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

 

Yup. And he just didn't have the stones to do anything other than says that he would get Health and Human Services "to look into it beginning today."

 

That's getting tough.

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 thought there was the 8% deal where small businesses can choose to pay a fine of 8% of their earnings, or offer health care to their employees.

Most would rather pay the 8% fine and dump workers into government plan.

I think this is where this is coming from.

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 is just happy no one particularly the media is paying attention to all of his tax abuses. He should be in jail...most Americans would if they were caught doing what he has done.

I thought there was the 8% deal where small businesses can choose to pay a fine of 8% of their earnings, or offer health care to their employees.

Most would rather pay the 8% fine and dump workers into government plan.

I think this is where this is coming from.

 

Maybe I'm looking too much into things but when I heard this I thought exactly what you are saying. To me it is a round bout way of getting universal healthcare without calling it that. Maybe I'm wrong but it sure seems that way.

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 actually agree with a lot of this.

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

You loose your privilege to drive, if you don't get auto insurance. Do you loose your right to life if you refuse to get heath insurance? I found the President's analogy absurd.

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.

I have they used to be on tv in this country a lot a few years ago.

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

 

 

Then the right to potentitally live a long life is in the hands of those who can afford the necessary treatment.

 

Putting aside preventative care which can address many health issues, if you have an undetected disease or body part that doesn't function, and it requires treatment later in life and you can't afford it, so be it, even if you took great care of yourself up until that point. If you're in a traumatic car accident, and for whatever reason your treatment exceeds the limits of the auto insurance, too bad.

 

What about things like cervical, breast and prostate cancers? Those can go undetected. Even if they are detected early, the treatment is very expensive. If you don't have health insurance, you're not going to get treatment with Hearsay's plan.

 

It's so easy to take a situation like obesity and related disorders and apply what one things is a simple solution---take care of yourself and you won't have to worry about it. It's another to look at it from the perspective of some who have disorders, diseases and other illnesses through no lack of care on their part.

 

It's not a constitutional right to have healthcare. But I don't believe that everything should have to be a constitutional right. This is the richest nation in the world. You know what they say about a chain? You're only as strong as your weakest link.

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)

 

What state or states require insurance of any kind in a forced, involuntary manner?

 

The state requires auto insurance - if you own an auto.

The state requires business liability insurance - if you run a licenced business.

 

I dont believe you have to have homeowners insurance. But you can not get a mortgage from a bank without it.

 

Is there a mandated insurance that we all must have for face prosecution?

Very disrespectful, and totally uncalled for, no matter where you stand politically.

 

I agree. President Obama has been disrespected more than our last President, and he's only been in for around 8 months. This is getting absurd.

Then the right to potentitally live a long life is in the hands of those who can afford the necessary treatment.

 

Putting aside preventative care which can address many health issues, if you have an undetected disease or body part that doesn't function, and it requires treatment later in life and you can't afford it, so be it, even if you took great care of yourself up until that point. If you're in a traumatic car accident, and for whatever reason your treatment exceeds the limits of the auto insurance, too bad.

 

What about things like cervical, breast and prostate cancers? Those can go undetected. Even if they are detected early, the treatment is very expensive. If you don't have health insurance, you're not going to get treatment with Hearsay's plan.

 

It's so easy to take a situation like obesity and related disorders and apply what one things is a simple solution---take care of yourself and you won't have to worry about it. It's another to look at it from the perspective of some who have disorders, diseases and other illnesses through no lack of care on their part.

 

It's not a constitutional right to have healthcare. But I don't believe that everything should have to be a constitutional right. This is the richest nation in the world. You know what they say about a chain? You're only as strong as your weakest link.

 

 

I've got the solution: Donkey Basketball games and Cake Walks. They can produce a lot of money.

I agree. President Obama has been disrespected more than our last President, and he's only been in for around 8 months. This is getting absurd.

 

In no way, shape, or form is that even close to being accurate....

In no way, shape, or form is that even close to being accurate....

 

Last night's event might disagree with you.

 

I've never seen a Congressman yell out at the President of the US during a speech to Congress and that includes when Nixon addressed congress during the nearly two years of Watergate.

 

Was Bush talked of just as harshly in interviews and speeches. Surely. But he was never shouted at during a speech before Congress and that is a new low.

 

South Carolina is struggling with their elected officials lately.

Then the right to potentitally live a long life is in the hands of those who can afford the necessary treatment.

 

Putting aside preventative care which can address many health issues, if you have an undetected disease or body part that doesn't function, and it requires treatment later in life and you can't afford it, so be it, even if you took great care of yourself up until that point. If you're in a traumatic car accident, and for whatever reason your treatment exceeds the limits of the auto insurance, too bad.

 

What about things like cervical, breast and prostate cancers? Those can go undetected. Even if they are detected early, the treatment is very expensive. If you don't have health insurance, you're not going to get treatment with Hearsay's plan.

 

It's so easy to take a situation like obesity and related disorders and apply what one things is a simple solution---take care of yourself and you won't have to worry about it. It's another to look at it from the perspective of some who have disorders, diseases and other illnesses through no lack of care on their part.

 

It's not a constitutional right to have healthcare. But I don't believe that everything should have to be a constitutional right. This is the richest nation in the world. You know what they say about a chain? You're only as strong as your weakest link.

 

Obama has said that affordable healthcare is a "fundamental right."

 

What you say is absolutely correct. However, where I part ways is on the manner of enforcement. If you want to have coverage for the uninsured, fine. Have the stones to say, I'm going to raise your taxes. But that's not what he's doing. He is saying, you MUST have insurance coverage, and if you don't, I'm going to punish you. He is saying, the government can eliminate fraud and waste in the system better than private industry, so I want you to pay us for creation of an exchange. I have fundamental differences with both of those opinions, and believe they are wrong.

Last night's event might disagree with you.

 

I've never seen a Congressman yell out at the President of the US during a speech to Congress and that includes when Nixon addressed congress during the nearly two years of Watergate.

 

Was Bush talked of just as harshly in interviews and speeches. Surely. But he was never shouted at during a speech before Congress and that is a new low.

 

South Carolina is struggling with their elected officials lately.

 

So one action, by one idiot, trumps all the disrespect and crap given to Bush over the previous 8 years? I disagree.

 

In any event, I'd rank falling asleep during the President's address just as disrespectful.