Okay, I give up...

[MaggieMae]

I've made a ton of suggestions on healthcare on here, and well it's no secret where my political feelings lay. I am not supporter of a "public option" as it applies to the Federal Govt. . As it will be too costly, will lead to lower quality of care, and won't cover everyone. I do recognize a desperate need to lower the costs associated with healthcare and healthcare insurance and by doing so making it easier for those who want it and need to be able to access it. One of the best ways to do this, to allow for privately funded healthcare insurance co-ops that allow individuals, small business, and many others to come together to purchase group coverage. Other ways are promoting competetion through federal grants to those companies wishing to provide healthcare to low income individuals and familes. Still even more ways to do so would be to allow for Federal funding through state run Universal Health care programs that are voted on from state to state. There are many ways to do this without a federal govt. that regulates the same people they would be competing with. This is a complete and utter falacy if people think this will lower the costs of healthcare insurance, it will lead to a bloated system where the FICA deduction is much higher to pay for this "public option" as well as year end tax on those who have employee sponsored healthcare plans. I don't believe anyone denies the need to reform healthcare. I do think though that the ways to go about it are what is at issue.

Two of your choices involve federal money. Once again, "universal" health care WILL NOT pass, so you need to stop thinking in that direction. The latest compendium of proposals are described here, none of which has majority support.

Democrats to Begin Scaling Back Costly Health Care Proposals - Political News - FOXNews.com

And out of all your link in this article comes another plan--that looks could be bi-partisan that would cover all of the unisured:

Also Wednesday, three former Senate leaders -- Democrat Tom Daschle and Republicans Bob Dole and Howard Baker -- were releasing a $1.2 trillion proposal that would cover everyone and be fully paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. I think this turns into a can of worms.

The latest plan put forth by the Republicans (Dashle plus 2, all retired, by the way), is even dis'd by the conservative Heritage Foundation. They STILL do not say anything new about what they would cut and who would get tax increases. I believe that was proposed simply to put another wedge into the issue which would postpone drafting an actual bill from the tentacles of all the proposals under consideration. It's become a mish-mash of ideas that will take God himself to explain sufficiently.

Dearth of Details in Daschle-Dole Health Proposal » The Foundry

 

[MaggieMae]

Do they not think that an incursion into Iran would not be just as costly as Iraq? If the Republicans are so all-fired concerned about out of control deficit spending, just how do they propose to do another war? I'm reading this debate like this:

Potential cost of health care reform = kill the beast.
Potential cost of another trillion dollar war = bring it on.

It's not as if those are the real choices. Certainly no responsible Republican thinks so. Do Democrats, or is it just a sickness that shows up on forum boards?

Maggie, would you please provide a link to a comment of McCain, Graham, or any other Republican of note in which they have laid out any such idea for dealing with the current Iranian political upheaval? It must feel satisfying to believe that your political opponents are such idiots as you are making them out.

The real question is "Will Obama stand with Tehran's democratic reformers?"

Here's just one one small suggestion in 6/15's WSJ that doesn't involve military action; I can quote about 5 or six more substantial economic or diplomatic measures:

"Obama has the opportunity to lend the protestors the considerable weight of U.S. moral support, just as he has the opportunity to show the regime there are consequences for stealing elections. One such consequence would be for the President to remove his opposition to various bills in Congress, sponsored by Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman and others, that sanction companies that sell gasoline to Iran. An estimated 40% of Iran's domestic gasoline consumption comes from foreign sources."

Right now the invitatiion is still open for Iran diplomats and state figures to attend our 4th of July party at all consuls, and diplomatic posts. Could Obama even have withdrawn that? He answered Major Garrett of FNC this way:

Major Garrett FNC - QUESTION: Are Iranian diplomats still welcome at the embassy on Fourth of July, sir?

OBAMA: Well, I think as you're aware, Major, we don't have formal diplomatic relations with.. ... we don't have formal -- we don't have formal diplomatic relations with Iran. I think that we have said that if Iran chooses a path that abides by international norms and principles, then we are interested in healing some of the wounds of 30 years in terms of U.S.-Iranian relations.

But that is a choice that the Iranians are going to have to make.

QUESTION: But the offer still stands?

OBAMA: That's a choice the Iranians are going to have to make.

I'm just heeding the warning that McCain, Graham, et al., are using the same veiled terminology that promoted justification for invasion of Iraq, in particular, the ouster of Saddam Hussein (in this case, Achmedinejad) and the ideological talking points of demanding that the United States assure freedom for another country.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Of course no one is suggesting an invasion of Iran, yet.

And they never will. First because it isn't necessary and second because we simply cannot commit the manpower needed.

But if the United States takes ownership by denouncing Iran's handling of its own internal elections and once again is seen as a threatening "or else" force to be reckoned with, you can bet that Iran will retaliate somehow.

The Ayatollah already blamed this entire ordeal on US "meddling." This was before any statement was issued. What we have so far is Congress weighed in, then reluctantly, Obama did. Both actions are proper. There's really nothing more either could or should do. The criticism of Obama is simply "what took you so long" and it's a valid one.

Also, what's the deal now with still allowing Iranian representatives at our 4th of July events?

Iran could threaten to cut off sea access to oil freighters through the Strait of Hormuz. It could turn the perceived US interference around to increased threats against Israel.

That's already happened, time and time again over the years.

If Obama came out with an or-else ultimatum for Iran, then the question becomes, "Okay, what next?!

No one's called for such an ultimatum. No one. Anywhere.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I'm just heeding the warning that McCain, Graham, et al., are using the same veiled terminology that promoted justification for invasion of Iraq, in particular, the ouster of Saddam Hussein (in this case, Achmedinejad) and the ideological talking points of demanding that the United States assure freedom for another country.

This is incorrect, as I pointed out to you earlier in this thread:

"No one's calling for or even considering military action in Iran, no matter how many times the far-left says it's so, and no matter how many times their mindless minions out there regurgitate it.

Regime change in Iraq was made the law of the land, by Bill Clinton's pen in 1998. It was the first ever law on our books that required that we remove a foreign leader. "The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998."

Again, NO ONE is even considering an invasion of Iran. NO ONE is suggesting it, talking about it, wants it or even thinks it.

So, your strawman fails."

 

[MaggieMae]

Two of your choices involve federal money. Once again, "universal" health care WILL NOT pass, so you need to stop thinking in that direction. The latest compendium of proposals are described here, none of which has majority support.

Democrats to Begin Scaling Back Costly Health Care Proposals - Political News - FOXNews.com

And out of all your link in this article comes another plan--that looks could be bi-partisan that would cover all of the unisured:

Also Wednesday, three former Senate leaders -- Democrat Tom Daschle and Republicans Bob Dole and Howard Baker -- were releasing a $1.2 trillion proposal that would cover everyone and be fully paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. I think this turns into a can of worms.

The latest plan put forth by the Republicans (Dashle plus 2, all retired, by the way), is even dis'd by the conservative Heritage Foundation. They STILL do not say anything new about what they would cut and who would get tax increases. I believe that was proposed simply to put another wedge into the issue which would postpone drafting an actual bill from the tentacles of all the proposals under consideration. It's become a mish-mash of ideas that will take God himself to explain sufficiently.

Dearth of Details in Daschle-Dole Health Proposal » The Foundry