VP Debate
 

Any comments on last night's performance?

Yeah...i always know there is one going on bc my twitter & FB feeds blow up!

I predict the democrats on here will think Biden won, and the republicans will think Ryan won. But reguardless, there will be 47 replys of bickering.

I am not sure who won but one thing I do know is that Biden's teeth are unnaturally white. God they were blinding. Also, Biden acted like a little child and came across as an a$$. He was constantly laughing, smiling and interrupting Ryan while Ryan acted much more professional. Biden showed a complete lack of respect for Ryan and it was annoying.

What Brett said^

I think Biden took it. He pinned down Ryan on what he was gonna cut to give the tax breaks and that baffled Ryan he wasn't able to get out of it and frankly I would have liked to have heard him say something on the subject.

Also the comments on the failed green jobs bailout and then Bidens comment right back to Ryan about the 2letters asking for money himself where good, score another for Biden!

Anyway you can bet that next week Obama is gonna follow the same tactic an try and press Romney on what he plans to cut to pay for the tax cuts they propose. It's gonna be the death of the Romney ticket if they can pin cutting the mortgage deduction or really any other middle class tax deduction now in effect for the middleclass on Romney to pay for tax cuts for wealthy.

Oh and I'm from WI and had a McCain/Palin sign in my yard 4yrs ago. I really wanted Ryan to do good but in my opinion he didnt get it done. In fact I think he may have turned back potential swing voters.

The Ryan and Romey ticket looks better and better. I was cracking up at democrat raido crying over and over about how Obama didn't talk about the 47% comment
as if it was some magic Bullet that would have won Obama the debate.

Biden spanked his opponent for the 2nd time in so many elections.

IMO, nobody "lost". Paul Ryan came across as smart and credible which is a win for the Romney ticket. As a fiscal conservative, I am thrilled with the Romney/Ryan ticket. Very little talk of social issues. Massive talk about fiscal issues (what really matters). Ryan is so far above the Quayle/Cheney/Palin choices of the past. It's Romney's race to win/lose from here.

Ryan managed to play fast and loose with the truth all night - surprised he didn't start boasting about his marathon time again lol

1) “It took the president two weeks to acknowledge that [the Libya attack] was a terrorist attack.” Obama used the word “terrorism” to describe the killing of Americans the very next day at the Rose Garden. “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for,” Obama said in a Rose Garden statement on September 12.

2) “The administration was blocking us every step of the way. Only because we had strong bipartisan support for these tough [Iran] sanctions were we able to overrule their objections and put them in spite of the administration.” Even the Israeli President has effusively praised President Obama’s leadership on getting American and international sanctions on Iran, which have significantly slowed Iran’s progress.

3) “Medicare and Social Security are going bankrupt. These are indisputable facts.” [T]he possibility of Medicare going bankrupt is — and historically has been — greatly exaggerated. In fact, if no changes are made, Medicare would still be able to meet 88 percent of its obligations in 2085. Social Security is fully funded for another two decades and could pay 75 percent of its benefits thereafter. There is also an easy way to ensure the program’s long-term solvency without large changes or cuts to benefits.

4) “The vice president was in charge of overseeing this. $90 billion in green pork to campaign contributors and special interest groups.” Multiple reviews, including an independent review of all Department Of Energy loan programs by Herb Allison –- finance chair for McCain for President 2008 –- have found no “pork” in the stimulus’ funding of green projects, concluding that the loans were not steered to friends or family, as Ryan claims.

5) “Was it a good idea to spend taxpayer dollars on electric cars in Finland, or on windmills in China?” As PolitiFact has pointed out, the money for electric cars in Finland did not come from the stimulus. Rather, it originated with the Energy Department’s Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program, which predated the Obama administration. The claim about “windmills in China” is also inaccurate.

6) “When they see us putting – when they see us putting daylight between ourselves and our allies in Israel, that gives them encouragement.” The Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, told CNN, “President Obama is doing … more than anything that I can remember in the past [in regard to our security].”

7) “You see, if you reform these programs for my generation, people 54 and below, you can guarantee they don’t change for people in or near retirement.” Here is how the Romney/Ryan Medicare plan will affect current seniors: 1) by repealing Obamacare, the 16 million seniors receiving preventive benefits without deductibles or co-pays and are saving $3.9 billion on prescription drugs will see a cost increase, 2) “premium support” will increase premiums for existing beneficiaries as private insurers lure healthier seniors out of the traditional Medicare program, 3) Romney/Ryan would also lower Medicaid spending significantly beginning next year, shifting federal spending to states and beneficiaries, and increasing costs for the 9 million Medicare recipients who are dependent on Medicaid.

