You wrote,

"Ah, but you dodged the question again! And you also keep cut and pasting the same post.
Dont care about $12 a gallon gas (that would be per litre, btw)in Europe. Stay on topic, Hank!
So if you say lower taxes and a good economy are what will get the uninsured to afford health insurance, then you are acknowledging there is a problem and are also stating a solution.
The conditions you prescribe as a solution have actually have not made a dent in the problem. So, if your solution doesn't work then what do we try next?"

--

Actually Tim, I am staying on point. The price of gas in Europe runs about $4/litre ( Litre = little more than a quart). $4 x (3 litres = 1 gallon) = $12/gallon. I've been to Europe 3 times in the last 4 years .. and I'm PAINFULLY aware of their gas prices!

I acknowledge there is a "perceived" problem (uninsured Americans). But how many "perceived" problems could we create and cry for a government solution?? Unisured Motorist (people who own cars but don't pay for auto insurance).... Drunk driving or auto-related deaths (shouldn't we outlaw beer/wine/liquor or have a government program to solve it?).... Obesity (shouldn't the government pay for all our health-club dues?)...

So..WHAT should be done about unisured Americans?? Several things:

1. On a Federal level – insure the tax structures help all Americans, promote growth in our economy, perhaps provide additional tax-breaks for health insurance costs for all Americans.

2. On a State Level – insure the tax structure help all Americans, promote growth in the economy, IF the people of the State want universal healthcare – provide this coverage on the State level. The people of that State can pay the bill.

3. On the individual level – make good healthy choices (diet, exercize, etc), seek employment where health insure benefits are offered, if unavailable – seek higher deductible catastrophic plans to provide SOME benefit.

A Federal Program is the wrong approach. Government waste and inefficiency would "cost" taxpayers immensely more (good heavens – look how Social Security and Medicare are financially bankrupt). This issue should be a State issue and an individual responsibility to improve one's life.

You wrote, "when a weak US dollar dampens foreign investment, that forces higher yields on government bonds. And that would have a direct impact on a variety of interest rates paid by American consumers, American businesses, mortgage rates, etc. It also means that goods produced overseas (with little domestic competition) will cost more for Americans and add to our enormous existing trade deficit. It would raise prices for companies that buy raw materials and parts elsewhere, which means, once again, higher prices for you and me (if not that, layoffs! Yay!)"

--

I'd be happy to help you out, Daniel.

A weak US dollar does NOT dampen foreign investment. Just the opposite! Because foreign dollars are "stronger" they can buy more in the US. Have you not been hearing the complaints about China owning a significant portion of our debt? Have you not heard of the Dubyai deal to purchase 20% of the NASDAQ??

Domestic Interest rates are not driven by the strength of the US dollar abroad – but primarily by the Federal Reserve's up-ing and lowering of the Fed Reserve Rate. Mortgage rates – effecting Americans – are directly related to these changes, as well as "market" conditions (supply ~ demand) of the housing market.

Again the trade deficit goes DOWN with a weak US dollar because our goods become cheaper and the foreign goods become more expensive. Typically LESS foreign goods are purchased by American consumers when prices go up. A great example is tourism! If you can't afford the $3000 for a week in Paris – most families would spend $1500 going to the Grand Canyon, NYC, Hawaii or some other US destination. All good for the US economy.

The truth is – a strong US dollar has advantages and disadvantages... just as a weak US dollar. But to bash the President and cry how horrible having a weak US dollar is – isn't factually accurate.

PS – I teach "Investments" involving a heavy emphasis on Macroeconomics at a local University.

I ask you again: how is the Bush economic model of 'increased spending with decreased income' remotely sustainable?

I assume you've taken an economics course, this kind of thing is covered in the first week.

People throw out these insane statements and hope no one will follow up on it. I was accused of being a blind believer in what Bush says, and told $83,000 is not the accurate amount. A little research and it was proved to be accurate.

Not one Dubya hater has been willing to address the issues of this bill.

No one is saying that children don't deserve healthcare. Most here just have a problem with age and income requirements, and the funding.

Would someone in favor of this bill like to address those issues?

I doubt it. Would rather say insane things like. . .

