RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Repealing Obamacare IS Addressing Jobs & the Economy - RightNation.US

Jump to content

-----
I've been listening to the talking heads on the cable channels repeatedly stating that repealing Obamacare was not the voters #1 issue, that jobs and the economy were. From my vantage point, repealing Obamacare IS addressing jobs and the economy.

What is one of the major reasons we hear from small businesses that they are afraid to hire new employees? It is the uncertainty of what will be required of them by the massive increase in government control. And of all of the increased regulations, what is the one aspect they seem to mention the most? It is Obamacare and how much that is going to directly cost them.

I can speak from personal experience that my monthly premiums for my own health insurance have increased by more than three times what they were last year. Not only that, but I've lost $500 in up front benefits right off the bat. And from what I've heard from others, I am not the only one facing rising healthcare costs. Yes, I know that would have happened regardless of Obamacare but not to the same level as it is happening AO (after Obamacare).

Most folks hardly even notice how much their employer pays for their healthcare benefits. Yet from what I've seen, it is always much more than I have to pay out of my own pocket. And now with insurance companies being required to offer benefits to children up to age 26, unlimited benefits and the elimination of any pre-existing conditions limitations, do you have any idea how much higher the risk is to the insurance company?

Sure, it's easy to make the insurance companies the boogieman but what most folks do not take into account when contemplating these new benefits, is that insurance companies are just like your own employer and are in business to make a profit. And how do insurance companies make a profit? They estimate the amount of risk of loss they are taking to cover a pool of members based on several different criteria. Yet Obamacare is precisely set up to increase those risks while demeaning the insurance companies for trying to cover the costs of these increased risks.

While all three of these new regulations sound like common sense on the surface, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.

I've heard tell that the requirement for child coverage up to age 26 does not require the child be a dependent. In other words, your child could well be working and married but still your insurance company must offer coverage for them on your insurance plan. Which means that the insurance company has to add the risk of this coverage into the cost of the plan regardless if you take advantage of it or not.

While most folks may not have noticed that their healthcare benefits mostly did have a limitation of lifetime benefits, there has been a limit of one to two million dollars in benefits which has been steadily increasing over the years I suspect mostly due to the rising costs of healthcare. Does it really take an education in underwriting to comprehend how much it is going to cost insurance companies to take unlimited risk on their member's possible heath catastrophes?

And last but most certainly not least is the removal of any and all pre-existing conditions limitations. As many have said before me, this is like telling folks that they do not have to purchase car insurance prior to an accident but can wait until after they have an accident to buy the same insurance at the same price they would have paid prior to the accident. Duh, how can the risk possibly be covered in this case?

While folks have a tendency to think that the insurance companies can afford these additional costs, what they often do not realize is that it is actually their employer that is going to have to carry the majority of these additional costs. Which proves my point that by repealing Obamacare, more employers will be able to hire more employees.

Elusively yours,
ilja
0
  Like

11 Comments On This Entry

I agree. (We can't let the opposition define our actions.) Obama care IS a job killer.
0
Exactly!

I heard a Tea Party related guest speak this morning on Fox about how important it is that Congress does bring up repealing Obamacare as it's first order of business. When the reporter asked him what was the point since the Republicans obviously did not have enough votes and even if they did Obama would VETO it, the guest said (and I paraphrase with a limited memory) that was not necessarily true. He said that things change and it might be more difficult to not repeal Obamacare than people currently believe.

It got me to thinking that there was a time when the conventional wisdom was that National Healthcare could never pass Congress after what happened with Hillarycare. Yet that didn't stop the Democrats. Why should the Republicans let conventional wisdom stop them?
0
Maybe Rick Scott, a health care executive, who was just elected Governor of Florida can help the Republicans craft better solutions than the ObamaCare debacle.
0

Quote

And last but most certainly not least is the removal of any and all pre-existing conditions limitations. As many have said before me, this is like telling folks that they do not have to purchase car insurance prior to an accident but can wait until after they have an accident to buy the same insurance at the same price they would have paid prior to the accident. Duh, how can the risk possibly be covered in this case?

Hence the mandate.

As for pre-existing conditions, what's the point in having healthcare insurance if it doesn't provide actual coverage? The point of a health insurance system is to provide safety and ensure that people will be covered and don't have to worry constantly about it. Our current system fails miserably at that.

Could it have been better? Probably, and we largely have Republicans to blame for making it so difficult. But it's better than what we have now.
0

BerkeleyUnderground, on Nov 7 2010, 12:21 PM, said:

Maybe Rick Scott, a health care executive, who was just elected Governor of Florida can help the Republicans craft better solutions than the ObamaCare debacle.

