Thread: Obama outlines health care plan for all

Originally Posted by speedygirl

I understand that thinking to a point. There are people that have a lot of money saved but don't want to touch their savings because they think that they are entitled to free or heavily discounted healthcare.

The wealthy already have healthcare. Most of us pay insurance companies premiums. They don't look at my bank accounts or my assets. So if I pay a premium/tax to the goverment for healthcare. Why am I entitled to give them anything else? If I get taxed on the money I earned. I decide to save it rather than spend it. I should have to pay more? What we will end up with is a run on every bank. If I am going to be taxed then penalized on my income that I save, I will hide it at home. You will see many people shutting down bank accounts.

Originally Posted by jeanea33

The wealthy already have healthcare. Most of us pay insurance companies premiums. They don't look at my bank accounts or my assets. So if I pay a premium/tax to the goverment for healthcare. Why am I entitled to give them anything else? If I get taxed on the money I earned. I decide to save it rather than spend it. I should have to pay more? What we will end up with is a run on every bank. If I am going to be taxed then penalized on my income that I save, I will hide it at home. You will see many people shutting down bank accounts.

You're not obligated to. Private healthcare wouldn't fall under this. I also have private healthcare and there is no reason for anyone to look at my bank account. You wouldn't have to give them anything if you were not under a government sponsored program. Private healthcare is not being abolished and people can continue the way they are with that. If someone wants to go under a potential government controlled plan then they need to follow the criteria.

Originally Posted by Bahet

I understand exactly what Jeanea is saying and I agree. You can have 2 families making $60,000. One family buys a house with a mortgage they can handle, shops at thrift stores and garage sales, watches movies on cable, vacations at home or with extended family, and cooks dinner at home. They end up with a decent amount in savings. Couple #2 buy a much bigger house, buy expensive furniture, designer clothes, eat out at restaurants 4 nights/week, see a movie at the show every weekend, go on vacations to Europe, etc. They have no money in savings and are up to their eyeballs in debt.

If the government goes by income both families will be seen as equal. If they go by bank accounts and financial portfolios family #1 will end up paying while family #2 will not. Family #2 will essentially be rewarded for being financially irresponsible.

I understand what you all are saying but I am under the impression that it will be based on the $60,000.00 a year not what is owned or owed. If you apply for assistance now they go by your income not your bills. Am I making any sense? Its hard to explain thoughts sometimes...lol.

Originally Posted by Bahet

They go by both. When times were hard for us we didn't qualify because we had too much equity in our homes and our cars were worth too much. If we had bought the max home we qualified for we would have been in debt up to our eyeballs when times got tough. We would have been living in an extremely nice home but we would have qualified for assistance because we wouldn't have had nearly the same kind of equity.

Again, the system would reward the behavior of 'maxing out'.....:

Originally Posted by jasmine

Obama May Drop 'Public Option' Plan

Scooped me AGAIN ! :



Althouse explores how “conversation” has evolved into “one of those Orwellian words.” http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/08...ation-yet.html

Which is why some conversations are more equal than others in the left’s collective, collectivist mind. Or as Frank Burns of M*A*S*H once said, “Individuality is fine–as long as we all do it together.” http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/08...rts-whole.html http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.co...out-glenn.html http://www.linkedin.com/answers?view...ydQUoVP_zdv4b8

Related: “Obama’s Talking About His Grandmother Again; People Who Listened Last Time Are Now ‘Dishonest.’” http://justoneminute.typepad.com/mai...her-again.html

http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2...-conversation/



Saturday, August 15, 2009
Ten Top Reasons I'm Happy About The Glenn Beck Boycott

A group called Color of Change is putting pressure on advertisers to stop running ads on the Glenn Beck show on Fox News because Glenn Beck said mean things about Barack Obama. Apparently several advertisers, including Geico, Sargento Cheese, and others, have succumbed to the fear.

Needless to say, the enlightened visionaries of the left-wing blogosphere are jumping for joy at the boycott. Much like the boycott of Mormon-owned businesses in the aftermath of Prop. 8 in California, the boycott aims to silence -- not just criticize -- opposing political speech.

Is it any surprise or coincidence that this boycott is taking place against a vocal opponent of Obama's health care restructuring and cap-and-trade plans just at the moment that opposition to such plans is coming to a head? No, the boycott simply is one part of the overall push to silence opposition, much like calling protesters un-American and political terrorists.

Nonetheless, I am happy to see this boycott. Here are my ten top reasons:

1. The boycott will fail, as do virtually all boycotts.

2. The failure of the boycott will be a huge victory for freedom of speech.

3. The failure of the boycott will diminish the power of the boycotters.

4. The diminished power of the boycotters will empower grassroots opposition to health care restructuring and cap-and-trade.

