lynks66

Instead of getting out, I would recommend placing a stop limit order in a situation similar to yours. Especially if you are up quite a bit right now. JMO

The reform bills should at the very least set up a national standard to allow crossing of state lines to seek better options. I'd like to go to a single payer system incrementally, indexed to the debt and GDP growth. I don't know how practical it would be, but I'd prefer to go that way than to an immediate single payer system.

What are some of your reasons behind supporting a single payer plan?

The bill you mention has zero chance of passing, thus, this is an academic discussion.

If for some reason it would pass, would you support this bill?

The bill you mention has zero chance of passing, thus, this is an academic discussion.

Would you support the bill if it did pass?

I may be misenterprting you but you seem to be implying that for one person to succeed, others must suffer. I'm sorry but it is not a zero sum gain with a fixed set of resources. Just because someone does well doesn't mean it is at the expense of another. The Robinhood government doesn't work. It colapses on itself. History shows it to be a failure everywhere.

Would you care to elaborate on this?

When I read a question like cch5432's "Why should everyone be forced to have healthcare?" I see actual intelligent honest debate that has no fear inspired slant.

 

Perhaps the problem is the two of us are probably focusing to much on what our eyes are looking for. But I'm not seeing that policy discussion and disagreement are the drivers of the opposition movement. I see the "Obama wants to send you home with a pain pill to die", "Obama wants to pay for the illegal aliens", and "Obama wants to make your healthcare worse to pay for the nonworkers" and other bumper sticker type distorted truths as the plan of action. This is no different than the "No Blood for Oil" before the Iraq war in that it isn't intellegent argumentation, it is fearmongering.

Where are you seeing these quotes? On BGP?

Simple question.

 

Yes or no.

I think it would be very interesting to poll our congresspeople with this very same question.

Maybe people weighed inefficiency v. greed and chose inefficiency?

I'll take greed every time in that scenario.

Maybe everyone on this board agrees with your sentiment on this issue?

Are you implying that I'm not an American?

Well, we haven't seen a copy of your birth certificate on here, so..... :sssh:

If you wanted to combine the two, I would ask will Obama's Healthcare plan cover plastic surgery and breast augumentations?

Will this have any effect on this legislation?

http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/23765755/hot-air.htm#q=epa

Some slightly related information:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090623/ap_on_re_us/us_governors__odd_behavior_glance

How do I answer that without knowing the details?

Fair enough.

BTW I don't think its a given that this gets through the House and Senate. Another Dem came out today as being against it after being for it a few months ago. Can you smell the campaign money that's flowing in?

Clyde, just curious, but what kind of odds or chances do you see of this being successful if it were to go through?

Why do people invest in the stock market without knowing that they'll get money in return somewhere down the road?

Because the stock market is driven by companies that must make a profit to survive. (or at least that used to be the case) Therefore, my investments are with people and companies who are fighting day in and day out for survival. To me that is a better investment than in government which does not require efficiency or profits to survive.

Just my thoughts.

There is still a need for unions today.

Would you be willing to elaborate on this?

I don't know if you can tell if an individual is the single best choice, but I think you can determine if a person is qualified and worthy of the position. I also believe you can see some gradations in how qualified and how worthy and individual is.

 

For example, John Roberts had impeccable credentials and was extraordinarily impressive in his confirmation hearings. I believe it would have been extremely difficult to find a more qualified, better legal mind than his. I also believe it says a lot about Obama that as qualified and impressive as Roberts was, Obama found it in himself to vote against Robert's confirmation. The obvious conclusion is that Obama was more than willing to vote against a candidate because of ideology regardless of the qualifications or capabilities of that individual.

That is a good question on Roberts. I wonder what Obama's reasoning was behind voting against him? Does anyone have a link to where he might have commented on this?

Would you support an 1,000% tax increase on cigarettes, for example? They are still available for us to purchase, right?

 

At risk of sounding inappropriate:

 

 

 

It is the principal behind the action. Taxation is NOT to be used as a form of punishment or as a form of control. Taxation is the government's way of having the revenue to perform its basic duties to the American people. Why do you think the government has the right to use its power of taxation in such a manner? Beyond the fact that it is NOT delegated the power to do so by the Constitution, what political philosophy encourages and enables the state to do this?

 

Until people begin to understand that, the entire discussion is meaningless.

 

Taxation is NOT to be used as a form of punishment or as a form of control.

Taxation is NOT to be used as a form of punishment or as a form of control.

Taxation is NOT to be used as a form of punishment or as a form of control.

Taxation is NOT to be used as a form of punishment or as a form of control.

Taxation is NOT to be used as a form of punishment or as a form of control.

 

I do not mean to be condescending and forthright, but its just absurd the way that people view government.

:thumb: You are wise beyond your years.

