First Lady now requires 26 servants

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Unfortunately, no! Options are few. Small businesses suffer greatly offering plans to their employees because the rates are so very high. I go for the best rate I can find for the coverage as I'm sure others do as well. However, the employees may be very pleased with their current coverage. After all, they are only paying 50% of the premium. They won't have any say as to whether their employer drops their group plan for a cheaper government option.

What choice did your employees have in getting their current plan? And if you, as an employer, can find a cheaper plan, possibly a public option, with the same or better coverage, again I don't see the downside.

And the reason you have so few options now is that there isn't healthy competition among health insurance providers. In 34 states, 75% of the health insurance is provided by fewer than 5 companies. In some states it's as few as two.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Unless one is part of a large corporation or government organization, there already are no choices and the one or two that might be available are cost prohibitive.

That's what a public option would do. It would be the "caps, regulations and laws" that force private insurance to clean up their act. By competing with a non-profit public option, the private insurance companies would have to reduce premiums and obscene salaries for CEO's, trim administrative costs and overhead, reduce spending on advertising, stop spending so much money on denying claims, etc..

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I have not read all of this thread so this rebuttal very well may have been presented

snopes.com: First Lady Requires More Than Twenty Attendants

Laura Bush spent $1.4 million on her staff, Michelle Obama's is $1.6 million. This is just more nit-picking in my view.

[jms462001 9]

Not just regulations for ins. Companies, but trial lawyers as well. Tort reform. (We all know this wont happen, though. Obama owes the lawyers his favors for their support in getting him where he is today. His back will never turn on them. He was raised with the "one hand washes the other" mentality. If he dissed his promise to take care of the lawyers like they took care of him, it would be like having the mafia after you. You just don't do that in the game of politics.)

Regulations, caps and laws for the insurance companies?? If it was that easy why hasn't it happened before now? You are dreaming. Without competition and huge reform, that is never happening!!

[jms462001 9]

Laura Bush spent $1.4 million on her staff, Michelle Obama's is $1.6 million. This is just more nit-picking in my view.

That was my point!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jms462001 9]

What choice did your employees have in getting their current plan? And if you, as an employer, can find a cheaper plan, possibly a public option, with the same or better coverage, again I don't see the downside.

And the reason you have so few options now is that there isn't healthy competition among health insurance providers. In 34 states, 75% of the health insurance is provided by fewer than 5 companies. In some states it's as few as two.

I would like to hear more about this public option they have in mind and the benefit package and premiums. And yes, they should have thought that far!

[KartMan 58]

The fact is that conservatives respect the right for others to voice their opinions and to have free speech in this country and democrats do not. That is why when the Democrats did the same thing in Bush's day, no one talked about having them arrested for their "Hate" (your words, not mine). But let the republicans express their exercise of free speech, and it is now a 'HATE' CRIME!!! For shame! The media is heavily left winged (except for FOX, the #1 watched news media in the nation)They picked up on the things they could criticize about republicans and decided to give it plenty of air time. Whereas in Bushes day when the democrats were doing the EXACT same thing, they ignored it.

Patty,

This is just a sweeping generalization and not even close to being true. I’ve been pretty clear on my views (slightly left leaning, shoot me), and I would never say the opposite of that. In fact, in numerous posts I have condemned the windbags from the Left (mostly on MSNBC) right along with the whackos on the Right (mostly on Fox).

[KartMan 58]

It's the radical right wing nuts who take it one step further and carry out their hatred of our government and/ or of a liberal (in their eyes) president, or a group of people they hate (blacks, gays, women, etc.) by killing.

Starting with the lynchings in the south, the KKK, Timothy McVeigh (who hated our government) to Richard Poplawski who executed 3 police officers in cold blood because he thought Obama was going to take away his guns, to the guy who killed the Holocaust museum guard because he thought the government (that he hated) was going to take away his (socialism) social security checks, to the man who killed the abortion doctor, to the guy who hated women and killed 3 in a gym, or the boys who killed the young gay man in Wyoming.

