Re: Gingrich: President Exhibits ‘Kenyan, Anticolonial Behavior’
Crunch,
What has any of that got to do with the thread topic? And I'll ask again, have you read Obama Sr's paper from 1965? If not, I don't think we have much to discuss here.
More to the point...
I think many people have a very paranoid view of what President Obama is trying to do. Why? Because most people are resistant to change no matter how big or small. Of course, before anyone can accept change they have to have a decent understanding of why the changes are being implemented in the first place. Obviously, the President believes there are many areas within our social dynamic that haven't worked well enough that they need to be tweaked or a new agency implemented. This brings me to Barbbtx' list of issues she has with what she believes is the President surreptitious policies.
For starters, here's what I think Obama has in mind.
Everyone dependent on the government for healthcare.
Not able to choose our own doctors and government deciding what care we can have.
It could be argued that's exactly what President Obama wants, to force the citizenry over time to become dependent on the government for their health care benefits. If you gloss over reading the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, I can understand how one would come away with that impression. I've been reading the legislation and as I understand how the system is intended to work the government sets the minimum health care standards (which isn't unlike what was already happening via the Dept. of Health and Human Services) but first gives the responsibility to the states to implement health care exchanges either individually or collectively with their neighboring states. The only way the federal government gets into the health care provision portion of the legislation is they afford the states the option not to form their own exchanges. Only then would residents of that non-participating state then look to the federal government for insurance coverage, but here's the catch that most people forget: Even if a state decides not to participate only those individual who are poor or who are part of the labor force but chooses for their own economic benefit to acquire their health insurance from the government instead of through their employer would they seek coverage from the government. Until and unless such a personal decision is made, that individual, if part of the working class, may elect to remain on the insurance policy offered by his employer. Now, here's where it gets tricky.
If the employer determines it is more cost effective to switch from a private insurance plan offered by an insurance company in the state inwhich he is licensed for business to an insurance policy offered by the federal government, he can make that switch. This is the aspect of the health care reform legislation that many people fear may happen - that employers will drop their insurance providers at the state-level and go to the federal government because of the collective buying power the federal government and only the federal government can achieve. But what we have to remember here is even the government's health insurance exchange cost money. And who's to say that what the government offers would be better than what any given state can offer? It is this aspect of "choice and competition" that the government hopes will drives insurance companies to do whatever they must in order to remain competitive in their own respective marketplaces. Regardless of the outcome, neither individuals nor employers would be required to switch insurance providers. It remains their right to make that choice for themselves.
As to the issue of "mandatory coverage", all I can say is in the short-run it will cost the government millions if not billions to cover those who in their estimates do not have health insurance currently, but it has looked into the short-falls and has enacted legislation via the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act providing funding (health care credits) to those who otherwise can't afford to acquire health insurance on their own. Furthermore, the Health Care & Education Affordability Reconcilliation Act addresses the education side of the health care equation regarding the potential short-fall of skilled medical professionals, i.e., training and educating more doctors, nurses and surgeons, health care technicians, and provides financial aid to promote said training and education to those individuals who wish to have lasting careers in the medical industry. However, this aid will eventually come to an end and the People will have to start paying out of their own pockets. (I believe the cut-off period for issuing health care credits is around 2019; I don't know what the cut-off period is for Pell Grants and student loans or if there is one.) To pay for the administrative cost for the government's ability to manage the Health Care Exchange, it has been determined that the best way to do this is to tax businesses according to their size (number of employees) or profit level. However, as I understand the legislation, the tax is only collected from those businesses - large and small - who choose not to provide health insurance to their employees. That same goes for the "fee" on individuals who decide not to obtain health insurance; however, what's not being mentioned is even in such instances where the individual is concerned said individual can acquire a "waiver (exemption)" so as he would not be required to pay the "fee".
Bottom line here is there are many levels to health care reform legislation, but the route to health care coverage under the new reforms are:
*Employer sponsored as most Americans are generally covered this way.
*Individual acquisition - you decide to either remain on your employer's insurance plan or obtain a policy on your own using those funds your employer would normally pay towards your health insurance coverage.
*Employer can remain with the "group plan" that is normally acquired within his state.
*Employer can switch to a state- or federally sponsored Health Insurance Exchange, as provided.
*Individuals can acquire health insurance coverage either through their state- or federally sponsored Health Insurance Exchange, as provided, OR if the individual does not have the financial means to purchase same on his own he can apply for health care credits OR come under Medicaid (or dependent children under CHIP).
Everyone dependent on government for an education.
Many people have argued disbanding the Dept. of Education because in their view the public education system has failed to do what it was designed to do - provide a high level education to our nation's children. I ask, "Is that the fault of the federal government or the individual state?"
The fed may set a baseline standard, but it is the states who implement those standards. Their requirements for achieving that baseline standard can be the federal government's minimum OR they can demand more of their Board of Education, teachers, and students and set that bar higher. Therefore, sense every state funds their own education system, who's really at fault for the poor academic results? The federal government for setting the bar low enough so that every child has a chance to succeed OR the state for not setting the bar high enough? Put another way, would you rather the federal government set the baseline standard HIGH knowing full well students in your stand on average fall far below that standard, or would you rather the fed take the lowest or average standard scores and informs the nation "we can do better, here is your baseline based on the collective results of the whole?"
I think most people will agree that the cost of post-secondary education - college - has gotten extremely expensive these days. Working-class Americans who have worked most of their lives well into adulthood who should be looking forward to living a modest debt-free life are now faced with the added debt of paying for their children's college education. While there are programs out there that help people save funds over time to pay for college, what has been happening over the years is that tuition costs have gone up but their investments and income have remained relatively the same. As such in many cases, even those with 529 plans or 401K plans are still having to borrow or place purchases on their credit cards to pay for a quality education for their children. Student loans have been "scams" for colleges and universities whereby they are "partners" with the very financial entity providing students loans and/or scholarship funding. Furthermore, students are finding it extremely difficult to pay back their loans years after graduation. Many take the position "it's the student and/or his/her parent's problem," and I agree to a point. The problem is how do we address the doctor/nurse shortage that has been a problem in our country for years, the overall health care problem, the eventual doctor/nurse shortage that will be further impacted by enacted health care legislation and provide financial reform within our college education system? As to the issue of public education, I've already attempted to address that problem area.
Bottom line here is unless you want this country to continue to lag behind in the number of high school and college graduates both of whom affect our nation's ability to remain competitive and innovative in the industrial and technological age, and you want students to continue to turn away from going to college because tuition costs are too high or have a difficult time paying off student loans, we need to do something to bring down the cost of attaining a post-secondary education and make it easier for parents if not the students themselves to afford a college education. I use this merely as an example, not to start a discussion on our nation's education system.
(Continued in next post...)