"Republicans are sick people" and

"we can send our kids to iraq, but can't give them healthcare".

Neither of those statements address the issue and truthfully just make you look dumb.

I thought dems prided themselves on being educated.

Not showing it here. Surprise me and someone address the issues.

Do you even have a clue what you are talking about?? Try doing a little research to get FACTS:

Tourism: http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/outreachpages/inbound.general_information.inbound_overview.html

Tourism: 25% increase in visitors since 2003
2003 – visitors to US = 41 Million
2006 – visitors to US = 51 Million

Tourism: 33% increase in $ spent by tourists:
2003 – spent by tourists in US = $80 Billion
2006 – spent by tourists in US = $107 Billion

The US Trade Deficit has lowered 18% over just the last year:http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/ticker_home.asp

Aug 2006 – trade deficit = 680 Billion
Today – trade deficit = 560 Billion

How again has the "weak" US dollar hurt our economy? Please provide REAL information other than your anectodal evidence ("because you say so"). The fact is – a weak US dollar helps our economy in many respects. Spouting how it's a problem indicates your lack of understanding.

Considering stronger currencies provide tourism here in the states, greater exports versus imports (our goods are cheaper to buy), etc. HOW exactly does a weak dollar abroad hurt America? (Actually the "billionaires" get hurt since they're more likely to travel/live abroad – costing them more for their bottle of french wine).

Posted By Henry Tucker, Ga : October 8, 2007 5:56 pm

-

Let's see: when a weak US dollar dampens foreign investment, that forces higher yields on government bonds. And that would have a direct impact on a variety of interest rates paid by American consumers, American businesses, mortgage rates, etc. It also means that goods produced overseas (with little domestic competition) will cost more for Americans and add to our enormous existing trade deficit. It would raise prices for companies that buy raw materials and parts elsewhere, which means, once again, higher prices for you and me (if not that, layoffs! Yay!)

The benefits, which you mentioned, are improved tourism (come visit our devalued nation with all your Euros!) and increased sales overseas for certain huge U.S. corporations. But does that benefit the average American? I would argue no, neither of those things are particularly preferable to a strong dollar.

No, I'm not an economics major or even a college student (anymore). But I find it interesting that an educated person can consider Bush's formula of "increase spending while descreasing income" remotely intelligent or sustainable.

Help me out here, what am I missing?

Posted By Henry Tucker, Ga : October 8, 2007 5:56 pm

Are you kidding? Have you looked at the tourism numbers in the last 5 years? No one wants to come here because we make traveling such a pain. There's an industry wide problem that's been reported numerous times. All of Europe's tourism rates are skyrocketing, meanwhile, the US is sinking because of our image abroad. You're right, we SHOULD be capitalizing on the low worth of the dollar, as that's one of the few benefits of having low exchange rates, but we can't even get that part right.

And regarding how it only hurts those that shop outside of the US and "french wine," do you realize how much of an import-export deficit this country runs at? It's not just wine, it's everything that we bring in. Now I realize you probably want everything "Made in the USA," but you wouldn't be able to buy it at Wal-Mart if it were since it'd be too expensive to create even at the US's minimum wage rates.

Posted By Tom, Texas, USA : October 8, 2007 2:42 pm

Boy, you and Malkin, the National Review and all of the other right wing bloggers are having a field day promoting all these mistruths. Not to mention that you're attacking a 12-year old who was nearly killed in a car accident. You guys have sunk to an all-time low now. Congrats.

Now for the facts in instead of your uninformed talking points. The parents' house is now worth $500K, but they bought it for $55K 16 years ago when the neighborhood wasn't very safe. Now you're complaining because it's worth a lot because property values have raised after their purchase. 2nd, they spend $500 a year on tuition, not $40K for those private schools. Both children are covered by scholarships and the daughter's "private school" is a school for children with the sort of brain injuries that the girl received. The state pays for that, which I'm sure infuriates you, but it's not exactly the prep school that you're making it out to be. The family hasn't made more than $50,000 combined in any of the past few years. If you go over to Malkin's site, she even states that their neighbor told her that the Frosts were "stuggling" when she Michelle starting bothering the family at home.

