JPF Home Page Forums President Obama might get Health Care right!

http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20090817/NEWS01/90817003/-1/rss01

President Obama is giving signs that he might go along with a bill that abandons government run health insurance.

This solution would open up not-for-profit health insurance plans, owned and run by the private sector. These private insurance companies would compete with the for-profit plans, naturally causing some to lower prices and to drive others to offer high quality plans for premium prices.

The government would spend a few billion (hey, what's a few billion?) in "start up" money, and of course they would attach strings to that start up money, but they wouldn't be running the show, only providing mandates. That's the concession we libertarians would be making for this. You have to let the Democrats spend too much money on some things or they wouldn't be Democrats.

To me this is almost perfect, because it will get both the radical Liberals and the radical Conservatives angry. Howard Dean already is against it, so right there, it can't be all bad

If this is the plan that gets adopted, it will be a masterful political stroke. President Obama, unless something extreme happens, will not have a viable Democratic challenger in the next presidential election. Without having to run a primary campaign, he doesn't have to pander to the far left.

For the nation, this would be a uniquely United States solution to health care. It would allow the private sector to run health care insurance as a not-for-profit, probably allowing charitable donations for those times when the market naturally undergoes downturns. There wouldn't be a new government run behemoth draining government resources and growing the federal monster. The good, decent people of the United States can and will, if allowed, take care of those who fall on hard times.

I applaud President Obama for considering this. If it passes without the tentacles of government getting too far into it, this may be a truly REVOLUTIONARY solution.

I read about this shift a couple of days ago and I said to myself "hmmmm", might be a good idea. No matter what happens, I am glad to see that Obama is not afraid to make major changes to his plans in order to get something done.

Kevin

I would guess that since the people are speaking, loud and clear it is the only thing Obama can do.

It isn't the Federal Government's job to provide public care anyway. I want the Social Programs returned to the States where the money will stay in the State and the people in each state can decide what kind of program they want.

The costs may not be any less but it could be.

One thing I have figured out in the last couple years is Obama is a very. very intelligent man. A perfect Politician. He rose from a simple community organizer to the President of the United States in a very short time and he did it without accomplishing much of anything.
He did it by telling the people exactly what they wanted to hear and making them believe he actually believed it too and he could actually make it happen.
He can flipflop better than anyone I have ever seen. And will be able to take credit for it if it works.

Think about it. He raised $700 MILLION for his Presidential run. That in itself is enormous.
For this I have to applaud him. I still don't like him.
If he has the ability to recognize the true wishes of the people and give them something that works he will leave a great legacy.
Whether the rest of his term will show as much promise is still in question. I still think he is a socialist and would like nothing better than to undo our Constitution but he may be tricky enough to pull it off and still make the people love him for it.

I tend to agree with you Bill, but I do feel that he has a little bit of the "Bill Clinton" pragmatism about him -- and he's learning quicker than Bill did.

A health care reform bill that works and has at least some support from the republican side of the congress is better than a health care reform act that passes purely on a partisan vote.

Now if he could just do something about the deficit. Maybe he'll get lucky like Clinton did and preside over a market/economy boom which will help balance the budget. The huge debt that hangs over all of us will take a long time to fix.

Kevin

I think he might even be a better politician. He's getting the far left mad, that will keep them vocal. It's possible that they will push the Dems in Congress to move a left of center agenda which could bring on a Republican backlash similar to the Clinton days. Obama wielding the veto with a Republican Congress could indeed bring about a few years of a market boom. As much as the market likes Republicans, it really likes Republicans with checks and balances. That's what brought on the Clinton boom.

I totally agree with Bill, I don't like any president that would try to ruin our country intentionally or not on either party

Yup, It would be nice to see a balanced budget.
I just hope he can do it without touching defense or intelligence.

I was gonna say Military Intelligence but that would be one of the Oxymoronic thingy's

Absolutely Kevin.
Mike D and I were talking about this yesterday at Joanne's Recording session. (At Rick Ott's studio if anybody needs a great place to record).
Clinton was a very smart guy. Still is.

BHO is pushing a freedom stealing plan - This abortion should go up in smoke / Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither!

It is very smart to throw up a white flag when you are being beaten badly. If that is what is happenning and it isn't another effort to back door the same idea. As far as making the extreme left mad? I think he is part of the extreme left. The right, all of them, not just the extreme have been upset for a long time by his stated goals. A balanced budget? With all the money already spent, and all he is planning on spending, I don't see a balanced budget for at least 20 years. It will take us that long to get out of this hole. Of course he could always take all the money from defense to help out...
I do hope this new program works but I think it is just another spend/spend/spend social program.

