The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Flasch186]

I just had a doctor ask me "What I wanted to do."

that was another thread and Ill be leaving that doctor. He's a nightmare.

BTW Im about 95%, thanks for asking.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I just had a doctor ask me "What I wanted to do."

that was another thread and Ill be leaving that doctor. He's a nightmare.

BTW Im about 95%, thanks for asking.

witty answer: "find a doctor who will tell me what i should do."

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Except if you're a "teabagger", apparently.

It's unclear to me how Obama is supposed to reach out in a "non-partisan" manner to a group whose stated aim is to oppose pretty much every one of his policy initiatives.

If the test for Obama's ability to be "non-partisan" or "bi-partisan" is his success in bringing groups like the teabaggers, or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck under his happy umbrella, then someone has an unrealistic view of the Messiah Obama, and it certainly isn't me.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's unclear to me how Obama is supposed to reach out in a "non-partisan" manner to a group whose stated aim is to oppose pretty much every one of his policy initiatives.

If the test for Obama's ability to be "non-partisan" or "bi-partisan" is his success in bringing groups like the teabaggers, or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck under his happy umbrella, then someone has an unrealistic view of the Messiah Obama, and it certainly isn't me.

Which was never a point that anyone made. No one expects him to bring them under his 'happy umbrella'. I just expect him to act presidential and put aside the partisan snipes as he advocated during his campaign. Just ignore them or confront their ideals in an intelligent manner to disarm them. Don't stoop to their level.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Which was never a point that anyone made. No one expects him to bring them under his 'happy umbrella'. I just expect him to act presidential and put aside the partisan snipes as he advocated during his campaign. Just ignore them or confront their ideals in an intelligent manner to disarm them. Don't stoop to their level.

And yet the example you use for this is:

According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”

I see Obama discussing the reality of electoral politics. You see a partisan snipe. Tell me how, exactly, is Obama stooping to the teabaggers' level? Is he shouting them down in public? Is he seeking to intimidate them at their public gatherings? Does he completely fabricate details of their policy initiatives?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Just ignore them or confront their ideals in an intelligent manner to disarm them.

I mean, LOL. Tell me, MBBF, how did "confront their ideals in an intelligence manner to disarm them" work out for Democrats at their town halls this summer?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's unclear to me how Obama is supposed to reach out in a "non-partisan" manner to a group whose stated aim is to oppose pretty much every one of his policy initiatives.

If the test for Obama's ability to be "non-partisan" or "bi-partisan" is his success in bringing groups like the teabaggers, or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck under his happy umbrella, then someone has an unrealistic view of the Messiah Obama, and it certainly isn't me.

You'd think he would have thought of that before basing his campaign on being able to bridge the divide between red state America and blue state America.

Look, it's really simple. He promised something that most people understand he could never deliver, but some Americans bought into it and are now disappointed that he's not the amazingly different politician that he said he was. I don't know why this is such a contentious thing to say, or such a difficult thing for lefties to accept.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

You'd think he would have thought of that before basing his campaign on being able to bridge the divide between red state America and blue state America.

Look, it's really simple. He promised something that most people understand he could never deliver, but some Americans bought into it and are now disappointed that he's not the amazingly different politician that he said he was. I don't know why this is such a contentious thing to say, or such a difficult thing for lefties to accept.

umm Cam - if you look at this thread it's not the "lefties" who are having a difficult time accepting it, it's the "righties" who are using it as a basis to snipe at him.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

You'd think he would have thought of that before basing his campaign on being able to bridge the divide between red state America and blue state America.

Your belief in candidates' fidelity to their campaign promises is touching.

Look, it's really simple. He promised something that most people understand he could never deliver, but some Americans bought into it and are now disappointed that he's not the amazingly different politician that he said he was. I don't know why this is such a contentious thing to say, or such a difficult thing for lefties to accept.

You think there's a big chunk of people who voted for Obama who are gravely disappointed that he can't make common ground with the teabaggers? Really?

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Your belief in candidates' fidelity to their campaign promises is touching.

Obama got elected (and nominated) on his promises.

I'm not losing sleep over the non-partisian promise, I don't even know what that means, but I expect him to fall far short of the more tangible ones. That is relevant. You think we're just supposed to disregard what a candidate says he'll do when he's elected? What else is there to vote on? Experience?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Obama got elected (and nominated) on his promises.

I'm not losing sleep over the non-partisian promise, I don't even know what that means, but I expect him to fall far short of the more tangible ones. That is relevant. You think we're just supposed to disregard what a candidate says he'll do when he's elected? What else is there to vote on? Experience?