By the way, these kids were covered under the OLD CHIP program, so are you now saying that the level of that program is too high? Would you have been happier had CHIP not covered them and they couldn't have received the medical attention necessary? That way, maybe Maryland could have lucked out when the girl died, that way they wouldn't have to subsidize her special education, too?

Move to South Dakota, Louisiana, Oklahoma or many other states where $60k is a comfortable living.

We all know that 60k is well to do in Kentucky, but try raising a family of 4 on that on the West and East coastsl.

Posted By JB : October 8, 2007 5:36 pm

What political group has a cabal of support on the East and West coasts?

What group would never get elected if it wasn't for these 2 coasts.

I live on the east coast and my state is run by the Democrats (even when we had Republican Governors, they vetoed anything that made sense) and NOBODY can afford to live here anymore.

People come here to get their education and FLEE just as soon as they are done, hopefully with their wallets still intact.

Say you want a revolution?

Thank you for asking. I'd like to see a government subsidized health care plan, with sliding-scale premiums, available for anyone who wants it. Why? Because I'm not satisfied with the results I'm getting as a consumer of health insurance plans, and I want another choice. My government has more bargaining power than I do as an individual. My government works for me, and I've decided that I would like it to earn its pay by using its power as a market participant at the negotiating table to get me a better price on my medications and my care coverage. Private plans do it all the time, but their efforts don't translate to lower costs for me because of the intervening shareholder interests. I want those savings passed on to me, not turned into dividends. Some call it a welfare state; I call it expecting a greater return out of the money I'm asked to invest in my government.
As for those who think their private coverage serves them just fine, they should be able to keep it–just like they should be able purchase private educational services for their children while helping fund the public schools.

As for the issue of illegal immigrant health care, the reason we have so many illegal immigrants is that we make immigration so illegal, so I really don't feel as sorry for us as most people do. So...we have 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., and we aren't going to be able to deport 12 million people without creating serious economic and social disruption. Honestly, we aren't realistically going to be able to deport 12 million people, period. I'd rather my taxes went towards routine doctor's office care for those 12 million illegal immigrants than towards the far more expensive and disruptive emergency room care my taxes are paying for right now. I already pay for health care for undocumented immigrants, and I want it done more efficiently. Of course, I don't buy the "they don't pay taxes" and "they're a drain on our economy" pitches, so I'm not entirely convinced that we'd even lose economic productivity by providing illegal immigrants with health care.

I'm sure I'll now be attacked as a lazy pinko pseudointellectual, but while you're all calling me names, please remember that I did answer the questions in good faith.

My wife recently spent less that 24 hours in the hospital for chest pain. The total cost of that stay was $24K and with our great health policy that covers 60% we are responsable for almost 10K. This to be told it "might" be low potassium.

Now you tell me that health care costs are not out of line and about to bankrupt the middle class. If you are fortunate enough not to have been to the hospital recently count your blessings.

Yes, health care is an issue and will be in the next election.

$12 per gallon for gasoline
9% unemployment
40-50% tax rate

Yeah…THAT sounds like a great solution, Tim (insert sarcasm).

---

Ah, but you dodged the question again! And you also keep cut and pasting the same post.
Dont care about $12 a gallon gas (that would be per litre, btw)in Europe. Stay on topic, Hank!
So if you say lower taxes and a good economy are what will get the uninsured to afford health insurance, then you are acknowledging there is a problem and are also stating a solution.
The conditions you prescribe as a solution have actually have not made a dent in the problem. So, if your solution doesn't work then what do we try next?

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

To all of you who blow smoke abour financial discipline: Who the heck do you think you are, you are just assuming that these families are putting health insurance at the low end of their priorities.....It is simply because we can't afford it no matter what we do and how much money we make.

And its not YOUR tax dollars, it's coming from cigarettes.....

I am so sick and tired of scorecard politics. I wish we could wipe the slate clean and elect all new representatives. And before anyone comes yelling that I am some Right Wing Waco, hold it. . . I am a Democrat thru and thru and this is where I draw the line. I do not want a United States of Socialism.

Maybe 60k a year in your state is good but in South Florida, 60k puts you in the poor house!