During Obama's speech I was waiting to hear something about young families and the cost of having a child. In Canada it's covered. We have two children - both adults now. They almost put us in the poorhouse raising the buggers but it didn't cost anything to bring them into the world. Does anyone know if, under Obama's HCR plan, will child birth be covered? JMO but I thought his speech was very clever. Except for the tiny outburst by crazy Joe Wilson, things went quite wll. A few times throughout the presentation it almost seemed that both parties were on the same side. That was nice to see for a change.

Why would you call him crazy?

Why would the cost of child birth be a government responsibility.

Ben, um...how about stupid instead of crazy? I don't care what your politics are man. You just don't do that. Sorry but, again, JMO, but it was a pretty tacky, small-minded thing to do. I think any other president would have pointed a finger and had Joe removed. Let's just call it "unprofessional behaviour" and move along, shall we? And Doug, I never said I thought it was the "government's responsibility" to cover the cost of child care. I asked a question. The question was: "Does anyone know if, under Obama's HCR plan, will child birth be covered?" If you don't know the answer to the question fine, but please don't do a drive-by on me, ok? Thanks!


Does anyone know the answer to the question?

Duncan
As far as I can tell Child birth would be covered. It certainly isn't excluded.
Of course if you are an illegal alien in this country it is already covered.

Congressman Wilson's comment may have been bad form but we do have a constitutional right to free speech in this country. It does not stop at the President's door or the steps of Congress.

Actually I was saying "that's a lie" at the television as I listened. Of course I was sitting in my own living room and we are, after all, Kings of our own castles. Are we not?

Yup, too bad he couldn't keep "little Bill" in check, otherwise history would have been pretty kind to him.

What's really funny is that a lot of the same people who are crucifying this congressman are the same ones who were applauding people like the dixie chicks when they were saying things a lot worse.

John I think the outrage here is over the timing of the act. It is considered rude and against decorum to say anything bad when the President is Speaking to Congress.

Of course you can applaud him and agree with him all you want even if he is lying through his teeth. That is OK.
But outbursts of dissension are unacceptable.
Pretty hypocritical, huh?

I'll believe it when I see it, for now I'll chock it up to him entertaining us conservatives so we'll shut up for a few.

I didn't say what he did was appropriate. What I really said was we have two different standards here. One for judging conservatives and one for judging liberals. How many left leaning media types said anything about the chicks statements made in front of a foriegn audience that doesn't like Americans to begin with? Personally I don't agree with the timing of either act. I would just like to see both sides treated the same.

John, I think it's in how we perceive things.

I know that some conservative folks here think that liberals are much more insulting to conservatives than vice-versa.

Yet I know liberals who think they are inclusive but that the conservatives are mean spirited.

They are as convinced in their hearts that this is true every bit as much as the folks here who think the opposite. In fact, they are starting to become annoyed with the President for reaching out to conservatives instead of steam-rolling over them (which I think would be a mistake).

And if you start hurling examples of insults to conservatives they will hurl back counter examples.

And neither side will run out of examples.

I think it's human nature to remember criticism of ourselves as attacks and think of our attacks on others as honest fact-telling.

So if any of you are thinking, "that's just not true - conservatives are willing to work with liberals but the liberals keep slamming us and telling untruths about us", you should remember that there is someone out there who is working to support a family, considers himself patriotic, and feels exactly the opposite.

That is why I believe respect for office is important - it helps to keep discouse at a civil level. Lose that, and nothing will get done.

Just my opinion, of course

Scott

When you are talking about government "nothing will get done" is a good thing.

Would be covered? Ok...thanks for that. Your comment on illegal aliens already being covered for childbirth, are you kidding" You put the little smiley thing at the end of it so I'm guessing you are.

On Joe Wilson's "outburst", I do understand the right to free speech and I support the right to free speech along with artistic expression, but when a "liar" like Joe Wilson (free speech remember?) calls someone a liar when he either knows full well that it is not a lie OR is not intelligent or competent enough to read and understand page 132 sec 242 of the bill then there is a problem. Anyone can call anyone a liar but Joe, to my knowledge, hasn't yet offered any explanation as to why he called Obama a liar. If he blurted it out because he has the "right" to blurt it out, ok, good for him for exercising his right but without supporting his claim all he did was draw attention to himself.

And finally, GASP!!! You as well called Obama a liar on the issue of illegal immigrants being covered? What do you base your accusation on? What part of the bill did you read that causes you to call him a liar when it comes to illegal immigrants being included in the HCR package? What "words" in the bill causes you to believe Obama was lying? Just wondering. Thanks!

