Okay, I give up...

[Annie]

Private insurers most certainly DO have the capability of deciding what costs they will and will not pay. They use fee schedules, surgical schedules, charts detailing the average rate or charge for identical or similar services in a certain geographical area called "reasonable and customary" fees. Also, a private insurer would be quite apt to disallow an artificial limb for an 85-year old person. Buried deep in the fine print of most insurance policies (just as in those pesky credit card agreements), there can usually be found a catch-all clause ending in "...or for any reason whatsoever..."

Great! Give us some links for that, MM! Thank you!

Health Insurance Fee Schedules

or you can Google "fees and schedules used by medical profession" where you'll find a slew of articles or state guidelines.

What I thought. So how does that work out with the Obama plan? Yeah, I know, costs are held to the gov't plan, if exceed it's out of pocket, beyond deductible. Reason those plans will be dropped. On the other hand, we'll all be better off when the weak links die off, whether due to genetics, life style or age.

Soylent green come to life.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I don't deny Maggie that 2 of my proposals involve Federal funding, however I also think that the funding would be more in line with what the Federal Govt. has the power to do and that is to regulate commerece and promote a business environment that allows for more competetion through incentive programs be that tax breaks whatever. I also think the revenue that is generated in the form of tax increases within the states that go back to the Fed. to pay for what I have proposed would end up costing a heck of a lot less and would be a heck of lot less intrusive than the so called "public option"

The last suggestion would simply involve expanding Medicaid, which operates on fixed grants to the states based upon historical and anticipated needs. The State of Vermont cut a deal with the federal government for a waiver of the fixed amount for five years in order to cover more uninsured caught in the crack between earning to much and too little. Vermont also has it's own new health care program, which will run a deficit for the first five years, so the thinking is that between the two, Vermonters will have no excuse for not staying healthy and the State won't go bankrupt doing health care. (Vermont has a Republican Governor and a Democratic Legislature, by the way, which worked this thing out without all the gnashing of teeth which has become the norm in Washington).

Vermont Global Commitment to Health

Actually Maggie, the message here is this, "it's a state issue" see the 10th Amendment. So what Vt. does, and Mass. does is a result of what the voters will of those states say it is. Now the grants that I am talking about are more in line with what John McCain had proposed in his campaign as a tax credit. This grant will go to offset the cost of paying for the state sponsored Universal care provided the voters in your state or mine decide they want it. If a state for example wants to go the co-op route I say let them, because in the end it's a state matter. Where the Fed. comes in is as a regulatory body to provide the proper environments for these programs to thrive. Let me give you another example, take my state for example, lets say here that 99% of the people wanted Universal healthcare, then it would seem to me why direct that call for healthcare to a Federal level when you need it a local level. and constitutionally speaking it's supposed to be there anyway.

I could get behind something like this... 10 years later we would have several, if not 50, different programs to compare and see what works and what doesn't. If an organization as small as a huge company can self-insure for health-care, there is no reason that a State shouldn't have a pool of participants large enough to do it.

-Joe

 

[Mad Scientist]

Health care reform is just too expensive to "do" this year, no matter how the numbers are manipulated. (But I still want to hear what Obama has to say at today's press conference.) My preference would be that because he is losing political capital on the health issue, he would be wise to turn his full attention to the other two priorities: education and energy, both of which are much more flexible issues among the American public.

Uh, if Health Care is so important, then why would Obama care about Political Capital? If he really cared he would just push it anyway. He said it was important to the economy recovering, but now he doesn't care about the economy? WTF?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Why? What's the difference is between pouring our existing health-care dollars (money spent by us and by our employers) into a public bureaucracy to track premiums and payments, and pouring our existing health-care dollars into a myriad of private bureaucracies to track our premiums and payments, other than the profits being skimmed straight off the top by the private ones, and their ability to use market confusion to deny coverage that's been paid for?

Before answering, bear in mind our own Social Security*, is running at an efficiency of under 1% of premiums collected spent for the costs for all overhead, including office rent**, wages, equipment, etc. (That's less than 1 penny from every dollar collected in FICA taxes.)

* Social Security: a Public Bureaucracy used for tracking employee & employer paid premiums (paid in the form of FICA taxes) and the disability and retirement benefits they provide for. (You know, kind of like insurance!)

