I'm just not convinced that CBS will continue its coverage options if there is a "government" option. That is my concern. I have been with the company for a decade and my insurance premium has only gone up about $25 in that time period. My wife has had a tonsillectomy and we are now expecting a child, and we are not paying for more than 5% of anything.
I admit, I almost never venture into this section of the board, because it seems like it always devolves into name calling and screaming. Glad that people are being civil about this one. Incidentally, if the government would legalize sportsbooks and gambling, and tax it we could pay for "Universal Health Care" easily.
economically this is a huge problem. many people stay at jobs they shouldn't because of these benefits. similarly many people get benefits which are way more than they need, or would buy, simply because companies are paying for them. these are all distortions which only hurts the overall system. the whole notion of employee based healthcare is dumb.
Just catching up with this thread. Well jeez, Rhad. I didn't think he was going to change the minds of the TX delegation! (Utah either, btw.) And, again, he might not change the minds of any elected officials immediately, but he has re-taken the lead in this debate and he has thrown down the gauntlet. The strength with which he spoke last night means there's no going back. He either gets meaningful reform passed or his presidency is a failure. That's the commitment I was looking for and I was highly gratified to receive it. I don't give a **** what the TX delegation thought any more than I give a **** what Glenn Beck thought: they have only one goal and it's obstruction. There are other reasonable moderates and conservatives out there. I think a lot of what Obama said last night will reach those people.
The CIA has a classified budget. They don't need to leech off of other programs through some elborate, easily tracked accounting techniques for a measly 500 bucks.
they WERE against medicare just as democrats WERE against Bush making a similar speech to Obama in schools (unfair comparison but you get the point). We can't retroactively judge current politicians based on their predecessors. I'm sure you could take a poll among republicans today and the large percentage would believe that medicare is a necessary government program that we should protect... mainly because their constituents say so.
not really. It gives people a choice based on their preferences. CBS is able to offer excellent health care due to its size. He could move somewhere else for a chance to make much more money but with no 401K or healthcare, like a startup.
OK, let's look at it another way. If CBS were to cancel their coverage, they would have to pay the government a fee - is that any better? But beyond that, why does CBS provide you health coverage now? It's not out of the kindness of their heart or because they are primarily concerned about your health - it's expensive to do so, and they aren't a charity. They provide health coverage as a competitive advantage. When people are picking jobs, those extra benefits - especially health are - are often a deciding factor. So why would they cancel that coverage and lose that competitive advantage?
No, you look at Medicare, not just rely on Fox or conservatie talking points that you have incucated your whole life. Medicare runs at an administrative costs vastly lower than private insurance company bureaucrcies with their large marketing budgets and CEO salries.
Those things were "rammed" down our throats and that's why Americans gave the republican party the boot! I will agree that this is a different situation, but there is a right way to do this. I do believe that the Republican party has become the party of "no" but they are going to change their tune after this speech. There is common ground that everybody should have insurance (although a good amount of libertarians and conservatives believe that its not a "right" but a "privilege" to have health insurance) and I think we can reach enough of a "happy medium" to convince the majority of Americans that they at least tried to work with Republicans. Let's do a discussion using the 4 possible if/then statements: 1. If democrats don't attempt to work with Republicans and only democrats vote yes and there no healthcare bill passes (blue dog dems vote no), then... 2. If democrats don't attempt to work with Republicans and only democrats vote yes and a healthcare bill passes, then... 3. If democrats attempt to work with Republicans and make certain changes based on Republican ideas and no healthcare bill passes, then... 4. If democrats attempt to work with Republicans and make certain changes based on Republican ideas and a healthcare bill passes, then... These are just hypotheticals. I understand there is a time-constraint in that politicians are going to have to start campaigning for the jobs at some point. Opponents of healthcare reform will attempt to delay this process at all costs.
It looks like I was wrong on the hammer issue. Here's the full accounting of the $436 hammer: http://news.cnet.com/2009-1009_3-5404307.html Basically, other overhead costs are just charged to the hammer - but those weren't actually costs related to the hammer. In terms of the black operations budgets, you may be right - there is certainly an actual black budget. But that said, from my understanding, there is also money diverted from regular projects that go into that type of stuff, and sometimes those programs are used as examples of waste. Unfortunately, I can't source that - I had a US Army General and two CIA Directors as professors in grad school, and one of those (can't remember which) is the one that talked a little about that type of stuff. Unfortunately, it was in vague terms to not disclose anything inappropriate, so I may be mistaken on how that all works.
rhadmanthus: Here is what Obama was looking to achieve last night. Cornyn and Hutchison were not his target audience. Conservadems like Ben Nelson were.
Fair enough. Don't let my cynical outlook get you too worked up Batman. The real take away I got from that chronicle post was that second bolded bit: You could argue (and you are) that the goal was simply to get democrats back in line - if that's the case, I agree - I think he is working towards accomplishing that. I was hoping, however, that there was a potential to get some moderate republicans aboard, and get the nutty ultra-right ones looked down upon. In that regard, I'm still not convinced he succeeded.
Those aren't conservative talking points...its the president's own words. "Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan." Barack Obama 09-09-2009 By my estimation, most of 900 Billion is at least 451 Billion, and according to the president that amount is being hemorrhaged by Medicare and Medicaid.
I think that was once the case, but IIRC, there were some reforms (maybe in the 90's) that supposedly moved all the black budget stuff into non-descriptive line items and made it more subject to Intel Committee oversight.
What is with these freaks from South Carolina?!?!? Graham: Obama's Speech Was 'A Disaster' Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) had an, um, interesting take a few minutes ago on Obama's health care speech to Congress last night. Appearing on FNC, the GOP Senator called the President's speech "a disaster" and "combative." "If his goal was to try to unite the Democratic Party and the hard left, maybe he succeeded," Graham said. But what Obama did not do was "create consensus and bring people together." Just like Obama's speech, the public option would be "a disaster," Graham said, and Obama's explanation of it is "not credible." "I wanna work with Democrats," he added without any apparent sense of irony. "I want a bipartisan bill." Graham said if the Democrats resort to passing health care reform through 51-vote reconciliation, "it's an admission that you can't get your own party on board, because they got 60 votes in the Senate." And as for his fellow South Carolina lawmaker Rep. Joe Wilson, who shouted "You lie!" in the middle of Obama's speech? He was wrong to shout, Graham said, and was right to apologize. However, "the President of the United States set the wrong tone," Graham said. "I quite frankly was offended by the whole tone. I thought it was a partisan pep rally." And Wilson's re-election chances, considering his Democratic opponent has raised more than $100,000 since Wilson's gaffe last night? "I will do everything I can to help him get reelected," Graham said. "Democrats are not going to take that seat over."