8) “Obamacare takes $716 billion from Medicare to spend on Obamacare.” Ryan is claiming that Obamacare siphons off $716 billion from Medicare, to the detriment of Medicare beneficiaries. In actuality, that money is saved primarily through reducing over-payments to insurance companies under Medicare Advantage, cutting waste fraud and abuse, and eliminating inefficiencies in the system. Ryan’s budget plan keeps those same cuts, but directs them toward tax cuts for the rich and deficit reduction.

9) “And then they put this new Obamacare board in charge of cutting Medicare each and every year in ways that will lead to denied care for current seniors.” The Board, or IPAB is tasked with making binding recommendations to Congress for lowering health care spending, should Medicare costs exceed a target growth rate. Congress can accept the savings proposal or implement its own ideas through a super majority. The panel’s plan will modify payments to providers but it cannot “include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums…increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co- payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria” (Section 3403 of the ACA). Relying on health care experts rather than politicians to control health care costs has previously attracted bipartisan support and even Ryan himself proposed two IPAB-like structures in a 2009 health plan.

10) “7.4 million seniors are projected to lose their current Medicare Advantage coverage they have. That’s a $3,200 benefit cut.” Enrollment is actually projected to increase by 11 percent in Medicare Advantage (MA) in 2013. Since the Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010, Medicare Advantage premiums have decreased an average of 10 percent and enrollment in these plans has increased 28 percent.

11) “This [Medicare premium support] plan that’s bipartisan. It’s a plan I put together with a prominent Democrat senator from Oregon.” Wyden not only voted against Ryan’s budget, he also called the idea that he supported it “nonsense.”

12) “Eight out of 10 businesses, they file their taxes as individuals, not as corporations.” Far less than half of the people affected by the expiration of the upper income tax cuts get any of their income at all from a small businesses. And those people could very well be receiving speaking fees or book royalties, which qualify as “small business income” but don’t have a direct impact on job creation. It’s actually hard to find a small business who think that they will be hurt if the marginal tax rate on income earned above $250,000 per year is increased.

13) “[Unemployment is rising] all around America.” In August, the unemployment rate dropped from a year before in 325 of 372 metro areas surveyed by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

14) “The average tax rate on businesses in the industrialized world is 25 percent, and the president wants the top effective tax rate on successful small businesses to go above 40 percent.” The U.S. is raising historically low amounts of revenue from the corporate income tax, and it already has the second lowest effective corporate tax rate in the world. U.S. corporations are taxed less than their foreign rivals, and the U.S. effective corporate tax rate is low compared to other developed economies.

15) “He’ll keep saying this $5 trillion plan, I suppose. It’s been discredited by six other studies.” The studies Ryan cites actually further prove that Romney/Ryan would, in fact, have to raise taxes on the middle class if he were to keep his promise not to lose revenue with his tax rate reduction.

16) “You can – you can cut tax rates by 20 percent and still preserve these important preferences for middle-class taxpayer. It is mathematically possible. It’s been done before. It’s precisely what we’re proposing.” If Romney/Ryan hope to provide tax relief to the middle class, then their $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax code that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work. As the Tax Policy Center concluded, Romney’s plan can’t both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. “He’s promised all these things and he can’t do them all. In order for him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, he’d have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people making less than $200,000 a year,” the Center found.

17) “So they proposed a $478 billion cut to defense to begin with. Now we have another $500 billion cut to defense that’s lurking on the horizon. They insisted upon that cut being involved in the debt negotiations, and so we have a $1 trillion cut.” Ryan has frequently gotten in hot water for criticizing President Obama for the very same defense cuts that he voted for in 2011.

18) “If these cuts go through, our Navy will be the smallest – the smallest it has been since before World War I.” PolitiFact rated this claim as “Pants on Fire,” noting that “a wide range of experts told us it’s wrong to assume that a decline in the number of ships or aircraft automatically means a weaker military.”

19) “Look at what they’re doing through Obamacare with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country. They’re infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals.” Religious institutions haven’t been forced to “violate their conscience” by paying for contraception. Houses of worship and other religious nonprofits that primarily employ and serve people of the same faith will be exempt from offering birth control.

