Thread: President Obama's Speech

Originally Posted by SJA

I dont have any problem with them buying health insurance as long as there are no tax-funded benefits involved. I know the credits are illegal for non-citizens in the bill, but again, put the enforcement in the bill also. State up front it takes specific forms of ID to receive any tax-funded benefits, and failure to do so will affect the recipient and the provider so everything is on the up and up. Or leave it as is so Mrs Butterworth at the local health office can turn a blind eye and sign anyone up she pleases. If its not a loophole put the verbage in anyway and cover the base, what does it hurt? This is one health reform issue that is bipartisan apparently, so again, why dont they just do it unless there is some other agenda?

Page 132, Section 242 of HR 3200:
(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this division, the term ‘‘affordable credit eligible individual’’ means, subject to subsection (b), an individual who is lawfully present in a State in the United States (other than as a nonimmigrant described in a subparagraph (excluding subparagraphs (K), (T), (U), and (V)) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act)—

So it already is in the House bill. And it was also in the Senate bill, but as Xoria pointed out, Baucus caved and stiffened it to make Republicans happy, even though it still won't get them a single vote.

Originally Posted by SJA

I understand what the surveyUSA poll shows, I question the validity of it since the other polls dont even have numbers that high for reform, much less a specific part of reform. Unless you look at the democratic numbers that is.

SurveyUSA is not a Democratic pollster.
Another poll:
9/11/09 CBS poll - "Support for the public option has risen since last week from 57 percent to 68 percent. Among speech watchers, support for the public option lies at 70 percent." (This poll also says, "Among those who watched, 60 percent say they mostly agree with the health care plans the president presented; 33 percent mostly disagree.")
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5303015.shtml

This is one of many others I can bring up, if you wish.

Originally Posted by SJA

Yes, that is kind of the point from the conservative side. Make the people pay for their insurance, not have tax payers do it for them. There are only controls in place on basic services. If I had to pick between the two, Id rather regulate the private industry some instead of growing the government, growing the deficit, and growing another layer of dependency on the government.

No offense, but you are all over the board when you are talking about health care/insurance reform I don't know what you are trying to get at. Are you talking about the reform that is trying to be passed now? Are you talking about a hypothetical system being passed? What system is "growing another layer of dependency"? I ask because you seem to be talking about reform in the post, but the description you provide makes no sense. First, the reform being debated now still requires people to buy it. It's very similar to those systems. A single-payer system, which isn't in the reforms, would be payed for by taxes that everyone would have access to. It would be no different than a private insurer, except it wouldn't profit and it would cover everyone. That means you would be paying for your own health care through taxes, too. But again, I am not sure what you are trying to refer to here.

Originally Posted by SJA

How can you say the democratic plan is close to what they have? Its all private there, they arent saying "some form of public option or it wont work" like the left.

And it would still be pretty much all private here. Yeah, there may be a public option, but it's just another option. Why are you against choice in the marketplace?

Originally Posted by SJA

Here is some further reading on their model, the more I find on it the more I like it. Its probably worth noting that the Dutch moved from a social medicine program to this regulated private model.

Let me ask a you a few questions, then. Would you support a mandate that requires people to buy insurance? Would you support a fine for those who do not? Would you support forcing private insurers to provide a basic plan that they are not allowed to profit off of? I only ask this because those tenets are present in the Swiss and Dutch system. The thing I am wary about is mandating people to buy private insurance unless we get the same standards as in those countries, but the Republicans would never agree to that. Without that, the only way I would support a mandate is if there was a public option to buy into.

No, its not that simple. There are provisions for credits in the bill based on income. That is where big fed pays for your health insurance. You arent buying it anymore if do it all on credits, I am, and anyone else that pays taxes is. Im not all over the map, Im talking about the bill at hand. When I reference another layer of dependency, I mean getting people hooked on the government tit. Im against it, but thats probably another discussion.

Im not against choice, Im against forcing the private companies to compete with something that doesnt play by the same rules. Thats no longer a game, its a fix. A government option would inherently play by a seperate set of rules, they dont have to worry about competition from anyone else. They cant fail, no matter what they budget, the government will keep feeding it. Business doesnt work that way, and it makes no sense to say youre promoting competition when what you are really doing is building an option that competes with nothing, while everyone competes with it.

Im absolutely for people buying their own insurance. Like I said previously, I would prefer regulation of the private system instead of giving the government a part of HC. Providing some form of reduced services based on a smaller cost is fine with me as long as people are paying. Think of it like comp and collision on beater cars, the bare minimum to keep it on the road. If people are good with that, let them go cheap on HC. What standards are you referring to when you say you are wary of mandating people to buy private insurance? According to census figures there are roughly 11 million people that are uninsured but either qualify for medicaid and havent enrolled or make over 75k a year and choose not to buy any health insurance. Without a mandate, we are letting people that are part of the problem not contribute even though they can.

