe private industry can operate the same program at 30% efficiency, it will still cost a family with two kids roughly $10k a year to pay for private education.  In a purely capitalistic market you would pay according to the quality of the education, meaning the superior schools will cost substantially higher than average.

Medicare is another program that is entirely socialistic.  With 90% of healthcare costs coming the final ten years of an individual's life, our seniors will be left out in the cold, as the payments will be unreasonable to assume.  Now to be fair, the Medicare program could be privatized, which would require the 5.8% payroll tax to be saved by the individual year on year.  Given the current state of our economy and the choices made by consumers, this will be a difficult challenge for the vast majority of citizens.  Hospitals also are funded through governmental spending to drive consistency in quality.

I have often listened to my Republican friends complain about toll roads when traveling out east.  I always found this interesting given that private controlled roads would charge per use, mimicking toll roads today.  Private roads would follow market demand.  If any road had continual traffic jams, the owner of the road would assume they are not charging enough, as the demand outweighs the supply.  Public transportation would also be private in a purely capitalistic market, so pricing would also be owned directly by the users and not the government.

Just imagine if our society was purely capitalistic.  If your house was burning down, or if someone had broken into your home, better hope you have a credit card on file with the right emergency department or no help will be coming.  If your child falls off a ladder, and you have no insurance because you are one of the millions of individuals who lack coverage from your employer, there will be no emergency room visit.  If you are convicted of a crime, don't look for the government to appoint a socialist lawyer if you can't afford one.  If your district needs help with a specific project, don't ask the government for earmarks.  If you have an innovative idea, the government will not protect you through patents.

Republicans like to look at selective measures to demonstrate Democrats are socialists.  Here are a couple of facts that demonstrate socialism is not a partisan issue:

-  The most money ever paid in earmarks was $56.2 billion in 2004 when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency.

-  The largest governmental subsidy is spent on fossil fuel (oil) with $72.5 billion (2002-2008) allocated through legislation signed by Republican presidents.  The 2002 Farm Bill also provided expansive governmental subsidies to farmers across the US.

-  In 2003 Republicans passed a $1 trillion dollar government entitlement prescription drug program to support Medicare.   Part of the legislation shifted drug price negotiating power from the federal government (largest buyer of drugs) to the insurance companies (who then billed the federal government), creating a fixed pricing windfall for the Pharma industry.

-   President Bush was the first president to see the annual budget cross the $2, $3, and $3.5 trillion dollar spending levels.

-   Homeland Security was the largest expansion of government since the Department of Defense.

-   The EPA was proposed and signed into legislation by Republican President Richard Nixon.

-   Defense spending is the largest bill our government pays today, driven by Republican legislation.

-  President Bush signed TARP and the first round of auto-bailouts, effectively creating social programs for the wealthy.

The most telling reason Republicans are closet socialists, is the way they vote.  The only candidate campaigning on an anti-socialist platform is Ron Paul, and it is no secret how the Republican base feels about him.  The other Republican candidates follow the same line of thinking as previous generations before -- lots of tax cut rhetoric, and no discussion of trimming today's socialist programs.

Post by Joseph M-

Santorum just told a crowd of tea party people in an Ohio hotel that Obama's agenda was based on "some phony theology," and that it was "not a theology based on the Bible."  I suppose Santorum is the new prophet of the people as Romney's poll numbers fall faster than Adam and Eve after... well, the Fall.

Rick Santorum: Obama Agenda Not 'Based On Bible'

So this is where I am puzzled.  Everyone seems so afraid that Mitt Romney is attached by invisible puppet strings to the Church Office Building in Salt Lake City or that he'll center his presidency on the Book of Mormon, but yet we have Santorum indirectly proclaiming that he hopes to run America based on his mangled interpretation of a two-thousand-year-old document?