20) “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. Try telling that to the 20 million people who are projected to lose their health insurance if Obamacare goes through or the 7-point million – 7.4 million seniors who are going to lose it.” The Affordable Care Act would actually expand health care coverage to 30 million Americans and all seniors will keep their guranteed Medicare benefits, despite Ryan’s fear mongering. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that very few people will have to enroll in new coverage.

21) “We should not have called Bashar Assad a reformer when he was turning his Russian-provided guns on his own people.” In March 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton noted that “many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.” However, she did not endorse their view.

22) “When Barack Obama was elected, they had enough fissile material — nuclear material to make one bomb. Now they have enough for five.” This is misleading and unproven. Iran now has enough fissile material, but has not yet enriched to the necessary level for a weapon. The Institute for Science and International Security says “it would take Iran more than two months to produce that amount if it started with 20%-grade uranium, and ‘several months’ to make enough for a bomb using low-enriched uranium. That would give the world community enough time to detect the operation and organize a response, ISIS noted in June.”

23) “[Iran is] racing toward a nuclear weapon.” Israeli and American intelligence officials aren’t so sure.

24) “We don’t want to do is give our allies reason to trust us less [by announcing a withdrawal timeline for Afghanistan].” It’s unclear how our allies would trust us less since they too agreed to the timeline. As Biden pointed outed, “That’s a bizarre statement. .. Forty-nine of our allies — hear me — 49 of our allies signed on to this position.”

All I will say is this...as someone who is as undecided as I was four years ago, it sure was nice to not see a complete 'tard such as Sarah Palin up there. That my friends is PROGRESS!!

To me not much has changed: Obama/Biden to Romney/Ryan = "Show what you will do and how" Romney/Ryan to Obama/Biden "Show what you have actually done"

Neither has an answer. I do find it interesting I don't know when I saw or heard anything from Biden for 3 1/2 years until this campaign started. Hard to believe he was thoroughly involved or integrated in much.

Actually Obama has a lot to show what he has done...

1) Got us out of Iraq on schedule.
2) Stepped up the offense on the Taliban and Al Qaeda and killed OBL.
3) Stemmed the job loss and turned around the unemployment numbers.
4) Got us past the financial crisis.
5) Presided over financial reform.
6) Presided over a health care law that has been virtually impossible for past administrations to touch.
7) Stock market increases that are impressive.

Granted the huge deficit increase, which is accountable for a lot of recovery was enacted before he entered office. But the right wants to make it sound like Obama was responsible for the huge deficit increase, so he may as well take credit for the benefits it provided.

This billboard is outside my office today. Just noticed it.

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/10/13/ma9uqa5u.jpg

John: Seal team 6 killed Osama NOT Obama. In fact didn't Obama say he was going to Close Gitmo. Didn't they get important info from Gitmo that lead Seal team 6 to bin laden, O well I guess in that case its good that Obama didn't keep his promis.
LR3 Great Pic!

Regardless of who you think won, one thing didn't happen that I think the Romney campaign or conservative pundits were counting on and that was Biden saying something stupid or way outlandish. So I think that in itself was a victory for the Obama campaign. But what troubles me the most and how for the life of me cannot understand why Romney supporters don't press the issue concerns the tax cuts and tax credit eliminations. Ryan looked like a deer in the headlights when pressed on the issue and would not say definitively whether or not they would potentially eliminate the credits for mortgage interest and healthcare payments. Also he could not explain specifically how they would pay for the tax cuts. Also, he had that "oh sheet" look on his face when Biden mentioned Ryan sending a letter requesting stimulus money.

But I don't think that this debate had much chance of changing the current polls, however, you can expect Obama to slam Romney's vagueness on his tax plans and the potential elimination of tax credits that would hurt the middle class.

http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

Click the 5 or 8 year option and this puts things a little bit more in perspective. As Mark Twain once said, "there are three type of lies; lies, damned lies, and statistics". Pretty much sums up each political stance when pulling numbers, whatever helps their cause.

G the info that got Bin Ladin wasn't from Gitmo, it was Bin Ladins doctor who ratted him out for the reward money.

Hello Mr Obvious. Too bad GWB didn't have a Seal Team 6.

