Hambone

This article just came out on Yahoo:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100326/ap_on_bi_ge/us...

If you aren't interested in reading it, I'll give a quick synopsis. It is for extended benefits, beyond the 6 month period - a 1 month extension - costs $9B. The dems would like for it to be an additional bill to the debt, whereas the reps are blocking saying it should be funded by the stimulus bill. The final paragraph pretty much sums it up:

"We really believe that the unemployment situation is an emergency economic situation. Republicans do not accept that," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the majority whip. "They want to cut off unemployment benefits or pay for it with stimulus funds that are creating jobs."

So with that said, considering that roughly only 40% of the stimulus bill has been spent, why shouldn't it be paid for through it? Isn't the separate Jobs Bill supposed to be creating jobs? And if it is truly that much of an "emergency," why not concede and have the funds be attached to the stimulus bill as opposed to waiting 2.5 weeks to vote on it (while they go on vacation)?

http://www.propublica.org/ion/stimulus/item/321-bi...

Also, for those interested, here is another link showing which orgs are using/dragging their feet with money from the stimulus bill.

http://projects.propublica.org/stimulus-speed-char...

Thanks.

President Obama won the election with a popular vote of 52.9% vs. McCain's 45.7%, a +7.2 margin. This was deemed to be a landslide by many. With that in mind, recent polling suggests that only 40.8% want the current health care bill vs. 50.3% who oppose it; a +9.5% margin. If this current bill passes, would it be similar to having Obama win the popular vote by a wide margin and turn around and elect McCain (ie going against the people's wishes)? Are you comfortable with the standard that this is setting?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obam...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_preside...

Given that most state budgets are strapped for cash, do you feel your state/area would be better off (financially and/or quality of life) halting new road construction, and instead focus the money on repairing/revamping the current roads that exist? The only exception for creating new roads would be a road that connects two existing roads that saves the individual 30+ minutes driving time. Thoughts?

For starters, lets name some of the jobs that the pro-illegal groups thinks we won't do:

veggie/fruit/plant picking

landscaping

painting

construction

etc

So now for my question. If we take a group of illegals and make them legal, and given the phrase "Jobs that Americans won't do," wouldn't that suggest that following their legalization that they too will no longer do these jobs? After all, they will be Americans... and as we know, Americans won't do those jobs.

Did you know that Halliburton stock went up more (percentage wise) when Bill Clinton was in office vs. Bush Jr?

When Clinton took office in '93, Halliburton (HAL) stock was at $6.30 and when he left office it was $20.37... a gain of 332%. During that time, it had a peak of $26.78 (a 425% gain).

When Bush Jr. took office in '01, the stock began at $20.37 and when Bush's terms were up it was at $17.74, which is 87% of its initial value. It had a peak of $52.16 in June '08, a 256% increase from its initial start (when Jr took office).

Since Obama's inauguration, HAL stock has gone from $17.74 to its current $30.76. An increase of 173%. Top value being $34.60.

Its hard to soley blame Republicans when it comes to Halliburton, as evident.

I used Yahoo Finance and searched for HAL for my information.

Did you know that Halliburton stock went up more (percentage wise) when Bill Clinton was in office vs. Bush Jr?

When Clinton took office in '93, Halliburton (HAL) stock was at $6.30 and when he left office it was $20.37... a gain of 332%. During that time, it had a peak of $26.78 (a 425% gain).

When Bush Jr. took office in '01, the stock began at $20.37 and when Bush's terms were up it was at $17.74, which is 87% of its initial value. It had a peak of $52.16 in June '08, a 256% increase from its initial start (when Jr took office).

Since Obama's inauguration, HAL stock has gone from $17.74 to its current $30.76. An increase of 173%. Top value being $34.60.

Its hard to soley blame Republicans when it comes to Halliburton, as evident.

I used Yahoo Finance and searched for HAL for my information.

You have two choices, and only one can be granted...

1. Health care legislation in its current form gets passed.

2. Amnesty for all illegal aliens.

If you could only choose one, which would it be?

I know the new HC bill has not been released publically yet, so I am using the numbers I am aware of. But simple math leads me to the following:

$1.2T/300M People/10 years = $400/person/per year debt responsibility.

Questions:

1) How much can the average person expect to save under the new plan per month?

2) With current (private) HC insurance costs running around $500-700/mo/per person (w/o company assistance - thinking back to when I was looking into COBRA), will $400/yr under the new plan really make a difference? ($7200/yr vs $400/yr)

Like I said, simple math, feel free to correct it if it is wrong. Seems like we are just covering the copay... Your thoughts appreciated.

lol.. you are correct ghost, it is the third time. Haven't really gotten more than three answers for it though. I just don't see why it wouldn't be a viable alternative... or at least something worth considering. But you are correct, I did get carried away. I just wanted to ask if the reps just wanted something tangible out of the deal.

I would like to see what you all think about this HC proposal. I thought about it last night and (with some work) I think it could be a far superior option to everything currently being proposed because it addresses actual healthcare vs. insurance - plus we get something tangible from it. I am using the $1 Trillion figure, since it has been the most common amount proposed.