** Note that many, many Americans have an office within 25 miles, most have an office within 50 miles and virtually everyone has one within 100 miles, if there is business that can't be handled over the phone or 'net.

P.S. - How many Medicare customers have you heard ***** about service compared to customers of any given private bureaucracy?

How many companies are as smart as Microsoft and Boeing and became 'self insured' by booting the private bureaucracies out and hiring a couple of clerks to track their own company run insurance pool?

It is time that We, The People became 'self insured' for health-care.

-Joe

Because this is what bureaucracy has turned into:

"Today, the term bureaucracy suggests a lack of initiative, excessive adherence to rules and routine, red tape, inefficiency, or, even more serious, an impersonal force dominating the lives of individuals."

bureaucracy definition | Dictionary.com

 

[AVG-JOE]

Why? What's the difference is between pouring our existing health-care dollars (money spent by us and by our employers) into a public bureaucracy to track premiums and payments, and pouring our existing health-care dollars into a myriad of private bureaucracies to track our premiums and payments, other than the profits being skimmed straight off the top by the private ones, and their ability to use market confusion to deny coverage that's been paid for?

Before answering, bear in mind our own Social Security*, is running at an efficiency of under 1% of premiums collected spent for the costs for all overhead, including office rent**, wages, equipment, etc. (That's less than 1 penny from every dollar collected in FICA taxes.)

* Social Security: a Public Bureaucracy used for tracking employee & employer paid premiums (paid in the form of FICA taxes) and the disability and retirement benefits they provide for. (You know, kind of like insurance!)

** Note that many, many Americans have an office within 25 miles, most have an office within 50 miles and virtually everyone has one within 100 miles, if there is business that can't be handled over the phone or 'net.

P.S. - How many Medicare customers have you heard ***** about service compared to customers of any given private bureaucracy?

How many companies are as smart as Microsoft and Boeing and became 'self insured' by booting the private bureaucracies out and hiring a couple of clerks to track their own company run insurance pool?

It is time that We, The People became 'self insured' for health-care.

-Joe

Because this is what bureaucracy has turned into:

"Today, the term bureaucracy suggests a lack of initiative, excessive adherence to rules and routine, red tape, inefficiency, or, even more serious, an impersonal force dominating the lives of individuals."

bureaucracy definition | Dictionary.com

The difference as I see it? A bureaucracy hired by and accountable to We, The People is a bunch of middle class clerks keeping the paperwork straight.

What more do you need from an insurance company?

Million dollar executives?!?

-Joe

 

[Immanuel]

I won't give up on a public plan this year. The President was very strong today in his support of a public plan.
He said, "Why would it drive private insurance out of business?" he asked rhetorically, pointing out that the industry repeatedly argues that private insurance is the best and the government can't run anything.
He said the administration's position is a "public plan makes sense."

I have not yet heard what the President had to say. As to why would it drive private insurance out of business, the preliminary reports I read on this said that his plan would not allow any private insurance companies to offer any policies that offered the same services that the public plan offered meaning that if the public plan covered MRIs then no private insurance would be allowed to cover MRIs. That is utterly ridiculous.

Now, as I said, that was the preliminary reports about his health care plan from several months ago. Whether that part as stuck or not, I have no idea, but if it does stick then it would drive private insurance out of the market simply because they would be prevented by law from offering health coverage.

Immie

What you heard was republican, health insurance, and pharmaceutical talking points ... in other words, Bullshit.

I don't think so. I read the actual plan. It was not a synopsis of the plan, it was the published plan. It is listed somewhere on this site, or maybe it was one of the other two sites I visit, but back several months.

Immie

 

[Zoom-boing]

Why? What's the difference is between pouring our existing health-care dollars (money spent by us and by our employers) into a public bureaucracy to track premiums and payments, and pouring our existing health-care dollars into a myriad of private bureaucracies to track our premiums and payments, other than the profits being skimmed straight off the top by the private ones, and their ability to use market confusion to deny coverage that's been paid for?

Before answering, bear in mind our own Social Security*, is running at an efficiency of under 1% of premiums collected spent for the costs for all overhead, including office rent**, wages, equipment, etc. (That's less than 1 penny from every dollar collected in FICA taxes.)

* Social Security: a Public Bureaucracy used for tracking employee & employer paid premiums (paid in the form of FICA taxes) and the disability and retirement benefits they provide for. (You know, kind of like insurance!)

