Parenting Club - Parenting Advice, Parenting Message Boards, Baby Message Boards, Pregnancy Message Boards, TTC Messge Boards
Shop for Baby Items | Parenting & Family Blogs

American Constitution - In regards to health care


TLCDad wrote: Theres many out there especially at town hall meetings, etc that state this Health Care proposal is against our constitution or is not what our founding fathers set out for our country and is just one step closer to a socialist or "welfare" state.

But if you read the constitution closely, you will see they really meant for the government to be there for the people including "general welfare" which the health care proposal is for. Here is what is written:

The preamble to the Constitution states:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Article 1, Section 8 states:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."


Now does it say or mean that everyone is to get a free ride or should rely only on the government no, but the far right conservatives technically are going against the constitution they supposedly say they hold high value for when they are against giving welfare (big government) to the people and more for a 100% free market country. So it is hypocracy for them to try to say they are for the constitution when they themselves are going against one of it's main important goals for the people.

TLCDad replied: Another interesting tidbit to go with this is that if you look at the 1828 edition of Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, the definition of welfare actually includes "enjoyment of health".

This post/thread was not really meant to continue the health care debate as that is already in another thread, but thought it was interesting and important enough to make a new post about it.

Kentuckychick replied: thumb.gif

PrairieMom replied: thumb.gif TFS

jcc64 replied: I'm sure you already know I'm 100% with you on this one!

redchief replied: I've stayed out of the health care debate here mainly because no one would really understand my position anyway... Not only that, but it would have taken pages for me to present it.

On this point however, I must say that I don't believe the framers of the Constitution would agree that there is a mandate in there for the government to provide health care. There is a mandate for the defense of this country in those words, but not for health care. It is not an accident that the Constitution says that the federal government must provide for the common defense. It's also no accident that when the general welfare of the nation becomes the topic, the verb changes to promote. Promotion is not provision. The government is a miserable failure at providing for the general welfare, but they're not too bad at promoting it when they're heads are in the right place (which right now they are NOT).

I've no problem with expansion of the Medicaid program so long as there are expectations of return for the improvements in general health that would buy. I have no problem with streamlining Medicare. I'm skeptical of their ability to succeed because the bureaucracies of Medicare and Medicaid are cumbersome, supervisory heavy and like many federal agencies, confused by signals from on high. This is due to lack of stability. Any business must be stable to succeed. Our government turns over every 4 years, which rules out stability. I wouldn't mind seeing Medicare and Medicaid taken over by private companies in fact. I think then the programs would have a much better chance at succeeding.

I'm completely and totally against adding trillions of dollars onto the backs of our children in order to revamp the health care system. They must find a different way. Socialism doesn't work... That's already been proven.

coasterqueen replied: Well said, Ed. thumb.gif

my2monkeyboys replied: I agree, also, Ed. If you ever feel like it (like when you're so bored you have nothing else to do! LOL) I'd love to hear your perspective on the health care reform! thumb.gif

jcc64 replied:

Can you elaborate on this, Ed? I'm not clear what you're trying to say.

redchief replied:
Of course. When those adults on Medicaid are physically and mentally able to work they should. Should the government ration health care based upon a person's future ability? No, not at all, but I believe that like with welfare, Medicaid should be the bottom line option and that helping people get back into the workforce should be part of any government run give-away program. Simply put, I work for my salary and benefits. Everyone who is able should. That's fair and equal treatment under the Constitution.

By the way, if anyone is thinking about making a rationing argument, I await... salivating. >:-]

One thing that I would support regarding health care reform is this... ALL children should have medical benefits. Every single one. If the government wants to subsidize this (as NJ already does) I would support that. There should also be affordable options in health insurance. How we come to that in a fiscally responsible, business-like manner, the government, medical community and insurance companies have yet to really try to work out. This is where our government should be working... not in subsidizing a "competitive" government run insurance program. As soon as you give something free money, you take away others' ability to compete. In ten years you would have a single government run program. NO WAY!

jcc64 replied: Ok, Ed, thanks for clarifying.
As far as the single payer, government option--please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Obama is advocating a single payer system. The #1 rated health care set up resides with the French, which is some sort of hybrid between gov't and private insurance, though I have no clue how and by whom these ratings are determined. I am under the sketchy impression that this is what's being pursued by the Obama administration. Please feel free to correct me if I have this wrong--I know you always do your homework.

coasterqueen replied: I'm not Ed, and I don't want to speak for him, but I don't think he said it was going to be single payer system. I believe he's saying when you give something away for free you take away the ability for others to compete, therefore causing a single payer system in the end. That's the way I personally see it happening -- no proof of that -- just how I envision it becoming.