Duncan
There is NOTHING in the bill that says Illegal aliens will not get free health care. NOTHING. Show me one place in HR 3200 that says Illegal Immigrants will not get free health care.
If there is I implore you or someone else to show it to me. I'd love to be proved wrong.

They get it now and they will get it after the bill is passed. So no I am not kidding.

There have been several attempts to get a provision placed in the bill that would require proof of Citizenship or an ID card or anything that would prevent any Illegal Alien from walking into any emergency room in this country and be treated. It simply is not there.
Illegal immigrants can and do walk into emergency rooms here and have their babies. FREE, Nada, no cost, my tax dollars and my High insurance premiums pay for it and NOTHING in this bill will change that.

Page 132 Sec 242?
Well sir I have read it. I am not a lawyer and I think it is pretty clear. So is the section that describes what it means.
You are pointing out the "Affordable Credit Eligible Individual" provision.
Read it again sir. AS I understand it all that does is define who will be eligible for health insurance exchange and other items in the bill. Illegal immigrants don't need health insurance. They already get FREE health care here. The lawyers filled this bill with all kinds of misdirection.
Search the bill for that term, Affordable Credit Eligible Individual, see what comes up. What it means and what it refers to. There is also no provision for a person to prove they are a legal immigrant.
The only place in this bill that even mentions citizenship is section 1415 dealing with whistle blowers.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that. Illegal Immigrants DO NOT PAY FOR HEALTH CARE NOW AND THEY WON"T PAY FOR IT UNDER HR3200.
It is illegal for any emergency room in this country to refuse treatment to anyone. They are not allowed to ask for proof of citizenship. They have to treat you even if you tell them you have no money and cannot pay for the treatment. HR 3200 does not negate that. If you need hospitalization for treatment it cannot be denied.

I won't even go into the other untruth's in that speech.

BTW
On what do you base calling Joe Wilson a liar?

my best friend's wife is the head nurse in a major Dallas hospital and what Bill says is true and has been true for ages, some of us see the light while some can't and no matter what we are all in the same mess

Bill,

I don't think that will ever change. So what we have is not a health care problem, per se, but an immigration problem. So if we, somehow, solve the illegal immigration issue, then that part of the health care equation will be taken care of.

I don't think it is reasonable to expect a health care bill to solve the immigration disaster.

Kevin

Kevin's right. It's a rock and hard place issue. It's human nature to help someone in trouble. No matter what is in the bill, we can't turn people away in an emergency. That doesn't include going to the emergency room for sniffles or doctor visits. We can't ask emergency room visitors for their "papers" while they have a bullet in their head.

Congress needs to do a lot more work on this. What's the hurry?

Immigration is not the issue here.
Whether or not this Health care bill will allow Illegal immigrants access to health care is the issue.

Bill, there is health care which I agree with you on 100%, and there are trauma cases which need immediate attention. That's the rock and hard place that needs to be explained.

LOL! After reading Ben's good post, I said to myself "Wow!, we might be coming to reasonable consensus of opinion here". I guess we got to send it back to committee!

Kevin

Ben
I guess it might mean you have an ID card in your pocket that says you are an American Citizen and qualify as an "Affordable Credit Eligible Individual". Or you are in the database that Obama is going to require all the hospitals to be connected to.

No one is suggesting that life threatening conditions won't be treated. That is not what we are talking about here.

Of course they could also allow them treatment but they would then be arrested as illegals and deported. But that would require asking them for proof they are a citizen and you know that ain't gonna happen.

Bill, I'm not for this health care debacle at all. We need tort reform and competition of insurance companies across state lines. That's it.

It just appeared that you didn't care about emergency responses to anyone who needs it, which would be a lot of illegals. No matter how they dress it up, we can't turn down emergency cases.

Emergency room visits should not be routine doctor visits. They should be trauma centers. So we agree.

I don't want people being asked for their "papers." Sorry. Years ago, I was walking down the street at 4am, coming home from a gig and I got pulled over by the police. The officer asked for my identification. I had none on me. I had walked two miles to the gig so didn't even bring my wallet. The officer told me I needed to have identification. I told him, no, I didn't. If we don't have government controlled health care, then we won't need government "papers" to get health care.

I think there is a solution to the illegal immigration problem. It is simply a matter of stopping the illegal employers. If the states, for example, put in a $10,000 fine per case for hiring an illegal employee, then the illegal workers would move to another state. If all the states did it, they would move back to their home countries (Ireland, for example, has a surprisingly high amount of illegal workers here in the U.S.).

