Obama Care

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102514)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:



Get those who are eligible but not enrolled covered and inform them of their ability to get basic heath care.
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.
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 (http://www.foxbusiness.com/search-results/m/22705345/is-the-number-of-uninsured-accurate.htm)

David Hogberg on Health Insurance on National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/hogberg200406150914.asp)

The American Spectator : The Myth of the 46 Million (http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/20/the-myth-of-the-46-million)

The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Commentary (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9981)

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.