Posted By Daniel, Atlanta GA : October 8, 2007 4:51 pm

-

Gee Daniel, are you an Econ major? Just wondering how you reached your conclusions that a weak dollar (against foreign markets) means bad things for the US?

Considering stronger currencies provide tourism here in the states, greater exports versus imports (our goods are cheaper to buy), etc. HOW exactly does a weak dollar abroad hurt America? (Actually the "billionaires" get hurt since they're more likely to travel/live abroad – costing them more for their bottle of french wine).

SICK, SICK, SICK
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FOR YOU!!!
IT does not make sense

We all know that 60k is well to do in Kentucky, but try raising a family of 4 on that on the West and East coastsl.

-Cell phones for everyone in the family
-Car payments beyond what the family can afford
-Too much house
-$100+ monthly Cable TV bill

"Healthcare is unaffordable!"

Yes, only because "Middle Class" families put it on the lower end of the importance spectrum, far behind the "essentials" listed above. Keep using the kids as props to disguise a lack of financial discipline.

On the so called booming, booming, booming Bush economy by you... IT’S COSTING TRILLIONS, TRILLIONS, TRILLIONS OF US DOLLARS!!! It’s a false economy. I can even sustain a booming economy if I could borrow, borrow, borrow...
Read, get informed stop drinking the cool aid MAN.

Posted By Tim, Seattle : October 8, 2007 4:00 pm

Tim, exactly WHEN did Healthcare become an obligation of the American People to provide to ALL uninsured? When did personal responsibility get shelved for Government-Sponsored entitlement attitude?

It's time to try something different? Great. Just so you know what you are voting for – many countries in Europe provide the same socialist-style programs. The current economic status in Europe:

$12 per gallon for gasoline
9% unemployment
40-50% tax rate

Yeah...THAT sounds like a great solution, Tim (insert sarcasm).

Well,we have had lower taxes now since 2000 + the economy has been pretty strong until now, and yet there are more uninsured (10 million more since 2000.
So tell we how the empowreing the indivual philosophy has helped the problem....guess what... it hasn't. Time to try something else.

Posted By Ben Kentucky : October 8, 2007 2:38 pm "

Uhm, 60k barely covers rent and normal living expenses in lots of the country and doesn't cover them completely in some parts. And health insurance for a family can easily cost $800 a month. I would rather my tax money go to those families who actually choose to work and yet still can't afford health insurance than those sit home on their butts all day and collect a full ride.

I use to be a republican, but am ever so close to changing parties.

Your attempts at changing the subject are noted.

I was referring to the dems on this ticker. Go to any story and someone will be attacking Pres Bush instead of addressing the issues.

So Brian, how do you feel about this bill? DO you think income requirements are spot on?

Or, how do you feel about the funding of this bill?

I am very interested to hear your opinions. : )

Translation: Taxpayer dollars for abortions. Unless you can show me where every dollar I have to pay for this prgram goes and can assure me it's not going to kill another child, the 83k/yr family can pay my part.

"God helps those who help themselves," Benjamin Franklin.

"God help anyone who doesn't want to give things away for free to people who don't work for it!" Democrats '07

Actually, it was the bloodthirsty GOP screaming for impeachment when Clinton was President.

Truth hurts, donut.

Do you believe $83,000 is the right income requirements? Higher or lower and why?

Do you think the age limit of 25 is right? Higher or lower and why?

Do you think illegal immigrants should be eligible? Why?

You can call people evil etc. . . but gets us no where.

I personally believe that income and age requirements are too high. And I believe that you should have to be a citizen.

I am sure a great number of dems would rather just attack than give thought out, calm rational opinions. Easier to scream impeach and evil poor child hater.

Shame on Nancy Pelosi for wanting to help America's children.

Actually – this approach will simplify the choice for the American people:

European Socialism (Baby bond, Universal Healthcare, SCHIP – $83k income & 25 year olds are "covered", Unrestrained taxpayer funded pet projects, tax cuts rejected...taxes increased)

verus

Return to Fiscal Conservatism
(Winding down Iraq War, keep tax rates low, keep inflation down, keep unemployment low, invest in growing our economy, empower individuals to purchase health insurance through low taxes and strong economy)

Which approach is better? Nanny-state or Empowering the individual?