You make a point, however, there have a been a lot of times in that gap that were more right than the present. I think Bogus makes a great point, and I happen to agree, creating jobs should be the top priority. I know health care is his pet and his legacy, but we're coming off a depression! Get people back to work! If he does that, he will have a much happier populous to appeal to for health care.

A history of the opposition saying "it's not the right time" doesn't mean that this is the right time.

In 1957 when Truman pushed for universal health care we spent 5.1% of GDP on it.

Remember 1990 when healthcare was a big crisis?
At that time, we spent 12.1% of our GDP on health care.

Today we spend 17%.

The problem was never more urgent than it is today.

Being urgent does not make it affordable, nor does it make it the top priority. Ask the people who have been out of work and lost their retirement, their homes, their savings... ask them if they'd rather have health care or a paycheck right now.

Or, just look in the mirror and ask yourself if you'd trade your house, your savings, and your income for health care.

This plan spreads the risk around by forcing everyone to have healthcare insurance. It is a tax, plain and simple. People cannot afford any more taxes right now. They don't have jobs. Their country is not focused on being able to compete with other countries which would create long lasting jobs. Their country's leading party is focused on another tax.

I am not sure what part of the GDP this new plan is going to consume but I cannot see it being much better. It just spreads the costs to more people, many of which are unemployed.

I agree wih you that jobs are a priority. The mistaken meme I've been hearing from the nay-sayers is "Obama needs to put this down and focus on jobs" as if jobs haven't been a priority or that he can only do one thing at a time. There have been plenty of discussions and actions regarding jobs in America. To suggest he or congress haven't been "focused" on jobs is blantantly false.

Jobs legislation can get and has received Republican and Conservtive Democratic support. Healthcare reform has been and will be stonewalled by the Republicans and Conservative Dems forever. There is no tomorrow on this. Now is the time.

If I get sick, that's exactly what will happen, but sadly, since that house and those savings are inadequate to pay for the care of many commonplace curable illnesses, I'll die.

No job creation plan will be effective so long as health care inflation stays on its current trajectory.

You are buying into the republican false choice; "keep paying and no one gets hurt".

We ALREADY pay 17% of GDP for healthcare, the only thing that diverting some of those expenses through the government does is that it gives us some leverage in controlling the rate of inflation.

We're the frog in the pot of water slowly brought to a boil... but the water's boiling like a S.O.B. now.

What would the unemployment rate have to be, and how much of the economy should healthcare consume before the time is right?

They can't afford taxes, but because of inaction (to use a tangible example) Californians *can* afford a 24% hike in health insurance premiums?

The CBO has determined that the deficit will be reduced as a result of healthcare reform.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...e_cost_rise.PNG

The immediate savings in terms of GDP will be small. What it does do is control the growth of that, and enables the economy to begin growing again.

Businesses support healthcare reform and they should. The countries we are losing ground to are succeeding because they got smart decades ago and guaranteed healthcare to every citizen.

Sure, he can multitask, but until the jobs happen, the unemployed will look at every bit of attention he put elsewhere as wasted focus that should have been spent on our economy. The appearance is that health care is his focus, whether blatantly false or not, and that is going to cost your party.

I can hear the radio spot now... cue the dramatic dirge... enter the voice over... "At a time when you had less money, what did the Democrats give you? More taxes."

OMG, it's gonna be fish in a barrel time.

Right. IF you get sick. But I can guarantee you'll get hungry. Today. And tomorrow.



No, I'm looking at the fact that unemployed people can't keep paying, nor can they afford to pay for something new.



Get unemployment down to at least under 10%. Not a projected or padded 10%, either. Real honest-to-goodness 9%. Better yet, 6-7% nationwide. Get us back to a spot where we can afford to worry about our president's sex life. Then, take on health care and sell it to a much happier group of tax payers.

I'm not saying it doesn't need to happen, I'm saying it doesn't matter what kind of great deal you offer to a poor man. If you show him a plan that costs $100, compared to his current plan which costs $1,000, but he only has $20, your "bargain" is still out of reach.

One of the reasons why we aren't as competitive as many other countries for the creation of family-wage jobs is due to our health care system. Don't forget the headlines when Toyota built a big plant in Canada instead of coming to the US. Canada's health care system was a big factor in their decision. How many other jobs have we lost for the same reason that just haven't made the headlines?

And there could be many budding entrepreneurs with good ideas that could add jobs to the economy who are afraid to take the leap because they would be leaving behind jobs that provide health care.

Bottomline, our current system is one of the causes of those lost jobs. It's not an either-or situation.