- Build 500, $1 Billion hospitals and disperse amongst the states - major cities getting first priority because of population.

- $500 Billion remaining

- Employ 1000 person staffs @ $50K/ea X the 500 hospitals X 10 years = $250 Billion remaining

- Since all equipment has been purchased in the initial $1B, use the $250B remainder of money for meds/etc ($50M/yr/hospital/X10yrs) that need to be purchased.

Why I think it would work:

- It would create 500 state of the art hospitals (I'm assuming a hospital costs less than a billion)

- Make it available to everyone, with or without insurance - people with insurance will help to offset future price fluctuations. People without insurance can get assistance for free. But everyone would have access to the state of the art hospital and equipment.

- It would serve as a high tech learning ground for (50,000) new/young doctors - who will be willing to sacrifice initial high salaries for an opportunity to use advanced machinery and help others.

- The underprivaledged would have a place to go, while not tying up regular emergency rooms, and people with insurance can use their private practitioner just as they normally do.

Thoughts? Needs work, but sounds viable in my mind - just haven't seen anything proposed like it.

I would like to see what you all think about this HC proposal. I thought about it last night and (with some work) I think it could be a far superior option to everything currently being proposed because it addresses actual healthcare vs. insurance - plus we get something tangible from it. I am using the $1 Trillion figure, since it has been the most common amount proposed.

- Build 500, $1 Billion hospitals and disperse amongst the states - major cities getting first priority because of population.

- $500 Billion remaining

- Employ 1000 person staffs @ $50K/ea X the 500 hospitals X 10 years = $250 Billion remaining

- Since all equipment has been purchased in the initial $1B, use the $250B remainder of money for meds/etc ($50M/yr/hospital/X10yrs) that need to be purchased.

Why I think it would work:

- It would create 500 state of the art hospitals (I'm assuming a hospital costs less than a billion)

- Make it available to everyone, with or without insurance - people with insurance will help to offset future price fluctuations. People without insurance can get assistance for free. But everyone would have access to the state of the art hospital and equipment.

- It would serve as a high tech learning ground for (50,000) new/young doctors - who will be willing to sacrifice initial high salaries for an opportunity to use advanced machinery and help others.

- The underprivaledged would have a place to go, while not tying up regular emergency rooms, and people with insurance can use their private practitioner just as they normally do.

Thoughts? Needs work, but sounds viable in my mind - just haven't seen anything proposed like it.

1. Would you support having the interstate ban lifted for health care insurance companies?

1a. Do you believe that this would promote ample competition between these companies?

2. As an alternative to the public option, would you support these companies if they were required to offer a form of fixed rate term life health insurance (similar to a home mortgage)?

That's it for now, we will keep it simple. Thanks for your answers! I hope this serves to get everyone on the same page.

So the current cost estimates are roughly $1T over 10 years. My understanding is this is for the roughly 50 million uninsured. Now hypothetically, if everyone left their private insurance and got on the government plan (and for discussions sake we have 300 million people) would it cost us $6T over 10 years? I ask because I could see this program's cost ballooning well past its original estimates in a short amount of time. Thanks for your answers.

I'm fairly young, 29, but the quote "you have to spend money to make money" seems to be a fairly new quote used more aggressively in the last 20 or so years. I remember the other older saying just as well: "A penny saved is a penny earned."

On to my question - Isn't "you have to spend money to make money" the same thing that the rich multi-billionaires said (and did) that left all us average folk in the predicament we are in now? The basically drew in the middle classes money, creating a bubble, then the rich pulled out causing the bubble to burst. I see this same trend happening with our government where they take in money, create a "feel good" bubble where we get services. Eventually like any bubble, it will have to burst, this bubble being our economy due to the high debt.

Are you a "takes money to make money" person or a "penny saved is a penny earned" person.

Thanks!

Side note: if you are interested in seeing where our debt is, check out this site. It is an official gov't site.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?applicat...

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/hist...

Having an external company NOT associated with the government do an extensive (so to speak vetting) background check on each and every politician?

Do you feel you have a right to know more about the background/personal life of those we elect?

Thanks, and enjoy!

Would you rather have:

A) Someone who is very strong politically or

B) Someone who is a great leader of the people

(Obviously we would want both, but for this question you have to choose one)

Reasons why you made your choice would be appreciated as well.

Provided that he had the same views, ideals, and vision for our country. (Yes, I am aware that his ideals do not fill the traditional R views)

cuts out your everyday middle-minded American? I'm feeling like both the D's and R's are being hijacked by our more far left/right people.

What are your thoughts on this? The left wants the pictures/memos/etc to be released, the right doesn't. The right wants Pelosi for knowing, the left wants her left alone. Possible solution - Time vault the information for an undetermined (by me) time, similar to the Kennedy assassination files. I think we would be able to look at them more appropriately when it isn't such a "hot" topic and isn't so politicized. Thoughts?

I don't know where it originated but here it is:

When you're young, you vote Democrat. It means you have a heart.

When you're old, you vote Republican. It means you have a brain.

Thoughts? :)