I find it interesting that no one has said anything about Biden's laughter and continual smirking. To me, this was despicable behavior for a Vice President and represents how this administration is incapable of compromise. IMHO, reasoning with someone like Biden would next to impossible. If I were Paul Ryan, I would have gotten up and walked away. To be honest, I could not tell what Ryan’s point was on most issues because Biden and that mediator kept interrupting. I hope Romney will be able to get a word in edgewise at the next debate.

Yes, if Biden was running for VP (vs already there), people would be saying "no thanks".

IMO, two things were common between the two debates so far...

• Romney seemed much more presidential.
• Ryan seemed much more vice presidential.

I mentioned it in the 4th post of this thread. I felt the same way.

He wanted to walk away when asked about specifics on Romney's tax plan, when put on the spot about requesting stimulus money, and altering his stance on abortion. Some of the outrageous claims by Ryan had me smirking as well. I think he overdid it, but he wasn't going to let Ryan push him around. Again, I think he should have toned it down, but I laughed every time he called Paul "my friend here".

And Ryan and his GOP Congresspeople have been "incapable of compromise" since Obama took office so you won't get much sympathy on that issue with me.

Biden treated it like a business lunch and he ate Ryan's too. The man knows BS when he hears it and so it's impossible not to laugh, smirk, and interupt to clear the record. I just call it like I see it.

I didn't love the way Joe handled the first part of that debate. But... I think even through the "rude" behavior, he was right-on as far as substance. Although I don't hear anything about that from my right-leaning friends today. All I hear about was his delivery.

Of course, last week they were in love with Romney's smug attitude in the Pres debate. I thought it was rude. Of course, I also thought President Obama appeared overly timid...

I get that the "show" is part of politics... but I hate it. I really want to focus on substance.

"I find it interesting that no one has said anything about Biden's laughter and continual smirking"
I think he was laughing at liar Ryan and everything he said was basically a lie! Thats why Biden pummeled Ryan at the debate, categorically. He didn't put his head down and mope, he looked the liar straight in the eye and called him out on every single issue. Its too bad Obama can't laugh at Romney when he starts his lying, I suppose he will just have to smirk. Keep watching Fox news though so you can get an opinion you believe in! Nothing dumber than a poor republican!

Besides providing free cellphones, what specifically has this administration done that impresses you so much for the poor or the middle-class for that matter?

You do realize the program offering “Obamaphones” was actually begun 25 years ago by the FCC under Reagan, right?

As to your question...

Measured in sheer legislative tonnage, what Obama got done in his first two years is stunning. Health care reform. The takeover and turnaround of the auto industry. The biggest economic stimulus in history. Sweeping new regulations of Wall Street. A tough new set of consumer protections on the credit card industry. A vast expansion of national service. Net neutrality. The greatest increase in wilderness protection in fifteen years. A revolutionary reform to student aid. Signing the New START treaty with Russia. The ending of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Even after that, when he was bogged down in budget fights with the Tea Party-controlled GOP House, Obama still managed to squeeze out a few domestic policy victories, including a $1.2 trillion deficit reduction deal and the most sweeping overhaul of food safety laws in more than seventy years. More impressively, on the foreign policy front he ended the war in Iraq, began the drawdown in Afghanistan, helped to oust Gaddafi in Libya and usher out Mubarak in Egypt, orchestrated new military and commercial alliances as a hedge against China, and tightened sanctions against Iran over its nukes.

Oh, and he shifted counterterrorism strategies to target Osama bin Laden and then ordered the risky raid that killed him.

Obama has done all this while also steering the country out of what might have been a second Great Depression.

And Ron, I am a bit surprised by your blatant overlook of the GOP's behavior concerning bipartisanship (since Obama took office) as you tend to be somewhat rational, despite the differences, in the discussions that pop up on WW. It is fact that a meeting took place between 15 GOP leaders and Newt Gingrich after Obama's inauguration (and Ryan was present for that meeting) and ways to make Obama a one term president were heavily discussed. So for you to criticize the administration's inability to compromise, all the while you have the GOP unwilling to compromise makes you seem to be overwhelmingly disingenuous.

This thread is going exactly the way I thought it would.... Dems say Biden won and Repubs say Ryan won.

IMHO, Biden forced Ryan into a corner and Ryan responded, At one point the moderator and Biden were double teaming Ryan and he still didn't break. Biden said some things over and over, just like Ryan did. Someone mentioned that Ryan wrote two letters requesting funds. Hey, it's politics. He didn't say that he didn't request it. However, in contrast, Biden said he didn't vote for funding the wars and that they were too expensive. He lied. Not surprising.