It isn't as if I don't want a moral president, but I just can't understand why it is so important that the president is some certain type of Christian.  I am not comforted by the idea that a president would rely too completely on his own interpretation of God and His Holy Word to make decisions that might affect me.  I think they tried that in the dark ages.  Additionally, I object to one candidate accusing another of not being Christian enough or that a candidate would peddle his holiness and supposed religiosity to garner votes.

The separation of church and state is a good thing.  In fact, I do not agree with the conservatives who call for prayer in school.  I grew up with prayer in school; we all said grace, (as it was called in the South where I'm from,) before heading to the cafeteria for lunch. It went something like this:

God is great; God is Good

and we thank Him for our food

Ah-men!

And then the Catholics would cross themselves, and I'd feel confused.  I wasn't taught to pray that way; I was taught to say, "Dear Heavenly Father," and "In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen," and most always, "We ask Thee to bless the Prophet."  I suppose that if I found the daily prayer-chanting in school isolating and confusing, a Buddhist or Muslim or Jew might find it even more so.  But maybe we don't care about them; maybe this country is for Christians only, everyone else be damned.

And by the way, this goes for us Mormons too: for those of you voting for tea party candidates, just remember that they most certainly believe that you belong to a cult and that you also adhere to a "phony theology," but they'll still take your vote  and your campaign donations anyway.

So onto my final point here, a point that I have made previously: I am not interested in the religion of my president.  Although my faith guides choices in my life and who I vote for, I am not more likely to vote for a Mormon than a Catholic president.  Additionally, some right-wingers seem hell-bent on calling President Obama out as a Muslim (or even an atheist.)  But I wonder what's the big deal?  I wouldn't have a problem voting for a Muslim, just like many Muslims don't take issue voting for a Christian.  (Besides, am I supposed to be worried that a Muslim president would wear an explosive vest to the State of the Union address?)  I would be just as likely to vote for a Buddhist, a Jew, a Jain, or even a Christian for that matter, so long as their political beliefs coincided with mine and with my faith.

So Santorum: I am not voting for the next Preacher of the United States of America, so hush up about your religion and your Bible, and run for president already.

Now and then politicians let their tongues slip and tell the public what they really think about certain things. Last November, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich shared what most astute observers of Fox News already know about the right-wing news network, but what no conservative will ever admit – that much of what is said on the network is not factual and is often complete rubbish. When a woman asked Gingrich a complicated question about the Obama Administration’s AIDS policy at a gathering in South Carolina, Newt indicated that the information presented in the question was new to him and that he did not know enough to give a response. (Gingrich should be given credit for being honest about that and not trying to make up an answer from thinair on something he didn’t know about - or something for which he didn’t have a pre-rehearsed, memorized talking point.) Then Gingrich said, “One of the real changes that comes when you start running for President -- as opposed to being an analyst on Fox -- is I have to actually know what I'm talking about.”

Read more

Post by Eric R-

I realize that a posting on class warfare may seem about 6 months behind the times. Accusations of “Class Warfare” reached a fever pitch some months back amidst calls for a “millionaires tax,” the headline-grabbing “we are the 99%!” cry of the Occupy movement and Warren Buffet’s disclosure that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. The best synthesis of the discourse that I saw was provided, of course, by Jon Stewart [1].

The topic was brought to mind again recently when I read a NY Times article on the increasing number of conservative, middle-class Americans who receive some sort of government assistance [2].

In the article I learned that not only does the lowest income quintile receive 36% of all forms of government aid  (down from 54% in 1980), but also that the top quintile actually took home about 12% of all aid. Additionally, a survey referenced in the article found that a plurality of respondents incorrectly named “programs for the poor” as the fastest-growing benefits program in the U.S.

I bring up these two points specifically because they are important in the larger context of the national debate surrounding topics like income inequality, budgets for social programs and class. The article illustrates what all poor people already know, which is that the answers to questions like who gets what from the government, and where should we be looking to make cuts, are seriously obscured by misinformation.