I hope so. They need somebody's help who understands all of the possible unintended consequences of their actions.
0

Timothy, on Nov 7 2010, 01:10 PM, said:

Hence the mandate.

As for pre-existing conditions, what's the point in having healthcare insurance if it doesn't provide actual coverage? The point of a health insurance system is to provide safety and ensure that people will be covered and don't have to worry constantly about it. Our current system fails miserably at that.

Could it have been better? Probably, and we largely have Republicans to blame for making it so difficult. But it's better than what we have now.

Timothy, I'm afraid you like most people including myself for most of my life, misunderstand exactly what insurance is. It is not simply a way to pay for your medical services. It is to help you to pay in the event something out of the ordinary happens.

What you want is somebody to be responsible to pay for your bills. If we keep on the current Obamacare path, we will no longer have access to quality healthcare like we have today. You see for every action, there is a reaction. You can't expect to keep getting something for nothing without there being a comeuppance. You can't keep taking and taking and not expect to run out. It's human nature, Timothy. Do you do your job without an expectation of pay? Well neither do health insurance companies. Neither do medical professionals. Neither do pharmaceuticals.

As for blaming the Republicans, that's short-sighted. You think because the republicans did not get on board with Obamacare, that is a mistake. In actuality, it's just the opposite. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the Republicans are totally innocent. Shoot, most of them are just as short-sighted as the Dems. They don't actually understand insurance themselves else they would not have passed the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit they passed under Bush.
0

ilja, on Nov 7 2010, 05:34 PM, said:

Timothy, I'm afraid you like most people including myself for most of my life, misunderstand exactly what insurance is. It is not simply a way to pay for your medical services. It is to help you to pay in the event something out of the ordinary happens.

Agreed. But that's not what discriminating against "pre-existing conditions" and other problems are about. Sometimes they are ordinary, and sometimes they are not. Something can happen to someone, and then they lose their insurance for whatever reason (especially losing their insurance connected through their job), or the insurer finds some technicality as an excuse to drop them, and then they are SOL.

The problem with a lot of health care is that it isn't like most other necessities of life. Everyone needs about the same amount of calories, we pay more generally just to eat more enjoyable food. Shelter needs, aside from children coming and going, are relatively consistent. Health care needs are not consistent. You can need very little and then develop something that takes more than you can hope to make to fix. And it is NOT in insurance company's best interest to help people who need it. It's in their interest to "help" people who don't need it. This makes it a much different issue than most other services in the economy.

Quote

What you want is somebody to be responsible to pay for your bills. If we keep on the current Obamacare path, we will no longer have access to quality healthcare like we have today. You see for every action, there is a reaction. You can't expect to keep getting something for nothing without there being a comeuppance. You can't keep taking and taking and not expect to run out. It's human nature, Timothy. Do you do your job without an expectation of pay? Well neither do health insurance companies. Neither do medical professionals. Neither do pharmaceuticals.

This is a straw man, I'm not suggesting that health care costs are free. I think that everyone should contribute into the system and then if they happen to come down with something bad, they get helped by the system. Pooled risk. The private model isn't doing that well, because private insurance companies do everything they can to reject people who need it. I think these reforms will help, especially when it comes to pre-existing conditions and getting more people on insurance. But I still think a public model (like Europe) or some model that involved very long term coverage, and not employer based insurance, would be better. The only benefit to employer based is that it allows people to pool their costs, so if you aren't in great health you can still get decent coverage. But it's problematic because it creates an arbitrary reason for people to stay employed even if they'd be better off moving to a different company (and being more productive), because they want to maintain consistent coverage (and not have new coverage that is worthless for "pre-existing conditions").

Quote

As for blaming the Republicans, that's short-sighted. You think because the republicans did not get on board with Obamacare, that is a mistake. In actuality, it's just the opposite. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the Republicans are totally innocent. Shoot, most of them are just as short-sighted as the Dems. They don't actually understand insurance themselves else they would not have passed the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit they passed under Bush.

The system needed reform, and they did everything they could to stop it. At least this time they didn't succeed, like in 1994.
0

Timothy, on Nov 7 2010, 06:28 PM, said:

ilja, on Nov 7 2010, 05:34 PM, said:

Timothy, I'm afraid you like most people including myself for most of my life, misunderstand exactly what insurance is. It is not simply a way to pay for your medical services. It is to help you to pay in the event something out of the ordinary happens.

