Obama Care

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Hog1

I have not read every post, but where do the illegal aliens fit into this equation?

In all seriousness, not much has been said on the topic. I assume most in this discussion are speaking primarily about US Citizens. Would illegals try and use the system? Probably. And enforcement would probably be as much of a problem as it is with every other social program.

On the other hand, I assume that illegals use our ER's frequently also, and are a burden on the current system as well.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

In all seriousness, not much has been said on the topic. I assume most in this discussion are speaking primarily about US Citizens. Would illegals try and use the system? Probably. And enforcement would probably be as much of a problem as it is with every other social program.

On the other hand, I assume that illegals use our ER's frequently also, and are a burden on the current system as well.

Yes, very much so.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Pretty much. Instead of some fairyland fantasy utopia you should consider taking a long hard look at the real world. Seems like everyone else in this thread at least a has firm grasp on reality.

I understand. You feel superior to me, and that satisfies your ego. Good for you. Keep on keepin' on, bro.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I understand. You feel superior to me, and that satisfies your ego. Good for you. Keep on keepin' on, bro.

I think I get your drift. You're basically saying that if we could let go of our desire for material things and creature comforts, we'd be able to afford healthcare a lot more easily.

But the guys are right, that's fantasy land. Everyone likes HDTVs, everyone likes IPhones, everyone likes to spend money to attend Redskins games or subscribe to DirecTV. That won't change. Only a small fraction of the population would ever think along your lines.

Believing in your line of thinking is one thing, but the only way you can truly change the world is if you "carry the room". Can your line of thinking relate to others, can you convince them? Human nature says not in this case.

It's a nice thought, but it's way out of touch with the way most people think. To think you could convince the world to adjust to this line of thinking shows you're detached from reality. And if you don't think people are capable of being convinced of this, then you're dreaming of the possibility, not thinking about a reality.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

In all seriousness, not much has been said on the topic. I assume most in this discussion are speaking primarily about US Citizens. Would illegals try and use the system? Probably. And enforcement would probably be as much of a problem as it is with every other social program.

On the other hand, I assume that illegals use our ER's frequently also, and are a burden on the current system as well.

If I'm correct under Obama's plan it would include illegals, but I'm not 100% sure about that. This artical says it will.
Illegals to kill Obama health plan?

I cannot remember what it is called but its health coverage for children who's parent cannot afford coverage. Obama expanded that plan a month or so back and he also expanded the coverage to cover children of illegals.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I think I get your drift. You're basically saying that if we could let go of our desire for material things and creature comforts, we'd be able to afford healthcare a lot more easily.

But the guys are right, that's fantasy land. Everyone likes HDTVs, everyone likes IPhones, everyone likes to spend money to attend Redskins games or subscribe to DirecTV. That won't change. Only a small fraction of the population would ever think along your lines.

Believing in your line of thinking is one thing, but the only way you can truly change the world is if you "carry the room". Can your line of thinking relate to others, can you convince them? Human nature says not in this case.

It's a nice thought, but it's way out of touch with the way most people think. To think you could convince the world to adjust to this line of thinking shows you're detached from reality. And if you don't think people are capable of being convinced of this, then you're dreaming of the possibility, not thinking about a reality.

First of all, it's not *my* line of thinking in the regards that it is not my original thought. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way. Just wanted to make that point clear.

Second of all, I never claimed to be able, nor desire, to convince anyone of anything -- especially something like this. Awakening cannot be provoked, nor influenced by external forces. That is why you don't get it, and neither does buttplug.

Read my posts. You think I'm some kind of hippie, just like others you've met, and you erroneously assume that I'm preaching what they do. Hence, you draw conclusions about me based on that image, and not from my posts. That is why you mistakenly assumed my motive is to convince people. You're wrong. Seems like you are a bit out of touch my friend.

[JoeRedskin]

Hey all. Just wanted to give a quick check. Afraid today I won't be around much. I have to actually apply my intellectual acumen (such at it is) to filing motions in response to intelligent, well read idiots.

So it will a lot like what goes on here.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

You keep saying this Saden, and that is great. Honest. But you have yet to ever answer the questions on the deficit and debt in any way that remotely brings down the debt. If we can get government reduced and fiscally sound, then lets do that first, and then we can shift the priorities to universal healthcare.

Suppose we stridently reduce our military, lets say to 50% of current outlays, would you also be willing to forego new UHC expenses, and freeze other social expenditures for 2-4 years to try to atleast hold the line against the debt? And by freeze, I mean just that no cola adjustments, no automatic increases, a hard freeze. No government agency's discretionary budget could receive a penny more in real dollars for up to 4 years, so if the Dept Of Education's budget this year is 46.2 billion dollars, then the budget for 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 would be 46.2 billion dollars. Perhaps add an emergency clause requiring a supermajority approval could be added, but it would have to be a per case basis, not an omnibus gargantuan bill. So if the Dept of Ed had an emergency need for a 1 year raise in cost they could apply for that but at the end of the year the next years budget would be staked at the 46.2billion dollars.)