TLCDad replied:
Actually socialism in terms of universal health care does work... look at France. They have been rated by the World Health Organization as providing the best health care in the world.

Actually I've come to the conclusion that alot of people are just scared of change and not really the fact of adding to our deficit. George Bush did a wonderful job of that already. Also to use the term on the backs of our children is interesting because I am worried about the cost of insurance for our children when they need to pay for it. My generation pays what 10x more than our parents did and no where near the rate of inflation. So logically as insurace premiums are rising substantially every year, can you image how much our children will be paying if this does not go through??? The deficit will be the least of their worries!

Also I need to reply to your statement about health care is not what the founding fathers invisioned. That is exactly why I posted the reference to the 1828 definition of General Welfare. Which we can only assume would be still the same definition they would use back then. So how can you argue that health care was not invisioned then when it is in fact in the definition. They did not include defense here because that was mentioned on its own "common defense". So I still stand that health care was involved in the term "General welfare".

coasterqueen replied:
Scared of change? Maybe some. I think a lot of people, including myself, have lost faith in the government being able to handle something as massive as health care for all Americans. Not it just being about deficit, but it is one part.

TLCDad replied:
Re-read my post as I was editing it when you replied:

Here is more I added to that paragraph:
Actually I've come to the conclusion that alot of people are just scared of change and not really the fact of adding to our deficit. George Bush did a wonderful job of that already. Also to use the term on the backs of our children is interesting because I am worried about the cost of insurance for our children when they need to pay for it. My generation pays what 10x more than our parents did and no where near the rate of inflation. So logically as insurace premiums are rising substantially every year, can you image how much our children will be paying if this does not go through??? The deficit will be the least of their worries!

coasterqueen replied: Ahhh, I'd say the same about taxes, too, but I know what response I'll get. happy.gif There are so many things the government makes me worry about in the future of my children, it's not even funny. The bigger it gets the worse I think things will be -- that's the way *I* see it for MY children, at least. ETA: The bigger the government gets.....wasn't sure if someone might think I was saying deficit....I mean government.

TLCDad replied:
Well like I said, moving to Canada will definitely be considered if this does not pass.

redchief replied:
That's what I was saying. Thank you Karen thumb.gif

I'm personally not afraid of change. I've upended my entire life in the last three years so that I can be in a better place to plan my family's future. I embrace change. In my initial post in this thread I reached way out there (for me). I expect that the government is going to have to involve themselves in a major way in ensuring that those that can't afford health insurance can receive affordable medical care.

I have every reason to believe that the government will fail to provide a competitive, fair product if a "public option" is offered. Our government knows how to waste our money like no one else. In fact, ultimately, they are the only ones who can waste our money. In any free market system, survival of any company (yes even the big evil ones) depends upon the trust of the consumers it needs to remain solvent (until the all-knowing government gives them our money in a bail out). No product of value, no consumers, no money, no business.

The government has no such limitations. They spend our money with alarming stupidity. Using France as a model of good medical care is really like comparing apples with oranges. First off, the French have this annoying habit of thinking everything of theirs is better than anything of anyone else's, so their self-assessment of their medical program is as suspect as the rest of their fabricated history. Secondly there are 64 million people in France. There are 3 billion here... That's a huge difference in terms of logistics. Our country is 5x larger in terms of population and we have 17x the land mass to cover. France doesn't have the immigration problem we have. France also relies extremely heavily on US medical research. How would their plan fare if all things were equal? I suspect not so well. These same arguments can be applied to nearly every other national health care system out there.

