The way I understand Obama's proposal is that everyone has to have/take insurance.

I may be wrong...

 

While auto insurance has been brought up...why can't we just allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines like they do with auto insurance.

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

:lol: Yes.

 

If you don't have health insurance, then yes you are. You have to rely on the charity of your fellow Americans and the churches. Fortunately, our country has the most generous people in the world...our private, voluntary donations outweigh all but 3 or 4 of the world's governments' foreign aid (which of course have the power to tax and arrest its citizens). Americans are extremely generous.

The way I understand Obama's proposal is that everyone has to have/take insurance.

I may be wrong...

 

While auto insurance has been brought up...why can't we just allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines like they do with auto insurance.

 

That would help very much, IMO. For some reason, though, our President is against it.

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 agree there are two camps. However, I do find it ironic that many "bet on the come" with tax cuts in 01,03,and 05 that we're still not sure ever paid for themselves yet they insist that this particular policy prove that it pays for itself.

 

Tonight was the first time I heard him say that if his projections are wrong that spending will be cut to make sure its not costing the taxpayers. Interesting. I would assume that we can all agree because we've all yelled about the billions of dollars of waste in pork or overall govt spending. So if the projections are indeed incorrect can't we agree that there are plenty of areas we are wasting money today that can be cut?

I agree there are two camps. However, I do find it ironic that many "bet on the come" with tax cuts in 01,03,and 05 that we're still not sure ever paid for themselves yet they insist that this particular policy prove that it pays for itself.

 

Tonight was the first time I heard him say that if his projections are wrong that spending will be cut to make sure its not costing the taxpayers. Interesting. I would assume that we can all agree because we've all yelled about the billions of dollars of waste in pork or overall govt spending. So if the projections are indeed incorrect can't we agree that there are plenty of areas we are wasting money today that can be cut?

 

Why not make the cuts first and see how that works?

Edited September 10, 200917 yr by lynks66
Stupid iPhone :)

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.

 

Agreed. I kept waiting for the man who gave the response to say "flip card."

 

I do believe he did a better job than Jindal did a few months back. But either way, they are silly time wasters that benefit no one.

I agree there are two camps. However, I do find it ironic that many "bet on the come" with tax cuts in 01,03,and 05 that we're still not sure ever paid for themselves yet they insist that this particular policy prove that it pays for itself.

 

Tonight was the first time I heard him say that if his projections are wrong that spending will be cut to make sure its not costing the taxpayers. Interesting. I would assume that we can all agree because we've all yelled about the billions of dollars of waste in pork or overall govt spending. So if the projections are indeed incorrect can't we agree that there are plenty of areas we are wasting money today that can be cut?

 

Then why aren't we targeting the wastes in Medicare right now.

Heck, look at the pork in the Stimulus Bill.

I think most do not believe they will cut spending on this issue, at least they wont on the far left.

Once again he is a very charismatic...passionate speaker IMO.

I think he said a lot of good things but I don't believe some of it. How can every single person have to have health care in the US but illegal immargrants won't get it? Isn't that an oxymoron? Bottom line is he dodged a lot of the money issues. It doesn't just appear and it's not going to be covered from the places he said (taxing top 5%, waste, fraud etc).

I am really pulling for him to do the right things. It's a huge task that I'm just not sold on yet. It is such a huge issue and so complex that I hope they keep working hard but don't jump in head first without thinking about the consiquences. That mentality is why we are in so much debt right now.

Like Hearsay said the Privates can't keep up. I would like to here why he is so against going over state lines for competition.

I totally agree with the guy from SC blurting out. There's a time and place and that wasn't it. Like watching Parliment lol

Once again he is a very charismatic...passionate speaker IMO.

I think he said a lot of good things but I don't believe some of it. How can every single person have to have health care in the US but illegal immargrants won't get it? Isn't that an oxymoron? Bottom line is he dodged a lot of the money issues. It doesn't just appear and it's not going to be covered from the places he said (taxing top 5%, waste, fraud etc).

 

He did address it. He said spending would be cut in other areas.

Then why aren't we targeting the wastes in Medicare right now.

Heck, look at the pork in the Stimulus Bill.

I think most do not believe they will cut spending on this issue, at least they wont on the far left.

 

Do we agree that there are plenty of areas we can cut spending?

 

If so, why not implement a real reform package vs a limp one?

Why not make the cuts first and see how that works?

 

Cuts aren't enough.

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.

 

I'm going to have to do some looking but I thought I heard today that employers are not going to be able to simply dump their employees off on the public plan . There has to be something in there to prevent such an event.

I do enjoy watching the members. Rangel looked like he was at his first birthday party and Boehner looked like he was having a rectal exam.

I was happy to see him bring up the malpractice issue I had brought up a few weeks back.

I'm going to have to do some looking but I thought I heard today that employers are not going to be able to simply dump their employees off on the public plan . There has to be something in there to prevent such an event.

 

No, the CBO has estimated that what is in the current writing nearly 30 million would lose coverage simply because the employer would stop offering it or close. It'd be simpler to just pay the bill.

I do enjoy watching the members. Rangel looked like he was at his first birthday party and Boehner looked like he was having a rectal exam.

 

Rangel was happy because he just got a few more campaign contributions from congressman he's supposed to be investigating.

 

Boehner's rectum was smarting from having sunshine blown up in it.

 

Sorry, not constructive but some of these people are wastes of $1000 suits.