When imagery of animals digging through garbage, and terms like “welfare queen” and “parasite” are used on national television to describe those receiving government assistance (watch the Stewart clip!), it is clear that there is actually a concerted effort by some on the right to frame the debate in falsehoods.

While the right would have you believe that those receiving government assistance are lazy, greedy, black single mothers of 6, the numbers tell a different story. First, the large majority of all recipients of social programs are either children or the elderly. In FY 2011 nearly 75% of those receiving federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits were children [3]. Medicare and Social Security, which together make up the government’s largest expenditure, are both only available to the elderly.

Okay, so most aid money goes to children and the poor (not counting the billions in tax breaks for big companies), but I bet the rest of them are just lazy, right? As mentioned above, almost 65% of all government aid goes to those above the lowest income quintile. Believe it or not rich folks, you can work hard and still have trouble making ends meet.

The TANF program, for example, contains employment requirements [4]. And there are millions of working Americans who have seen their real wages decrease for decades, making government assistance necessary for things like health care, education, energy and housing. The price tags for these necessities have all skyrocketed, especially compared to most consumer goods, making the Heritage Foundation’s attacks on the poor for having televisions and microwaves seem particularly disgusting [5].

From 1970 to 2010 real wages for American workers declined by 28%, while national GDP nearly doubled [6]. So who saw the gains from the growth in GDP? Over the same time period the top 0.1% of earners saw their share of national income rise by 385% [7]!

The dishonest discourse fomented by the right has very serious consequences for all of us, and particularly the most vulnerable in our society. When the millionaires in Washington DC decide to ignore our woefully underfunded schools, choose to prioritize prisons over housing, and do nothing to fix healthcare, there are serious consequences. Over 46 million Americans live below the poverty line, the highest rate in the 52 years that the Census Bureau has published statistics on it [8], the U.S., with over 2.3 million people in prison, has by far the highest incarceration rate in the world [9], and an estimated 45,000 premature deaths occur each year because of lack of access to health care [10].

But despite reality, the right continues to ignore these problems and dismiss those who raise issue of equality as 'divisive'. Rick Santorum (a millionaire) even criticized Mitt Romney (a multi-millionaire) for using the term “middle class,” because he believes it is a Democratic term used to divide society [11]. Which society is he is living in that he doesn’t see how very much divided we already are?

Yes, there is certainly a Class War raging, and I’ll give you one guess as to who is winning it.

President Obama has set up three new websites aimed at telling the truth about about his record and the record of the GOP candidates.

The first is KeepingHisWord.com. This site is focused on detailing Obama's accomplishments as president.

The other two are more negative tone; these sites rebut the attacks of the president by the Republican candidates and air the dirty laundry of these rivals.

AttackWatch.com

KeepingGOPHonest.com

Jimmy Jones on the Doctrine and Covenants (A Book of Revelations received by Joseph Smith):  

One of the great challenges in Christianity, and especially Mormonism, lies in determining which scriptural passages represent unique advice to an individual and which represent broad principles to be applied to the faith as a whole.  While most agree that portions discussing the atoning sacrifice of Christ illustrate an eternal, salvational principle, very few people would read the Doctrine and Covenants and claim that every individual has been asked to build a house for Joseph Smith.  Many passages lie somewhere in between, however, and infuse the scriptures with ambiguity.  When Alma told Corianton that forsaking his ministry and committing sexual transgression was second only to murder, does this reflect the eternal severity of premarital sex, or a father’s private counsel to his son? A complicating question is whether Alma referred to Corianton’s sin of fornication or of forsaking his ministry in favor of his own desire, walking after the lusts of his own heart; the accompanying passages about denying the Holy Ghost lead me to conclude the latter.  This particular passage has no corroboration in the body of the scriptures, was given in private between two individuals rather than over a pulpit to a congregation, and the evidently eternal principles established in this tale (Alma 36-42) seem disconnected from this portion of the conversation.  Yet the murder-like severity of premarital sex is frequently treated as unequivocal and universal.