This I agree with. I'm much more disappointed at the lack of movement of DADT, gay marriage, Patriot Act abuses, financial industry regulation, etc. than I am with the lack of a unity pony.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This I agree with. I'm much more disappointed at the lack of movement of DADT, gay marriage, Patriot Act abuses, financial industry regulation, etc. than I am with the lack of a unity pony.

+1

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

umm Cam - if you look at this thread it's not the "lefties" who are having a difficult time accepting it, it's the "righties" who are using it as a basis to snipe at him.

ummm DT, the only reason I chimed in last night was JPhillips insistence that Obama never ran as a non-partisan.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I mean, LOL. Tell me, MBBF, how did "confront their ideals in an intelligence manner to disarm them" work out for Democrats at their town halls this summer?

So that means they should stoop to that level? I'm obviously not part of the boisterous people you're pointing out at the town halls. I want him to stay above the fray as he promised and focus on what he wants to do. He's not staying above the fray and he's certainly not getting anything done right now. And we're approaching the quarter-pole in his presidency.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You think there's a big chunk of people who voted for Obama who are gravely disappointed that he can't make common ground with the teabaggers? Really?

You think the teabaggers are the only people not under the 'unity umbrella'?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You think the teabaggers are the only people not under the 'unity umbrella'?

The article you quoted as evidence for your position revolved around a very specific description of the teabaggers. But sure, let's let you expand your argument since your original defense failed.

List some of the other groups not under the "unity umbrella" who are:

a) inclined to try and work with Obama, i.e. are not clearly trying to be obstructionist

b) have been attacked by Obama in a partisan manner

I'm very interested in examples.


This whole exchange started from an article you posted which described Obama making the point that Democrats in the House shouldn't concern themselves with the teabaggers because the teabaggers aren't going to vote for Democrats anyway, even Democrats who vote against a health care bill. Somehow you & Cam (and others, I suppose) want to conflate this into an argument that Obama doesn't want to work with anyone.

So, let's see some evidence of that.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So that means they should stoop to that level?

I don't know. Is deciding not to try and work with a group that is clearly and unambiguously opposed to your every policy "stooping to their level"? Because you seem to be suggesting that it is.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I don't know. Is deciding not to try and work with a group that is clearly and unambiguously opposed to your every policy "stooping to their level"? Because you seem to be suggesting that it is.

Once again, a straw man argument. I never said that he had to work with them. The term that he used to describe them was intended to be a put-down. He should be above that. You don't have to agree with them, but you do have to conduct yourself in a professional manner, which Obama has not. He takes pot-shots at his opponents, often in the form of jokes, on a regular basis. The defense has been 'well, other presidents did that'. I was under the assumption that Obama was supposed to be above the fray compared to other presidents, specifically because he said he would be. I guess I expect too much and should quit this idealism that Mr. Obama told us was achievable.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Once again, a straw man argument. I never said that he had to work with them. The term that he used to describe them was intended to be a put-down. He should be above that. You don't have to agree with them, but you do have to conduct yourself in a professional manner, which Obama has not. He takes pot-shots at his opponents, often in the form of jokes, on a regular basis. The defense has been 'well, other presidents did that'. I was under the assumption that Obama was supposed to be above the fray compared to other presidents, specifically because he said he would be. I guess I expect too much and should quit this idealism that Mr. Obama told us was achievable.

so it's ok for others not to behave in a professional manner (see Wilson, Joe)?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

so it's ok for others not to behave in a professional manner (see Wilson, Joe)?

Last I checked, I criticized his actions. C'mon now, DT. You can make a better argument than just a weak 'guilt by association' argument that has little relevance to my stances.

[DaddyTorgo]

i didn't remember if you criticized him or not...lol

[Kodos]

Of course, if Obama didn't lash out at his attackers, then he would be piled on for being a wimp.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Of course, if Obama didn't lash out at his attackers, then he would be piled on for being a wimp.

And if I remember right, that was a criticism leveled by Democrat supporters early on in the presidency. He upped his attacks on the opposition after that.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i didn't remember if you criticized him or not...lol

It's in this thread somewhere. I basically called him an idiot and said I was impressed that the posters weren't wasting much time discussing his actions. Something to that effect.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Once again, a straw man argument.

Oh, the irony.

I guess I expect too much and should quit this idealism that Mr. Obama told us was achievable.

Yep. Go back and read what you wrote again (the full paragraph I've only partially-quoted above). If those are the things you honestly expected from Obama, then frankly you expected a lot more than I'd guess the majority of people who actually voted from Obama did.

I mean, honestly, refraining from casual put-downs and jokes about your most rabid opponents, who basically make caricatures out of themselves?

