I think that is in part because insurance is state limited. You can't purchase insurance outside the state in which you reside. If the laws were changed to rectify even that...then there would be much more opportunity for price competition.

Apple

Agreed Apple, about both Palin and the insurance rates. I don't believe Palin or Romney would be good candidates for the GOP.

As far as the insurance rates go, that is something that could be addressed in the reform bills. Doing nothing is definitely not an option.

Frank--that's a pretty ignorant thing to say. It also shows your inability to have empathy.

The public option is not the core issue in the debate. There are two things that healthcare reform must accomplish:
1. It must get the nearly 50 million people not covered, covered.
2. It must lower premiums and costs for those already insured.

Accomplish those two things, with or without a public option, and the bill has my support!

Hey there Patrick, nice to see you back. How are you doing? What year in college are you now?


Back to the President, his speech Tuesday is at 12:00 correct? And, I assume EST?


TIS

I had supported Romney during the primaries, but he's had his day. Although considering the financial meltdown that happened last September, he might have ended up being the more winnable choice as McCain's running mate!

Anyway, ironically the current MA healthcare system that he signed into law as Governor has already nearly bankrupted that State! That right there takes away any iota of credibility he might have as an opponent of incumbent Obama.

Apple

Your heart's in the right place, and for that you are to be commended.

But it is a fact, one authenticated by cultural and sociological evidence, that many cultures (Hispanic cultures especially) consist of a notion that the procreation of a multitude of children is a divine duty; to do otherwise is considered blasphemy on their part. Whether or not these people can support their large families apparently has no bearing on their decision to continue procreating. Obviously, many African Americans living in poverty do not let their socioecomic status deter them from raising large families either.

Thus, it's a complete and total non sequitor to have empathy for people who absolutely insist on having children that they can't take care of.

Hi TIS, I just started my senior year. Time flies! I am doing ok, just taking classes and working 2 jobs right now. I have been bouncing at a bar for over a year now and I just started working at a law firm uptown as an office clerk.

Apple--IMO, Romney does not have the ability to relate himself to the middle class or anyone center or center-left. He is extremely conservative and yes, his healthcare reform in MA would definitely hurt his credibility with that issue. But who does that leave for the GOP? Jeb has ruled out a run and I don't think the US could vote for another Bush. Rudy, IMO, does not have what it takes to lead. He did good as Mayor after 9/11, but I think his time may have come and gone as well. He got swamped in that Florida primary that he was depending on winning. Maybe Charlie Crist?

I think the GOP's best bet would be to nominate a moderate, someone who supports a women's right to choose, supports the 2nd Amendment, and someone who is not afraid to use the veto pen to set Congress straight. Democrats or Republicans are BOTH responsible for the debt and deficit we have now. IMO, the American people will not vote for a Republican nominee who continues to play the blame game. The reason Obama won is because he is a realist. He spoke what the American people thought about government, Wall Street, and major corporations, especially oil companies and banks.

I disagree, respectfully. Maybe if there was more education about contraception, abortions, and abstinence, people would not have as many kids. There are white families who have more children then they can financially support as well. It's not a race issue. It's a people issue.

That's interesting. I was just trying to add an adjoinder to my original point: a country like Germany (a very insular society dating back to antiquity with a higher income per capita than most countries) will obviously have a higher level of services and funds available to appropriate throughout it's population than a nation as large and economically diverse as ours.

I'm just not sure quite where your prof. was coming from with the whole German hooker comparison, but he sounds like a fun teacher!

It is not just Germany though. It is every industrialized country in the world, except the United States.

You're looking at old news names. (By the way I never had confidence in Rudy for 2008. His leadership after 9/11 alone was simply not enough to qualify him as a presidential candidate.)

The 2012 GOP nominee IMO has yet to emerge. It's not going to be anyone we are talking about now. Like Jimmy (who?) Carter he will rise up seemingly from out of nowhere.



The GOP just DID nominate a 'moderate' and the reason Obama won is that 'moderate' virtually handed him the presidency on a silver platter by running one of the most ineffective campaigns in history and acting like he was happy to finally get the nomination he wanted 8 years earlier, and didn't really care whether he actually became President or not.

In fact, McCain's would've definitely been a one-term presidency and Obama's winning is probably the BEST thing that could've happened to the GOP.

Apple

UMMMMWHAT!?

The campaign was not about McCain/Obama. It was about Bush. McCain could have run a campaign as good as Obama and he still wouldn't of had a chance.

UMMMMMWHAT AGAIN!?!?!?!

"The campaign was not about McCain/Obama. It was about Bush. McCain could have run a campaign as good as Obama and he still wouldn't of had a chance."


