So this plan will allow your employer to drop your current coverage for no apparent reason, except they don't want to pay for it? What employer won't do this?

 

I mean, I've read it a couple of times it just won't sink in.

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?

All I was speaking about was the fact that the "powers to the states are numerous and indefinite" in regards to the U.S. Constitution, so per the U.S. Constitution, it is unconstitutional for the federal government to force insurance (health or auto), but the states may. This is NOT in regards to state constitutions.

Why do you think we'll go bankrupt?

 

Decisions and priorities will have to be made. I think most Americans place a high value on healthcare. Thus, to pay for this (and I'm not as optimistic as the POTUS) spending cuts will have to happen.

 

Are you going to try to tell me that we can't cut spending?

We can cut spending, but who is going to? And where?

 

If the President gives me specifics on what will be cut, then I'm much more open to healthcare reform. I've outlined billions and billions of dollars that can be cut in another thread, but saying "we'll cut spending" is as vague and useless as the general Republican economic plan of "cut taxes" with no specifics.

If there are unneeded plans and programs and wasteful spending that can afford to be cut in the future if needed, why haven't those cuts already been made? Isn't what Obama really is saying is that we will be able to afford the health insurance reforms by eliminating the wasteful govt spending currently going on that we (Congress and the WH) haven't had the courage in the past to cut? If there are cuts that can be cut in the future, why haven't they already been cut? Doesn't that tell you something about the ability of our govt to efficiently manage and spend our (and by our, I mean those of us that actually pay taxes) money? If he's in effect admitting that they haven't efficiently managed in the past the money we've already given them, why should we have any optimism that the federal govt will be able to efficiently manage health insurance? You acknwledge that there is substantial wasteful spending already in the federal govt; why do you have any optimism that greater federal involvement in the health insurance business will create greater effeciency and less waste? Does the govt's past management of Medicare and Medicaid provide any evidence of how well the govt can manage any thing?

 

You're a smart guy and not politically naive. You know there is a very small chance that there will be any real cuts of wasteful spending in the future if needed. It's way too easy to raise taxes on the wealthy than it is to cut programs and eliminate waste, because waste to me is pork to someone else, and pork is what is used by politicians to get re-elected. Looking at just the military for a moment (but it is not alone amongst federal agencies in its ability to waste money; not by a long shot). It should be easy, shouldn't it, to close an unneeded military base? But we all know how difficult that is. It should be easy, shouldn't it, to stop the development of unneeded military weapons? But we all know how difficult that is. It should be easy to do those things but it isn't. Why? Because powerful politicians are prostitutes to lobbyists for campaign contributions and to constituients for votes. If they don't have the courage to cut the wasteful spending now, why should a rationale person believe that they will have the courage to do it in the future?

 

Asking the question another way: if you owned a business and you were talking to your Chief Operations Officer about how you were going to afford to pay for an business expansion that he was proposing if the expansion did not pay for itself, and he told you not to worry because he knew where the company had so much existing wasteful spending that could be cut if needed, you'd probably fire him on the spot for not already having taken action to eliminate the waste, wouldn't you? I can guarantee you that I would. And that in a nutshell is what Obama is saying, isn't it?

 

Help me out. Maybe I've misunderstood things and my impressions are wrong. I'll change my thoughts if you can help me understand why those impressions are wrong. I truly will.

 

The "potential" elimination of wasteful spending if needed did stand out to me, also. Potential? If needed?

 

However, I keep thinking about a friend of mine whose insurance company dropped her with two chemotherapy sessions left to go. She's 35 and had to have a double mastectomy. Now, she may lose her home to keep her life. I guess that homeless and alive beats dead with a home.

Can you name one example, in the history of the United States, where the government has been efficient at eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse as well as private industry?

 

All evidence, and I mean all of it, points to the government screwing this up.

 

I would be happy to find an example if there is one that exists. However, you missed the overall point of my post, which is pretty much, in essence, what I will answer in the end to this question anyway.

Agreed. I wish Obama would be more honest, more candid or whatever word you want to use. I'd respect him more. If he believes that health insurance coverage is such a fundamental right for everyone, he should just come out and say taxes should be and will be raised if necessary to provide such coverage. Does any one really believe that the costs of such coverage can be covered by making the system more efficient and by the elimination of waste and fraud? For that matter, does any one really believe that any govt ran program can be ran efficiently and eliminate waste and fraud? If so, what existing govt program can you point to in order to give you such confidence?

 

Of course Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the crowd realize that stating it will be necessary to raise taxes to pay for the plan means the reform will go no where and thus they aren't being so direct. They wouldn't be in the positions they are if they weren't politically savvy. So they try to pull the wool over Americans eyes in my opinion. I disagreed with Ted Kennedy on almost every issue, but I respected him for being brutally honest in his beliefs and positions. I had great hopes that the same would be true with Obama. I truly did. He has dashed my hopes. Others may disagree with me on that and that's fine. But it's the way I feel.

