Holy s**t, he actually just earned some of my respect.

Hating him as much as I do I can't vote this up. Hypocrite.

It's a trap! Watch out!

Something doesn't feel right.

If he seriously means this, I've lost all respect I had for him.

Hypocrisy is bad by either side of the aisle.

If he seriously means it, I hope it's because what he says is true, that he does care about the middle class worker. And for me, is enough to earn a small oz of respect, even from me. Not to mention having the gall to say it publicly, without a doubt to face backlash. If he cowards out of it later, then I won't respect him, but I think this is a step in the right direction.

I'm a little drunk. Is this real?

The thing that gets me is that you can actually support the middle class and the lower class without being for a public health care option. In fact, I believe that the people that want to go the other way with health insurance care more about the lower and middle classes than those that want the public option.

I believe that welfare and food stamps and the like actually help the lower classes stay low. It hinders them from moving up the ranks.

The public option isn't planned to be a "handout". It isn't government assistance like Welfare or food stamps... it would simply be a cheaper insurance OPTION for those who's employers don't cover their healthcare or who cant afford another plan.

Have you ever been on welfare? Because I have. I have been on public assistance and I didn't stay there. I was actually in school with a group of women who were in a welfare to work program who didn't plan on staying on public assistance forever.

I guess all those times I didn't have money for food, I should have just went without. You had better be careful now, sometimes your life situation can switch right before your eyes. And you might be next person who may need a little help one day.

Maybe you should volunteer at a homeless shelter or food kitchen sometime. Or do you think that would just hinder the people in need?

re-read what you wrote. Is that seriously what you mean?

Josh, with all due repect, I really think you should attain a little bit more of world/life experience before you make these sweeping statements that you so often make.

When you have experienced having some real world responsibilities like having to support a family, paying their medical bills, losing a job through no fault of your own and living on unemployment or having a family member suffer one of the hugely expensive illnesses that can strike anyone then having the insurance company drop coverage, then post your solutions.

Right now they seem very uninformed and ususlly too simplistic.

Not trying to put you down, just commenting on your youth and inexperience.

I have too.

Divorced from ex, had two small children to raise. Ages 3 and 5. I worked and lived (and got cheap rent) at a rural animal hospital. I lived upstairs.

I went on welfare as my ex did not have health insurance, nor did I, for our kids. I got food stamps, a little income supplementation and health benefits. I also went to school for my paramedic degree, which was totally paid for by the government as well.

I did that because I did not want to be on it forever. It was helpful, but I certainly wasn't living high off the hog, either.

And, back then, in the 1990's even though my ex paid 153.00 a month for two children, when I went on welfare in Ohio, I was not allowed to keep that money. I signed a paper that it was rerouted to welfare in turn for them putting me on the plan.

I could have used that extra money, too.

For some reason, they do not do that anymore, women can keep their money.

In defense of Josh, I must say some people seem content with not moving up the ranks.

MissWinkle and I used it as it was intended. A temporary helping hand. Generations stay on it and have no initiative to get jobs or move forward.

I have seen first hand that when welfare required pregnant mothers to work a few hrs a week, they would beg the doctor to put them on medical disability right away. All welfare asked them to do was to file papers for 15-20 hrs a week and they would GET PAID for it. And there was not a damn thing wrong with them.

And here I was with feet swollen like loaves of rising bread and working in a hospital on my feet all day trying to make it as long as I could because I wanted to have more time at home when the baby was home.

IMO, this is the greatest indication that the proposed reform won't do s**t.

We used to have to go a couple miles away from home to shop for food when my dad lost his job, 'cause our family was embarrassed to use the food stamps anywhere our friends and neighbors might see.

I won't say there are not problems and quandaries with both programs...but, please, elaborate...

How do they keep them from moving up the ranks?

The implication of 'ranks' itself is logically stultifying. In order for one to 'move up', one must take for oneself resources and withhold them from another. That person then will experience need, and over long term, essential need. Thus the development of 'programs' (however successful).

What is the way out of this assault on logic?

I felt the same sort of embarrassment when I was a kid and my mom had to use them. It's no fun being broke, that's for sure. There is a huge shame aspect that I've felt on many occasions between my childhood and the first year or so that I was a parent and couldn't make ends meet.

Honestly, DerAlt, this sorta of crap pisses me off. You assume by my comments that I've never experienced hardship. You assume that I'm this rich little white boy who just speaks from his ass.

I've been through hard times with my family. Yes, I'm much younger than you. I've explained here 4 or 5 times my situation. I won't do it again. But, I'll have you know that we were too poor to afford a trashcan. My mom made our clothes instead of buying them. She went without new jeans for 10 years.

(EDITED TO ADD: Even when we made very little money, we still went and helped out those that were less fortunate than us. One Christmas, my mom decided to "adopt" a family. We brought them some presents. You know what we saw? They had a big screen tv. Their kids had name brand clothing. We had neither of those. Yet, they were deserving of government welfare, and this is how they spent their money. This should not be happening under the system. Check out the documentary "Freeloaders". I've posted it here in the past. It's the only search item under "freeloaders.")

I understand the realities of high health insurance costs. I understand that medical emergencies can cost a s**tload. Regardless if I am wealthy or if I am poor, my belief system doesn't change.

Welfare and Universal Health Care hurt the poor and the middle class. They increase the dependency of both classes upon the government. This alone, with my libertarian philosophy, is grounds for eliminating or preventing both. Further, however, is that when people aren't allowed to struggle the way they should (and I use that for lack of a better word), they don't learn. If I knew that the government had my back despite any bad decisions I made, it wouldn't hinder me from making those decisions. If I knew that the government would pay for my children's clothing, and their food, and their toys, I wouldn't get a job. The welfare state increases laziness.

Is that to say that all people on welfare are lazy or take advantage of the process? Absolutely not. In fact, I know that there are many people who just can't catch a break. But that's what private charities are for, not the government.

The best way to solve the health insurance problem we have is *not* for Universal Health Care. It's to incentivize private health care and increase competition. Let the free market handle this. I'd rather have "forces of nature" cause prices to go down than the elected politicians.

After all, when was the last time they made a good decision?

(EDIT 2: This link helps explain some of my positions.)

Bill is so accustomed to disagreeing with his guests, that he sometimes forgets what his position is supposed to be.

Josh...honestly I respect you as a person. But this is complete bullshit. The greedy pieces of shit in the Health Care Industry do not give one shit about our health. All they care about is how much money they can squeeze from us vs. how much money they will have to pay out to us in claims. Nothing. else. matters. to. them.

No amount of "incentivizing" is going to get them to care. If that were true, then I would not be told that my family is "uninsurable". Literally, those exact words. From more than one insurance broker. BEFORE they even submitted our information for a quote. So my family has no coverage whatsoever...because those bastards value their profit line more than they value the health and well being of my wife and kids. Regardless of the fact that if any one of them gets seriously ill or injured, I will literally go bankrupt and lose my house, no questions asked.

Multiply that fact by everyone else in that situation and you have a measurable impact on the economy if we encounter a wide spread illness. Like maybe H1N1 or some other pandemic.

So all those pieces of filth out there making the decisions for the insurance companies that say we aren't worth the risk can take their "free market good decisions" and shove them straight up their ass.

Just as a side note, my mom *probably* has swine flu. But she couldn't get that confirmed because the place she went for treatment — because her doctor was closed on the weekend — didn't want to pay for the test.

So it's highly possible she spread it to other people... yay pandemic!

This is why so many reports about swine flu are only after they died of it. We wouldn't want to get *ahead* of the virus....