That is easy to say in hindsight and it's true Bush's incredibly low numbers played a part and Obama played that to the hilt. McCain still could've won though, with a better campaign. Palin? Some say she brought him down but the truth is she probably got him more votes than she lost him. He was a terrible candidate.

But really not worth arguing over now. Best to look to the future and make sure that it is Barack Obama who becomes the next 'one-term' President.

We shall see.

I don't know how much of a problem that is in US, but I agree with Frank that it is a chief factor in living conditions of people in poor countries (India, for instance). People should have some sense of how many children they can feed, educate and provide a good life, before they decide to have more children. I know this troubles you because of your recent plunge into socialism. Probably you are translating this situation in your mind to "Oh, so rich people get to have more kids... how outrageous". But even in the ideal world with peasants happily controlling the means of production , some produce more than others and the same scenario (how many children to have) and choice would present itself there too. Having an additional child is a conscious decision in most cases, so don't equate it to scenarios like when a poor woman gives birth to a disabled child, whose medical costs she cannot bear. Even capitalistic societies have mechanisms to address those situations. I am probably answering too many questions preemptively, without you raising them, but knowing you, I can anticipate these questions

It's also a function of religions. Catholicism among other religions inveighs against birth control, even natural rythm. So, a Catholic who tries to follow church teaching must eschew intercourse or use birth control of some sort and risk mortal sin. Still, the unmitigated conception and birth of children beyond one's means to support and care for them is irresponsible. Of course, people who have kids like it's going out of style probably never stop to think that they might drop dead and leave the raising of the children to the surviving parent or society.

And when any- and everyone in the entire country gets sick, who foots that even larger bill?? The government? No, also the taxpayers. Same path, but much wider and longer.

Oh, don't worry J Geoff. According to some Dem Congressmen, one of the ways they're planning to fund universal healthcare is to tap into Medicare.

Which is footed by who???? Oh, yeah.....THE TAXPAYERS!!!

Apple

You learn something every day, like the word "inveigh" –verb (used without object) to protest strongly or attack vehemently with words; rail (usually fol. by against): to inveigh against isolationism.

Never heard or read that word before. But, Oli, I believe you have misrepresented the Catholic Church here. They accept the "rythmn" method of birth control, which tracks the cycle of the egg being in the proper position in the uterus for fertilization. Those practicing the rythmn method would abstain from intercourse during that time. No inveighing by the Catholic Church.

In both Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae he states that God created sex to create children - and that man should not interfere with this system and there are priests who still argue that the rhythm method - since it involves sex for pleasure while trying to avoid kids - is therefore wrong. John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae says essentially the same thing. Some priests even consider that abstinence from sex in a marriage is apparently wrong, since married people should follow God's will to try to have children.

I didn't say any of that. I was responding - not very well, 'cause I'm too lazy at present to even try and engage in a full discussion - to the derisive tone, the suggestion of inhumane contempt. Concluding a self-righteous post with a cute, smug smiley; I don't buy into that sort of non-argument. I fight against the contagion of AppleOnYa Syndrome.

It's never simply a conscious decision to have more children. "Let's have more children"? I think that's cynical. A lot of cultural aspects weigh in very heavily; religion and education for starters, which are related, and tie very much into questions of class. The system is always larger than the individual.

Now, after all that discussing and fighting, is there anything wrong with this speech?

Danito, I remember a caller to a radio talk show back during President Clinton's final year in office. The caller proposed that President Clinton might refuse to leave the Presidency and try to use the military (over which he would have no authority at that point) to sustain him in office. I imagine that that caller is one of those who virulently criticized President Obama's proposed speech to students well before its content was revealed on Sunday. So, to answer your question, yes, that caller and those like him would, ideologically, find something wrong with the speech.

They did play the speech today at my daughter's school.

It had already been posted online, contained nothing political (thanks to last week's protests, no doubt), and was shown during lunchtime. So it's just as well that she didn't lose a day of school in order to avoid it.

Now that it's all over, thank goodness for Barack Obama telling my child how important it is to stay in school...I just don't know HOW I would've convinced her without his help!!

Apple

Perhaps your daughter is fortunate enough to have a parent that is hands on and cares enought to stress the importance of a good education and what it means for her future. My children are fortunate enought to have parents that are hands on who care enough to continue to stress the imortance of a good education to them and what it means for thier future.

Unfortunately there are many many children out there who are not as fortunate as your daughter and my children. Many children out there have a parent or parents who do not have the time to teach them about the importance of a good education. And what's even more scary is that there are many many so called parents out there who don't care enought to teach their children about going to school and getting a good education because as far as many of those parents are concerned school is nothing more than a place for them to drop their kids off for 5 - 6 hours a day. Many of these ignorant parents out there view school as nothing more than a baby sitting service!