My position is this - we've already got a heavily regulated medical system. Regulate it more. Hold insurance companies accountable to the people too, not just the bottom line and their stockholders. Mandate that for every 1,000 they insure at premium, they offer low cost, but adequate plans to a number of those who can't afford the premium ones. Do they have to offer equal coverage? No, but they should be required to offer adequate coverage. Make it illegal to withhold coverage to people with "pre-existing conditions."

Hold drug companies accountable too. They enjoy large government grants to develop medicine. Make them offer the medicine we paid them to develop to the poor at little or no cost (many do this now - but not enough). I would be OK with government run clearing houses for low cost medications. Give grants that are based upon the company's history of returning some of the fruits of their past successes.

Hold doctors and the medical community accountable. I don't mind doctors making triple figure salaries, but they should be required to give back to the communities they purport to serve too. I know quite a few doctors that give one or more day per week at the local clinic. Unfortunately I know far too many more that don't feel that is a valuable use of their skills and wage earning potential. Make service mandatory. They like to be called medical heroes, make them act like them too.

Technology has made unbelievable inroads into health care, and will continue to do so. Subsidize diagnostics for those who can't afford it. Remove the opt-out options for diagnostic companies so they have to take Medicaid and Medicare payments too. Opt out programs are for the greedy.

Do all of these things and there is no need for the government to compete with private insurers with a taxpayer subsidized program. The value of the product will naturally go down because the need will be reduced. That's just the simple rule of supply and demand. If the demand is steady, the cost should remain steady as well. Let the government reward insurance companies with significant tax breaks based upon the ratios of low income enrollees to more attractive and higher paying plan buyers.

Whatever is decided, there's no doubt that health care reform is necessary. In this country there's no reason that the poor and children can't get at least minimally adequate health care at low or no cost. I just disagree that the government should use tax subsidies to compete directly with business. I believe that the government can force equitable health care without federalizing it. They're not going the right way here. They can reform health care without dragging us into more debt.

For the record, that Bush loaded our kids up with enormous additional debt isn't a subject for debate. He did, and that is what it is. Before him Clinton did nothing to erase the existing debt, daddy Bush added to it, Carter added to it significantly and so did Super-Ron. We can't erase any of that, but we can sure as heck force our government to start living within our means. If we don't it's only a matter of time before the whole mess collapses beyond anyone's ability to fix it. What then? I'm afraid Canada won't be able to protect you from that either. They're 100% reliant on our economy. I believe that we can promote the general welfare without breaking the backs of the citizens. It's true, the Constitution provides of the common defense of this country and mandates promotion of the general welfare of the whole. But does that automatically make it true that those expenditures are exempt from the common treasury's ability to pay for them? I believe that is not the case. I believe our government has a heretofore ignored responsibility to live within their means as we all must.

coasterqueen replied: Very well said, Ed. I always have trouble getting across my views, many of them yours. You always have a knack for coming across so well. thumb.gif

I encourage ALL who are for or against this healthcare reform to write your federal legislators what your position is. You have to remember they are there to serve you. We can debate about this all we want on a public forum, but your voice is better heard by writing your legislators. We can try to change the public's opinion all we want, but we don't vote on this, our legislators do. Not only write your federal legislators, but write your local district legislators in your state to urge your federal legislator to do what you believe is right. It's just like, if you don't vote in an election, you really don't have reason to complain, etc. Same goes for this, if you don't write your legislator and let your voice be heard, you've really done nothing to help your cause. I even urge to make appointments with your local district legislators in your state so you can literally sit down with them and voice your concerns, etc. It's lobbying -- lobbying gets such a negative view because we think of only large companies having lobbyists urging the cause, but remember (well at least in our state) large quantities of just your common everyday people can do the same thing.

redchief replied:
Heheh... I did better. I made cheese steaks with mine last Friday. I was working a benefit and local celebrities (including me) each did an hour shift at the grill. My Congressman did his shift ahead of mine.

coasterqueen replied:
laugh.gif That's great. Hey, if you can get a chance take it. I trust you gave him your point of view on the matter...since you had the opportunity. tongue.gif laugh.gif

TLCDad replied: If am I reading what Ed is saying correctly, he and I agree on everything about this health reform except the public option which I am for but everything else we basically are on the same page.