 

Clyde, I admire your optimism about Congress being willing in the future to make the cuts needed if cuts are required to pay for the health insurance reform. I truly do. I don't share that optimism. If there are unneeded plans and programs and wasteful spending that can afford to be cut in the future if needed, why haven't those cuts already been made? Isn't what Obama really is saying is that we will be able to afford the health insurance reforms by eliminating the wasteful govt spending currently going on that we (Congress and the WH) haven't had the courage in the past to cut? If there are cuts that can be cut in the future, why haven't they already been cut? Doesn't that tell you something about the ability of our govt to efficiently manage and spend our (and by our, I mean those of us that actually pay taxes) money? If he's in effect admitting that they haven't efficiently managed in the past the money we've already given them, why should we have any optimism that the federal govt will be able to efficiently manage health insurance? You acknwledge that there is substantial wasteful spending already in the federal govt; why do you have any optimism that greater federal involvement in the health insurance business will create greater effeciency and less waste? Does the govt's past management of Medicare and Medicaid provide any evidence of how well the govt can manage any thing?

 

You're a smart guy and not politically naive. You know there is a very small chance that there will be any real cuts of wasteful spending in the future if needed. It's way too easy to raise taxes on the wealthy than it is to cut programs and eliminate waste, because waste to me is pork to someone else, and pork is what is used by politicians to get re-elected. Looking at just the military for a moment (but it is not alone amongst federal agencies in its ability to waste money; not by a long shot). It should be easy, shouldn't it, to close an unneeded military base? But we all know how difficult that is. It should be easy, shouldn't it, to stop the development of unneeded military weapons? But we all know how difficult that is. It should be easy to do those things but it isn't. Why? Because powerful politicians are prostitutes to lobbyists for campaign contributions and to constituients for votes. If they don't have the courage to cut the wasteful spending now, why should a rationale person believe that they will have the courage to do it in the future?

 

Asking the question another way: if you owned a business and you were talking to your Chief Operations Officer about how you were going to afford to pay for an business expansion that he was proposing if the expansion did not pay for itself, and he told you not to worry because he knew where the company had so much existing wasteful spending that could be cut if needed, you'd probably fire him on the spot for not already having taken action to eliminate the waste, wouldn't you? I can guarantee you that I would. And that in a nutshell is what Obama is saying, isn't it?

 

Help me out. Maybe I've misunderstood things and my impressions are wrong. I'll change my thoughts if you can help me understand why those impressions are wrong. I truly will.

 

Can you name one example, in the history of the United States, where the government has been efficient at eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse as well as private industry?

 

All evidence, and I mean all of it, points to the government screwing this up.

 

:thumb: Government involvement is NOT the answer! They will only make things worse than they are and then we are all (at least the ones who pay taxes) stuck with the costs. Until the right or the left can prove they can do a better job managing money, I am unwilling to give them any more of my tax dollars than what they are currently getting. If they are so confident that this "reform" can be done without raising taxes and increasing the deficit, why not try to get medicare/medicaid close to running at break even first.

 

They are going to pass "something" though, as a face saving measure. The political cost of not getting "something" passed is too great for the liberals.

Each side makes such a strong case as to why we should or shouldn't have the the public option/gov't run healthcare. I think the best thing to do would be to put it on hold for a while and hopefully see our economy get stronger and then deal with the issue again early next year.

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.

 

I didn't say that.

 

I said that words spoken about Bush versus doing something I've never seen in the chamber before with any President in my memory does.

 

You want to make this a "Bush was bashed MORE" debate. I don't see it as who has been bashed more.

 

I see it as a great act of disrespect that there is little to no precedence for.

 

As to George W., I saw plenty of bashing of Clinton's sexual experiences by people who were likewise having affairs. W. was not the first president hammered. (See Carter, Nixon and Jerry Ford)

 

Yet none of the above experienced a heckler from the Congressional gallery.

I didn't say that.

 

I said that words spoken about Bush versus doing something I've never seen in the chamber before with any President in my memory does.

 

You want to make this a "Bush was bashed MORE" debate. I don't see it as who has been bashed more.

 

I see it as a great act of disrespect that there is little to no precedence for.

 

As to George W., I saw plenty of bashing of Clinton's sexual experiences by people who were likewise having affairs. W. was not the first president hammered. (See Carter, Nixon and Jerry Ford)

 

Yet none of the above experienced a heckler from the Congressional gallery.

 

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/200502040014

:thumb: Government involvement is NOT the answer! They will only make things worse than they are and then we are all (at least the ones who pay taxes) stuck with the costs. Until the right or the left can prove they can do a better job managing money, I am unwilling to give them any more of my tax dollars than what they are currently getting. If they are so confident that this "reform" can be done without raising taxes and increasing the deficit, why not try to get medicare/medicaid close to running at break even first.

 

They are going to pass "something" though, as a face saving measure. The political cost of not getting "something" passed is too great for the liberals.

 

That's another question I had. Instead of trying to reform the entire system, and talk about driving down the cost of healthcare when all you want to do is provide free healthcare to those that don't have it, why don't you just reform medicare/medicaid.

 

This accomplishes both, since most insurance companies pay scales are based on medicare standards.