By and large, when we see these kinds of abhorrent acts of violence, they are committed by those on the radical right, not liberals.

And yes, before anyone says that liberals kill too, I know there are a few examples. But those on the radical right live with such a violent hatred of our government or president that it doesn't take much to send them over the edge. Plus they love their guns and are armed to the teeth. And all the hate talk on the radio and tv just provides fuel to the fire and incites these people.

Unfortunately the Left does have some radicalized factions. The Animal Rights groups that blow up Pharmaceutical companies, the environmentalists that burned down a massive construction site here in SD because of the wood that was being used, etc, etc.

As conscientious thinkers from the Left, I think it is our place to call those idiots out and not give them any credit for the cause that they are trying to move forward. There is no place in our society for that type of hatred within our social and political causes.

Having said that, it is my belief that the radical component of the Left is far over shadowed by it’s brethren on the right. Here is a simple test. Ask 100 people if you think Left Wing radicals are more likely to blow up a building in this country or would you expect that from the Right. I will go out on a limb and say that hands down, people would be more inclined to believe that of the Right.

[KartMan 58]

The problem I had with the President's plan was his statement repeatedly that if people were happy with their current coverage they could keep it.

The problem I had with the speech was even before the speech. He should have championed a Single Payer System based on his overwhelming victory in November and then fallen back to a Public Option as a compromise.

As it stands now, the Public Option is at risk because the Right has been allowed to muck up the issue with Red Herring issues. Now they have the Blue Dogs running scared and America will likely fall even further behind the rest of the industrialized world in terms of Health Care.

As much as I like Obama, I am prepared to sacrifice him for this issue. I think he should spend every ounce of his political capital on getting Health Care thru (with a robust Public Option). Even if doing so costs him the election in 2012, I think the issue is that important for the country.

[KartMan 58]

The downside for all americans would be that the government would monopolize the industry. That would be the only option left in the end. Where 's the choice in that? What we are trying to do is keep the government from getting any bigger than it already is and keep the country from servitude to our lenders.

You realize that this argument falls completely apart when you look at the success of FedEx and UPS relative to the Postal Service don’t you?

Edited September 14, 2009 by KartMan

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Unfortunately the Left does have some radicalized factions. The Animal Rights groups that blow up Pharmaceutical companies, the environmentalists that burned down a massive construction site here in SD because of the wood that was being used, etc, etc.

As conscientious thinkers from the Left, I think it is our place to call those idiots out and not give them any credit for the cause that they are trying to move forward. There is no place in our society for that type of hatred within our social and political causes.

Having said that, it is my belief that the radical component of the Left is far over shadowed by it’s brethren on the right. Here is a simple test. Ask 100 people if you think Left Wing radicals are more likely to blow up a building in this country or would you expect that from the Right. I will go out on a limb and say that hands down, people would be more inclined to believe that of the Right.

I am aware that these groups commit crimes. But how many people died in these acts? The Southern Poverty Law Center has a list from 1995 to only 2003 and it lists 60 terrorist plots by those on the right, many resulting in deaths.

I agree that we have to call out those who choose to commit domestic terrorism but I also believe the facts will back me up that it is the fanatics and extremists on the right who are most likely to take their hatred to the next level - killing.

I live in the city where the 3 police officers were executed in cold blood by one such extreme right wing nut armed to the teeth with assault weapons and a bullet proof vest because he thought Obama was going to take his guns away. My son in law is a police officer. I also live in the city where the man who hated women armed himself with several guns and killed 3 women and wounded 9 others at a local gym. His hatred was against women. But fill in the blank with these extemists.

They hate_____________

-government

-Obama

-blacks

-hispanics

-women

-gays

-Muslims

-immigrants

-non-Christians

[KartMan 58]

I am aware that these groups commit crimes. But how many people died in these acts? The Southern Poverty Law Center has a list from 1995 to only 2003 and it lists 60 terrorist plots by those on the right, many resulting in deaths.