Karen, since you agree with Ed, in all honestly then you and I agree on most of the reform too. I just think a public option (government sponsored Co-Op) is needed for competition so insurance companies will be forced to lower rates.

But unfortuantly, it does appear the public option is going to be removed and replaced with private non-profit co-ops, which I guess is better than nothing. I just do not think non-profit co-op is enough to spur lowering rates due to competition, at least not right away.

And unfortuantly, with out a public option we are still going to have so many uninsured children in this country and that breaks my heart.

coasterqueen replied: TLCDad,

I guess I need to reread what Ed said then, because I must not be understanding something then either from his point of view or yours. I understood he's against the whole health care reform Obama is promoting, as am I. Ed is for insurance reform, as I clearly stated many times in the other thread and I believe I did in this one before -- I support trying to figure out how to decrease prices of insurance company premiums, prescriptions, etc but N O T by how Obama plans to do it. ETA: I also truly believe it's way too much more debt to incur as does Ed.

I'm going to print out both threads as I'm still confused on the points made to me by you in the other one and now in this one. Maybe I'm falling asleep at work here...who knows. happy.gif blush.gif

Has your chance changed? You are F O R Obama's plan, right? I don't know about Ed, but he clearly seems to state to me that he's AGAINST Obama's plan. He's not against insurance reform, as I am not either, but the plan Obama has presented and what is in congress now is N O T what I'm for at all. I must be reading Ed wrong or you.

TLCDad replied:
Oh no I am still 100% for Obama's plan though I liked Clinton's plan better.
Unless I am not understanding Ed, he is for everything but the government getting involved with a public option though not against government involment in the terms of mandidates for insurance companies... ie making them cover existing conditions and not rationalizing health care.

So from what I take by him is he agrees with everything I do, except the public option. Albeit the public option is a big item in my opinion and without it unfortuantly we will not see a large lowering of premiums at least not as quick as it would be.

TLCDad replied: Also we are starting to change the subject of this thread. This thread is about the constitution and where it states that the founding fathers invisioned government taking our taxes and giving back to us in the form of General Welfare for the ALL the people. And the definition they would of used back then included the terms "enjoyment of health".

So I still stand with my point that the founding fathers did in fact invision eventually some form of "universal health care". In my opinion is exactly what the British have today.

You know, Stephen Hawking, who no one will argue is probably one of if not the most intelligent man living today thinks the government ran British health care is great and that we should adopt or at least learn from it.

jcc64 replied:

How and why Stephen Hawking came into the US health care debate is in itself pretty hilarious. For those who don't know, Hawking is an absolutely brilliant British theoretical physicist who is known for his contributions to the fields of cosmology and quantum gravity, especially in the context of black holes. He also happens to have a form of ALS (aka Lou Gehrig's disease) and is almost completely paralyzed. The reason his name came up is b/c someone against reform suggested that if we adopted the British system of health care, which by the way is the epitome of socialism, a brilliant mind like Hawking's would have surely become a casualty of the now-infamous "death squads" designed to take out sick, feeble people. Ironically, the person/people attempting to use Hawking as an argument AGAINST socialized medicine apparently didn't realize that he is in fact, a product of that very system. Hawking used the occasion to speak out strongly in favor of the British system, arguing that he is alive and where he is today explicitly because of the one payer system and that the US should be looking to it as a model.

coasterqueen replied: Well I'm not going to speak for Ed, I'll let him do that. What I seem to think he means and what you seem to think he means obviously are two totally different things. Like I said I'm ALL for the government doing something with insurance rate prices and prescription drug prices, but not the route they are going with this health reform plan. Not for that at all. The way it's been explained to me by our lobbyists and what I've read, I don't see how his plan is going to do that. Of course I'm just going by lawyers point of views who deal in insurance legislation daily, so maybe they and I are wrong.

coasterqueen replied:
Sorry Rod, I didn't see your other reply on the original thread.

While I do agree the constitution states to promote the general welfare, I do however disagree with how I think they "envisioned" it being done. I don't think it's for either one of us to say how it was envisioned being done. I do believe they would want health care for all and we already have programs for those less fortunate out there. I think, personally, the better way to promote the general welfare regarding health care would be to do something about the prices so insurance premiums go down, not put us into farther debt - I don't see how that's promoting the general welfare -- more debt?