Posts like yours continue to do nothing but solidify your standing as this thread's resident concern troll. By describing Obama's pre-election promise and intentions in nothing but saintly terms you can suggest that any deviation from this image, created by no one but you, means that Obama has failed.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Of course, if Obama didn't lash out at his attackers, then he would be piled on for being a wimp.

Ya, I would definitely make the opposite critisism of the silly "he's being partisan" stuff. I'm far from an Obama supporter, and I didn't like his campaign, but I certainly didn't think he was promising to what, get Republicans to agree with him? The promise of "change" to me wasn't achieving a one-party system.

I think the far more accurate criticism is that with the majority of congress, he's still been sluggish to push forward his agenda.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

By describing Obama's pre-election promise and intentions in nothing but saintly terms you can suggest that any deviation from this image, created by no one but you, means that Obama has failed.

Which is simply not true. He hasn't failed yet, but he has failed to deliver thus far.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

and we pay for it.

But I thought they weren't getting care? If they are, and we are paying for it anyway, why make everyone get on the gov't gravy train?

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I just had a doctor ask me "What I wanted to do."

that was another thread and Ill be leaving that doctor. He's a nightmare.

IIRC, there was a lot more to that situation that a doctor that asked you "What I wanted to do."

[Warhammer]

Obama has not yet failed, but he has failed to live up to the expectations of his most vehement backers.

[RainMaker]

I personally think the system is so broken that no bill is going to fix it. It's not just the system in place, it's our psychological mindset we have toward health care. If we have a headache, we want them to run the CAT scan and MRI in the event it's that 1 in 100,000 chance that it's something more serious. We want them to extend the life of our terminally ill relative by a month despite the costs.

I'm not sure how you fix that. Can we ever move to a society where we are told to take some morphine home and die in peace instead of spending $500,000 to live another two months? Can we use a system that is built on probabilities and not go bonkers with tests?

Both sides are hypocrites. The Dems want everyone to be covered but don't give a shit how it's paid for or how much it costs. The Republicans pretend they like free markets except when it comes to allowing more competition in the health insurance industry, opening up the borders for prescription drug trade, or allowing people to choose when to end their life.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That is rather nice work, isn't it?

More seriously though, it isn't lost on me (nor a lot of people who pay attention) that fatigue is one of the more useful weapons in the opposition arsenal. That's true on health care deform, true on a lot of other stuff too. Handy item in the toolbox regardless of which side of an issue you're on really.

That's a good point and kind of where I'm at. I was all for the U.S. getting back to the same level as other countries in terms of health care and life expectancy. But now I just don't care to hear about it anymore. I'll be able to afford it for myself and family so those who don't want it can suffer the consequences.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's a good point and kind of where I'm at. I was all for the U.S. getting back to the same level as other countries in terms of health care and life expectancy. But now I just don't care to hear about it anymore. I'll be able to afford it for myself and family so those who don't want it can suffer the consequences.

What a country!

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I personally think the system is so broken that no bill is going to fix it. It's not just the system in place, it's our psychological mindset we have toward health care. If we have a headache, we want them to run the CAT scan and MRI in the event it's that 1 in 100,000 chance that it's something more serious. We want them to extend the life of our terminally ill relative by a month despite the costs.

I'm not sure how you fix that. Can we ever move to a society where we are told to take some morphine home and die in peace instead of spending $500,000 to live another two months? Can we use a system that is built on probabilities and not go bonkers with tests?

Both sides are hypocrites. The Dems want everyone to be covered but don't give a shit how it's paid for or how much it costs. The Republicans pretend they like free markets except when it comes to allowing more competition in the health insurance industry, opening up the borders for prescription drug trade, or allowing people to choose when to end their life.

The short answer is "No, we can't". We're basically arguing that the devil we don't know is better than the devil we do know and have adjusted to. Here are the two sides as I see it:

Existing system -
Pros:
-Short wait times
-Fairly low expense for 80+% of the population
-Doctors have the freedom to choose which plans to accept to help their business

Cons:
- High malpractice insurance
- 10-12% don't have good coverage options available
- Large costs for those uncovered or limited coverage when major health events occur
- variability in what is covered for certain plans

New System -
(Potential) Pros:
- Everyone is covered in some form
- Costs could go down via price controls (or non-major service rationing)
- Initially, people can keep their current employer coverage

Cons:
- High malpractice insurance
- Chance employer coverage is phased out leading to additional costs for private insurance (to get to the current level of service people have now)
- unknown on the impact to patient wait times, availability of medicine and the infrastructure for surgeries/doctor visits
- Doctors forced to take certain plans that may not pay fairly/in a reasonable time frame. Could impact their ability to stay in private practice.


