I do not believe the proposed plan can be paid for by "reforms of fraud and abuse within the system."

 

I do not believe that the proposed plan will not be projected to increase the deficit without a tax increase, nor do I believe that he will refuse to sign off on a plan once those projections or tax increases are made.

 

I do not believe that "only 5%" of Americans will sign up for the "non-profit government insurance interchange," or else that said interchange is going to be attractive price for the currently uninsured.

 

If a current uninsured can get an affordable health care plan through the government "interchange," why on earth would I, or anyone else, stick with my current high premium policy? I'm obviously going to switch. The obvious retort is then "right, so your company will have to bring its premiums down to compete," which only affirms the belief that a government subsidized interchange can survive longer than a private insurer. This is basic economics 101 stuff.

 

His speech tonight was excellent. It also is absolutely no different than the one he gave in February, just said with different words, a slightly more respectful attitude, and a really good story at the end about Ted Kennedy's letter.

 

On another note, I am sick and tired of "responses" made by the party opposing the President, which are scripted and obviously made without having listened or incorporated any of the President's words. Can't any of these idiots speak and think on their feet? I'm sick of the whole doggone lot of them.

 

Well said...

 

My thoughts are there are going to be two factions.

One that believes that Obama can pay for it as he said he can without raising the deficit, or the ones who do not think he can pay for it as he said.

I fall in the latter group.

 

The deficit is the number one concern of Americans and the majority of Americans dont think he can pay for it.

What is the rush?

I expect people to shout out things at town halls, but to the POTUS during a nationwide broadcast, and by a congressman is just plain unbelievable.

 

Has anyone ever seen how they operate in the British Parliament....those debates are fun to watch...a lot of back and forth and no script to work from.

LABS, I fall into a third faction, probably a very small one. I simply do not believe that having affordable health care coverage is a fundamental right held by every American. I just don't.

 

Forget government-run health care, forget death panels and all that mess. This whole debate, the entire thing, boils down to two things: 1) Americans do not take care of themselves and expect more of their bodies than their bodies can take; and 2) Bad stuff happens to people and we want the government to take care of it. It really is as simple as that.

 

The current system is fouled up already by regulation and all the focus on the current proposals is going to do is to even further cement the type of regulation that exists. I hate to be elitist but its as if 98% of America misses the forest for the trees.

The deficit is the number one concern of Americans and the majority of Americans dont think he can pay for it.

What is the rush?

 

Rush is something of a relative term in Congress. Statements like "what is the rush" simply encourages the passing of the buck on down the line. We've been doing that for some time. I'd rather them start immediately (and have it ready in four years, supposedly), than wait for four more years and have it ready in eight. Because waiting just breeds more waiting; nothing gets done.

LABS, I fall into a third faction, probably a very small one. I simply do not believe that having affordable health care coverage is a fundamental right held by every American. I just don't.

 

Forget government-run health care, forget death panels and all that mess. This whole debate, the entire thing, boils down to two things: 1) Americans do not take care of themselves and expect more of their bodies than their bodies can take; and 2) Bad stuff happens to people and we want the government to take care of it. It really is as simple as that.

 

The current system is fouled up already by regulation and all the focus on the current proposals is going to do is to even further cement the type of regulation that exists. I hate to be elitist but its as if 98% of America misses the forest for the trees.

Understood.

It is not a right, but maybe a moral right for health care.

Im looking at it as we are going to get some sort of reform, just not sure which.

 

Is it Constitutional to force someone to take health insurance?

Is it Constitutional to force someone to take health insurance?

 

Well if that's not constitutional, is any type of required insurance constitutional? Just curious...I really don't know.

Can I be in a 4th faction that thinks it is possible for everyone that wants healthcare insurance to be able to have it, but it will take more than merely healthcare reform for it to happen?

You've just proven the point that many have made. Many do not understand the proposal.

Sorry, But I understood the proposal quite well... Maybe it was some other posters who didn't understand it...

Understood.

It is not a right, but maybe a moral right for health care.

Im looking at it as we are going to get some sort of reform, just not sure which.

 

Is it Constitutional to force someone to take health insurance?

 

I've never really thought about it. You get penalized for not having auto.

Well if that's not constitutional, is any type of required insurance constitutional? Just curious...I really don't know.

State requirements on mandatory insurance are constitutional (same holds true for health insurance), but not federal mandatory requirements. (NOTE: when I say "constitutional", I am referring to the U.S. Constitution, not any state's specific constitution)

State requirements on mandatory insurance are constitutional (same holds true for health insurance), but not federal mandatory requirements. (NOTE: when I say "constitutional", I am referring to the U.S. Constitution, not any state's specific constitution)

 

Understood.:thumb:

I've never really thought about it. You get penalized for not having auto.

 

You dont have to have auto insurance if you dont drive.

You dont have to have auto insurance if you dont drive.

 

By saying that, are you not also saying you don't have to have health insurance if you don't get sick? How can you keep from ever getting sick? Should you then be required to pay for everything by yourself, out of pocket, with no assistance? Because I'm not sure if that's exactly how it's working!

By saying that, are you not also saying you don't have to have health insurance if you don't get sick? How can you keep from ever getting sick? Should you then be required to pay for everything by yourself, out of pocket, with no assistance? Because I'm not sure if that's exactly how it's working!

 

YES!

YES!

 

But does it work that way? What if you can't afford it? Are you your own death panel?!