In all honesty, I think this may be the BEST idea they had for the stimulus package.

Jordan .

From what I've been reading they may run out of money and suspend the program this weekend. Obama wants to reallocate 2 billion from a renewable energy loan program towards the clunkers program. The money will be spent no matter what so at least put it towards a program that is working. Some reps are against it wondering where the first billion went (towards people who are using it, duh! 85,00 vehicle transactions logged?) Some dems are against it fearing the environmental benefits are not great enough (ugh, at least it's a start and stimulates the economy in the process)

Both Ford and GM chief sales analysts are on record as loving this program so far. Two companies where good news isn't heard very often these days. Hopefully there will be less confusion at the dealerships if it continues.

R_Flagg

Doesn't the Cash for Clunkers sound like a reworking of Fanny May mortgages in a way?  Give people something they can't afford in the first place and then pull the rug out from under them when those same folks can't make the payments?

May I'm sorry for your loss.  I know about that heartbreak all too well.  : (

 RFlagg wrote:

Now is that really what you feel is a fair assessment of what Jordan and I, as representatives of the right, have been suggesting, RFlagg?  I'm not even sure I'd agree that the left wants government run health care as a generality though I would agree the left tends to either want something for nothing or they'd like so-called "rich" people to pop for what they consider their god given right (if they believed in a god) = free health care womb to tomb.  Free to themselves that is. 

As a conservative, I'll reiterate.  I'd like to see a one-step-at-a-time proposal for reforming or improving the massive system of figuring out how best to see that Americans continue to get the best health care available.  Not a massive new system of let's overhaul the whole deal and hope we are better able to guestimate the costs than we were with the mini-Cash for Clunkers debacle in the making.  

I do not care about political gain one bloody whit.  I voted for Obama and have been willing to give him the benefit of a doubt.  Hoped for the best when I did what I did.  I want what is best for the USA as a whole and not the pitiful Republican party!  If the Reps don't come up with a modicum of wisdom between now and 2010 or 2012, we'll have more meandering and more of the same throwing shit against the wall hoping something useful sticks.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I was not assessing you or Jordan with this view. I am referring to the likes of republicans in congress.  Take Jim DeMint for example who has gone on record as saying he will break Obama over health care reform and that he'll bring "pain" to his senate peers. Sounds pretty angry to me. I think it's ridiculous to think reps in congress aren't in full gear to try and capitalize on this possible failure. They are completely unwilling to suggest any reform to the health care system for the last 10 -15 years.

If I thought you and Jordan were right wing bureaucrats who didn't want the best for the USA I wouldn't even be here engaging in your simulating conversation

R_Flagg - Completely Godless, rich hating, bleeding heart who wants to see affordable health care for his friends and family.

"Doesn't the Cash for Clunkers sound like a reworking of Fanny May mortgages in a way?  Give people something they can't afford in the first place and then pull the rug out from under them when those same folks can't make the payments?"

that's too funny - I told my dad alost the exact same thing when we were waiting for the cars to be done. I said the biggest problem with Cash for Clunkers is we may risk the possibility of people buying cars they can't afford, and then they are going to be asking for another mortgage bail out! LOL!

R_Flagg - I find it easier to understand what we are talking about if you would refer to the people you're talking about ahead of time. I'm often responding to you and others because I think you are referring to me or something someone has said here, only to find out you are referring to someone else who isn't even in the conversation. 

Jordan .

It's a sorry fact of life that to be in Congress is to be constantly running for office.  Constantly fundraising as well.  It's a sorry fact of Campaign Finance "Reform" that constituents can only donate a minimal whatisit? $2000 or $4000 as a couple to a candidate.  So these folks have to spend much of their time on the road hustling for bucks to STAY in office.  It seems to me if candidates were allowed to accept the major donations (such as those surrogates aka PAC funds) AND the public were well aware of who received millions from Bill Gates or Rupert Murdoch, said candidate would have to face the voters with that knowledge and added scrutiny.  Maybe they could do some of the people's work more effectively if they didn't have to be raising money for the next election.

Susan

PS  Pretty much everyone would like to feel confident that their families have ample coverage so that there would not be a catastrophe if one or more fell desperately ill.  Have you managed this care for your own family so far, RFlagg?  Or have you been waiting for government to take action and hoping nothing too terrible (and/or costly) takes place before such time? 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Cash for clunkers is just a dry run

for Obama's End of Life 'care' program.