I'm not ready to jump on the train saying the second system will be better. Plus, there may end up with even more unintended consequences. I still feel the best action is to come up with publicly funded (ie, tax credits/deductions) to get the 10-12% without coverage some affordable private options and work on the malpractice issue. IMO, that is the best system we can hope to achieve with the current mindset of our population.

It would be great if we could remove social security or health insurance and have people save properly, but there will always be 25-30% who don't and kill costs. So, some form of insurance is needed. On the other side, it's completely silly to work towards a system that throws out the working system for 70+% of us with good coverage just to make sure that same 25-30% is completely taken care of. Finally, I'm not sure this economy can handle the trillions this will cost (esp when the marginal (at best) improvements are taken into account).

[JPhillips]

Arles: How do you reconcile "fairly low cost" with the fact that we pay more per capita by quite a large margin than any other industrialized country?

[Greyroofoo]

I still think Health Care Reform should be led by the States. Some states will create good ideas and some will create bad ideas and some will do nothing.

It's better than changing a sixth of our economy and praying (even us atheists) that this bill is for the best.

[RainMaker]

My views have flip-flopped a lot on the issue of health care. I personally don't believe that everyone has a right to it anymore. I do believe as a country we should be covering children as well as those who are disabled or have genetic conditions that make them uncoverable. But as a healthy, able-bodied adult, I'm sort of getting tired of the expected handouts.

Maybe the disabled/genetic issue is only important to me because of my Mom. The thing is, she has money, her kids have money, but no insurance company will take her. That's fine some will say if you have money, just pay out of pocket. The problem is that you don't get the same treatment without health insurance, many doctors just won't see you. So it's not a matter of cost to her, she could be a multi-millionaire and it would still not get her good coverage in today's system. She is being punished because she lost the genetic lottery.

Which is the same issue for kids. They don't have the ability to get a good job, to work hard in their life to afford health insurance. I think as a country we owe them proper health care until they are 18 (or 24 if a college student).

Outside of that though, I don't know if anyone is owed it anymore. I was watching a show about health care where they profiled families who had been hit hard. You knew these people weren't educated and didn't have good jobs. Some of the conditions were brought on by their own lifestyle (overweight). I know it's a 180 on where I've stood on the issue before, but I'm starting to believe that a complacent society that gets things for free is worse.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Arles: How do you reconcile "fairly low cost" with the fact that we pay more per capita by quite a large margin than any other industrialized country?

That's one thing I disagree with Arles about. Everything costs way more in this country.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Once again, a straw man argument. I never said that he had to work with them. The term that he used to describe them was intended to be a put-down. He should be above that. You don't have to agree with them, but you do have to conduct yourself in a professional manner, which Obama has not. He takes pot-shots at his opponents, often in the form of jokes, on a regular basis. The defense has been 'well, other presidents did that'. I was under the assumption that Obama was supposed to be above the fray compared to other presidents, specifically because he said he would be. I guess I expect too much and should quit this idealism that Mr. Obama told us was achievable.

Wait, the problem is he said teabag people? It's that fucking stupid? Type in I'm a teabagger into the Google and see how many people refer to themselves with those words. It was teabaggers that said they were going to teabag the White House.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

My views have flip-flopped a lot on the issue of health care. I personally don't believe that everyone has a right to it anymore. I do believe as a country we should be covering children as well as those who are disabled or have genetic conditions that make them uncoverable. But as a healthy, able-bodied adult, I'm sort of getting tired of the expected handouts.

Maybe the disabled/genetic issue is only important to me because of my Mom. The thing is, she has money, her kids have money, but no insurance company will take her. That's fine some will say if you have money, just pay out of pocket. The problem is that you don't get the same treatment without health insurance, many doctors just won't see you. So it's not a matter of cost to her, she could be a multi-millionaire and it would still not get her good coverage in today's system. She is being punished because she lost the genetic lottery.

Which is the same issue for kids. They don't have the ability to get a good job, to work hard in their life to afford health insurance. I think as a country we owe them proper health care until they are 18 (or 24 if a college student).

Outside of that though, I don't know if anyone is owed it anymore. I was watching a show about health care where they profiled families who had been hit hard. You knew these people weren't educated and didn't have good jobs. Some of the conditions were brought on by their own lifestyle (overweight). I know it's a 180 on where I've stood on the issue before, but I'm starting to believe that a complacent society that gets things for free is worse.