Now I know the argument will be that so and so did it, blah blah blah -- we can go back and blame Bush for the universe as far as I care, which I don't, but just because one person jumps off a bridge doesn't mean we all should and therefore just because debt was incurred by one president (or many, just people seem to forget and just stick to one person rolleyes.gif ) doesn't mean it should continue. There are other means to go about this besides the government growing larger and larger and taking control of everything we do.

Obviously we are going to disagree on this and that is fine. I don't pretend to say for fact what our founding fathers envisioned. They wanted us to promote the general welfare -- they didn't say how we had to go about it. There are a number of ways and that doesn't mean Obama's is the right way because the constitution says so.

TLCDad replied: Sorry I got the word "invision" in my head as it is the name of this forum software. lol.

But yes, I guess you and I will agree to disagree on what you think our founding fathers "envisioned". But you can't deny the definition of "general welfare" back then.

And I am tired of people saying we already have health care for the less fortunate. To get very low cost health care, the less fortuant people you talk about are either very poor elderly, very poor or abandoned children or in jail. And do not take this the hard way, but honestly, if it was up to you and many far right conservatives, you'd take it away from them too because it is big government in charge of this type of assistance.

What about the millions of people including children who are inbetween who can not get current government assistance. Those are the people (especially the children) I am concerned about. When we first started our business we were in the same shoes... made too much money to get any government assistance but not enough to afford health insurance. And those are the people I think our fathers envisioned when they wanted to make sure every single person of this new country has the "enjoyment of healthcare". So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to consider they for a fact envisioned some form of "universal health care". They would all be in tears if alive today seeing so many children in this country not able to get proper health care.

So many other countries care deeply for the health of their children such as Great Britain, Canada, France and so many others. Why can't our country, like our founding fathers wanted, do the same?

coasterqueen replied: Rod,

I do care deeply for all. I know that's hard for you to believe as you may only see me as an extreme conservative. One thing our founding fathers struggled with when deciding on how to promote general welfare was they didn't want to take the control away from each state. Now you have moved the discussion to focus on those children who don't have insurance. Our state offers a program called ALL KIDS CARE and has extended it (somewhat) to families as well. So ALL KIDS cannot be denied coverage, is Blago (hate even using his name) set forth and passed against the wishes of the majority of our state -- not because it wasn't a good program but because of HOW it was going to be paid for. The problem we've seen first hand from our insurance hotline (run out of our office) is that people are dropping their children left and right from their insurance as to get them "free" care instead. People who can afford it, but choose to spend that money in other places and take advantage of the free program. The program states that a child has to be without insurance for a year and there are (or is now, it's changed a bit from the beginning) income stipulations as well. So these poor children would go without health care for a year so their parents could get the free health care when the period was up. Just a case of people taking advantage of the system and it's sickening. Our hotline director said I could probably have done the same thing for my children and now I'd not have to pay for their insurance. That's just downright wrong.

Ok, my point was states can do this -- they can create these ALL KIDS CARE programs if they want and deal with them how they want. An issue our founding fathers struggled with and did not want to take that right away from the states, but after years of pondering eventually did. (or so from what I've read in the history books happy.gif ).

Our founding fathers would be in tears about a lot of things, but people only usually speak up when it's something that is only important to them, otherwise they don't speak up. Not sure why that is, but it seems to be common.

Our state run program was pushed through so fast, just in the same way Obama is trying to push his through and it has been a disaster in our state -- it's disgusting IMO because we can't afford to add more children, more families without going into further debt and borrowing from pensions, etc, etc. This has caused a huge financial mess for our state. I can't even imagine what this would be on a larger scale. BUT good ole democrat Blagovich campaigned on it, wanted it so he could look like a God, and forced it through no matter what and now we pick up the pieces of it. Do you know where Obama got his health care reform notion? All from the backs of the IL citizens who essentially are paying for the mess the All Kids Care is in. dry.gif I can't even begin to tell you the calls and complaints we get on this program on a daily basis. So yes, I'm not for any federal program until they can prove to me they can handle it and fund it without putting us into farther debt and chaos. Because we may get free health care out of it, but it will be at another hefty cost, which as soon as people realize it they'll complain about that as well. It's the American way!