5. The boycott reveals once again that many liberals are hypocrites who only want freedom for their speech.

6. The boycott reveals that the left-wing blogosphere is afraid of other voices being heard.

7. The boycott reminds us that large corporations are spineless in the face of liberal pressure groups.

8. The boycott reminds us also that we should not confuse large corporations with free markets or free enterprise or freedom.

9. The boycott will tell us whether Fox News has a spine.

10. The boycott is a reflection that Democrats have few positive arguments in support of their agenda and need to create enemies.

UPDATE: And now a boycott of Whole Foods! http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/08...ke-modern.html

The Left is feeding on itself, like people stranded at a plane wreck on some mountaintop. In case you were wondering, corporate Whole Foods has no spine. http://www.americablog.com/2009/08/w...ceos-anti.html

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.co...out-glenn.html

August 17, 2009
The Array of WH ObamaCare Tactics Grows
By Lee Cary

The White House is deploying an array of tactics to promote ObamaCare.

Here's the list to date.

1. Warn about the cost of inaction. Or the, "Sure it's expensive, but just think of how much it'll cost if we don't do anything!" argument. It's a false dichotomy. Many of those who oppose Obamacare believe healthcare reform is in order - just not the nationalized medicine approach proposed by Obama and the Democrats.

GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. President Obama appears to have fixed on a new strategy to counter what he has called fear-mongering by his opponents in the national health care debate: Try to convince the public that making no change would be scarier. ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...oday_headlines )

2. Use Grandma to build empathy through association. Or the "I wouldn't deny healthcare to the elderly for I once had a sick grandma, too" argument.

GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. | President Obama for the first time invoked the death of his own grandmother to strike back against opponents of his health care plan who have tried to claim it would create government "death panels" to "pull the plug on grandma." ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/..._news_carousel )

3. Accuse opponents of racial prejudice - play the race card. In an article entitled "Fear for Obama's Safety Grows as Hate Groups Thrive on Racial Backlash," ABC News alleged a link between racial prejudice and anti-Obamacare sentiments.

Experts who track hate groups across the U.S. are growing increasingly concerned over violent rhetoric targeted at President Obama, especially as the debate over health care intensifies and a pattern of threats emerges. ( http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=8324481&page=1 )

4. Shift the focus of the debate. The White House has shifted the focus away from the positive - improving healthcare for all Americans - to a negative - reining in the evil health insurance industry.


5. When accused of having a controversial proposal, just say "No we don't." This tactic is popular with some Senators and Representatives when constituents push back against specific proposals in Obamacare. It's the "No, it doesn't say that" response. It's dependent on tactic #6.


6. Hide the plan. When the House version of the plan is criticized, just say that the Senate has a different version, but then don't reveal that version. And, if you're Obama, say, "Well, that's not in my plan." It's all a shell game - plan, plan, who's got the plan?


7. Hide key congressional proponents. For example, Rep. Harry Teague (D. NM) is just one among those Democrat members of Congress hiding from their constituents during the recess. Callers asking to know his schedule are referred to the Congressman's website for a list of town hall meetings on ObamaCare. His last "Harry in your hometown" event was August 8th. Where's Harry now? http://www.teague.house.gov/index.ph...vices&Itemid=1

Congressman Dennis Cardoza (D. CA.) is also hiding from his constituents. According to the Merced County News: http://www.mercedcountytimes.net/

Normally this is the one time of the year that we can expect to hear from our Congressman. Traditionally there are Town Hall meetings to give the constituents a one on one with their Congress in discussion of the various topics being debated on Capitol Hill. Our Congressman Dennis Cardoza says there will be no Town Hall meetings. He is not expected to return to Merced County over the summer recess.

8. Pretend to give up on controversial issues that were never acknowledged in the first place. We've heard that the alleged Senate bill has omitted the controversial "death committee" provision that was never acknowledged to have existed in the first place. This offers the illusion of compromise.


9. Hold pro-Obamacare pep rallies that profess to be open town hall-like events. Obama is reverting to the campaign style that brought him success during the election. Fill a room full of supporters, answer stacked questions, claim that support is widespread, and attempt to build positive momentum.


10. Blame the media for focusing on the opponents. Since the legacy media is decidedly pro-Obama, this accusation doesn't provoke their ire. It should, but it doesn't.


11. Demonize the opposition. This is, perhaps, the most consistent and frequently used tactic designed to weaken the opposition to Obamacare. Rush Limbaugh is accused of inflammatory language, and his alleged minions dutifully march into the contentious town hall meetings that surface on YouTube.


12. Make false claims for Obamacare. This tactic is close to #5. It's represents the dissemination of misinformation about the House bill, pertaining to the bill's costs and provisions. This tactic provoked angry pushback at some town hall meetings. People had read the bill, while their congressional member clearly had not.


So what other tactics are yet to be deployed?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...care_tact.html at August 17, 2009 - 01:53:37 PM EDT