I support universal coverage because I think it's morally correct and getting everyone into the pool is the only way to bring down the overall costs of healthcare. If it's done right it can lower costs and be a boon to business.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Wait, the problem is he said teabag people? It's that fucking stupid? Type in I'm a teabagger into the Google and see how many people refer to themselves with those words. It was teabaggers that said they were going to teabag the White House.

Interestingly enough the so-called "teabaggers" don't refer to themselves as such either (except for a few wackies). They call themselves tea partiers, but some media outlets would perfer to use the other term.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Interestingly enough the so-called "teabaggers" don't refer to themselves as such either (except for a few wackies). They call themselves tea partiers, but some media outlets would perfer to use the other term.

Sure, but there are plenty of instances where tea partiers referred to themselves as teabaggers or their actions as teabagging. It's hardly some out of bounds insult to call them teabag people. It's certainly just bullshit to get whipped up into a faux froth of outrage.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Type in I'm a teabagger into the Google

That's probably a bad idea.

[Flasch186]

+1

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Arles: How do you reconcile "fairly low cost" with the fact that we pay more per capita by quite a large margin than any other industrialized country?

That's because of the 10-12% uncovered skewing the numbers. Most families with one working parent having a fairly low health care cost. Take my example. I'm in the "top family option" PPO offered by our employer. I pay $176 a month in premiums. I also have a $1200 medical savings account which I barely use fully by about November each year. So, it costs me around $3300 pre-tax (so well under 3K in real dollars) to cover myself and my son. That ends up being around 3% of my salary.

I don't see why my case would be any different than a majority of other people covered by their employer. So, are you saying 3% is way too much?

The point here is that everyone is saying "our system sucks" and "everything costs too much". But, the reality is that most people covered by their employer are coming away just fine if you believe that 3-6% of our salary is a fair expense for health care. To put it another way - a good friend of mine works on the factory floor (hourly) and chose the same plan as me. He makes about half what I do and has 2 more kids. We were talking about this the other day (we play fantasy football together) and his plan costs the same as me and he puts in 2K to his flex fund. So, in his case, it's around 6% of his salary in post-tax money. Our company isn't known for great benefits and I doubt he's much different than many others in the 40-60K range.

If you have employer-provided insurance, chances are the system works very well for you. If you don't, you will struggle. So, again, why not work on ways to get those uncovered (pre-existing conditions, no employer coverage, self employed, kids) better access to subsidized private coverage than throw out the baby with the bath water and institute a new system? Atleast we know this system works fairly well for the vast majority with solid employer-provided coverage - we have no clue how the system will work if we go public coverage. It's all guesswork and hoping - not to mention the huge initial cost while we are all struggling through 10% unemployment.

[Arles]

One final note. I noticed a 5.4% additional tax for people making over 500K that is non-indexed for inflation for the next 10 years (meaning it will apply to businesses/people making 500K in 2020). It's not very hard to find a business owner, LLC or s-corp right now having declared revenues of over 500K (not to mention that level in 2020). So, if you bring in 750K, that cost is around 40K to you - that means you are forced with cutting 40K in expenses once this comes through (esp considering many small businesses in the 500K to $1 mil area don't provide health insurance). Any takers on what the average small business job makes? The answer is 30-40K. I'm guessing a somewhat substantial loss in small business provided jobs will be one of those "unintended consequences" we will be lamenting about a year or two into this new system.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

The problem with that argument is that we are the country that by far, gives the least 'free lunches' when it comes to health care and social safety nets in general among Western industralized countries and we're the fattest. Countries with 'free' UHC systems such as France, the Nordic countries, etc. all have much better health outcomes than we do.

I understand, but I've gotten to a point where I think that's how people want it. I know people like being patriotic and shouting "We're #1", but we aren't. We've fallen way behind in technology, education, and more.

The Red states and districts are the ones that are against the health care reform. They are also the ones that have the lowest life expectancy, highest levels of obesity, and worst infant mortality rates. You have a higher life expectancy if you were born in the Dominican Republic or Lebanon than you do in Mississippi.

So the people who need help the most are the ones who are against it. So why bother? Why not just continue to be the laughing stock of the industrialized world when it comes to this stuff and look out for our own individual needs? If you hand a homeless guy a $10 bill and he tells you to fuck off, do you continue to hand him that bill?

This country isn't interested in being the best at things anymore. It isn't concerned with being smarter or better than others. So why keep trying to force it?

[cartman]

The text of Obama's speech today at Fort Hood:

We come together filled with sorrow for the thirteen Americans that we have lost; with gratitude for the lives that they led; and with a determination to honor them through the work we carry on.

This is a time of war. And yet these Americans did not die on a foreign field of battle. They were killed here, on American soil, in the heart of this great American community. It is this fact that makes the tragedy even more painful and even more incomprehensible.

