Thread: President Obama's Speech

Originally Posted by SJA

See, thats all anyone was looking for. Close the loophole. This will probably help smooth the way for some level of reform, if they dont strap it to a public option its likely to get republican support. Lets see if the O can talk Pelosi and the liberal funky bunch down. :P

No, this still won't get any Republican support, with or without a public option. They could write it, but if a Democrat were to add an amendment, they would vote against it.

Originally Posted by SJA

Theres a big difference between unemployment (temporary, 3 month limit) and these credits that from what Ive read, are indefinite. Welfare used to be indefinite, and people lived off of it. One of the highlights of Clinton's term was TANF. Without limits, people will abuse it, its an unfortunate fact of life.

Alright, unemployment wasn't the best choice of programs I picked as an example. My point was are you against all form of government assistance?

Originally Posted by SJA

I think you are looking at it too simply. This isnt just about profit margins, its about the government driving the entire market. There is no clear answer on the number of people switching, but it will be significant nonetheless.

No, I'm not looking at it too simply. It is about market forces. It you can give more choice, you can drive down the costs. What I meant by saying that I don't give a shit about their profit margin was that I don't care if this would affect it. I want it to drive down costs. And you don't know how many people will switch. That is pure conjecture on your part that it would be "significant."

Originally Posted by SJA

The problem cuts both ways, some people still dont want to pay for anything, even knowing the risk. By putting the basic tier at some catastrophic level you provide enough to get by for those people. I can see expanding on the dutch model and having a catastrophic, basic, and expanded level of service to scratch everyone's itch.

Yes, but when they get injured and need treatment, it won't cover it. So what happens? Either the government ends up paying for it anyways or the person goes bankrupt and ends up receiving government benefits anyways. Some people might want to risk going without adequate insurance, but that puts everyone at risk, not just the person with inadequate coverage.

Originally Posted by SJA

I still dont understand the standards you are speaking about. There is some agreed basic level of service that all companies must provide at a fixed cost. There isnt any regulation beyond that. The one danger I saw in all of this was the graying out of the population. Without a birthrate that roughly equals seniors entering their retirement, any model, private or social, breaks down. Thats a problem in most developed countries I believe.

The standards I was referring to was it is illegal for them to reject anyone, illegal to post a profit off of a basic plan everyone is forced to buy, illegal for them to cancel the policy for some pre-existing condition, etc. Things like that. As for the birthrate thing, it is the Baby Boomer bubble that is beginning to hit retirement right now. Everything will normalize once that generation is gone.

Originally Posted by SJA

I was able to get my own coverage when my household income was in the 50k range. Thats a cop-out. If you can make 75k as a household, you can afford some level of coverage. That may mean cutting back on your cable package, or skimping on eating out, but 75k for a household isnt hurting unless youre a very active mormon. :P

No, what I meant was that is the total income for a household, not a family. That includes people like roommates. You don't know how many people are in a household or what their finances are like.

Originally Posted by SJA

I think the two are exclusive, but with the dems in charge I dont think the dutch model will get a fair shake. The conspiracist says that the public option grows government dependency, which in turn grows the liberal voter block. The realist just thinks they are just stubborn pricks that dont look beyond the party line. Im floating somewhere in the middle right now.

The Democratic model is actually quite similar, albeit a bit more conservative, to the Dutch model, except with a public option. "Government dependency" and "liberal voter block", eh? There is a racial tinge to this, because those conspiracy theorists also often complain about African-Americans receiving those benefits.

As for the birthrate thing, it is the Baby Boomer bubble that is beginning to hit retirement right now. Everything will normalize once that generation is gone.

LMAO
Who lives in fantasy land now ?
When will that generation be gone ?
20 years ?
30 years ?
But gloss over a huge hole in the funding scheme ....don't worry be happy


And never forget to accuse people of racism .....it has worked for so long for so many things ....why stop now ?
It's not like a contradiction or anything that all racists out there voted for a bi-racial man who identifies himself as "black".
But keep throwing it out there because the minorities in this country are starting to wake up to who the real racists are.