Originally posted by whodeyAnd the feds finance all of them?
And this is why I sponser a state solution. After all, if we had a NHC system in place before Romney care, then we would not have had the example to reflect upon would we? That is why I propose having each individual state to implement a policy of their own. That way we can step back and review 50 different plans and see how some failed and some did well. ...[text shortened]... hat the Founders invisioned instead of placing all our eggs in one basket to win, lose, or draw.
Originally posted by sh76And that is the reason behind it all, isn't it? After all, the states can't print money. If the states took responsibility for an all inclusive health care plan as proposed now, they would run out of money in very short order. So the question begs, why are we putting into place something that we can't afford? What would happen next, however, is the focus shifting to who is going to pay, to reducing costs such as tort reform which is woefully absent in todays debate over the issue.
And the feds finance all of them?
Of course, it would be a painful journey that may not end up insuring everyone all the time, but it would be the correct path to take in my opinion. We should be focusing on reducing costs and less regarding who pays. I guess people simply prefer the "magic all inclusive bullet" of a NHC plan that does not address all the ways to reduce costs. It is much easier, at least short term.
As a side note to all of this, what would happen if we focused on getting the economy up and running and focus on creating jobs instead of doing detriminetal things to the economy such as cap and trade? Would we not insure more and more people? In fact, anyone who wants "free" health care could even join the armed forces. But then, people don't want to pay such a cost for something they want "free" do they?
Getting back to the thought of letting states decide about the issue, what if a state chose not to embrace an all inclusive plan at all but, instead, focused on brining jobs into the state so as to help people get insured? People could then CHOOSE to live in a state that did not garauntee them any entitlements. Of course, what a scary place that would be!! 😲
Originally posted by sh761: "We" reasonable people already knew he speaks well. But the wingnuts insist he's lost without his "teleprompter"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/08/22/obama_weekly_address_myths_and_morality_in_health_insurance_reform.html
A few observations:
1) He really does speak very well; but we knew that already
2) He's backing off the public option, you can clearly see he is willing to let it go if he needs to. If and when he does drop the public option, I thin clearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/22/obamas_health_care_whopper_is_bigger_97989.html
2: I think the final bill will include the public option. The Republicans have made it clear that are NOT going to play ball no matter what. They're more interested in seeing Obama fail to pass a bill than anything else, so IMO ultimately the Democrats are going to go it alone. They have the votes.
3: Your reading of that clause of the bill has always been flawed. Factcheck.org recently addressed it, and apparently the interpretation was somewhere in the middle between my interpretation and yours. Essentially ALL who pay for their own insurance can keep it. Where the issue becomes grey is with employee coverage. Employers must maintain a minimum amount of coverage for employees, so this bill could force some employees to change policies.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/keep-your-insurance-not-everyone/
4: The GOP has been extremely successful at pushing the "death panel", cover illegals and the single payer lies. I'm frustrated as well.
That being said, I thought at times Obama looked weak and battered against Hillary Clinton as well. In the end he would always have me saying, "where in the hell did THAT come from ??" He's a smart guy and I hope he's just playing a deeper level of chess than most of us understand.