From wiki:
In 1990, Biden voted against the first Gulf War after Iraq under Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.[45] In 1998, Biden expressed support for the use of force against Iraq, and urged a sustained effort to "dethrone" Saddam Hussein over the long haul.[46] In 2002, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he stated that Saddam Hussein was "a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security" and that United States has "no choice but to eliminate the threat".[47] He also said, "I think Saddam either has to be separated from his weapons or taken out of power."[48] Biden also supported a failed resolution authorizing military action in Iraq only after the exhaustion of diplomatic efforts,[49] Biden argued that Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear weapons;[50] he subsequently voted in favor of authorizing the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Biden has since said that he believes it was a mistake to support the Iraq War because it has been mismanaged by the Bush Administration. In 2005, Biden said, "We can call it quits and withdraw from Iraq (but) I think that would be a gigantic mistake, or we can set a deadline for pulling out, which I fear will only encourage our enemies to wait us out – equally a mistake."[51]

Read the last sentence of the above paragraph which was a quote from Biden. If it were 2005, he would have been against his specified pull out date from Afghanistan. Ryan was much too kind.

Repubs aren't saying Ryan won, they are saying that Biden acted inappropriately.

And Ryan did break when asked for specifics on Romney's tax plan, when he requested Stimulus money for his district, and when he was asked about his stance on abortion. Which if you are going to slam Biden on his change of view on the war, why not slam Romney on his switch on abortion? It makes your argument seem insincere.

I think, while he was getting double teamed, he did okay.

It is not that he changed his stance. He said he didn't vote for it. He did. He lied. There is a big difference between changing your stance, or in a word Obama would use "evolve", and lying about how you voted.

I like to think of the Romney abortion stance as "evolving". If he would only say he "evolved" then the Dems would forgive anything horrible they said he ever did and forget all the lies they ever accused him of.

Jeremy, you are correct. The GOP can be just as bull headed. However, IMHO, what increased this bipartisanship split and the creation of the no- so-popular-among liberals tea party movement is the "bullying"" through with the health care reform act and the "backdoor" bailouts that occurred. If you remember, Obama promised transparency and a “coming together” (Kumbaya,”My Lord, Kumbaya”). Interestingly enough, according to this article, the free phones started under Clinton and if you will notice, the article is from Forbes and not Fox. What happened is the original bill was for landlines so people could call 911. Someone added a line to include cell phones--once again a classic example of good intent taken advantage of—in combination of no accountability. In addition, even though those are many accomplishments, I have yet to see how any of those stimulate the economy and help the middle class. I do not like a lot of what the GOP is trying to do, but I like these ideas a lot less. This UN tax should not happen http://www.dallasblog.com/2012100810...mericans.html; This Sustainable Communities Initiative http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...or-the-cities/ This, what is referred to by some as Agenda 21 https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...o-operators-of The Dodd Frank Act http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/20/...gling-economy/ These are potential job killers and most directly tax the lower and middle class. To me, what happened the other night was not a debate. The best thing to do is put the candidates in an enclosed transparent room and turn their mikes off and blacken the room when the others turn to speak is occurring.

Actually attaching the article would help--my bad http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphi...e-cell-phones/

Yeah Ron, maybe so, but that meeting I mentioned a couple of posts earlier took place in Jan 09, way before Obamacare and any of the bailouts (other than the Wall St. bailout, which Bush passed). So that tells me, at least with Ryan and the other politicians that attended the meeting, is that there was never going to be any compromise between the two parties, not without Republicans facing Tea Party-backed Republicans in elections as you saw in 2010.

And that is what bothers me the most about Romney and Ryan. Truly I don't think that they are on the same page when it comes to the core issue and the VP debate was a prime example of my point. It is akin to the McCain/Palin ticket in 2008. They are not in the same place when it comes to the budget and deficit or Ryan would have been able to give specifics on the plan. Instead we get vagueness and basically "you'll see it when we get it passed" similar to something you have a problem with and that is the way Obamacare was passed. Another thing is Romney constantly criticizing the stimulus. Romney was not in any office at the time, so it is easy for him to say it was a bad idea, meanwhile you have Ryan and other GOP members (a la Rick Perry) bashing in public while requesting funds in private. And you could see the uncomfortable look on Ryan's face when the abortion issue was mentioned.