I would. And, I have stated before that I would be willing to reduce the standing Army (not AF/Navy) to 1/3(or less) of it's current size, and enforce 2yr mandatory service (and ya know I just realized if we mandated 2yrs of service, think of all the 18-20yr olds who currently don't have healthcare who would then have 2 years access to military hospitals! further we could extend the 2yrs access to 4yrs access at military healthcare locations, and have our countries youth covered from 18-22yrs old. Is that a Win Win or what!)

Maybe we could include hospitals as an option for mandatory service requirements. Schneed''s discussions seems to have said we need to increase the medical labor pool, so perhaps you could choose to serve the country in hospitals, I am sure many would then go further in the health care field.

If we could reduce the military, and reduce the debt (not the deficit) than we could seriously look at ways to bring about UHC.

But please stop saying you would accept a raise in taxes, as if your taxes somehow will cover our 11.6Trillion dollar debt.

If you want to play armchair budgeteer that's cool but don't act like the heath care isn't as much of an issue as the budget deficit and national debt. In my view we have a bigger problem at hand than the national debt. Further more I'm not even convinced your comprehend what discretionary spending is. I mean, if we bring our troops home as you suggested we would save all of that 799 billion. The issue of course is you don't think that's practical nor do you think universal health care to be practical. What Obama is doing is no different than what Ronald Reagan did and we turned quite alright. With respect to universal health care Obama is trying to save money in as many places as he and we'll see what comes of it. It's simply too early to declare failure on the whole matter.

As for future generations, if they can manage to bring down their budget deficit or don't create one of their own they'll be alright. in 20 years the GDP is expected to double and so is government revenue. That is to say your concerns are without merit and even more so due to your antipathy towards government funded social services.

p.s. If people really are concerned about the wellbeing of future generations they aught to support reduction of our greenhouse output.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Assuming, big monstrous assumption here, it would change to something along the lines of I still want universal health care and this what we aught to do:

1. Get those who are eligible but not enrolled covered and inform them of their ability to get basic heath care.
2. Force those making over 50K to sign up. No saving money on the side and asking us to bail them out when they have an emergency. If our savings rate is any indication these fools most likely don't have enough money to pay for a costly surgery.
3. Get those short-term uninsured covered so they wouldn't worry about getting sick or having to pay for health care while unemployed.

1. Agree
2. I don't want to "force" them to sign up. But coerce by making them fully responsible for medical bills to the point where their responsibilty would be the same as federal taxes (meaning they can't go bankrupt and avoid the med charges), absolutely.
3. Agree

And now we look at some sort of vouchers/tax credits for the remaining 8.2M and put in limits on malpractice suits to help control costs. Ride that model for 1-2 years and track the effects and revise as necessary.

Our assumption is not a monstrous one:

Is The Number of Uninsured Accurate? - FOXBusiness.com

David Hogberg on Health Insurance on National Review Online

The American Spectator : The Myth of the 46 Million

The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Stop for a second and pretend you don't know me. That will help you to better understand my points, rather than arguing with yourself based on your assumptions of me.

I'm 27, and I've been out of college for 5 years. The ideas I'm proposing are from no college course, so you can rest assured the curriculum hasn't changed.

Don't try and invalidate what I'm saying by using stupid cliche phrases, like "psycho-babble". You are better at debate than that. Don't lower yourself, because you think you know me -- and that me, and people like me, are the problem with this country. Remove emotion from your argument. I can tell you are frustrated with a certain type of thinking, which you have mistakenly assumed I am advocating. Take some time to try and understand what I'm saying, rather than assuming you already know, and looking like an ass.

I'm not talking about "ego" in the sense of Freud. I'm talking about the illusory self, the voice in your head that never stops talking. It's a Buddhist concept -- long before Freud. But, you're so smart, you probably knew that already.

I can't explain, "Deny thyself," as well as Eckhart Tolle, so I'll just quote him:

"And when Jesus said, 'Deny thyself,' what he meant was: Negate (and thus undo) the illusion of self. If the self -- ego -- were truly who I am, it would be absurd to 'deny' it."

Following in this vain of thought, Jesus also said, "If someone takes your shirt, let him have your coat as well." In other words, let go of the world of form -- the world of the ego. Let go of your ego, and its attachments.

First off, you must've missed the J/K (just kidding) in one of my responses and the other that said the comments about hippies and such were "tongue-in-cheek".

Second, in the post above and your response to S10 you seem to be making a good deal of judgements and using sterotypes about me and others.

Third, "looking like an ass" and "buttplug" references are unnecessary.