Not really and it's a pretty narrow view of the program as a whole. So it's assumed the majority of people taking advantage of this can't afford it? There is a cap. We're talking about small fuel efficient sedans like the Ford Focus, not a Ferrari.  The government is not involved with the loan. I guess you could use this argument regarding the tax breaks for buying a new car as well. The program is helping domestic car manufacturers finally get their fuel efficient cars into the hands of consumers, something they have failed to do in the past. It could really help the auto industry grow here at home. No? Help stimulate the economy? Less oil consumption in the US?

Some people believe that gov should have no influence over what people purchase. Should we also toss out regulations requiring that new vehicles meet various safety, emissions, and performance standards? maybe so.

R_Flagg

Of course the US government is involved in the loan -- to the auto dealers this time. 

Read this one from the American Thinker website...

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

The dealers are certainly not getting "loans" but rather rebates. You can always count on the American Thinker website for comprehensive, non-politically motivated, opinion pieces right? Their top article is avoiding the next Obama, the killer of cultures. HaHa 

R_Flagg 

One of my fave websites as you can well imagine. 

You didn't answer my query about your own family health insurance, RFlagg. 

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

WARNING  Do not dare be critical of Obamacare. The White House has ordered that people report any "fishy" comments, conversations, e-mails or blogs to the Whitehouse so they can make an enemies list ! Goodbye first amendment. What a nightmare this Obama is.

 http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/08/gop-senator-white-house-encroaching-on-first-amendment.html 

From a doctor's perspective...

ObamaCare and me

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Susan,

I have been fortunate to get health care through the various companies I have worked for throughout the years. I can't really say I have personally done a good job at managing the health care for my family as I rely on my company to provide the insurance. Lucky I haven't had to use the health insurance very much. A friend I work with who has the same insurance I do (Principle) was in a motorcycle accident. He sure got the run around from them regarding what was covered and what wasn't. Both the hospital and his doctor recommended a special message cast device that would help heal his broken collarbone correctly. The insurance said it was covered, but AFTER he received the device from the hospital they came back and denied coverage for it so the hospital tried to stick him with the outrageous overpriced bill. What a mess.   

The problem is insurance is getting more expansive but less coverage each year. This will continue as will working longer hours for lower wages. In the future small businesses especially will have a dilemma in regards to providing health care as a benefit.

Also, my sister is self employed and struggles to pay for health insurance on her own. If she had a family it would be impossible. She has to get the very bare minimum coverage due to the high costs. She is not a freeloader, works just as hard as I do, and pays her taxes but gets significantly less coverage than I do while paying huge premiums.

I think if you pay your taxes you should be entitled to some form of basic health care. There are worse programs we are throwing our money away on.

R_Flagg

"Fishy" claims, "fishy" e-mails, "fishy" comments, sounds like a typical paranoid day in the Senate. "Big Bad John" Cornyn is a total hack in the likes of Jim DeMint. He'll say or do anything to try and destroy liberals and Obama. Remember, this is the guy behind the outrage regarding the Obama "conspiracy" to make Rush Limbaugh the leader of the republican party. He complains about the bailouts but skipped the vote on the stimulus bill to go fund raising in NY. He's a joke...

R_Flagg

So you think that when/if the govt takes over this won't be a problem anymore? Taht everything will be covered and there will not be anymore outrageous costs?

I know you keep saying "basic form" but I'm thinking "basic form" might mean something completely different to you versus your Senator. :-)

Jordan .

Reported and goons are on their way. They are authorized to listen in on your phone conversations, read your e-mail, and use water boarding if necessary ;)

R_Flagg
 

Jordan, I hear you. You make some valid points and OF COURSE I think there will still be problems. Any service provided to millions of people will never be perfect in any way. My philosophy is that less greed in the system is better. Your argument is competition is better and you may be right. And hey, I'm as greedy as the next guy. I own a large number of stocks (no health care stocks though) and I'm all for competition and free market and making money. I just don't think basic health care is a benefit that should be traded like your typical goods and services, especially when you are talking about people's lives. I think all tax paying Americans should get basic health care. (Yes, I'm aware our politicians will be exempt) There are so many other meaningless programs that could be cut to pay for health care.

I can admit I don't really know for sure if gov health care will be better or worse. (Some countries do pull it off successfully and some don't) I do know the current system sucks and needs reformed before the costs for average and low income workers get even worse. This is the first time I ever remember some type of reform on the table. Ultimately I predict this health care bill will fail, but hope that the country will learn something and actually have some meaningful dialog about it and demand that our congress pass some type of reform.