 

Read more

Throughout the GOP primaries Newt Gingrich has mentioned the name of Reagan 3.2 times per debate. He continues to invoke his name trying to piggyback on his popularity and drive association with The Gipper. The other candidates have not exhausted this approach to the level of the previous Speaker, which is ironic given Mr. Gingrich constantly disagreed with President Reagan’s politics. To Mr. Gingrich I say, you are no Reagan...and for that matter, Reagan was no Reagan.

The conservative movement holds up President Reagan as a beacon of light, an example to all Republicans. The Tea Party themselves use Reagan's name as a synonym for deity. Certain forgotten (or ignored) facts about our 40th president make this name jockeying borderline laughable. Reagan was not a small government Republican, nor would he be a friend to the Tea Party today. Reagan’s mix of compromise on positions and issues changed with experience, and would drive today’s Republican Party crazy. Many have forgotten that Reagan began his political career as a liberal Democrat. His conversion to the conservative movement came upon marrying his second wife, Nancy, and through the presidencies of Eisenhower, Nixon, and influence of Goldwater. Although Reagan campaigned on conservative principles, he did raise taxes both as Governor and President to balance the budget. Adjusted for inflation those tax increases were the largest the country had ever seen.

Reagan’s social platforms would disqualify him from today's Republican Party. Ronald Reagan was borderline religious and there is very little record of him attending church before, during, or after his presidency. Reagan saw the Christian faith as a buffer to communism and used religion as a weapon. One of the first bills Reagan signed as Governor of California was the “Therapeutic Abortion Act” which led to two million abortions in the state. Reagan signed the first “no fault” divorce legislation and is still the only divorced President that has led this nation. Reagan was also vocal in opposing a California initiative that would have banned gays and lesbians from working in public schools. Reagan signed an amnesty bill that provided citizenship to three million illegal immigrants understanding the labor impact to our Nation’s economy. It is difficult to believe that Reagan would be supportive of building walls around our borders, while working to tear down walls in Eastern Europe.

To be fair, Reagan campaigned on values aligning with the conservative movement including smaller government, strong defense, less welfare, lower taxes, and less government in people’s personal lives (Patriot Act would have been DOA). On several of these principles he was true to his core. Unions weakened under Reagan, taxes were lowered, and defense spending flourished. Perhaps the most notable anti-Union action came with the firing of 12,000 governmental air traffic controllers who went on strike, which empowered the private sector to overcome their fear of unions. Many have called Reagan an economic mind, but there is no substantial evidence to back such a claim. His embracing of supply-side economics demonstrates his weakness in this area and the real economic genius of the period was Paul Volcker (today, Mr. Volcker serves on President Obama’s economic policy board, and has been written off by the same conservatives who embraced his policies in the 1980’s). Reagan did understand the conceptual idea of the Laffer Curve which drove Reagan’s desire to lower taxes. Reagan also froze the minimum wage, a move that is supported by free market theory.

Reagan’s popularity was based on the same reason Newt Gingrich loathed the man, his ability to compromise and to respect his political opponents. It is not a secret that President Reagan’s biggest political opponent was Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil. Nor was it a secret that when working hours were over the President would have opposing Democrats over for a beer. One time after a feud President Reagan called O’Neil up for a truce in which the Speaker replied, “Old buddy, that's politics--after 6 o'clock we can be friends; but before 6, its politics.” O’Neil passed Reagan’s tax cuts and Reagan signed O’Neil’s social programs. Although partisanship was starting to build in Washington it was Newt’s frustration with the compromising hand of Reagan that led him to construct “The New Deal”. Newt was no Reagan Republican, opposing President Clinton at every turn, even to the point of shutting down government. The rise of extreme partisanship was beginning and Newt was the architect. Reagan’s reelection was a monstrous landslide in 1984, and his popularity was driven through his ability to unite both parties.