Anyway, all that aside, I don't for a second think that you and people like you are the problem with this country. One of the reasons I served in the armed forces was to make sure that everyone in this country keeps the right to his/her own beliefs and has the ability to express them. Whether I believe they are misguided or not is simply my opinon and is certainly no point of frustration for me. If I was so frustrated with differing points of view I certainly wouldn't banter back and forth with saden and others all the time.

I completely understand your point and as I've stated before, and other have as well, in theory there is some sense to it, in reality not so much.

I haven't studied or researched Buddhism so I can't effectively comment. As far as Tolle's take on Jesus, I have as much credibility, if not more credibility, than he does on commenting on the Gospels and their meaning. My comments are influenced by men who have devoted their lives to the study of Jesus' teachings, not someone who has pulled his philosophy from several different and completely disparate sources and who has no formal theological training.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

1. Agree
2. I don't want to "force" them to sign up. But coerce by making them fully responsible for medical bills to the point where their responsibilty would be the same as federal taxes (meaning they can't go bankrupt and avoid the med charges), absolutely.
3. Agree

And now we look at some sort of vouchers/tax credits for the remaining 8.2M and put in limits on malpractice suits to help control costs. Ride that model for 1-2 years and track the effects and revise as necessary.

Our assumption is not a monstrous one:

Is The Number of Uninsured Accurate? - FOXBusiness.com

David Hogberg on Health Insurance on National Review Online

The American Spectator : The Myth of the 46 Million

The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary

You know why all states require you to carry liability auto insurance? It's because broke ass people won't have enough money to pay for the damages incurred by the guy driving BMW 7 Series. What do states do? They force you to have liability insurance and fine you if you don't have it. Think of universal heath care in the same manner, only someone else will have to pay for their emergency care. It must be forced.

I don't see any cost numbers nor do I see heath care cost reduction or how it's going to be paid for in any of these links. Where did the analysis go? LOL...American Spectator references BCBS study. LOL...National Review says "over 20 percent of the uninsured in this country are not citizens" so does that mean resident ailens are out? Look ma' I'm the only one watching Fox Business...LOL...Fox Business says "9.7 million are non-citizens" and references BCBSA study too. The whole thing is a joke. Can I at least get an A for effort?


Good job though, at least you're trying which is something I can't say for a lot of folks. I'm curious, how do you intend to pay for all of this voulcher business, the 14 million that are eliganle for goverment asistance, 5.7 million that are short term uninsured?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

If you want to play armchair budgeteer that's cool but don't act like the heath care isn't as much of an issue as the budget deficit and national debt. In my view we have a bigger problem at hand than the national debt. Further more I'm not even convinced your comprehend what discretionary spending is. I mean, if we bring our troops home as you suggested we would save all of that 799 billion. The issue of course is you don't think that's practical nor do you think universal health care to be practical. What Obama is doing is no different than what Ronald Reagan did and we turned quite alright. With respect to universal health care Obama is trying to save money in as many places as he and we'll see what comes of it. It's simply too early to declare failure on the whole matter.

As for future generations, if they can manage to bring down their budget deficit or don't create one of their own they'll be alright. in 20 years the GDP is expected to double and so is government revenue. That is to say your concerns are without merit and even more so due to your antipathy towards government funded social services.

p.s. If people really are concerned about the wellbeing of future generations they aught to support reduction of our greenhouse output.

I can see why you don't respond to my budget number questions, because you clearly can't manage simple math. First, I did not suggest bringing the troops home - ever, I suggested reducing the Army to 1/3 it's size, and keeping the AF/Navy. Further you have equipment and Reserves costs that would be included. That does not get rid of 799Billion, in fact reducing it by 50% would be hard, but it could be done (and in my opinion should be).

Second, to suggest that in a nation where upwards of 80% have medical care that healthcare is more important than the national debt gives the appearance of being uninformed as to the consequences of debt on the national economy.

I can accept that Universal Healthcare is a goal we could strive for. I used real math and real thoughts on ways to accomplish it. I think reducing our military drastically is possible, practical, and truly essential to our country's future. I think that reducing the debt, or atleast preventing its growth is as vital to our country's future. I think that healthcare for all, is a noble goal, and maybe can be reached, but it will not determine our country's future nearly as much as the other 2.

How can you put it on future generations to balance their budget and bring down debt that we are aquiring for them, when you won't even acknowledge the need for this generation to bring ours down, or not create one. that is very hypocritical of you.

Can you tell me where Obama is trying to save money? Although I haven't looked at the budget, I would wager you that every government program will see at least a cola adjustment, and many will see much more than that.

I don't have an antipathy towards government funded social services, but I do see them as a safety net, and that the goal should be self suffiency, not government dependency. I think medicare, medicaid, and social security have a function within our government as it is now established.

