Meanwhile, Back in the Real World

four and Karen, you can study individual companies thru stock research (I do all the time for stock picks). Wikinvest site (.com) has chart for income statements that show some of four's requests:
some HC co. tickers – WLP, UNH, AET, CI, HS
.
Data Central table at right side of page: chart is there but click on “more at data central” to get full #'s at “key metrics” page, “income statement” section. The chart to click is “revenue, gross profit, and gross margin” (click “full” to get long timeline). Gross profits matter to me since I want to see the raw $ coming in, knowing #'s can be manipulated, wasted, etc. to alter NET profits.

…oops, forgot to include an example…
.
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/WellPoint_Health_Networks_(WLP)/Data?ref=ataglance#keyMetrics
.
(note how revenue / gross profits shot up past few years, but I digress)

It actually depends on your definition of "citizen" and "non-citizen". Do you go by someone holding a physical passport book against his/her name? Then, what if that person gets confused between US constitution and the constitution of some "other" country? When that happens, is that physical passport book that he/she holds still valid to get him health care? In other words, is he then considered a "citizen" or a "non-citizen" ?

I think some of us older folk are used to getting poorer on Republican Presidential watches in general. Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility how exactly?

exactly queencersei, but for them trickle down economics will save the day. Unfortunately for most of us, we're still waiting for that trickle to reach us.

For all you economic geniuses, the household income for Bush on average was higher than most of Clinton's 2 terms. And Bush had to battle 2 recessions and 9/11. What is not trickling down is a clue for the libs.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf

Also the number of uninsured in the Census report was 47 million and just last night Obama said it was 30 million. And since it includes illegal immigrants both numbers are a lie.

Now Obama was use the lower number to fudge the budget numbers to give it a shot at being deficit neutral. Th enext big lie.

Karen:
.
For the benefit of everyone else, please make sure that you address Medicaid's spenddown. A person may appear to be on the Medicaid rolls, but if that person's spenddown is $5,000, actual benefits are simply out of reach.
.
They are effectively uninsured.

That's probably unconstitutional.

...I also hope it's unconstitutional. Thanks, square, for bringing that up. Maybe we need a better way to sign everyone up. Perhaps, similar to Social Security, once you're logged in with SS and on the grid, you're kicking in SS tax with income. Same for the exchange; once on the grid, you're already in and either join the PO or list your insurance choice. Not best option (I'm no fan of the exchange), but the penalty / fine idea is NOT so fine; it sucks. Thoughts, KT?

These two lawyer dudes seems to think it is constitutional:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_08_16-2009_08_22.shtml#1250981450

http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2009/08/the-constitutional-validity-of-obamacare.html

That said, a mandate without a legit public option and/or adequate subsidies is probably a very bad idea. One of my wife's friends has a household income of about $35-40K/year. It's her, her "husband" (they are not married but have been together for well over 10 years), and their young daughter. With that income, the wouldn't qualify for Medicaid under any of the propose plans. Under HR 3200, they'd be responsible for paying up to about $240 month for family coverage. Under the Baucus plan, they'd be on the hook for about $375/month. Anything above that would be covered by government subsidies. They are currently uninsured so one could argue that they are part of the reason our HC costs are so high and that the insured are paying their medical bills through increased premiums. You could also argue that $200-$400/month is a pretty good bargain for a decent health insurance plan, along with the peace of mind that comes with it. But guess what? They don't have $375/month. They don't have $240/month. In the face of a fine/extra tax that could amount to about that much money without the added benefit of having medical coverage they could probably find a way to get that money...but it would be a big struggle.

You can't really do legitimate HC reform and/or achieve universal to near universal coverage without a mandate. If you did single-payer (my wife's friend's preference...and she pretty much despises Obama), it wouldn't matter, although people - everybody except the poor - would probably pay a portion of that via increased taxes. (taxes that would probably lower than the monthly amounts I listed above) But we're not doing single payer. You could increase the subsidies. But conservatives are already yelling that giving subsidies to people who are at 200-400% poverty is like giving welfare to people who don't need it. (ignoring that fact that like my wife's friend, most of these people can't afford health insurance, even if they are at 300% of poverty) You could have a much cheaper public option (or public option rates) open only to those who are at 400% of below. But are we going to get a public option? And if yes, will it be available to people like my wife's friend?

Part of me says, "Go find the money...I've been paying HC premiums for most of my adult life and those premiums are paying for your healthcare...time for you to be responsible. And it's not that much money - I pay more than you would have to pay in monthly premiums and I get my insurance through my employer." But then I realize that to a family making $40K/year, it is a lot of money, perhaps too much money.

The requirement of auto insurance is a wee bit different. First of all, it's a state law. Second of all, it protects third parties from having to bear the brunt of someone's negligence. Big difference between that and requiring people to have insurance for their own health.
.
Your other points are trollish.

Fair enough. I tend to think that they knew better. Clearly, there was political mileage to be gained on making the problem bigger. Funny how sloppiness tends to be favorable to the sloppy. LOL.

That's right spob, quite sloppy, trying to take all our money and spend it on the wrong people, wasteful, just wasteful.

But you know, amazing how a whole administration can cite the discovery of yellowcake and other obvious threatening behavior to get us to go to war, and as you say...

"Fair enough. I tend to think that they knew better. Clearly, there was political mileage to be gained on making the problem bigger. Funny how sloppiness tends to be favorable to the sloppy. LOL."

But I guess sloppy is a relative term for you, because dammit, to hell with the uninsured.

Karen, et all:
.
See comment #17. You are debating the accuracy of numbers, whether they include immegrants or not, that reflect conditions before the recession!
.
Thay are, at minimum, several million too low!.

And you don't have an agenda?

More faux outrage?