So like this President or not, many children, children who have absolutely no clue and have not had any direction in their lives, widen their eyes and open thier ears when someone like The President Of The United States Of America reaches out to them and offers to provide them with advice and direction.

I'd rather have the President Of The United States speak to these children about education and success and lead by example than have these children look up to and listen to some steroid using drug inducing uneducated sports figure who really couldn't give two fucks about these children and their future.

People like you and I, who are hands on parents, sometimes forget to think outside the box and we just assume that all the other children out there also have parents who care enough to guide them and point them in the right direction. Unfortuantely many do not.

VERY well said, DC!!! Except that...the for the children of those parents you talk about, Obama's speech may not be nearly enough to even begin to make a difference.

************
The problem with Obama's speech to kids: It's bland

The Christian Science Monitor
By Jonathan Zimmerman – Sep 8

New York – Here's a quick quiz in preparation for President Obama's speech to America's students today. To succeed in school and in life, you should:

a. work hard
b. set goals for yourself
c. take responsibility for your own actions
d. all of the above

The correct answer is "d," of course. But every American kid knows that already.

And that's the real problem with the president's message...It's bland, neutral, and mind-numbingly obvious. You can't even imagine a cogent objection to it.

...But there's nothing socialist – or even partisan – about Obama's speech...Not a word about Obama's positions on healthcare, taxes, or anything else.

And that's precisely the problem here. To really learn, our kids need to confront the real dilemmas that grip our country. No one will learn anything new from yet another bromide about hard work and personal responsibility; instead, they'll tune out.

So how about using this week to teach our children something they don't know?

Consider our ongoing war in Afghanistan, which appears to be losing its support at home. Fewer than half of Americans now say they approve of Obama's handling of Afghanistan, where he has pledged to increase troop levels. Indeed, 41 percent say they want the troops to start coming home, up from 33 percent in April and 24 percent in February.

Are they right? I don't know, myself. But here's what I do know: Our kids need to be reading, talking, and thinking about the answer. Some of them will become soldiers one day, of course, but all of them will become citizens. And they will have to sort these things out for themselves.

What better time than this week? Just three days after Obama's school speech, after all, the nation will commemorate the 8th anniversary of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The 9/11 attacks remain at the heart of America's rationale for fighting in Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda planned and financed them.

That's why Obama referred to 9/11 no fewer than 5 times in his address last March justifying increased troop commitments to Afghanistan. Unless we root out terrorists and rebuild Afghanistan, the argument goes, we will always remain in peril.

I'm not sure I buy that. But I'd like to hear the president make the case for it directly to our young people. And, most of all, I'd like to hear them respond.

That would bring even more of Obama's enemies out of the woodwork, of course, braying about propaganda and indoctrination. But any teacher worth her salt would expose students to arguments against the president's position, insisting that the kids formulate their own.

And to do that, of course, they would have to learn something about the history of the conflict. How many American children know that the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, for example, or that the United States supported the anti-Soviet mujahadeen? How many kids could even find Afghanistan on a map?

As soon as the president has finished his dull speech about hard work and personal responsibility, let's get down to the truly hard work of teaching our children how to be citizens. We need to give them the information and skills to debate and decide the most pressing issues of our time, including the war in Afghanistan. That's our biggest responsibility, as adults, and we all need to remember it.

Jonathan Zimmerman teaches history and education at New York University. He is the author of "Small Wonder: The Little Red Schoolhouse in History and Memory."

Now what makes you think that you know better than the President Of The United States Of America in regards to what our children should or should not be taught?

But all joking aside, why shouldn't your suggested agenda be scrutinized, criticized and debated just as the President's current agenda is and has been? Is it because it is something that YOU believe in? Are you saying that if the President spoke to these children about the issues that YOU think are important, than you would not object to his making a speech to our children? That you would no longer view his speaking to our children a socialistic move on his part?

They aren't MY suggestions, DC.

I posted an article that I have to admit, I found rather interesting despite what I felt about the President's speech to the students.

Apple, Just curious. Do you EVER have anything nice to say??

A. The President didn't "dumb down" his speech. He was speaking to a broad spectrum of children of all ages, from a multitude of educational and socio-economic levels, in rural, urban and suburban areas across a rather diverse country.

B. Thank God your daughter knows enough to stay in school and doesn't have to be told. Consider yourself blessed. However, there are many children out there who need to hear it over and over, and it helps that it comes from a man who has achieved the highest office in the land after very humble beginnings. Those are the children that need to hear it the most.

C. Given that our children are constantly exposed to drugs, to alcohol, to other kids cutting classes to smoke, do drugs and drink alcohol, then it's a message that bears repeating, I don't care how great your kid is.

This President cares about our youth. Good for him. He understands that they are the future of this country.