For those families who have lost a loved one, no words can fill the void that has been left. We knew these men and women as soldiers and caregivers. You knew them as mothers and fathers; sons and daughters; sisters and brothers.

But here is what you must also know: your loved ones endure through the life of our nation. Their memory will be honored in the places they lived and by the people they touched. Their life's work is our security, and the freedom that we too often take for granted. Every evening that the sun sets on a tranquil town; every dawn that a flag is unfurled; every moment that an American enjoys life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that is their legacy.

Neither this country - nor the values that we were founded upon - could exist without men and women like these thirteen Americans. And that is why we must pay tribute to their stories.

Chief Warrant Officer Michael Cahill had served in the National Guard and worked as a physician's assistant for decades. A husband and father of three, he was so committed to his patients that on the day he died, he was back at work just weeks after having a heart attack.

Major Libardo Eduardo Caraveo spoke little English when he came to America as a teenager. But he put himself through college, earned a PhD, and was helping combat units cope with the stress of deployment. He is survived by his wife, sons and step-daughters.

Staff Sergeant Justin DeCrow joined the Army right after high school, married his high school sweetheart, and had served as a light wheeled mechanic and Satellite Communications Operator. He was known as an optimist, a mentor, and a loving husband and father.

After retiring from the Army as a Major, John Gaffaney cared for society's most vulnerable during two decades as a psychiatric nurse. He spent three years trying to return to active duty in this time of war, and he was preparing to deploy to Iraq as a Captain. He leaves behind a wife and son.

Specialist Frederick Greene was a Tennessean who wanted to join the Army for a long time, and did so in 2008 with the support of his family. As a combat engineer he was a natural leader, and he is survived by his wife and two daughters.

Specialist Jason Hunt was also recently married, with three children to care for. He joined the Army after high school. He did a tour in Iraq, and it was there that he re-enlisted for six more years on his 21st birthday so that he could continue to serve.

Staff Sergeant Amy Krueger was an athlete in high school, joined the Army shortly after 9/11, and had since returned home to speak to students about her experience. When her mother told her she couldn't take on Osama bin Laden by herself, Amy replied: "Watch me."

Private First Class Aaron Nemelka was an Eagle Scout who just recently signed up to do one of the most dangerous jobs in the service - diffuse bombs - so that he could help save lives. He was proudly carrying on a tradition of military service that runs deep within his family.

Private First Class Michael Pearson loved his family and loved his music, and his goal was to be a music teacher. He excelled at playing the guitar, and could create songs on the spot and show others how to play. He joined the military a year ago, and was preparing for his first deployment.

Captain Russell Seager worked as a nurse for the VA, helping veterans with Post-Traumatic Stress. He had great respect for the military, and signed up to serve so that he could help soldiers cope with the stress of combat and return to civilian life. He leaves behind a wife and son.

Private Francheska Velez, the daughter of a father from Colombia and a Puerto Rican mother, had recently served in Korea and in Iraq, and was pursuing a career in the Army. When she was killed, she was pregnant with her first child, and was excited about becoming a mother.

Lieutenant Colonel Juanita Warman was the daughter and granddaughter of Army veterans. She was a single mother who put herself through college and graduate school, and served as a nurse practitioner while raising her two daughters. She also left behind a loving husband.

Private First Class Kham Xiong came to America from Thailand as a small child. He was a husband and father who followed his brother into the military because his family had a strong history of service. He was preparing for his first deployment to Afghanistan.

These men and women came from all parts of the country. Some had long careers in the military. Some had signed up to serve in the shadow of 9/11. Some had known intense combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some cared for those did. Their lives speak to the strength, the dignity and the decency of those who serve, and that is how they will be remembered.

That same spirit is embodied in the community here at Fort Hood, and in the many wounded who are still recovering. In those terrible minutes during the attack, soldiers made makeshift tourniquets out of their clothes. They braved gunfire to reach the wounded, and ferried them to safety in the backs of cars and a pick-up truck.

One young soldier, Amber Bahr, was so intent on helping others that she did not realize for some time that she, herself, had been shot in the back. Two police officers - Mark Todd and Kim Munley - saved countless lives by risking their own. One medic - Francisco de la Serna - treated both Officer Munley and the gunman who shot her.

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know - no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next.

These are trying times for our country. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America, our allies, and innocent Afghans and Pakistanis. In Iraq, we are working to bring a war to a successful end, as there are still those who would deny the Iraqi people the future that Americans and Iraqis have sacrificed so much for.