Reagan’s management of the cold war is also a stark difference to how Newt and Republicans think today. At the near conclusion of the Cold War President Reagan met with Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader of communist Russia. This infuriated Newt and others from Reagan’s own party. Reagan and Gorbachev agreed to disarm and worked together to remove nuclear arsenal across the globe. Reagan and Gorbachev surprised both of their countries with the agreement and compromise was the pinnacle of Reagan’s success. Given the tone and rhetoric from the right today, it is safe to say Reagan would have been portrayed as weak and an enemy to the United States.

For Newt and other Republicans who use Reagan’s name as a political weapon I would say, stop. Reagan would not be your friend today. The Republican Party would not embrace his compromising spirit, economic and tax policy, and perceived weak positions on social issues. In the 2008 primaries, Obama and Clinton argued about who could come to the middle. Today, the Republican Party members are arguing about who can move furthest to the right. There is little question which of these positions Reagan would support.

(This week marks President Reagan’s 101st birthday).

Post by Joseph M -

I tried to stay rather upbeat (and nice) in my last post when I expressed my primary reason for supporting President Obama (expansion of access to healthcare in America), but in reality, I am not completely satisfied with how everything turned out. I am disappointed that we did not get the public option. While many in the far-left Democratic camp wanted a single payer system, I feel that this might be too much, too far, too Canada to ever get passed in Washington D.C. However, I wish that more moderate Democrats and Republicans would have gone "all in" and gotten us the public option; I suppose they were afraid of what might happen (and ultimately did happen) back home at election time. Yes, it appeared that many senators and representatives, in hopes of preserving their jobs in congress, carefully walked the edge of the healthcare blade in hopes that they would not be implicated by the far right when the final tally of votes was taken. But alas, the bloodletting of the 2010 congressional elections seemed to come straight out of the Rambo film franchise; the tea party republicans went for the gut, and bloody entrails were scattered across the ground. The moderate Dems and Repubs lost their jobs in such high numbers the unemployment rate ticked up half a percentage point (and yes, Obama was blamed for that too.) Even the beloved (but not far enough to the right?) Bob Bennett, Senator from Utah and grandson of Heber J. Grant, lost out to a tea party candidate, the some nameless son of Rex E. Lee, former president of BYU.

Even with the healthcare reform, millions of Americans will still be without coverage without a public option in place. I don't see anything Christian about the refusal to provide healthcare to American citizens, and their reasons always involve some sort of judgment of the poor: they're without healthcare because they don't want to work; they're lazy, they want free handouts; they don't take care of their health; it is their fault they are fat, or smoke, or don't exercise, or eat Krispy Kremes, (insert whatever you want to here - just be aware that wealthy people are perfectly healthy and never eat doughnuts or smoke cigarettes and thus deserve their healthcare.) I've become so frustrated with the Christian Right that I'm somewhat pleased that they don't claim us Mormons as Christian; in fact, it's gotten to the point that when I'm asked if I'm Christian, I feel as if I want to answer, "Heck no. I'm Mormon."

I know that name-calling happens on both sides of the political spectrum, but the raucousness that ensued during the healthcare debate in congress (the town hall meetings, Sarah Palin's death panel, charges of socialism) seemed to come very heavily from the conservatives. This wailing and gnashing of teeth only served to strengthen my feeling of resolve that Obama's plan was not only moral, but the right plan for America. He advocated a moderate plan that even the insurance companies could stand behind, and it's actually such a middle-of the road stance that many in Obama's own party disapproved.

I personally felt saddened by the loss of the public option, and my very liberal sister and I discussed the issue numerous times over the phone. She was angry that President Obama didn't fight harder for the public option: "Why is he being so weak? Why isn't he standing up to those Hatriots in Washington?" But I told her then, and I say it now: in the end, Obama's willingness to compromise and let it go only proved his skills as a leader. Healthcare reform was passed, millions more can now be covered. While Republicans dig in their heels on anything that Obama proposes and supports, he continues on. And so do we continue on in our support of him. Obama 2012.