1 of the bidders has pulled out. 2 of us left. The big deal with the selllers is closing date. They've already purchased another home and are in a hurry to get this one sold. So right now the closing costs are around 2500. I'm waiting to pull the trigger on moving the close date up to 3 weeks from today, but they have to cover closing costs. Just really nervous when dealing with such a large ammount of money. I'll be tapping my savings for the downpayment but I'll get that back and then some from the tax rebate. Don't know what to do. I've looked at over 20 houses and this is the first one where I felt at home when I walked in.

My two cents: As difficult as it may be to do, try not to let emotions influence you in this decision. My thought would be to make an offer (including a preferable closing date) that you feel good about and if it doesn't work out, then it is not meant to be. I see people all the time at auctions and in situations such as these, where someone will overpay for something just because they got caught up in the bidding process.

Well, if you want out of a recession, and ask any certified and credible economist (not one from any of the biased networks), you increase government spending and lower taxes on the working class.

Do you have a link to one of these economist's articles?

VP Biden comments on swine flu:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/21925

You are such the expert why don't you expain it to me. While your at it see if you can explain why Private insurers are continually jacking up premiums and deductiables while covering less and less. The majority of people don't buy the scare tatics of the government being involved in health care. Most people have been on the wrong end of insurance companies practices and government intervention can't be anything but a positive.

Some excerpts from an article I read just today....

 

The result of leaving health care reform to the insurance industry is that health insurance premiums have gone up six times faster than wages in the past nine years. Those dollars are buying skimpier health coverage with high deductibles and caps on benefits, resulting in more and more insured people being forced into medical bankruptcy. Businesses that are struggling to meet health care costs in a global economy and dropping coverage, so much so that now 1 out of 3Americans under the age of 65 has been uninsured at some time in the past two years. Health care eats up 16% of our economy, up from 11% when the nation decided to leave the private insurance in charge.

 

The insurance industry and their defenders on the ideological right are resorting to the same name tired name calling that worked for them the past, "government-run" health care. It's a desperate attempt to fend off a sensible government role in making health care affordable to our families, businesses and nation. This time it won't work. The President and leadership in Congress -- and the American -- people support a two-pronged role for government. One, set rules so that the private insurance industry can't continue to put profits before our health. Two, offer a choice of private insurance or a public health insurance plan, so people aren't stuck only with private insurance.

 

The fact is that if private insurers controlled health care inflation as well as Medicare has over the past decade, businesses and families would see much lower premiums than they do today. Between 1997 and 2006, per enrollee spending in private insurance grew 59% faster than spending in Medicare. And Medicare has the tougher job, because it cares for the most expensive population: the elderly and those with serious disabilities.

 

One reason that private insurers have gotten away with skyrocketing premium increases is that they have a near monopoly across the nation. According to data from the American Medical Association, in virtually every metropolitan area in the country (96%) the insurance market is dominated by so few insurers so as to be considered "highly-concentrated." A public health insurance option coupled with a regulated private insurance market will break the stranglehold a handful of companies have on the insurance market. Most importantly, under these reforms consumers will be able to vote with their feet when their health care plan -- public or private -- doesn't work for them.

 

In fact, the main argument that the industry and the right has with offering the choice of a public health insurance option is that too many Americans will choose it. If private insurers are really more efficient than government, they shouldn't have any trouble competing with a public health insurance plan. It's the height of irony that the defenders of free markets are opposed to competition. But when it comes to health care, which is a public good, public insurers really are more efficient.

 

 

The American public gets it. In a national survey of voters taken last year, four-out-of-five voters (79%) said that the insurance industry puts profits before people. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released this week found that two-thirds (67%) of U.S. residents "strongly" or "somewhat" favor establishing a public health insurance option "similar to Medicare."

The poll paired the strongest conservative attacks -- "rationing", "government bureaucracy", losing private health insurance and being dumped into a public plan -- against the arguments for the choice of a public health insurance plan. In every case the public favors the pro-public health insurance option, in most cases by margins of better than two-to-one. For example, 61% agree that a public health insurance plan will be better able to control costs by using its purchasing power to drive competition. Voters reject by wide margins claims that a public health insurance plan will limit access, with 66% of voters agreeing that a public health insurance plan will provide an affordable option with a wide choice of doctors.

I had some trouble getting past the bolded, but I pressed onward. Would you care to share where this article came from?

Case by case.

That could be a lot of cases. Who would you have decide each case?

No offense but I doubt your business, should it fail, would have a ripple effect on the nation's economy. Banks failing would. No credit. No business expansion.

 

While we can certainly question how it was handled I don't think the underlying argument that its necessary to keep people and businesses spending can be questioned.

No offense taken. I see your point, but like I said earlier, where do you draw the line? Are only fortune 500 companies elgible? Or only companies with XXX number of employees? There just seems to be a lot of grey areas out there surrounding this.

Also, I do think the underlying argument of the bailout could be questioned.