I agree that we have to call out those who choose to commit domestic terrorism but I also believe the facts will back me up that it is the fanatics and extremists on the right who are most likely to take their hatred to the next level - killing.

I live in the city where the 3 police officers were executed in cold blood by one such extreme right wing nut armed to the teeth with assault weapons and a bullet proof vest because he thought Obama was going to take his guns away. My son in law is a police officer. I also live in the city where the man who hated women armed himself with several guns and killed 3 women and wounded 9 others at a local gym. His hatred was against women. But fill in the blank with these extemists.

They hate_____________

-government

-Obama

-blacks

-hispanics

-women

-gays

-Muslims

-immigrants

-non-Christians

Totally agree with you, I just think it only fair to admit we have some bad apples in our barrel too. Not quite as bad in my opinion, and not quite as many, but they are there and we should not ignore them nor apologize for them.

[pattygreen 5]

why can't we go across state lines to purchase insurance? That would increase competition. Soooo many other ideas besides a public option, but Obama doesn't want to go those routes. What gives? Sounds like something fishy there.

TV ads soliciting plantiffs for medical malpractice suits skyrocketed 1,400% from 2004-2008 while spending on those ads soared 1300% in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to research carried out by the Campaign Media Analysis group for the institute for legal reform. The ads' successes have made the trial bar even more protective of its lucrative turf, but Democratic Politicians also have benefited because in the last election cycle, more than 99% of trial lawyers' political contributions went to Democrats, according to a recent analysis of National Law Journal data. That explains why health care "reforms" moving through Congress are devoid of long, overdue tort reform.

Is it acceptable for the lawyers to make obscene amounts of money off health care, but not the insurance or drug companies? Or is it the reality that our President (a Lawyer himself) and Congress (comprised of mostly attorneys) are protecting their own? Or perhaps trial lawyers are major contributors to Democratic coffers? And you people trust the government.(rolling my eyes again)

[Cleo's Mom 257]

why can't we go across state lines to purchase insurance? That would increase competition. Soooo many other ideas besides a public option, but Obama doesn't want to go those routes. What gives? Sounds like something fishy there.

TV ads soliciting plantiffs for medical malpractice suits skyrocketed 1,400% from 2004-2008 while spending on those ads soared 1300% in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to research carried out by the Campaign Media Analysis group for the institute for legal reform. The ads' successes have made the trial bar even more protective of its lucrative turf, but Democratic Politicians also have benefited because in the last election cycle, more than 99% of trial lawyers' political contributions went to Democrats, according to a recent analysis of National Law Journal data. That explains why health care "reforms" moving through Congress are devoid of long, overdue tort reform.

Is it acceptable for the lawyers to make obscene amounts of money off health care, but not the insurance or drug companies? Or is it the reality that our President (a Lawyer himself) and Congress (comprised of mostly attorneys) are protecting their own? Or perhaps trial lawyers are major contributors to Democratic coffers? And you people trust the government.(rolling my eyes again)

I haven't heard anyone, including Pres. Obama, say that allowing insurance to be bought across state lines is off the table.

And as for tort reform being significant to lowering healthcare costs - well that subject is just a red herring and distraction from the real issues.

The Washington Independent

And I want a jury of my peers to decide my award in a medical malpractice case. To infringe on this right would be to infringe on the judicial process.

Edited September 14, 2009 by Cleo's Mom

[KartMan 58]

I don’t think it’s off the table either, I can’t think of any reason not to allow it. The Obama’s plan (via the Health Insurance Exchange) opens those doors, but it doesn’t stop there. Interstate competition is one way to increase competition, but the Public Option is another far better solution.

Don’t cry for the Insurance companies, they will be fine even with the Public Option. Their little nugget in this bill is the Insurance Mandate. Do you know what that is? It is a provision that forces everyone (even the healthy 20 something’s) to purchase insurance. This is a boon for the Insurance companies because those people don’t get sick often. I think the Mandate is a great concept (and I'm not opposed to it), but it will be an even greater bonus for the Insurance Companies if they get that without the Public Option. Can you say Free Money?