Daihashi, I was not faulting you for stating your opinion about where the money was going to come from for these two plans. Your opinion is perfectly valid and welcome. What I was faulting was how you had treated the debate up to that point. You had said several times that you KNEW how Obama was going to pay for his plan, and then faulted the rest of us for not knowing, as if we were less informed than you were. At least that is how I interpreted your posts. But then, when you provided your explanation for where the money was to come from, you said it was just how you forsee it happening, an opinion, not something you knew for a fact. At least that is how I interpreted that post. If you had just stated your opinion earlier as an opinion, and then asked if other poeple had an opinion, it wouldn't have seemed as if you were saying you had information that the rest of us weren't smart enough or dilligent enough to find. My feeling was you were basically claiming to be more informed. Having an opinion about an important subject is great, but does not make you more informed. Anyway, let's say that is all behind us and chalk it up to a misunderstanding --- maybe I misunderstood what you were saying before and what you were asking us all to provide.

Movin' on...

I want to reply to the opinion you stated about the Obama plan:

Honestly Obama's plan truely does offer more and I don't think I could ever argue against this. What I can argue is the impact this plan will have on the American people.

The super rich make up 0.7 of the population, and I'm going to make up a number here for the rich, a generous number I feel (meaning I'm probably overestimating)... we'll say 10% of the population are the rich. So now we have 10.7% of the population trying to support 89.3% of the rest of the US. Keep in mind that the majority of the members of Congress and most high US officials also fall into this 10.7%. Assuming that Congress for once decided to do what's best for the people and not what's best for themselves. The tax rate on this 10.7% would have to be signifigant in order to aid in support of the remaining 270 million (current population is about 304million, I subtracted 10%), we'll say they're getting 15% tax increase (another estimated number.. not fact). Let's factor in the corporations whom hadn't been previously taxed. They are going to want to protect their profits. Layoffs are the easiest way to reduce cost in order to keep profits up. Through Layoffs the corporations free up the cost it would take to pay that person, in addition they will not be penalized in taxes for that 1 person since they are no longer with the company.

Anyway you slice it or dice it it's a win/win situation for the corporations. Directly leading to an increase in Job unemployment. At this point you're exchanging one problem for another. This also directly effects the economy. If people don't have money to spend then they can't buy goods, which means companies don't make money.. and I think you can see how this cycle would just keep repeating itself in a downward spiral.
I think the flaw in what you are stating here is the assumption that a small percentage of people will be buying healthcare for the whole country. Your example is that 10.7 percent of the population would have to buy healthcare for the remaining 89.3 percent. I know you say the numbers are only your own estimates for sake of example, so I will not fault the exact numbers. But the idea is wrong. Obama's plan does not propose that we have EVERYONE in a national plan paid for through taxes. Right now a large percentage of people already have health care provided through their employers (60% maybe?). So those people would not need any tax money to continue their coverage the way they already are. There are a percentage of people who have jobs with employers who do not provide coverage. Those companies would face a payroll tax that you mentioned. Those employees would be able to buy the national plan, presumably at least partially paid for by the payroll taxes you mentioned --- so possibly no new income tax on "the rich" to provide that. And then there are a percentage of people who could afford to buy their own plan if they met eligibility requirements, but they have pre-existing conditions so the cost is exhorbitant. Obama's plan eliminates eligibility requirements, so those people would be able to buy their own plan --- no new taxes to support them. And then there is the remaining people who have no inusrance and who cannot pay for it themselves, even with no eligibility requirements. Had you said something like 20% are confirmed uninsured? So the people who meet the income requirements for subsidised healthcare would presumabley be some percentage of that 20%. I think if we all pull together, the remaining 80% could probably afford to subsidise health insurance for some portion of the 20% uninsured without ruining the lives of the "rich" and the "super rich," especially since were are probably already paying for much of it anyway in other forms.