Obama Care

A cost-benefit analysis?! What a crazy idea.

We should also clearly define the problems with healthcare, then derive some requirements, and then test our solutions against said requirements. You have done some of that already. Sorry, I can't contribute any more than you have already.

Good post, Joe. Hopefully it doesn't go unnoticed. I especially like the idea about R&D.

P.S.: breaking your own rule? You must be a lawyer. ;)

The foundation for your life is much more than your religion or philosophy. That being said, I can't speak for everyone else but I'm pretty confident they would say the same, but because you believe the things you do and others disagree certainly doesn't mean I think you, your belief system or life are worthless. Don't take it to that extreme.

Thank you.

If something has no application in "real" life, isn't that basically saying it's useless? Where else would it apply? Anyways, I don't really care if people think my accepted philosophy is useless. It's mine, not their's, and it represents a better way to live, IMO.

:food-smil

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.This point can certainly be negotiated fairly easily in a congressional sub-committee.

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?The 14M eligible have to be covered under the existing plans. I'm for a balanced budget so either Medicare tax increases or coverages are cut. Even if you take the 5.7M and the 8.2M and estimate $ 1,500 / yr. to cover their coverage through a private insurer you're looking at about $ 21B / yr. I'll give you $ 11B out of the defense budget, if you give me the other $ 10B from other discretionary.

I don't ignore you, I'm just not that into you and your rants. Enjoy this chart (http://zfacts.com/p/318.html) and I hope you learn something (Note: anything above the Obama line is all on Obama):

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

I certainly hope you are right Saden, I will say your hyper-defensiveness of Obama is a little weird. I have clearly said I believe both parties are at fault for the debt. Probably the Republicans moreso because of their playing politics with it. I will give you that the chart you presented makes the debt seem oh so silly(nice link to a republican bashing site, oh so much more unbiased than Fox or BCBS), so again, I hope you are right. However, the substantial difference in the all time high debt at the beginning of the chart, and what we are currently experiencing, is that one was due to specific incidents, the war, the other is a systemic increase that cannot be reduced without painful cuts in infrastructure at some point. There is an article today about California's budget agreement, and the painful cuts to follow. I realize the difference is that California cannot print its own money and is much more tied to a "real" economy.

I certainly hope you are right Saden, I will say your hyper-defensiveness of Obama is a little weird. I have clearly said I believe both parties are at fault for the debt. Probably the Republicans moreso because of their playing politics with it. I will give you that the chart you presented makes the debt seem oh so silly(nice link to a republican bashing site, oh so much more unbiased than Fox or BCBS), so again, I hope you are right. However, the substantial difference in the all time high debt at the beginning of the chart, and what we are currently experiencing, is that one was due to specific incidents, the war, the other is a systemic increase that cannot be reduced without painful cuts in infrastructure at some point. There is an article today about California's budget agreement, and the painful cuts to follow. I realize the difference is that California cannot print its own money and is much more tied to a "real" economy.

The chart says that data provided through 2007 is from Bush's whitehouse.gov. Not sure if that is just for Bush's terms, but it implies it is everything from 1940 on. Not really a "republican bashing site". Also, saden has repeatedly referred to Obama as "weak-ass Obama". I get the feeling his man-crush is not as strong as you think.

The medical profession is against any health care plan that the government presents. And the media also is against any plan that's presented just so they can create a story. I'm lucky enough to already have health insurance, but a friend of mine doesn't, and even though he's a professional worker, he has to worry about the huge medical bills from his wife and 5 kids.

The chart says that data provided through 2007 is from Bush's whitehouse.gov. Not sure if that is just for Bush's terms, but it implies it is everything from 1940 on. Not really a "republican bashing site". Also, saden has repeatedly referred to Obama as "weak-ass Obama". I get the feeling his man-crush is not as strong as you think.

I wasn't talking about the chart. If you go to the link Saden put in his reply, you will see the site I am talking about. As for his "man-crush", I just said he was hyper defensive. I did not lay anything in terms of the debt conversation at Obama's feet. He threw the defense in of his own volition.

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.

Wow you're touchy, so easily offended. Nowhere did I criticize you so let's relax or I'm going to abandon the discussion. I never said you were a hippy. I didn't draw conclusions based on an image.

I simply stated what I thought you were saying:

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.

You neither confirmed nor denied that the line above was an accurate representation of your jist. Am I on track? Feel free to correct me if I'm not.

Seems unproductive to fire barbs at me when all I'm doing is trying to tie up the loose end in our communication; I'm just trying to make sure I understand you.

If I understood you appropriately, then my response said it all. If you don't believe others can be convinced to give up the material thinking, then you are consciously not working within the confines of reality. If I misunderstood your view, please feel free to clarify.

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.

Wow. Not only are you loopie you're also a flaming douche. Good combo.

Wow you're touchy, so easily offended. Nowhere did I criticize you so let's relax or I'm going to abandon the discussion. I never said you were a hippy. I didn't draw conclusions based on an image.

I simply stated what I thought you were saying:



You neither confirmed nor denied that the line above was an accurate representation of your jist. Am I on track? Feel free to correct me if I'm not.

Seems unproductive to fire barbs at me when all I'm doing is trying to tie up the loose end in our communication; I'm just trying to make sure I understand you.

If I understood you appropriately, then my response said it all. If you don't believe others can be convinced to give up the material thinking, then you are consciously not working within the confines of reality. If I misunderstood your view, please feel free to clarify.

Yeah, I've been a little touchy lately. Sorry for that.

However, you did criticize me, by saying that I am, "detached from reality," by assuming that I feel like I can convince people to think absent of ego. I am not trying to convince people of anything, and awakening cannot come from a convincing argument. So, your assumption led to the insult. See my response to SS33 for an explanation of why that response could be construed as insulting.

As for whether you're on track in understanding my point, yeah pretty much -- and I commend you for actually caring to try and understand me. Although, I'm not really thinking about the costs. I'm thinking in terms of principle (not reality, right?) -- we should look out for one another, and ensure that everyone has access to healthcare, among other things. Be our brothers' keepers, if you will.

If people identified less with their ego, they would not resist this so much, and they would be more concerned with finding ways to make it work -- rather than finding reasons to discredit it. I hear the same argument over and over: why should I help others? Why should I do for them, what they can't/won't do for themselves? Because it's better than neglecting them. That's all I'm saying.

"Blessed is he who considers the poor, The Lord will deliver him in time of trouble." -Psalm 41:1

BTW, I'm not a Christian, and I don't read the Bible. So, I don't want to misrepresent myself. I just know that most Americans are, and they can relate better to quotes from the Bible -- know what I mean?