For the "anchor" babies? Simple. Yes, the baby is a citizen of the U.S. but the parent is not. The baby can stay, the parent must go. If the parent does not want to leave the baby, then the parent should take the baby back to their home country and let the child move to the U.S. when he or she is old enough. That child would then be a legal citizen with rights to work. That would slow down the anchor babies. I can hear the screams now. "You would do that to a BABY?" No, I wouldn't be doing that to a baby...the PARENT would be. And if the parent ever returned, they would be arrested for abandonment, which is already illegal.

Federal laws should protect citizens, not care for people.

Just wait. Once health care is socialized, wait and see how they want to make food a right. After all, who can be healthy without eating? And clothes. And shelter (wait, they're already doing tht, arent' they). And transportation. And music (oh, yeah, that's right, music is already free).

What a bunch of babies.

Ben
The Immigrant issue is really only a small part of the problem. But here is an example of how these things get so screwed up when you talk about how many people are using the system.

In California they released a report denying illegal immigrants used the emergency rooms more than insured persons, that Medi-cal patients actually used the Emergency rooms more than illegal immigrants.
There are about 6.6 Million people on the Medi-cal roles.
Here's the catch. California does not require proof of citizenship to have Medi-cal. It is estimated that at least 12 percent, and some estimates are much higher, of the recipients on Medi-cal are illegal immigrants. That's about 720,000 illegal immigrants on medi-cal. The majority of them use Emergency rooms as a clinic or go to local clinics.

So if you add those to the Illegals they report the numbers change. This is the kind of thing conservatives are concerned about.
No one is advocating letting seriously ill or injured people die in the streets. All I want is a system that is policed and prevents abuses of our health care system.
The only problem with that is more big government.

No matter how you look at it 12 Million people (by some estimates that is low)is a lot of people.

Now I need to quit worrying about this and go work on my new recording room.

Actually Mike I really don't believe that. I read the Constitution and the law and I am not so sure. but as you say IANAL.
I wonder if it has been challenged in the supreme court.
I'm sure it has.

But that's another issue.

Bill, IANAL either, but I think you are confusing "natural born citizen" which some folks are using to de-legitimatize the Obama presidency, with "citizen."

I believe a citizen has a lower threshold, for example a naturalized citizen, than a "natural born" citizen.

This might shed some light:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/us...96719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD

It defines "citizenship" as being "Birth, either within the territory of the United States or to U.S. citizen parents, or
Naturalization, the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship."

I did a little digging.
It seems the issue has been before the supreme court several times and has been challenge in Congress a few times as well.
It seems to also be a matter of interpretation. By the Courts and by congress.
It appears the guy that wrote the 14th amendment did not intend for babies born to illegals to be automatically given citizenship. He just goofed and didn't word it clearly enough. So now it is a matter of interpretation.
My interpretation is....NO.
Unfortunately they forgot to say illegal immigrant anywhere in the law or the amendment.
But the immigration law could easily have cleared it up and still could. all they have to do is rewrite it..

This is the wikipedia article and I know you have to verify anything on wiki but I read this same thing other places.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourte...d_States_Constitution#Citizenship_Clause

I love it. That's the way it should be. The "anchor" babies have never been the problem it's the attendant come alongs that go with them. Separate the baby from the process. Sure the baby is a citizen, you ain't good by. I'm not sure if you could get them for abandonment to a program you set up, kind of like the new leave them at the firestation laws. But other wise the right approach.

I'd even have a lot of respect for the mother, deciding that being split from the baby would give the baby a better life and willing to break the law for it. Respect, but they still have to go back.

Doug
It is not a given that these babies are citizens. Even the courts have argued over it. and have reversed themselves. Right now there is only an "assumption" that they are citizens.
There has never been a clear defined ruling on it from what I can find.
I think the law should be written to clearly define it once and for all. If they are going to let the baby be a citizen then they might as well grant it to the mother.

That the anchor babies have never been a problem is false. They and the mothers cost tax payers Millions in early health care and it is well known that the mothers come here and have their babies knowing full well they won't be sent home.
I know of a hospital in Michigan that closed their birthing unit because of it.



http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters4608

Well, there's law and there's law and there's the law of unintended consequences.

I believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I believe it should be read in plain English and understood as such. It was not written for lawyers. Mostly, it was written to protect us from lawyers. The 14th amendment says:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now that sounds pretty clear to me. The problem is, in 1866, they didn't figure on the double edged sword of Democrats looking for votes and Republicans looking for cheap labor, combined with easier transportation and a corrupt neighbor country.