TLCDad replied: I can't speak for IL as I do not live there or know much about it. But just because there are a few bad apples doesn't mean all are bad in the bundle. How are people taking advantage of this? Isn't there an income limit or something?

By the way, you do know I am not for a single payer system right? I mean I would take that over what we have now, but I'd rather see what Obama wants and that is a government funded option (co-op) to compete with private insurance. This will only lower costs. The public option would not be free just at a very discounted rate --- a rate that private insurance should now be charging.
Right now insurance is ran on the back of greed. This has to change.



coasterqueen replied: Again, though, Rod. I think we agree that there are things that need to be done. So there's something to be said about that. It's just HOW it's done. I hope for everyone's sake however it's done that it bodes well for all of us now and our future children. sleep.gif

TLCDad replied: I can't speak for IL as I do not live there or know much about it. But just because there are a few bad apples doesn't mean all are bad in the bundle. How are people taking advantage of this? Isn't there an income limit or something?

By the way, you do know I am not for a single payer system right? I mean I would take that over what we have now, but I'd rather see what Obama wants and that is a government funded option (co-op) to compete with private insurance. This will only lower costs. The public option would not be free just at a very discounted rate --- a rate that private insurance should now be charging. Right now insurance is ran on the back of greed. Insurance companies have record high profits. This has to change.

coasterqueen replied:
Well I know they've made a few tweaks to the program, but somehow in the beginning people were just canceling their children from their insurance and then they try to sign up and be told the kids have to be without any insurance for a year. It wasn't written well in the beginning and pushed through so fast, there were so many loopholes. Unfortunately that's what happens when you don't take time to listen to all sides and account for every possibility. sleep.gif I misspoke. The All Kids program is a reduced rate premium program. The Kids Care program is free. So people weren't just dropping their kids from their insurance for absolute free coverage, but for a more reduced rate. People that could afford the coverage, but chose to take advantage of this program. Now that's all fine and dandy, but the program only fronts for so many families, therefore if there isn't enough funding they can't expand the program and those who REALLY need the help, can't get it. The program has an income limit, but there are ways around it with filing single tax returns instead of joint. I believe someone on this board mentioned they did that for other reasons to get around something. It has been done for this. The calls our director were getting were from people saying "well, I can afford it, but if the government is going to give it to me for less, then why not?" I'm sorry, but I firmly believe that if you can afford it, make sacrifices to do so you should do so. Same mentality I have about welfare. I listened to the legislature say this year they felt so terrible that they couldn't expand the program to more children, that more children needed it, but the state is in so much debt they have to get the debt under control first before they can help people.

I know you are not for a single payer system. You have mentioned that numerous times. I don't believe what you think Obama's plan will do, will do it. That's all.

coasterqueen replied: Here is a link to our state program if you are interested. It essentially does what you want from Obama's plan. (ahem, I think) But I know our state has had a horrible time trying to fund it. http://www.allkidscovered.com/ It also gives rebates and funding for what they call "family care".

I hope you prove me wrong on how insurance premiums will go down if there is this new plan because I don't see it. I'm sorry, I just don't.

coasterqueen replied: And I completely agree with you 100%, but one interesting tidbit of information I have learned working in the insurance industry. Several times during a legislative session year, legislation is passed by legislators wanting certain things done in regards to insurance. Most times it's good for the consumer, sometimes it's not good. Insurance lobbyists will lobby that this proposed legislation is not good (generalizing any legislation), blah, blah, blah and the legislator will say "so, sorry, I want it passed". Lobbyists will tell the legislator flat out "ok, but you know this fee that will be caused by this new legislation will get passed directly to the consumer, it doesn't affect the company at all" and the legislator says "I don't care, I'm passing it". NOW, very wrong of insurance companies to say that, right? I could not argue that because I agree. B U T our lovely legislators we vote into office to promote our general welfare.........they know it gets passed down to the consumer, but they don't care. Now that's not right, either? It sickens me every year -- this little vicious circle. Because the consumer believes the legislator passed great legislation for their benefit and that its going to make insurance better, but little do they know that it just caused the premium to go up, the legislator knew about it and didn't care. Happens every year, numerous pieces of legislation. And the premiums just keep raising.