As we face these challenges, the stories of those at Fort Hood reaffirm the core values that we are fighting for, and the strength that we must draw upon. Theirs are tales of American men and women answering an extraordinary call - the call to serve their comrades, their communities, and their country. In an age of selfishness, they embody responsibility. In an era of division, they call upon us to come together. In a time of cynicism, they remind us of who we are as Americans.

We are a nation that endures because of the courage of those who defend it. We saw that valor in those who braved bullets here at Fort Hood, just as surely as we see it in those who signed up knowing that they would serve in harm's way.

We are a nation of laws whose commitment to justice is so enduring that we would treat a gunman and give him due process, just as surely as we will see that he pays for his crimes.

We are a nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as one chooses. And instead of claiming God for our side, we remember Lincoln's words, and always pray to be on the side of God.

We are a nation that is dedicated to the proposition that all men and women are created equal. We live that truth within our military, and see it in the varied backgrounds of those we lay to rest today. We defend that truth at home and abroad, and we know that Americans will always be found on the side of liberty and equality. That is who we are as a people.

Tomorrow is Veterans Day. It is a chance to pause, and to pay tribute - for students to learn of the struggles that preceded them; for families to honor the service of parents and grandparents; for citizens to reflect upon the sacrifices that have been made in pursuit of a more perfect union.

For history is filled with heroes. You may remember the stories of a grandfather who marched across Europe; an uncle who fought in Vietnam; a sister who served in the Gulf. But as we honor the many generations who have served, I think all of us - every single American - must acknowledge that this generation has more than proved itself the equal of those who have come before.

We need not look to the past for greatness, because it is before our very eyes.

This generation of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen have volunteered in a time of certain danger. They are part of the finest fighting force that the world has ever known. They have served tour after tour of duty in distant, different and difficult places. They have stood watch in blinding deserts and on snowy mountains. They have extended the opportunity of self-government to peoples that have suffered tyranny and war. They are man and woman; white, black, and brown; of all faiths and stations - all Americans, serving together to protect our people, while giving others half a world away the chance to lead a better life.

In today's wars, there is not always a simple ceremony that signals our troops' success - no surrender papers to be signed, or capital to be claimed. But the measure of their impact is no less great - in a world of threats that no know borders, it will be marked in the safety of our cities and towns, and the security and opportunity that is extended abroad. And it will serve as testimony to the character of those who serve, and the example that you set for America and for the world.

Here, at Fort Hood, we pay tribute to thirteen men and women who were not able to escape the horror of war, even in the comfort of home. Later today, at Fort Lewis, one community will gather to remember so many in one Stryker Brigade who have fallen in Afghanistan.

Long after they are laid to rest - when the fighting has finished, and our nation has endured; when today's servicemen and women are veterans, and their children have grown - it will be said of this generation that they believed under the most trying of tests; that they persevered not just when it was easy, but when it was hard; and that they paid the price and bore the burden to secure this nation, and stood up for the values that live in the hearts of all free peoples.

So we say goodbye to those who now belong to eternity. We press ahead in pursuit of the peace that guided their service. May God bless the memory of those we lost. And may God bless the United States of America.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

One final note. I noticed a 5.4% additional tax for people making over 500K that is non-indexed for inflation for the next 10 years (meaning it will apply to businesses/people making 500K in 2020). It's not very hard to find a business owner, LLC or s-corp right now having declared revenues of over 500K (not to mention that level in 2020). So, if you bring in 750K, that cost is around 40K to you - that means you are forced with cutting 40K in expenses once this comes through (esp considering many small businesses in the 500K to $1 mil area don't provide health insurance). Any takers on what the average small business job makes? The answer is 30-40K. I'm guessing a somewhat substantial loss in small business provided jobs will be one of those "unintended consequences" we will be lamenting about a year or two into this new system.

I understand what you're saying, but can we stop with the whole trickle down stuff yet? A business hires/fires based on what they feel is necessary to provide the maximum profit. Just because you have your income cut $40,000 doesn't mean you cut $40,000 out of your expenses. That $40,000 cut on your expenses may end up costing you $100,000 if it's someone vital to the company. You are trying to say the person being fired adds absolutely nothing to the company, which in that case, probably should be fired.

Just make the argument that the rich already get taxed way too much and shoulder the burden for way too much stuff. It's better than these hypotheticals that never have played out in real life.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Health insurance premiums have gone up 100+ percent in the last decade. 62% of bankruptcies are linked to health care costs

Most bankruptcies involve self-employed or unemployed people. Saying that a majority of those come from health insurance costs is like saying a majority of vehicle fatalities comes from drunk drivers. That's probably the case but that doesn't mean we need to redo our freeway system to improve the accident fatality rate.