Finally, I fully expect GDP to double, Revenue to double, etc, but if spending outpaces revenue every year, as it does now, then you can believe government spending will also double. again, simple math which you either don't realize, or choose to ignore, my guess is the latter.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

First off, you must've missed the J/K (just kidding) in one of my responses and the other that said the comments about hippies and such were "tongue-in-cheek".

I know -- it's just the same old stuff. Some people are kidding, others are not. I take it with a grain of salt. Also, you came off as quite condescending.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Second, in the post above and your response to S10 you seem to be making a good deal of judgements and using sterotypes about me and others.

I can see why you would think that.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Third, "looking like an ass" and "buttplug" references are unnecessary.

True. The "looking like an ass" comment was founded in the sense of that saying about assuming. Either way, that stuff was pretty juvenile. What can I say? It's tough when it everyone is ganging up on you, and basically saying you're a nut for trying to be positive, and that you have no idea about "real" life and live in a fantasy world. They're basically saying the foundation for my life is worthless, and hence, so is my life. Harsh.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Anyway, all that aside, I don't for a second think that you and people like you are the problem with this country. One of the reasons I served in the armed forces was to make sure that everyone in this country keeps the right to his/her own beliefs and has the ability to express them. Whether I believe they are misguided or not is simply my opinon and is certainly no point of frustration for me. If I was so frustrated with differing points of view I certainly wouldn't banter back and forth with saden and others all the time.

You remind me of my Dad.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I completely understand your point and as I've stated before, and other have as well, in theory there is some sense to it, in reality not so much.

See what I mean?

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I haven't studied or researched Buddhism so I can't effectively comment. As far as Tolle's take on Jesus, I have as much credibility, if not more credibility, than he does on commenting on the Gospels and their meaning. My comments are influenced by men who have devoted their lives to the study of Jesus' teachings, not someone who has pulled his philosophy from several different and completely disparate sources and who has no formal theological training.

Tolle has devoted his life to the study of Jesus' teachings, as well as other prophets. But, I'm not sure why that makes any difference.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

You know why all states require you to carry liability auto insurance? It's because broke ass people won't have enough money to pay for the damages incurred by the guy driving BMW 7 Series. What do states do? They force you to have liability insurance and fine you if you don't have it. Think of universal heath care in the same manner, only someone else will have to pay for their emergency care. It must be forced.

I don't see any cost numbers nor do I see heath care cost reduction or how it's going to be paid for in any of these links. Where did the analysis go? LOL...American Spectator references BCBS study. LOL...National Review says "over 20 percent of the uninsured in this country are not citizens" so does that mean resident ailens are out? Look ma' I'm the only one watching Fox Business...LOL...Fox Business says "9.7 million are non-citizens" and references BCBSA study too. The whole thing is a joke. Can I at least get an A for effort?


Good job though, at least you're trying which is something I can't say for a lot of folks. I'm curious, how do you intend to pay for all of this voulcher business, the 14 million that are eliganle for goverment asistance, 5.7 million that are short term uninsured?

Now Saden asking someone how they intend to pay for something truly seems laughable, since obviously we will just add to our deficit/debt. Gotta admit that one made me laugh out loud!

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I can see why you don't respond to my budget number questions, because you clearly can't manage simple math. First, I did not suggest bringing the troops home - ever, I suggested reducing the Army to 1/3 it's size, and keeping the AF/Navy. Further you have equipment and Reserves costs that would be included. That does not get rid of 799Billion, in fact reducing it by 50% would be hard, but it could be done (and in my opinion should be).

Second, to suggest that in a nation where upwards of 80% have medical care that healthcare is more important than the national debt gives the appearance of being uninformed as to the consequences of debt on the national economy.

I can accept that Universal Healthcare is a goal we could strive for. I used real math and real thoughts on ways to accomplish it. I think reducing our military drastically is possible, practical, and truly essential to our country's future. I think that reducing the debt, or atleast preventing its growth is as vital to our country's future. I think that healthcare for all, is a noble goal, and maybe can be reached, but it will not determine our country's future nearly as much as the other 2.

How can you put it on future generations to balance their budget and bring down debt that we are aquiring for them, when you won't even acknowledge the need for this generation to bring ours down, or not create one. that is very hypocritical of you.

Can you tell me where Obama is trying to save money? Although I haven't looked at the budget, I would wager you that every government program will see at least a cola adjustment, and many will see much more than that.

I don't have an antipathy towards government funded social services, but I do see them as a safety net, and that the goal should be self suffiency, not government dependency. I think medicare, medicaid, and social security have a function within our government as it is now established.

Finally, I fully expect GDP to double, Revenue to double, etc, but if spending outpaces revenue every year, as it does now, then you can believe government spending will also double. again, simple math which you either don't realize, or choose to ignore, my guess is the latter.

I don't ignore you, I'm just not that into you and your rants. Enjoy this chart and I hope you learn something (Note: anything above the Obama line is all on Obama):