Originally Posted by SJA

No, its not that simple. There are provisions for credits in the bill based on income. That is where big fed pays for your health insurance. You arent buying it anymore if do it all on credits, I am, and anyone else that pays taxes is. Im not all over the map, Im talking about the bill at hand. When I reference another layer of dependency, I mean getting people hooked on the government tit. Im against it, but thats probably another discussion.

But if they cannot afford it any other way, how else are they going to get it? Should we deny them because they are poorer? I see these people as utilizing their government to help them get by. I don't see it as being dependent on the government. As a side question, are you against things like unemployment, too?

Originally Posted by SJA

Im not against choice, Im against forcing the private companies to compete with something that doesnt play by the same rules. Thats no longer a game, its a fix. A government option would inherently play by a seperate set of rules, they dont have to worry about competition from anyone else. They cant fail, no matter what they budget, the government will keep feeding it. Business doesnt work that way, and it makes no sense to say youre promoting competition when what you are really doing is building an option that competes with nothing, while everyone competes with it.

So we shouldn't have a public option because it may be able to provide a far cheaper alternative? I'm sorry I don't give a shit if private insurance companies profits take a hit. And I think you are overestimating the effect of this public option. It's not like half the population is going to switch over, it's will likely just be a small percentage.

Originally Posted by SJA

Im absolutely for people buying their own insurance. Like I said previously, I would prefer regulation of the private system instead of giving the government a part of HC. Providing some form of reduced services based on a smaller cost is fine with me as long as people are paying. Think of it like comp and collision on beater cars, the bare minimum to keep it on the road. If people are good with that, let them go cheap on HC.

What I meant by basic insurance was a base level of coverage, not just catastrophic insurance. As in they cannot sell anything worse than the base level. In auto terms, I want affordable full coverage for everyone, not just PLPD. But the problem is your life is not comparable to a car. A crap car can get away with just PLPD because it isn't worth it to fully insure it. Lives are different, and I think if we are going to mandate private coverage, that we should at least have affordable full coverage.

Originally Posted by SJA

What standards are you referring to when you say you are wary of mandating people to buy private insurance?

I meant I don't support a mandate to force people to give money to private insurers unless the same extremely strict standards in countries such as the Netherlands and Switzerland are in effect.

Originally Posted by SJA

According to census figures there are roughly 11 million people that are uninsured but either qualify for medicaid and havent enrolled or make over 75k a year and choose not to buy any health insurance.

One, that is $75k per household, not per person, so it really is impossible to know about those peoples situations, and two, this also completely ignores the people who are underinsured or don't have sufficient coverage.

Originally Posted by SJA

Without a mandate, we are letting people that are part of the problem not contribute even though they can.

I agree here, but like I said, I cannot support a mandate unless private insurers are severely restricted or there is an adequate public option.

From NBC's Mike Viqueira
The White House tonight is providing the below clarification on what the president's health-care proposals would mean when it comes to the issue of illegal immigrants.

The question, as we all know, arises from the Wilson "You lie" outburst, and the core claim that notwithstanding specific bill language barring illegal immigrants from participating in the "exchange," as a practical matter, there is no way of verifying the citizenship of applicants -- which is the current state of play. Republicans say that then means illegal immigrants would end up being enrolled in plans -- bill language or no bill language.

Today, for the first time as far as we know, the administration is backing a provision that would require proof of citizenship before someone could enroll in a plan selected on the exchange.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/11/2065287.aspx

With a political arms race in full force, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) has raised almost $750,000 in less than 48 hours since his shout of "You lie!" to President Obamahttp://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/09/scs_wilson_rakes_in_750000_in.html


Joe is a liar eh ?
Our feckless leader, caught in another outright lie.


Quack Quack Quack

1st year Lame duck President

Originally Posted by deputyfestus

We can only hope that after the 2010 mid-term elections he truly is a lame duck

Hope ? ? ?



YES WE CAN !!!

Originally Posted by CallousDisregard

With a political arms race in full force, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) has raised almost $750,000 in less than 48 hours since his shout of "You lie!" to President Obamahttp://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/09/scs_wilson_rakes_in_750000_in.html

His opponent, Rob Miller, has raised over a $1,000,000.

Originally Posted by CallousDisregard

Joe is a liar eh ?
Our feckless leader, caught in another outright lie.

Joe is the liar. I know you like to ignore reality, but this is becoming ridiculous.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lied-he-didnt/

Originally Posted by CallousDisregard

Quack Quack Quack

1st year Lame duck President

9 months in and your already calling him a lame duck? I mean, it's not like he has gotten a big piece of legislation through yet. Oh, wait, he has! The stimulus. This is why I could never be conservative. It requires the suspension of all logical and reasoned thought to live in a fantasy world.