There is a hole in the current system when it comes to people that don't have employer provided health care. Let's work on filing that hole via credits/stipends/incentives to the existing insurance system before we throw it all out and start over.

80% of those people had insurance

It's actually closer to 60%, and much fewer than that involve employer-provided care (many are self-employed businesses with very low purchased coverage). I have seen the 46% number for bankruptcies involving health care costs (many are often triggered by other larger costs relating to businesses/investments). You should read this by factcheck.org, does a real nice job in explaining the reality of some of these studies (here's a portion but the full link is below):

It's worth noting, though, that the figure from the Harvard study includes those who lost their jobs or significant income due to illness – even if they didn't cite mounting health care bills as a direct cause of their bankruptcy. That makes Daschle's specific mention of "medical bills" not quite correct, though several newspaper headlines characterized the findings that way, too. The study, published in the Feb. 2, 2005, issue of the journal Health Affairs, based its findings on surveys completed by 1,771 Americans in bankruptcy courts in 2001, financial information available in public court records and follow-up interviews with 931 of the respondents. It determined that 46.2 percent of bankruptcies were attributable to a major medical reason. Debtors cited at least one of the following specific causes: illness or injury (28.3 percent of respondents), uncovered medical bills exceeding $1,000 in the past two years (27 percent), loss of at least two weeks of work-related income because of illness (21.3 percent), or mortgaging a home to pay medical bills (2 percent).

But it's difficult to say for certain whether the much-touted finding – that half of all bankruptcies are due to medical issues (though not necessarily medical bills) – is correct. Other factors may well be in play, and the authors themselves acknowledge that if some respondents hadn't faced health care problems, they may still have found themselves in court, filing for bankruptcy. "[M]aking causal inferences from a cross-sectional study such as ours is perilous," the authors wrote. "Many debtors described a complex web of problems involving illness, work, and family. Dissecting medical from other causes of bankruptcy is difficult. We cannot presume that eliminating the medical antecedents of bankruptcy would have prevented all of the filings we classified as 'medical bankruptcies.' "

The authors acknowledge this, too, but counter that respondents were likely being truthful for several reasons: Before filling out the survey, debtors had given financial information to the courts under the penalty of perjury, and that information "virtually never contradicted the questionnaire data." Also, it would have been difficult for anyone faking a medical issue to answer the detailed interview questions. And some were interviewed in their homes, which the interviewee found to be modest.

There has been some criticism of the study, along with reports that have echoed, and others that have contradicted, the Harvard findings. Gail Heriot, a law professor at the University of San Diego, took issue with the relatively low level of out-of-pocket costs that could qualify as a cause of a "major medical bankruptcy." In February 2005, she wrote for the National Review:

Heriot: Buried in the study is the fact that only 27 percent of the surveyed debtors had unreimbursed medical expenses exceeding $1,000 over the course of the two years prior to their bankruptcy. ... Nobody likes to pay $1,000 in medical expenses even when they get two years to do it in, but for most Americans (particularly those with enough at stake to seek the protection of bankruptcy) it is not catastrophic.

In fact, the study said that the out-of-pocket costs cited by those interviewed were "often below levels that are commonly labeled catastrophic." The authors hypothesized that other related factors, such as the loss of a job, helped push families into bankruptcy: "Presumably, such costs were often ruinous because of concomitant income loss or because the need for costly care persisted over several years."

FactCheck.org: What is the percentage of total personal bankruptcies caused by health care bills?

Just because you have a good deal doesn't mean the system isn't broken.

I think most people with employer-provided coverage will find they pay well below 8% of their annual salary in medical expenses after tax savings. That seems like a fair price and not one that needs a complete overhaul. Of course, the "holes" in the system (non-employer, self employed with poor elected coverage, pre-existing conditions) will more than skew some of the data. So, why not focus on plugging those holes before throwing out a system that works for most Americans?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Arles

That's because of the 10-12% uncovered skewing the numbers. Most families with one working parent having a fairly low health care cost. Take my example. I'm in the "top family option" PPO offered by our employer. I pay $176 a month in premiums. I also have a $1200 medical savings account which I barely use fully by about November each year. So, it costs me around $3300 pre-tax (so well under 3K in real dollars) to cover myself and my son. That ends up being around 3% of my salary.

I don't know the details for the original statement however, if you are paying $176 a month in premiums, your company is probably paying the other 70%-80%.

If I had to guess, I would assume the per capita cost statement also reflects some of the end of life medical treatment where I think there is a large disproportionate $ to treat them.

This is not to say that the not covered is not skewing the numbers, but I think your personal calculation cannot be extrapolated in by itself and the 10-12% uncovered does not explain the full story.