Agreed. But that's not what discriminating against "pre-existing conditions" and other problems are about. Sometimes they are ordinary, and sometimes they are not. Something can happen to someone, and then they lose their insurance for whatever reason (especially losing their insurance connected through their job), or the insurer finds some technicality as an excuse to drop them, and then they are SOL.

But it is not the insurance companies' fault that you lose your job. Do you really expect them to continue covering you for free?

I agree with you that it is horribly wrong when an insurance company looks for some technicality to drop someone who is seriously ill.

Quote

The problem with a lot of health care is that it isn't like most other necessities of life. Everyone needs about the same amount of calories, we pay more generally just to eat more enjoyable food. Shelter needs, aside from children coming and going, are relatively consistent. Health care needs are not consistent. You can need very little and then develop something that takes more than you can hope to make to fix. And it is NOT in insurance company's best interest to help people who need it. It's in their interest to "help" people who don't need it. This makes it a much different issue than most other services in the economy.

It is in the insurance company's interest to sell a product that people want and it's in the interest of those who buy it to determine how much they need. No one is stopping someone from getting insurance through their employer and buying an individual plan if they are worried something might happen that would require more benefits than their employer based insurance would provide.

Yes, I know that most of us cannot afford to do that but that is not the insurance company's fault. They do not purposely price their product so that people cannot buy it. If that were the case, they would have no customers.

Insurance companies are in business to make a profit just like any other business and just like any other employer and any employee. They are not different than any other business except for the fact that too many politicians have convinced too many voters that it is not their responsibility to take care of themselves. There is no right in the Constitution for citizens to be provided with healthcare insurance. There is no right for citizens to be provided with healthcare. We live in a free market society which is the reason we have always been so successful . . . at least up until now.

Quote

This is a straw man, I'm not suggesting that health care costs are free. I think that everyone should contribute into the system and then if they happen to come down with something bad, they get helped by the system. Pooled risk. The private model isn't doing that well, because private insurance companies do everything they can to reject people who need it.

No it is not. This is precisely the issue. Have you not noticed your insurance premiums rising much more than they were last year and at a greater rate than they were raised last year? That is precisely because government is dictating how a private business should do business. That is not freedom. That is just the opposite. In essence what Obamacare is doing is forcing insurance companies to provide more services for less compensation. No business can stay in business under those circumstances. Which is precisely what the socialist envier are hoping. Their hope is that these private companies will go out of business and the public will be forced to buy into your pool.

Quote

I think these reforms will help, especially when it comes to pre-existing conditions and getting more people on insurance. But I still think a public model (like Europe) or some model that involved very long term coverage, and not employer based insurance, would be better. The only benefit to employer based is that it allows people to pool their costs, so if you aren't in great health you can still get decent coverage. But it's problematic because it creates an arbitrary reason for people to stay employed even if they'd be better off moving to a different company (and being more productive), because they want to maintain consistent coverage (and not have new coverage that is worthless for "pre-existing conditions").

But that's just it. We are NOT Europe. We believe in doing an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. Have you seen how many folks in Europe do not work and think they are owed a home, food, clothing and the like by the government simply because they have too many kids?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying all Europeans are like that, thank goodness. But the bigger government grows, the more folks you are going to have who get lazy and selfish.

Quote

The system needed reform, and they did everything they could to stop it. At least this time they didn't succeed, like in 1994.

Apparently, a larger portion of the voting public disagree with your assessment, else the Dems majority would have grown.
0

ilja, on Nov 8 2010, 08:39 PM, said:

Timothy, on Nov 7 2010, 06:28 PM, said:

ilja, on Nov 7 2010, 05:34 PM, said:

Timothy, I'm afraid you like most people including myself for most of my life, misunderstand exactly what insurance is. It is not simply a way to pay for your medical services. It is to help you to pay in the event something out of the ordinary happens.

Agreed. But that's not what discriminating against "pre-existing conditions" and other problems are about. Sometimes they are ordinary, and sometimes they are not. Something can happen to someone, and then they lose their insurance for whatever reason (especially losing their insurance connected through their job), or the insurer finds some technicality as an excuse to drop them, and then they are SOL.

But it is not the insurance companies' fault that you lose your job. Do you really expect them to continue covering you for free?

I agree with you that it is horribly wrong when an insurance company looks for some technicality to drop someone who is seriously ill.

They shouldn't cover you for free, but that is not the point. The point is that connecting health insurance with employment is a bad setup. It is not a good system.

