That's why I asked my original question. Give us details so we can make intelligent decisions. All I heard was theory. It's hardly new theory for a person who considers themselves a conservative.

 

I don't have all of the details but a few things he mentions are; some sort of two tiered system similar to what is provided in Australia, stiffer penalties for abusers of the system and fraud, better regulating insurers...I'm sure there are more details but I'll bet what ever his details are, we would know what they were before they were voted for. Unlike with the ACA where it famously was said "We have to vote for it to see what is in it"

First, I have lived on $27,040 gross, with 2 pre-teen kids. It was all I could do to manage. In fact, the $27,040 was what I made (at that time) working 2 jobs. Between additional expenses such as after school care ($100 week), summer care ($200 week), and things like field trip expenses, etc, I often had to make the choice between paying the electric, or buying food some weeks. Add in sports activities fees, uniforms for such, etc, that $9,000 gets whittled away in no time. Or, should low income people be compelled to forego activities for their children?[/QUOTE]

 

Perhaps. I don't mean to sound harsh, I too have lived the lifestyle you described. I had to do without, my children had to do without. Other than the child care what you are describing is discretionairy expenses and yes, my kids could not have things or do things other kids could do in order for us to care for their health issues. That said, my guess is there would be some additional assistance in any type of plan that had the plans he mentioned as one of it's components.

That's why I asked my original question. Give us details so we can make intelligent decisions. All I heard was theory. It's hardly new theory for a person who considers themselves a conservative.

 

He had a couple minutes, no way he was going to get into details.

He had a couple minutes, no way he was going to get into details.

 

Right. Yet we have people wanting him to run for POTUS.

Right. Yet we have people wanting him to run for POTUS.

 

I can understand their enthusiasm but agree that there has to be more substance. I don't know the guy, maybe there is more to him as he sounds like he has an impressive resume. However, nothing on it shouts president to me.

Right. Yet we have people wanting him to run for POTUS.

Does the name Obama ring a bell? :sssh:

Does the name Obama ring a bell? :sssh:

 

Yes it does. Does that mean we no longer inspect a candidate?

I would hope we would learn from past mistakes and demand more from our candidates. Nothing I see in the political landscape right now tells me thats going to happen. We have the same problems we had 20 years ago but with time they've grown and we now have 20 fewer years to solve them.

Yes it does. Does that mean we no longer inspect a candidate?

No, in fact, it's all the more reason to. Just pointing out how so many jumped on his bandwagon for no real reason from the start.

No, in fact, it's all the more reason to. Just pointing out how so many jumped on his bandwagon for no real reason from the start.

 

So you don't see the irony of people who have repeatedly made that claim now saying this guy should be POTUS?

I don't know if he should or shouldn't be POTUS that's why the title of the thread ended with a question mark. I like him and it's not based on two sound bites...but there are several other candidates I like as well. The biggest reason I started this thread was because I would guess the vast majority of Americans (and BGPers) have or had no idea who he was.

Right. Yet we have people wanting him to run for POTUS.

We had millions of people who wanted Obama to run for president. We had millions of people clamoring for Obamacare, based on Obama's campaign rhetoric - despite the fact that his knowledge of our healthcare system pales in comparison to Dr. Ben Carson's.

 

Now, many Obama supporters are demanding details of a plan to clean up mess the mess that he created. Despite much of the details that were disclosed about Obamacare having been proven wrong, and in some cases, deliberately deceptive.

 

It sounds like some want to apply a completely different standard to Carson because he leans Republican.

So you don't see the irony of people who have repeatedly made that claim now saying this guy should be POTUS?

You don't see the irony of people who have repeatedly defended Obama when we "inspected" him now doing exactly the same thing because Carson's not a Democrat/Liberal?

We had millions of people who wanted Obama to run for president. We had millions of people clamoring for Obamacare, based on Obama's campaign rhetoric - despite the fact that his knowledge of our healthcare system pales in comparison to Dr. Ben Carson's.

 

Now, many Obama supporters are demanding details of a plan to clean up mess the mess that he created. Despite much of the details that were disclosed about Obamacare having been proven wrong, and in some cases, deliberately deceptive.

 

It sounds like some want to apply a completely different standard to Carson because he leans Republican.

 

Incorrect. The POTUS went through two primary seasons. America had a long time to learn about him. The good doctor has been on one 8-minute interview and we want him to be POTUS.

 

The President's health care plan has been reviewed, analyzed, and picked apart for 6+ years now. The doctor has been on for 8 minutes for 99.9% of America.

 

Hardly the same.

For the record, this guy may be the best person for the job at this time. He certainly is worth an investment of time. I just don't get the reaction after 8 minutes.