i just love to talk politics with autounionfan! u r a wise man

 

a wise man will say, "the more you know, the more you realize how little you know."


The idea of requiring life insurance for everyone is difficult to accept for me.

I compared it to liability insurance for cars. But driving a car is a choice and the roads are built and maintained by the government. If you were really against paying for insurance, then you could take public transportation, work at home, carpool, etc. In other words there are options.

But life is not a choice. You can be born and become a citizen of this country without even being aware of your own existence. In a way, you would be paying a fee to be alive, as compared to paying a fee to drive. That seems to be an important distinction.

The underlying assumption, is that on average, you will require medical care that you cannot afford without insurance. If you do not have care, not only will you become a burden to your own financial circumstances, but you will also be a burden to society who will end up covering the costs. This is a legitimate concern.

There are many layers to this issue. Thoughts?

 

no thoughts on mandating insurance?

it seems to be one of the key philisophical controversies concerning healthcare.


I think that most people agree that some reform is necessary. But the Dems have really shot themselves in the foot so far. They should have had town hall meetings before they wrote the 1000 page legal document known as a bill. That would show that they are genuinely interested in listening to the people and not serving special interests.

Obama should share much of the blame. It is quite obvious that he has displayed a real lack of leadership on this one. He speaks in generalities, is noncommital, and defers the real policy decisions to the liberal congressional leadership. I'm not suprised at all since a lack of leadership and policy experience were two of the major criticisms of him before the election. Another 4 years in the senate would have helped him evolve and prove himself in these areas.

For instance,

Obama was at a "town hall" meeting that was more rehearsed than improvised. He was speaking about the public option and the resistance to it. He asked, "Who here has Medicare?" Many hands were raised. Obama's eyes were glowing. "That is a public option, and no one is complaining about it." Immediately defeating all arguments against a public option.

The very next day he is giving a speach. Eyes glowing, reading the teleprompter. And he says, "Medicare and Medicaid are on an unsustanainable path. They are a burden on our economy and the costs are accelerating. That is why we must pass healthcare reform."

I agree that we must pass reform. And most conservatives do. But the logic is what scares me. What he has said is that Medicare, which is bankrupty our economy, is a public plan that justifies the expansion of another public plan. He also says how no one complains about the Medicare plan, then proceeds to deliver such criticism of it. He is lying to himself.

 

Everyone I know complains about Medicare, who's he kidding?

 

^ lol...

 

Obama is delivering a prime time speech on healthcare reform tonight. Hoping to gain some control over the debate after the summer vacation.

Anyone interetsed to hear what he says?

Does anyone have an opinion on mandating healthcare? Should we require people to buy health insurance? Is that charging them just to be alive? Do the unisured become a burden to society?

Lets keep the conversation going. This could very well be one of the most important pieces of legislation in decades and could have an impact on all of our lives.

 

An other great idea of obama. WE need a sin tax on soda. MY God what next they are going to start to shut down fast food stores and say if it over so many calories then u cannot eat it. Im starting to not like how we are being forced into things now.

 

Well, speaking of forcing us into things, it looks like congress will confirm a new regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein. He will have power to regulate a broad range of government policies. He is certaintly an accomplished intellectual but he has some radical views, especially concerning animal rights. You could say that he is cut from the PETA cloth.

For instance, he thinks animals should have the near equal rights as humans. He thinks that animals should be able to bring lawsuits against people, and most forms of hunting should be illegal.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_.../headline/3807

He also believes that taxes are a requirement for rights. In fact, he said that the right to exercise free religon is equal to the right to food stamps. He lays it out in an essay called, "Why we should celebrate paying taxes."

http://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current...cy-394775.html

Bizarre.

Funny how I never heard of this guy before today and that his confirmation was scheduled for the same day as Obamas speech on healthcare. Coincidence? Maybe.

Time to eat some sloppy joes

 

Look, just to address the whole congressman not reading an entire bill thing. Real quick: congressmen don't read the entire bill because 1) they are frequently very long and 2) they are not experts or even very knowledgeable about EVERYTHING that comes up in a bill. Instead they have a teams of lawyers and doctors and what-not read the sections of the bill they are knowledgeable in and then they advise the congressman on which way to vote. Period. Micheal Moore is a fat virus. Don't watch his new movie.

 

Yes the bills are very long. One health care proposal is over 1000 pages and is written in legal terms that require a degree to decipher. That itself is a problem.

Have you ever heard of two lawyers interpeting langauge differently? So most bills are open to interpretation. This is one major source of confusion and disagreement. It also guarantees the employment of armies of lawyers in DC.

Our entire system of government is based on a few pages of documents that you could carry in your back pocket. We need to return to this concise and simple approach, but sadly it will never happen.


I only watched the first half of the speech last night so I will have to read the rest before I can make any serious comments about it. But from what I saw, Obama can still effectively read a teleprompter with style and conviction.

On the news this morning, I heard that Joe Wilson shouted "You Lie!" at Obama when Obama said that the bill would not insure illegal immigrants. Democrats immediately called it a disgraceful act and Mr. Wilson apologized. But once again we should not forget how disrespectful the democrats were to Bush when the loudly booed and shouted at him during a State of the Union address. In both cases, there was a lack of civility and disrespect for the President.

So was the President lying. Well that depends on what bill you read and how you interpret it

This website cites the Congrssional Research Service as finding many loopholes and little provisions to prevent illegal immigrants from participating in the exchange market that the President spoke about.

http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2009...n-you-lie.html

Also, many Republicans say that specific language that would prevent illegal immigrants from receiving coverage was repeatedly voted down by democrats.

This article by PolitiFact states that illegal immigrants are hardly mentioned at all in the bill.

"One place where the bill does mention immigration status is for "affordability credits." These are tax credits for people of modest means need to buy health insurance. The credits would help them buy insurance on a national health insurance exchange. The bill specifically says that people in the United States illegally are not eligible for tax credits, on page 132, section 242."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lied-he-didnt/

FactCheck.org uses this provision to "prove" that Obama is being honest. But I think that the concern of Joe Wilson is the very lack of language that all of these sites agree on.

Now I know why health care is such a controversial issue.

KISS

One thing tha Obama did not mention is the idea of opening insurance across state lines. This is probably the easiest and most effective way to increase competition but would probably make a public option less important.

Obama also said that insurance should be mandated, and he even used my auto insurance comparison. Of course he avoided the nuances which can lead to important distinctions like "why do I have to pay for insurance just to be alive?" I still have not made up my mind on this one.