Quote

It is in the insurance company's interest to sell a product that people want and it's in the interest of those who buy it to determine how much they need. No one is stopping someone from getting insurance through their employer and buying an individual plan if they are worried something might happen that would require more benefits than their employer based insurance would provide.

Yes, I know that most of us cannot afford to do that but that is not the insurance company's fault. They do not purposely price their product so that people cannot buy it. If that were the case, they would have no customers.

Insurance companies are in business to make a profit just like any other business and just like any other employer and any employee.

That doesn't address my points, in fact it backs it up. The interests of insurance companies DON'T align with what a health insurance system should do. THAT is the problem. This makes it unlike most other industries, where capitalism works very well because the interests of the companies and everyone involved closely align with what is good for society in general. For example a farmer wants to produce good quality produce because he can make a better profit if the produce he produces is of good quality, and the end result is that he produces better food for society. His interests (profit) align with society's and his consumer's interests (better food). For a health insurance company, it is in their financial interest NOT to cover the people who need it most, or only if they can pay extremely high premiums (which many can't do).

This is not the only industry where this is the case, where it isn't in the interest of any company to best serve society's needs. That is where government can and should step in. For example the government decides where roads should be built, collects money for it via taxes, and contracts it out, because the free market can't (and wouldn't) do that as effectively as the government can do it. The government regulates pollution and protects the environment because most businesses have little incentive to protect the environment for everyone. The government makes a primary education available to every child, and outlaws putting those children to work instead, because a free market would not do so on its own, and it is the best interest for every child, not just the children of the wealthy, to receive an education. The government also builds dams, drainage systems, subsidizes science and the arts, etc. for the public good.

Quote

They are not different than any other business except for the fact that too many politicians have convinced too many voters that it is not their responsibility to take care of themselves. There is no right in the Constitution for citizens to be provided with healthcare insurance. There is no right for citizens to be provided with healthcare. We live in a free market society which is the reason we have always been so successful . . . at least up until now.

We have been successful because we live in a mostly free market system where the government steps in to regulate things and run systems where the free market system fail. See above for examples.

Obvious health insurance isn't in the Constitution, but I believe that health care should be available in a civilized society that is reasonably wealthy. It's not a "natural right" but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't treat it almost like it is one. As for taking care of themselves, as I've elaborated on before, health care is a different animal than most necessities in life. It is reasonable to expect most people to take care of themselves for most their needs, and most people's needs are relatively consistent. Health care is different because it is so inconsistent. One person can live a long life without needing much care. Another person, for many reasons, can develop a condition that requires huge amounts of wealth to treat. It's usually not a matter of luxury, it's a matter of life and death.

We already operate by that principle to a very large extent. Hospitals generally can't deny someone because they can't afford to pay. But that's not solving the issue, just punting it down to hospitals (in many cases inefficiently when it would be easier and cheaper for a poor person to get treatment somewhere else). Our health insurance system should work in a way that has that in mind from the beginning. And the model of private for-profit insurance companies doesn't do that well.

Quote

No it is not. This is precisely the issue. Have you not noticed your insurance premiums rising much more than they were last year and at a greater rate than they were raised last year? That is precisely because government is dictating how a private business should do business. That is not freedom. That is just the opposite. In essence what Obamacare is doing is forcing insurance companies to provide more services for less compensation. No business can stay in business under those circumstances. Which is precisely what the socialist envier are hoping. Their hope is that these private companies will go out of business and the public will be forced to buy into your pool.

The problem with your reasoning is that no such pool exists. The public option was heavily debated but was eventually compromised away.

Quote

But that's just it. We are NOT Europe. We believe in doing an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. Have you seen how many folks in Europe do not work and think they are owed a home, food, clothing and the like by the government simply because they have too many kids?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying all Europeans are like that, thank goodness. But the bigger government grows, the more folks you are going to have who get lazy and selfish.

See everything I've said above. Food, clothing, shelter, etc. are quite a bit different than health care. Not that I oppose safety nets to help people who legitimately need it with those items, but otherwise the free market produces those things best when left to its own devices (with some reasonable government regulation, like the FDA). You're making a false equivocation here, and it doesn't address the points that I made. You strike me as someone who is smarter than those kinds of clichés.

Quote

Apparently, a larger portion of the voting public disagree with your assessment, else the Dems majority would have grown.