** Note that many, many Americans have an office within 25 miles, most have an office within 50 miles and virtually everyone has one within 100 miles, if there is business that can't be handled over the phone or 'net.

P.S. - How many Medicare customers have you heard ***** about service compared to customers of any given private bureaucracy?

How many companies are as smart as Microsoft and Boeing and became 'self insured' by booting the private bureaucracies out and hiring a couple of clerks to track their own company run insurance pool?

It is time that We, The People became 'self insured' for health-care.

-Joe

Because this is what bureaucracy has turned into:

"Today, the term bureaucracy suggests a lack of initiative, excessive adherence to rules and routine, red tape, inefficiency, or, even more serious, an impersonal force dominating the lives of individuals."

bureaucracy definition | Dictionary.com

The difference as I see it? A bureaucracy hired by and accountable to We, The People is a bunch of middle class clerks keeping the paperwork straight.

What more do you need from an insurance company?

Million dollar executives?!?

-Joe

A bureaucracy that suggests a lack of initiative, excessive adherence to rules and routine, red tape, inefficiency, or, even more serious, an impersonal force dominating the lives of individuals -- doesn't matter if it's government or big insurance, we still get screwed.

The bolded -you trust the government way more than I do.

 

[Immanuel]

Why? What's the difference is between pouring our existing health-care dollars (money spent by us and by our employers) into a public bureaucracy to track premiums and payments, and pouring our existing health-care dollars into a myriad of private bureaucracies to track our premiums and payments, other than the profits being skimmed straight off the top by the private ones, and their ability to use market confusion to deny coverage that's been paid for?

Before answering, bear in mind our own Social Security*, is running at an efficiency of under 1% of premiums collected spent for the costs for all overhead, including office rent**, wages, equipment, etc. (That's less than 1 penny from every dollar collected in FICA taxes.)

{snipped for brevity}

Joe,

If the government artificially eliminates private health insurance then we the people will be screwed in the long run with piss poor service, higher taxes, fewer doctors and many more troubles just lurking in the wind.

Also, I am sorry to say that I have read your 1% claim about SS before, and truthfully, I do not believe it, but that is neither here nor there in this discussion. It is not you that I don't believe, it is the government BS that you read that I don't believe.

Immie

 

[garyd]

Three things drive health care cost in this country. Access, technology, and lawyers. Which one do you think Obama is going to attack Maggie?

 

[oreo]

Health care reform is just too expensive to "do" this year, no matter how the numbers are manipulated. (But I still want to hear what Obama has to say at today's press conference.) My preference would be that because he is losing political capital on the health issue, he would be wise to turn his full attention to the other two priorities: education and energy, both of which are much more flexible issues among the American public.

HOWEVER, that said, here's my problem with the Republican politicians who have consistently just said NO to any health care reform other than their own well-worn proposals. The major talking heads this past weekend (McCain, Graham, and the others parroting each other) have been once more been beating the drum for getting us into another conflict over Iran by demanding that Obama "denounce" the Iranian leadership and ally himself with the moderates . What they have been saying sounds eerily familiar to the subtle justifications for invading Iraq, which ultimately happened.

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.

There is absolutely no Republican even remotely suggesting an invasion of Iran. Give me a break! What they have been complaining about is a sitting POTUS that appeared to be very reluctant in backing--by "verbally" supporting the opposition party--& also reluctant in making strong remarks to the Iranian regime over the killing & beating of protestors. That's it. It took a few days of arm twisting but Obama came out as he should & said something regarding the violence against the protestors.

As far as health care. Does anyone understand this plan? I certainly don't want something passed in fire department speed--like the stimulus bill was only to find out small details later--like all the political pay-backs-pork & earmarks that were stuffed into this bill that had nothing to do with economic stimulus.

 

[oreo]

Health care reform is just too expensive to "do" this year, no matter how the numbers are manipulated. (But I still want to hear what Obama has to say at today's press conference.) My preference would be that because he is losing political capital on the health issue, he would be wise to turn his full attention to the other two priorities: education and energy, both of which are much more flexible issues among the American public.

HOWEVER, that said, here's my problem with the Republican politicians who have consistently just said NO to any health care reform other than their own well-worn proposals. The major talking heads this past weekend (McCain, Graham, and the others parroting each other) have been once more been beating the drum for getting us into another conflict over Iran by demanding that Obama "denounce" the Iranian leadership and ally himself with the moderates . What they have been saying sounds eerily familiar to the subtle justifications for invading Iraq, which ultimately happened.