I'm not sure I'm "intelligent" enough to participate in this thread but will give it a shot.

Really? Then explain in more detail belief that this will be "govt run healthcare." I may have assumed you meant something you did not.

On face value this will not initially be a "govt run healthcare" plan but it is definitely a step in that direction. Private companies cannot compete with government run competitors.

No shock that I will disagree. I'm in the camp that healthcare is a right and its a moral obligation.

 

However, lets get past that for a minute.

 

In your world, what happens to those who do not have healthcare when they are in a car wreck or they have cancer or their child has leukemia?

How is healthcare a right?

 

If you are in a car wreck and it's your fault you auto insurance will cover it. If it's not your fault the other drivers insurance will cover it...if they aren't insured then it falls back on your insurance. If you don't have insurance and the other driver doesn't have insurance neither of you should have been driving in the first place and I really don't care at that point what happens.

 

If your child has leukemia then you should have at least had catastrophic coverage. If you have no insurance then you are in for a great deal of medical bills. Your child will be treated at your expense. Or if you are in a low enough income class their already covered by Medicaid.

To be honest, I never realized that going across state lines was a no-no for insurance companies. Has the POTUS addressed that issue?

I believe it has to do with the regulations differing from state to state. An insurance company is required to set up shop in a state before they can sell insurance there. I heard the other day that in Mississippi (I believe it was) Anthem had 80% of the market.

 

Why do you think we'll go bankrupt?

 

Decisions and priorities will have to be made. I think most Americans place a high value on healthcare. Thus, to pay for this (and I'm not as optimistic as the POTUS) spending cuts will have to happen.

 

Are you going to try to tell me that we can't cut spending?

The government has all but bankrupt SS and Medicare/Medicaid is on it's way. What makes you think they wouldn't do the same with program the size of healthcare?

The "potential" elimination of wasteful spending if needed did stand out to me, also. Potential? If needed?

 

However, I keep thinking about a friend of mine whose insurance company dropped her with two chemotherapy sessions left to go. She's 35 and had to have a double mastectomy. Now, she may lose her home to keep her life. I guess that homeless and alive beats dead with a home.

I've seen you use this example a few times on here and it doesn't seem right that they could do this. That said do you know the details of why they dropped her? Did she exceed her max allowed pay out? Did she not pay her premium? Did they just tell her oh well too bad?

I've seen you use this example a few times on here and it doesn't seem right that they could do this. That said do you know the details of why they dropped her? Did she exceed her max allowed pay out? Did she not pay her premium? Did they just tell her oh well too bad?

 

I'm not sure of all of the details. To me, unless she failed to pay her premium, then this is not acceptable. I doubt that's the case, though.

The "potential" elimination of wasteful spending if needed did stand out to me, also. Potential? If needed?

 

However, I keep thinking about a friend of mine whose insurance company dropped her with two chemotherapy sessions left to go. She's 35 and had to have a double mastectomy. Now, she may lose her home to keep her life. I guess that homeless and alive beats dead with a home.

 

Hopefully the lady you mentioned has some family or a friend that she can live with so she isn't homeless. It's the way many of our forefathers got through tough times. Actually I believe that needing to depend on our friends, our churges and family members for help is a very important fiber in the fabric of society. It forces each of us to be more considerate of our friends and families because you never know when you will need their assistance. If forces us to join and get involved in a church because you never know when you will need its help. Those may be rather shallow reasons for doing such, but the end result is a good one. Tighter families; stronger friendships and more people in churches listening to thoughtful sermons. It's been a long held belief of mine that as the govt has become the safety net for Americans, the family, churches and communities have broken down.

I'm not sure of all of the details. To me, unless she failed to pay her premium, then this is not acceptable. I doubt that's the case, though.

 

Has she talked to a lawyer?

Hopefully the lady you mentioned has some family or a friend that she can live with so she isn't homeless. It's the way many of our forefathers got through tough times. Actually I believe that needing to depend on our friends, our churges and family members for help is a very important fiber in the fabric of society. It forces each of us to be more considerate of our friends and families because you never know when you will need their assistance. If forces us to join and get involved in a church because you never know when you will need its help. Those may be rather shallow reasons for doing such, but the end result is a good one. Tighter families; stronger friendships and more people in churches listening to thoughtful sermons. It's been a long held belief of mine that as the govt has become the safety net for Americans, the family, churches and communities have broken down.

 

 

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, and I'm certain that the way this post comes off is likely not the [/b]way[/b] you are...but here goes:

 

leatherneck, the overall tone of your post smacks of someone who either has never had to worry about such a concern, or is confident that he won't. Again...I'm not saying that's your case. But that's what it sounds like when reading it.

 

I understand the overall intent. However there are MANY factors that I feel you don't consider: the financial situation of those you feel should help her (family/friends); the simple fact that this woman may have a family. She's hit with this illness, faced with losing her home, now relying on "charity", I'm pretty certain that her "positive" outlook will be nil after all that.

 

I think so many people look at issues from too far a distance. It always seem so simple, yet rarely is. Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I can't stop putting myself in others' shoes before I decide what SHOULD be the case.