Who gives a s***? I hate to be so blunt about it, but I'm not going to change my opinion just to conform to what the latest opinion polls say. My opinion is my own, and public opinion polls are irrelevant when we are discussing our own opinions on the matter. Would you change your opinion just because a public opinion poll said that a majority of Americans had a different opinion?
0

Timothy, on Nov 9 2010, 11:34 PM, said:

Who gives a s***? I hate to be so blunt about it, but I'm not going to change my opinion just to conform to what the latest opinion polls say. My opinion is my own, and public opinion polls are irrelevant when we are discussing our own opinions on the matter. Would you change your opinion just because a public opinion poll said that a majority of Americans had a different opinion?

"Who gives a s***" is right. Your opinion - like all others - is subjective tripe. Government is not supposed to be in business, and that's precisely what and insurance contract is. The depths of your juvenile arrogance combined with ignorance is quite troubling. You have no idea, do you, what it takes to honestly and actually perpetuate this country, do you, Timothy? It sure isn't government extortion.

In the hierarchy of needs, there are plenty of things more essential to life than health insurance. Why aren't all of those things mandated and provided for by the national government? Shelter? Food? Clothing? Why isn't there a mandate that all citizens buy Levi's with 12 pockets and a certain shade of blue? What? The government can't tell me what kind of jeans to buy?

You know, even with handing you leftists your a$$es on 2 Nov., I'm still losing my patience with you. I thought the sweeping, stunning victory of common sense and Constitutional restraint would be more settling to me... but no.
0

KenpoDude, on Nov 10 2010, 09:27 AM, said:

Timothy, on Nov 9 2010, 11:34 PM, said:

Who gives a s***? I hate to be so blunt about it, but I'm not going to change my opinion just to conform to what the latest opinion polls say. My opinion is my own, and public opinion polls are irrelevant when we are discussing our own opinions on the matter. Would you change your opinion just because a public opinion poll said that a majority of Americans had a different opinion?

"Who gives a s***" is right. Your opinion - like all others - is subjective tripe. Government is not supposed to be in business, and that's precisely what and insurance contract is. The depths of your juvenile arrogance combined with ignorance is quite troubling. You have no idea, do you, what it takes to honestly and actually perpetuate this country, do you, Timothy? It sure isn't government extortion.

So should government be in the "business" of building roads and highways, schools, firefighting, crime fighting, search and rescue, regulating food safety, regulating environmental quality, national parks, museums, national monuments, etc.

Quote

In the hierarchy of needs, there are plenty of things more essential to life than health insurance. Why aren't all of those things mandated and provided for by the national government? Shelter? Food? Clothing? Why isn't there a mandate that all citizens buy Levi's with 12 pockets and a certain shade of blue? What? The government can't tell me what kind of jeans to buy?

I explained why health care is a different animal in the parts of my post that you didn't address.

Quote

You know, even with handing you leftists your a$$es on 2 Nov., I'm still losing my patience with you. I thought the sweeping, stunning victory of common sense and Constitutional restraint would be more settling to me... but no.

Then why respond?
0
Page 1 of 1

ilja's Corny Corner

A Doctor, A Lawyer, A Little Boy And A Priest
A doctor, a lawyer, a little boy and a priest were out for a Sunday afternoon flight on a small private plane. Suddenly, the plane developed engine trouble. In spite of the best efforts of the pilot, the plane started to go down. Finally, the pilot grabbed a parachute, yelled to the passengers that they had better jump, and then he bailed out.

Unfortunately, there were only three parachutes remaining. The doctor grabbed one and said "I'm a doctor, I save lives, so I must live," and jumped out.

The lawyer then said, "I'm a lawyer and lawyers are the smartest people in the world. I deserve to live." He also grabbed a parachute and jumped.

The priest looked at the little boy and said, "My son, I've lived a long and full life. You are young and have your whole life ahead of you. Take the last parachute and live in peace."

The little boy handed the parachute back to the priest and said, "Not to worry, Father. The 'smartest man in the world' just took off with my back pack."

link

3 user(s) viewing

3 Guests
0 member(s)
0 anonymous member(s)

ilja's Favorite RightNation Quotes

View Postspt, on 03 May 2011 - 05:32 PM, said:

I think maybe we should all go for a drink and ask for the new drink....it is called the Bin Laden...2 shots and a splash of water :drinkers: :drinkers:
http://i147.photobuc.../lmaosmiley.gif

View PostBrian Fellow, on 15 December 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

Sorry was busy reading a tweet from an adamant 'pro-choice' person about gun control and 'how many children have to die before we do something'?

http://i147.photobuc...%202/anj_up.gif A perfect example of both irony and hypocrisy.