Rod, I'm curious, when you go to get quotes for insurance premiums, is your credit score good? I'm only asking since credit scoring is used to generate premium quotes and this hurts a lot of people.

I know this post went off subject, but you mentioned the money hungry companies, which I agree, but don't think your legislators aren't a part of it either. My eyes have completely been opened watching the legislative process that goes on and there is more than most of the general population will ever begin to comprehend. I can't even imagine how it is on the federal level. dry.gif

TLCDad replied:
Yes I have a very high credit score, something I take very serious. In fact, when I purchased our last vehicle the sales rep was surprised to see how high my credit was. But this helped very little in terms of premium cost. I mean, I am sure it would be higher without a good score but definitely did not help much as I said us self employed really get screwed here.

As for the legislation process... I know how that goes that is why I can only see insurance premiums to go down if there is competition and the only way in my opionion as well as many others to provide competition is with a public option. The private non-profit co-op that will probably be the only thing that passes will help as well. I just think the public option would be even better.

I mean think about it, if many people move to either a public option or a private non-profit co-op then insurance companies will have to make thier product more attractive by lower rates... to me it is common sense. If they do not lower rates, they will loose many customers.

Lets see how it goes. But you have to admit alot of his policies are turning out to be good now. For example look at the cash for clunkers. Many conservatives said that would fail but it has been an overwelming success and in fact is probably one of the main things that helped stop Chrysler and GM from going under as well as increasing their as well as Ford's profits. In my opinion it is also one of the main things that has helped finally reverse the recession. Without it the automotive market might not of recovered even with the bail out. I know the goverment has to pay for it, but just like any credit like this, it always pays for itself in the long run.

I just think people need to be patient in terms of the deficit. Things can't change over night, but in the long run as the economy recovers more and more each day, you will start to see the deficit lower. Bill Clinton is a good example for that with the surplus.



coasterqueen replied:
Ah, I'm not even going to comment on Cash for Clunkers. happy.gif

I found your last paragraph interesting, though. I think people would be patient in terms of the deficit if we were paying it down and not making it worse. I agree things can't change over night in regards to paying down the deficit, but we sure can change the amount of the deficit (more in the red) over night....we've continued to prove that. Again, I don't care what any other president has done in the past, doesn't mean he should do it too and all the programs he's already added in his short time as president already is incredible and adding to the debt then add this health care reform to it and WOW, we'll never see the numbers in the black. Again, I agree we'll see the deficit lower as the economy recovers IF WE STOP ADDING TO THE DEFICIT.

TLCDad replied:
Well right now other than huge deficit due to the war in Iraq that Bush put us in and the war on terror in Afganistan (which I think we should be now and should of been then), the addition to the deficit is an investment. Just like any investment you will not see profits over night but if done right, huge returns later.

Now of couse the question is... is the government able to make smart investments? In my opinion, there was and is no right or wrong choice, but the 'only' choice and that is to invest into the economy or we would of seen another depression. So yes, I believe 100% that all this "investment" into the econonmy and the "general welfare" for the people will pay off. And bringing about the tax rate back in the Reagan and Clinton years for the rich will definitely help. Even the wealthy will tell you that.

The cash for clunkers was/is definitely a success. I know there have been some administration issues as it has worked so well beyond anyones expectations, but as for our economy it was a HUGE succcess. Also as for the home improvement credit.... well quote me on this by this time next year... This will turn out to be one of the largest successes of this administration. We do websites for NARI members which is an organization of remodelers and they are seeing huge business because of this. Not only is this helping them get more business but is also kick starting the home sales market again.... people are buying homes knowing that any home improvements come with a credit. Alot of poeople do not see these "little" things that turn out to be one of the largest investments that return quite well in the economy. This is why I have confidence in the decision making of this administration... to me it is well quite frankly just plain smart.

To me there have been only 3 really smart presidents in the last 25-30 years and that was Reagan, Clinton and unless I see different later, Obama.


CommunityNewsResources | Entertainment | Link To Us |Terms of Use | Privacy PolicyAdvertising
©2024 Parenting Club.com All Rights Reserved