It seems like bankruptcy of insurance companies is the only possible outcome if what you're saying is true (I haven't had time to review the speech).

After bankruptcy it sounds like the government is faced with the option of letting them fail, or bailing them out. The first leads to single payer, and the 2nd leads to government controlled insurance which basically seems like the same outcome to me.

to me it's equivelant to the sub prime mortgage situation. the govn't forced banks to lend money to people who couldn't afford it. The same is going to be true with insurance. They are going to force insurance companies to accept everyone and eliminate annual and lifetime caps, as well as reduce out of pocket maximums. There is no feasable way this can work unless they also force hospitals and doctors to take a considerable pay cut in terms of what procedures cost. I'd love to see how the AMA would react to that.

I completely disagree. Insurance rates are what they are because there is no viable competition to drive prices down.

This is something I don't understand. In my state of ohio there are numerous insurance companies competeing. The big ones are MMO, United Healthcare, Blue cross blue shield, Cigna, Summa Care and Humana. There are also several smaller companies. Ohio is not a large state population wise and there are alot of companies competing. Again from a mathematical and economic standpoint prices have to rise if you impose these regulations on insurance companies, there's no two ways about it.

I'll take the over under of no.

As I understand the mortgage melt down it was not so much the bad loans that were the problem but the Wall Streeters who bundled them into investment vehicles leveraged to the hilt so that even a small drop in real estate values made the swaps and dirivatives worthless. I think the banking system could have easily absorbed the mortgage losses if it wasn't for the casino style gambling they engaged in.

Also I believe the thinking is that increasing the health insurance pool by requiring everyone to purchase insurance will go a long way to offset the costs of the pre-condition and cap reforms proposed. I guess alternatives to these insurance reforms include having our government pick up the costs directly or just let those sick people go bankrupt and/or get sicker.

One thing Obama didn't touch on was how they would enforce mandatory minimum coverage. With auto insurance, you can suspend driving privileges. You can't really suspend living privileges

My guess is it would be done similar to taxes. If you don't pay they garnish your wages.

Among other things, I am not clear on how the plan is going to be paid for. I understand what he said, but I need more detail. If it is that easy to save 100's of billions in medicare why haven't they done it already? I generally did not feel he added any value to the debate.

My question was stemmed in the fact that you have been berating Obama for being weak on the message and not dispelling the lies and half truths in a strong manner. I feel like he did all he needed to in that realm last night. Do you agree or disagree?

On the issue of "death panels" he did not address how the government will allocate limited health care resources. He actually did the opposite pretty much promising to do more that is possible without increasing costs or reducing benefits.

On the issue of illegals, he failed to address the fact that the existing house bill does not proactively require proof of citizenship for benefits.

I think he parsed his words in a very crafty manner. I doubt anyone with an opinion going into the speech had that opinion changed. In my view the speech added no value to the debate and did not dispel "lies and half truths" - I thought he was weak.

http://cloudfront.mediamattersaction...images/lie.jpg

HR 3200.

You were saying?

Full text: http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/1...ext-071409.pdf

you must have been watching a different speech, because he answered every question you had. If you refuse to listen to (or believe) his answers, there isn't much point in you even watching.

Are we going to play pretend games? Just because your fearless leaders say something, doesn't mean that is how things are actually going to be. The issue is - does the legislation proactively prevent illegals from being covered. One method to help with the issue is to demand proof a citizenship. All Obama did was restate something that did not address the underlying concern. It is like saying we are going to post a speed limit of 45 mph, and then pretending that will stop people from speeding. Am I really not being clear or are you just pulling my chain? Do you really think Obama put that concern to rest?

---------- Post added at 07:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:06 PM ----------

How does Obama reconcile the difference in projected costs with the CBO? Do you know?

Oh, I put another ball in the air...this is related in the area of how is he going to pay for this? Are the CBO folks liers too?

I still don't see how it's possible to pay for it. Nothing the government ever does comes out within budget. They are going to have to borrow massive amounts of money to fund healthcare I don't see anyway around it frankly.

Yes lets play pretend games. Lets pretend robbing banks is a crime, that way there would be no bank robberies. Wow it's fun to play pretend!

The government rarely does anything within budget because there's usually nothing in it for the agency to be within budget. I worked for the State of Oregon for a long time, seems we were constantly running around at the end of a budget spending money on crap we didn't need. We were always told if we don't spend it next year we'll get less. I really have no idea if thats how other government agencies work but that's way mine did. Used to piss me off.

Now if the Obama plan goes in with a -0- budget effect mandate and the program does run over there will have to be cuts elsewhere to make up the losses. That is if I heard the speech correctly.