Quote

John Mauldin relates the details of a conversation he had with John Boehner, the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

At the :50 Maudlin describes Boehner telling him that Obama has,
“…balls made out of marshmallows…”

View PostSonofThunder, on 26 February 2013 - 05:47 AM, said:

If that is true, why do we see Boehner continually backing down and rolling over while Obama stands firm and never compromises?

View PostGertie Keddle, on 26 February 2013 - 06:34 AM, said:

'Cause he's a Campfire Girl?
http://i147.photobuc...06/kneeslap.gif

NEVER FORGET!

Staff Sgt. Matt Maupin’s long road home ended Saturday in a blaze of yellow ribbons, the silent tribute of people who lined the roads, and the respect of thousands more who filed past his coffin at a public visitation . . . “If four people showed up, that’s OK with me,” said Keith Maupin, the soldier’s father, as he took a mid-afternoon break outside the Civic Center, where many came up to him to shake his hand or give him a hug . . . Matt Maupin became the face of the war in Iraq for thousands here and across the country in April 2004, when an Arab TV station aired a tape showing the Union Township soldier kneeling and surrounded by masked men carrying automatic rifles . . .Four years and millions of prayers later, a tip from an Iraqi citizen led U.S. soldiers to the farm area northwest of Baghdad where Matt Maupin’s remains were found on March 20 . . .Scoutmaster David Bacon said the boys of Troop 511 had been well aware of the story of Matt Maupin and wanted to pay their own tribute.“I’ve talked to them many times about Matt,” said Bacon, whose cousin, Lance Cpl. David Kreuter, was killed in Iraq in 2005. “They understand it was the sacrifice of young men like Matt that gives us the freedom to meet every Monday night. There are places in the world where Boy Scouting is not allowed.” http://i147.photobuc.../3yqo3h0.gifPFC Keith Matthew MaupinCaptured in IraqApril 9, 2004

We Owe Them So Much

http://i147.photobuc.../troopsspin.gifNever Mind the Cost by c.m.steppe ©2001 There's a young man far from home, Called in time of war; Sent to defend our freedom On some distant foreign shore. On some distant foreign shore. We pray You keep him safe, We pray You keep him strong, We pray You send him safely home ... For he's been away so long. For he's been away so long. There's a young woman far from home, Serving U.S.A. with pride. Her every step is strong and sure, Courage in every stride. Courage in every stride. We pray You keep her safe, We pray You keep her strong, We pray You send her safely home ... For she's been away too long. For she's been away too long. Bless those who wait their safe return. Bless those who mourn the lost. Bless those who serve this country well, Never mind the cost. Never mind the cost. God, Bless America!

Recent Entries

Disclaimer

Search My Blog

An Email From God?

I got this in an email today and though it doesn't say who wrote it, I don't doubt these things could have happened.'MEET ME IN THE STAIRWELL' You say you will never forget where you were when you heard the news On September 11, 2001. Neither will I. I was on the 110th floor in a smoke filled room with a man who called his wife to say 'Good-Bye.' I held his fingers steady as he dialed. I gave him the peace to say, 'Honey, I am not going to make it, but it is OK..I am ready to go.' I was with his wife when he called as she fed breakfast to their children. I held her up as she tried to understand his words and as she realized he wasn't coming home that night. I was in the stairwell of the 23rd floor when a woman cried out to Me for help. 'I have been knocking on the door of your heart for 50 years!' I said. 'Of course I will show you the way home - only believe in Me now.' I was at the base of the building with the Priest ministering to the injured and devastated souls. I took him home to tend to his Flock in Heaven. He heard my voice and answered. I was on all four of those planes, in every seat, with every prayer. I was with the crew as they were overtaken. I was in the very hearts of the believers there, comforting and assuring them that their faith has saved them. I was in Texas , Virginia , California , Michigan , Afghanistan ... I was standing next to you when you heard the terrible news. Did you sense Me? I want you to know that I saw every face. I knew every name - though not all know Me. Some met Me for the first time on the 86th floor. Some sought Me with their last breath. Some couldn't hear Me calling to them through the smoke and flames; 'Come to Me... this way... take my hand.' Some chose, for the final time, to ignore Me. But, I was there. I did not place you in the Tower that day. You may not know why, but I do. However, if you were there in that explosive moment in time, would you have reached for Me? Sept. 11, 2001, was not the end of the journey for you. But someday your journey will end. And I will be there for you as well. Seek Me now while I may be found. Then, at any moment, you know you are 'ready to go.' I will be in the stairwell of your final moments. God http://i147.photobuc...3/knowjesus.gif