Unfortunately this issue has become a simplistic liberal vs. conservative war propaganda topic so I'm sure nothing will happen. As I said before we will continue to pay more and receive worse coverage every year.

R_Flagg

The CBO even said this was the better option and wouldn't cost anything, and would actually make a profit in a few years.

I think the basic premise is that companies would pay the employee the premiums that they pay for health care - this would be taxable. And then that employee would go buy their own health care with taht money. Obviously there's more to it than that (and not sure how low income and people working in a company that doesn't provide health care would be handled).

The only other time I remember any real debate was early 90s with HillaryCare and even as a junior/senior in high school, I knew it was a BAD idea. :-)

Talking about "basic health care" - I see "basic" meaning doctor visits, shots, SIMPLE xrays (not talking CAT SCANS and the like), broken arm cast - that type of stuff. But that's not the stuff that is costing millions of dollars so I personally don't see how helpful it would be in the long run if things like MRIs, CAT Scans, brain surgery aren't covered by the public option. And if they are covered, then gosh, I'm not sure how we as taxpayers would be able to keep up with the cost of medical care - unless the govt is going to control the cost, and that leads to other issues - but at that point we're talking hypotheticals that may or may not appear in 20-30 years.

This week, I saw that abortion would be covered in the public option. that alone, I believe, will kill the bill. No one wants to go back to their constituents saying they funded tax payer abortions for everyone.

Jordan .

In my husband's working life, he's mostly been an employER.  With his last small business, along with covering the health insurance for his 30+ employees, we too were insured with that group policy.  Until that business was not anymore. (a long sad tale not to be told at this time)

At that time our medical insurance became our private individual obligation, still with Blue Cross, but at our personal and very very HIGH expense.  That's because we are old.  After a couple years, my husband was qualified for Medicare and his coverage for secondary insurance dropped significantly.  Mine is still sky high and going higher all the time.  I have never expected nor wanted "The Government" to pick up the tab and am inherently suspicious and doubtful of their ability to do so efficiently.  Heck, my dog even has ASPCA top of the line pet insurance for which we pay $750.00 annually for the satisfaction of knowing she's covered for anything major.

I think most of us here are in basic agreement at least in the abstract.  We don't want to be denied the quality of care most of us have come to expect.  We don't want to keep paying a larger percentage of our dwindling dollar to do so.  And we aren't sure how it can logically be achieved. 

My biggest problem comes as I grow older, realizing more and more, that there just aren't so many geniuses out there who can actually structure something as grandiose as this proposed scheme of "reform."  I regret to say that I just plain don't have confidence in them which is why I keep suggesting the slow and gradual process of testing the water with the most sensible and easy to manage efforts first.  See how much money is saved.  (hahaha) Then, if it goes well, take the next step.  And then the next. 

I want my doctors to be adequately reimbursed for their services.  I want my hospitals to be profitable institutions, a near impossibility when they are forced to treat indigent, poverty-level and non-citizens alike by spreading the debt to the state (aka taxpayers) and those who do pay their bills.  Once these groups were a smaller portion of the pie chart.  Once their medical care was not so costly.  I would like the most dedicated and talented physicians to remain in the medical field and not seek other avenues of employment with fewer hassles.  And yes, I'm willing to continue paying for my fair share of my family's health care as I do believe it's my obligation.

I actually believe that in the heart of hearts of most Americans, who are currently mulling this over, both Democrats and Republicans feel those same grave doubts.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I have at least a partial solution to the Healthcare issue.

Use the 'catastrophic' insurance plans -with a parameter of say $2,500 to $5000 per year being born by the insured (out of their health savings account perhaps) and costs over that covered by the private insurance plans. This would be good for those without insurance and too much income/assets for Medicaid.

You can go to ehealthinsurance.com and plug in the information and see how this type of coverage is about 35 %-38% the cost of regular medical insurance policies. Some years you might have no health expenses at all and you would be paying a third of the amount for regular low deductible coverage. No medical problem would bankrupt you, you wouldn't have to sell your house.

(I have also heard that larger insurance pools covering larger areas could reduce costs.)

For those that pay their own insurance, check out ehealthinsurance.com. I don't know your situation but even if you had to pay the first $2500 every year a catastrophic plan could still save you thousands in premiums. Anyway, it is worth checking out to keep your current carrier honest ! 

Also check carriers' ratings via consumer reports for example.

The poster of this information offers this information without any guaranties, and [I] shall not be responsible for any actions taken by readers.

First, I know this is written by Peggy Noonan but I think she hits the nail on the head with regards to the debate.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574334623330098540.html

Jordan .