Yes, if laws such as HR 1868 get passed that would help tighten the loopholes, but I don't see any equivocation on the right of someone born here...even a test tube baby...being a citizen. (I know that would make Joe Wrabek, our most famous JPF test tube baby, very happy ).

Mike
You are correct of course. You usually are but take another look
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
What does that mean?


Accordingly the baby is claimed by the country it's mother is a citizen of, therefore it cannot claim citizenship here..
This has not been decided by the supreme court.

question: is there any other country in the world that gives automatic citizenship to the baby when it is born on foreign soil other than the mother's homeland? hope this question isn't too confusing

That seems to be the case in a lot of situations. People just forget to mention things. I understand that back then they weren't worried as much about illegals. But still it's funny how some things never change. Forgetfulness runs rampant through our politics.

LOL, no because everyone is trying to leave those country. They're to worried about keeping the people they have.

The wonderful thing, and sometimes not so wonderful, about our constitution is how it provided a framework for our democratic republic to build on.
It ain't perfect but it comes close.
This is an example.
Back in those days people were still getting off the boat looking for a better life. It wasn't until later the issue of citizenship really became a problem. That's when they wrote the 14th amendment in 1866.
Even then it wasn't clear. Still isn't as is evidenced by the anchor baby debate.

Personally I do not believe any person in this country illegally should get any constitutional rights or citizenship. Including unborn children.
I think the baby is an illegal immigrant when it is in the womb and an illegal immigrant when it leaves the womb.
Unborn fetuses are protected by laws. They should also be subject to laws.

it seems to me that if the person is here on USA soil illegally that anything they have with them or "in them" is also here illegally but that's my interpetation of the law, like if they had swallowed a balloon of drugs those drugs would be here illegally too so for that reasoning of it the uborn fetus or if you want to call it a child is here illegally and should be subject to the same laws of immigration as the mother.I know some of you bleeding hearts are gonna dispute this but that's to be expected too.I mean those same bleeding hearts don't believe in the death penalty but if it was a member of your family or friend that got mudered you'd be the 1st in line to want to pull the switch on that rascal too that committed the crime .

Well,

(1) It costs more to execute people than it does to lock them up without parole for the rest of their lives.

(2) It frequently is applied to people who didn't commit the crime.

(3) It is not a deterrent.

Other than that, it's OK I suppose.....

Scott

Only because they put them on death row where the guard to prisoner ratio is low and they get unlimited appeals for years. Tying up countless hours of judicial time. If they would actually execute the scum in a timely manner it would cost about $2.00. The cost of one bullet.

really? Some verifiable stats please? Because I seriously doubt it and more than likely the scum probably committed another crime just as bad.
There have been about 16,000 executions in 400 years with just over 100 exonerated on death row and about 25 after execution.. I wouldn't call that "frequently"
The 100 exonerated on appeal shows the system does work even if poorly, there is an appeal process unfortunately it gets abused.. The 25 who were exonerated after the execution are unfortunate. But I bet most were bad guys anyway.


What difference does that make. Putting people in jail doesn't stop people from stealing. Maybe we should do away with jails.
Voting out Politicians for being idiots and liars don't stop them from being idiots and liars. Maybe we should just stop voting.

Actually I think with DNA testing and improved forensics we have today it would be more likely to be certain of the conviction.

LOL - I was going to give some statistics I found but they seem to be in agreement with yours. Guess we'll have to disagree on "frequently". I wouldn't say that I was a good shot "frequently" if I only made 25 baskets out of 16000. But I'd sure as hell use it if I put 25 people to death for a crime they didn't commit.

And the number of exonerations is just downright frightening to me - and they are becoming more prevalent with DNA testing. 135 people exonerated since 1973.

Which means the number of wrongful executions would skyrocket if we started moving faster - as you advocate in your response to (1).

My objection to the death penalty is not based on a "sanctity of human life" argument. It's based on the notion that you can't take it back if you are wrong. And the number of exonerations represent about 1% of the total. One percent error is a huge number when you're talking about putting someone to death!

The reason I brought up deterrence is that many use this an an argument for why the death penalty should be applied. Saying that it isn't is not the same thing as saying we should let killers go free.

By using life imprisonment with no hope of parole, we protect society and spend less money than by applying the death penalty. And we allow for the possibility (which even a statistician would call significant) that they didn't commit the crime.

Why is this not a good idea?

Scott