Yeah the big difference is one is a Republican and one is a democrat.

And that is exactly what I thought you would say.

Hey, I don't blame you. I'd probably say the same if the shoe was on the other foot. No matter how it is spun the hardcore dems and hardcore repubs won't change. However, I was once a democrat-ish voter and while I did't vote for Obama, I did hope he would succeed. I hoped he would get some racial issues calmed, have an open door policy, provide exposure and most of the things he said he would do. The racial issue is worse now due to his redistribution of wealth plans and class warfare. We all know how his open door and daylight meetings have been and how the healthcare reform was crammed down our throats.

Well, there were millions of Americans that wanted healthcare reform and don't share the same sentiment that it "was crammed down our throats". I think it could use some improvement, but that's not what bothers me the most. What bothers me the most is it has been labeled as "socialized healthcare", yet this was the same plan that Bob Dole and other GOP leaders were trying to pass in the 1990's. Now I can say that I was never much of a Dole fan, but I cannot recall ever calling Dole a socialist.

Ironically, Nixon tried something similar and Kennedy did not support it. No, the Affordable Health Care Act is not socialized medicine; it's a tax--a tax that everyone will pay. Just think. A completely new department will be created and, more than likely, will be just as effective as the Department of Energy, except this time, the Federal Gov. will be administering your health care.

Healthcare reform wasn't crammed down your throat. It was passed in Congress the way every law is passed... By a vote. Repealing ACA probably isn't the best platform for winning the election because a lot of people want changes in the healthcare system. Moving forward with positive beneficial changes is a good thing. But repealing simply to get back where we were before isn't the best plan to present to the American people.

And BTW Ron paying tax penalties for not buying healthcare is exactly the system that has already been in place for years.

"paying tax penalties for not buying healthcare is exactly the system that has already been in place for years." What do you mean?

I mean that... if you buy insurance you pay less taxes than if you don't. A tax penalty for not buying is exactly equivalent to a tax benefit for buying. I know it's difficult for conservatives and libertarians to understand the concept, but if you allow one person to not pay taxes then someone else has to pick up the slack. It seems that they recognize this when they want poor people to pay more taxes, but don't recognize this principle when they get a tax deduction.

The principle is the same regardless of why someone is getting a tax break. The difference is the rationale for offering the tax break. The reality is that tax breaks for HI are discriminatory and have no basis on need. They are discriminatory because the tax break isn't the same for everyone. For example, if I pay for HI with a 125 plan I pay no FICA or income tax on that money. Someone who pays for HI with no plan may get no tax benefit at all. The discrimination has no basis on need. It is mainly designed to influence behavior. Second, the tax effect on buying HI escalates the cost of HI. It did it before ACA and it will do it after the ACA.

Got you. Again, this is another classic example of Gov. interference gone awry. IMHO, part of the problem is after WW2 the Gov. set salary caps on executives. At that point, health care was affordable to most—if not all--of the population. Unfortunately, the result was in order to attract the best candidates for jobs, companies began to offer to pay for the individual’s insurance, and so began the merger of businesses being responsible for paying employee's health insurance. Factor in your points, the designing of HMO’s, and that is where we are today, but I still argue that competition is better than additional governmental agencies, adding more regulations and raising taxes.

^Except for the fact you do not have your textbook definition of "competition" when it comes to health insurance.

Competition barely exists in the HC industry. Regulation and licensing drive up costs. Professional groups with powerful lobbies stand behind licensing and regulation to achieve exclusivity. It's hard to imagine how we could ever achieve a true free market that would allow access to healthcare to everyone. A lot of safeguards would have to be dropped.

Even in an industry where no life saving decisions are made, i.e. lawyers and the legal system, we are strictly limited to high priced professionals with strict licensing requirements. That's capitalism and even more so, human nature. Rise to the top, find ways to make it exclusive, and raise barriers to entry. In many states you need a year of education to meet the licensing requirements to give a massage.

What about allowing health insurances to sell across state lines?

I have no problem with this. I guess the central issue it that you don't have state control over the quality of the product. I could see one or more states lowering their guidelines to attract insurance companies so that a poor product gets sold in other states, but the residents of those states have no governing body to appeal to when problems develop. But the only way to find out what will happen is to give it a try.

In a lot of ways, you've just described one of the biggest problems I see with our Country in general.

It will never happen. State legislators are bought and paid for by insurance companies and why increase the "competition" if unnecessary?