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.

I won't give up on a public plan this year. The President was very strong today in his support of a public plan.
He said, "Why would it drive private insurance out of business?" he asked rhetorically, pointing out that the industry repeatedly argues that private insurance is the best and the government can't run anything.
He said the administration's position is a "public plan makes sense."

What's scary is what government run agency has been managed well & cost effective over the last 70 years? Name me one.

Social security/Medicare/Fannie/Freddie. Hmm. I really can't think of any.

 

[oreo]

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.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Because this is what bureaucracy has turned into:

"Today, the term bureaucracy suggests a lack of initiative, excessive adherence to rules and routine, red tape, inefficiency, or, even more serious, an impersonal force dominating the lives of individuals."

bureaucracy definition | Dictionary.com

The difference as I see it? A bureaucracy hired by and accountable to We, The People is a bunch of middle class clerks keeping the paperwork straight.

What more do you need from an insurance company?

Million dollar executives?!?

-Joe

A bureaucracy that suggests a lack of initiative, excessive adherence to rules and routine, red tape, inefficiency, or, even more serious, an impersonal force dominating the lives of individuals -- doesn't matter if it's government or big insurance, we still get screwed.

The bolded -you trust the government way more than I do.

What's not to trust? At least regarding the service bureaucracies - If you want to know what your relationship to Social Security, Medicare, etc. is it is all very public knowledge if you can read, and pretty hard for congress to change radically - at least in the short term.

What initiative do insurance bureaucracies need? It's not like they make anything! They don't even sell anything... all they do is track payments made to other industries.

When you peel back the layers of self aggrandizing bullshit spun by private insurance bureaucracies to make them look 'needed', it's pretty hard to think of insurance as an 'industry' at all.

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

Health care reform is just too expensive to "do" this year, no matter how the numbers are manipulated. (But I still want to hear what Obama has to say at today's press conference.) My preference would be that because he is losing political capital on the health issue, he would be wise to turn his full attention to the other two priorities: education and energy, both of which are much more flexible issues among the American public.

HOWEVER, that said, here's my problem with the Republican politicians who have consistently just said NO to any health care reform other than their own well-worn proposals. The major talking heads this past weekend (McCain, Graham, and the others parroting each other) have been once more been beating the drum for getting us into another conflict over Iran by demanding that Obama "denounce" the Iranian leadership and ally himself with the moderates . What they have been saying sounds eerily familiar to the subtle justifications for invading Iraq, which ultimately happened.

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.

I won't give up on a public plan this year. The President was very strong today in his support of a public plan.
He said, "Why would it drive private insurance out of business?" he asked rhetorically, pointing out that the industry repeatedly argues that private insurance is the best and the government can't run anything.
He said the administration's position is a "public plan makes sense."

What's scary is what government run agency has been managed well & cost effective over the last 70 years? Name me one.

Social security/Medicare/Fannie/Freddie. Hmm. I really can't think of any.

Social Security and Medicare are both very efficiently run and NOBODY has access to the cookie jar except congress, who works for us, at least in theory. But even with congress holding the key to the cookie jar, the insurance lobby has not been able to lay hands on the money or the data base. We, The People are not totally inept, it seems.

Freddie and Fannie were both semi-public / mostly private, and definitely run as for profit corporations. What does that say about how we should structure our service bureaucracies?

-Joe

 

[American Horse]

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.

 

[MaggieMae]

Great! Give us some links for that, MM! Thank you!

Health Insurance Fee Schedules

or you can Google "fees and schedules used by medical profession" where you'll find a slew of articles or state guidelines.

What I thought. So how does that work out with the Obama plan? Yeah, I know, costs are held to the gov't plan, if exceed it's out of pocket, beyond deductible. Reason those plans will be dropped. On the other hand, we'll all be better off when the weak links die off, whether due to genetics, life style or age.

Soylent green come to life.

It's been happening all along, although in more subtle forms. (Although the premise for that movie was great, I think it was probably one that Charlton Heston wasn't too proud of his acting in it.) There was also a movie around 30 years ago, and I've tried to find the name of it for years (maybe I'll try again) that had to do with the younger generation finally taking over and making new political and policy decisions, one of which was that anyone over 30 had to be "eliminated." Didn't have a very good outcome, as I recall. They forgot that they would grow up too.

 

[MaggieMae]

Health care reform is just too expensive to "do" this year, no matter how the numbers are manipulated. (But I still want to hear what Obama has to say at today's press conference.) My preference would be that because he is losing political capital on the health issue, he would be wise to turn his full attention to the other two priorities: education and energy, both of which are much more flexible issues among the American public.

Uh, if Health Care is so important, then why would Obama care about Political Capital? If he really cared he would just push it anyway. He said it was important to the economy recovering, but now he doesn't care about the economy? WTF?

Health care reform was his Number One Issue of his campaign. He will lose a lot of "political capital" (those millions of folks who want it and will lose faith if he breaks the promise). Of course just about everyone WANTS reform, they just don't want to pay for it.

 

[MaggieMae]

Why? What's the difference is between pouring our existing health-care dollars (money spent by us and by our employers) into a public bureaucracy to track premiums and payments, and pouring our existing health-care dollars into a myriad of private bureaucracies to track our premiums and payments, other than the profits being skimmed straight off the top by the private ones, and their ability to use market confusion to deny coverage that's been paid for?

Before answering, bear in mind our own Social Security*, is running at an efficiency of under 1% of premiums collected spent for the costs for all overhead, including office rent**, wages, equipment, etc. (That's less than 1 penny from every dollar collected in FICA taxes.)

* Social Security: a Public Bureaucracy used for tracking employee & employer paid premiums (paid in the form of FICA taxes) and the disability and retirement benefits they provide for. (You know, kind of like insurance!)

** Note that many, many Americans have an office within 25 miles, most have an office within 50 miles and virtually everyone has one within 100 miles, if there is business that can't be handled over the phone or 'net.

P.S. - How many Medicare customers have you heard ***** about service compared to customers of any given private bureaucracy?

How many companies are as smart as Microsoft and Boeing and became 'self insured' by booting the private bureaucracies out and hiring a couple of clerks to track their own company run insurance pool?

It is time that We, The People became 'self insured' for health-care.

-Joe

Because this is what bureaucracy has turned into:

"Today, the term bureaucracy suggests a lack of initiative, excessive adherence to rules and routine, red tape, inefficiency, or, even more serious, an impersonal force dominating the lives of individuals."

bureaucracy definition | Dictionary.com

Ironically, your definition also defines insurance companies, except for "lack of initiative" which of course they do have because they are driven by profit only.

 

[MaggieMae]

Three things drive health care cost in this country. Access, technology, and lawyers. Which one do you think Obama is going to attack Maggie?

I know what you're intimating, but he also initially asked for a cap on malpractice suits. I have no clue where that stands with the five programs now on the table.

 

[MaggieMae]

Health care reform is just too expensive to "do" this year, no matter how the numbers are manipulated. (But I still want to hear what Obama has to say at today's press conference.) My preference would be that because he is losing political capital on the health issue, he would be wise to turn his full attention to the other two priorities: education and energy, both of which are much more flexible issues among the American public.

HOWEVER, that said, here's my problem with the Republican politicians who have consistently just said NO to any health care reform other than their own well-worn proposals. The major talking heads this past weekend (McCain, Graham, and the others parroting each other) have been once more been beating the drum for getting us into another conflict over Iran by demanding that Obama "denounce" the Iranian leadership and ally himself with the moderates . What they have been saying sounds eerily familiar to the subtle justifications for invading Iraq, which ultimately happened.

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.

There is absolutely no Republican even remotely suggesting an invasion of Iran. Give me a break! What they have been complaining about is a sitting POTUS that appeared to be very reluctant in backing--by "verbally" supporting the opposition party--& also reluctant in making strong remarks to the Iranian regime over the killing & beating of protestors. That's it. It took a few days of arm twisting but Obama came out as he should & said something regarding the violence against the protestors.

As far as health care. Does anyone understand this plan? I certainly don't want something passed in fire department speed--like the stimulus bill was only to find out small details later--like all the political pay-backs-pork & earmarks that were stuffed into this bill that had nothing to do with economic stimulus.

Of course no one is suggesting an invasion of Iran, yet. 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. Maybe not by force, but 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. If Israel decided to lob a few bombs at suspected Iranian nuclear sites, we would be called upon to help fight their battle. And the authors of the PNAC still rattling around Washington would love nothing better.

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