I saw it as her giving reason for removing herself. Her right to do so. I see a lot of shit as high school angst and it saddens me.

Whew... not to beat a dead horse, as it is no longer about her but about our responses to her action. I think you really want to beat up on her because she didn't agree with you. Sorry. I like your additions to most threads and all, but I gotta part ways on this one man. A woman stands up for what she truly feels is right and gets bashed for it. Some do it with an educational purpose. Some do it just to be right.
Our purpose here is to grow. By here, I mean on this lil planet.. not website. How are we supposed to do that when folks just immediately bash us back into the ground? It happened to her. It has happened to others.

I just erased an entire two paragraphs outlining exactly what my "gut reaction" to this healthcare law really is. I know it would make me no friends. Here is how I will pretty it up. It is crap. It is not what should have been done and now will only delay what needs to be done in its undoing. Period. I can't afford insurance. I have chronic illness. I will be asked to pay a penalty AND pay my medical bills out of pocket. I have to now pay attorney fees to find ways to protect my home. I think it was an act of cowardice and a disservice to the American people. Meanwhile, every year that this is allowed to stand, my penalties will increase just as the Romney care in Mass has done.

Would have been better off without it. That is the statement from a poor person who can't afford it. It will do me no favors.

in my defense
 

"I must not be liberal thank god. "

That is a quote from the person who left because she felt like she was being judged. That was posted long before I posted my rant about wishing she cared enough to work together politically to change our f-ed up system (not just health care, the entire predator capitalist system we operate under).

The other thing I could not stand reading from her over and over was how lazy she thought other people (I guess people in need specifically) were. F that! Most poor people have to work twice as hard to get half as much in this country. And if anyone should know that she should!

Anyway. I agree with you Jess that this "reform" is f-ed up, but after not having health insurance for the 10 years that I have been self employed, I don't care, I want to see a doctor without fear of going bankrupt due to what they may find.

Jess, there are hardship waivers in this law, have you looked through it? Are you sure that your only option is to take the fine and pay out of pocket? If you feel comfortable PMing me (or posting here) with details of your situation I could comb through this bill and try and answer your specific questions.

Have you done the subsidy calculator already?

To those who are what they are . Hope u all well. But I still believe what i believe. We will see taxes raised and I will be waiting for the day to say I told you so.

[QUOTE=Corkey;93041]Oh good grief. Does this mean you actually read the law? Or is it a thumb your nose at everyone who disagrees with you? All we ask is that you read it, digest what it means, even to you.

Here I'll even do your leg work for you.
Here it is :http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc...ter_HR3590.pdf[/QU

At this time I would not care what the bill said. To me they can take the bill and shove it up where the sun dont shine. I really dont fucking care. Sorry to those who know me for using the foul language.

[quote=casey35;93053]
Done trying to reason with a rock.

[quote=Corkey;93055]That fine but I did not have a disagreement with u. Most of mine was to Key. I read yours and understood them.

[quote=casey35;93057]But did you read the law????? Do you understand it????? Look I'm willing to debate here, but I'd like to be on an even keel. I can't debate opinion, I can only debate facts. If you haven't read the law you have not the facts to debate with. Make since?

Key -

Thank you for your offer. I have read the bill and know not only what it won't entail for Jess, but also the fallout to both mine and my special needs son's current coverage. Part of my job is benefits administration and I also can forecast the impact it will have on the coverage we currently offer to our employees.

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head...

Yes, its grand that pre-exists will be no longer. What it doesn't do is cap the premium for those with pre-exists. Unfortunately, I believe that most currently uninsured folks will have higher premiums b/c of this "oversight" in the bill. That will only burden the subsidy/funding issue further.

The tax on the "cadillac plans" - I see this as being handed down to employers in rate hikes - I currently offer three different coverages to our employees - all three would fall into this category. Do you think that BCBS is gonna just absorb the cost?? Hell no. We will see it in rate increases, but they will be much more than the 12-15% per year increases we have seen over the last 4 years and it will effectively force the small business who has employed folks for over 57 years to drop health coverage.

That the federal government would oversee any new plans?? Oh hell no - if Medicare is a shining example of oversight, I'll pass, thanks. Don't even get me started on the Part D debacle and how most of the legislators supporting it went on to be bankrolled by the pharmaceutical companies.

I watched as the state of TN took Medicaid dollars and pooled them into several managed care programs. Anyone caring to take a look at that successful model, feel free to google "TennCare." It was a fiasco that left many covered individuals without medical care because the administration of the plans was so fucked up, providers stopped accepting patients if they were TNCare recipients.

Do I think we need a single payer system? Yes. Do I think that people such as my beloved Jess need to battle chronic, debilitating illness without consistent, proper, adequate medical care? No. Do I think that ANYONE should have to choose between healthcare and food? No. Do I want my government, who has a glorious way of fucking up the simplest of things, involved in the insurance coverage that my son depends on? No. I want a solution - a workable solution. Not a Band-Aid on a gushing artery.

I think this was another "throwing a bone" so that it looked good for midterm elections. I think it was a piss poor effort and would have rather our elected officials really grown a set of balls and went for the tougher fight of Single Payer. It really would have been worth it and not felt like we were sold out or that they settled yet once again.

If it weren't for the Party Of No, aka the Senate Republicans, filibustering virtually everything that has come through the Senate (they really have, go check for yourself) and refusing to sign on to absolutely anything the Obama supports, even if those same Republicans have written or sponsored the same language/ideas/concepts in the past, then we'd have real health reform. Instead, we have a few dozen people who are so hell bent on the black man in the white house failing that they will screw over this entire country and not give a rats ass.

Their latest slimy decision, buy the way, was to filibuster debate of Wall Street Reform in the Senate. They didn't filibuster a bill, they said we won't even allow this to be discussed on the floor of the Senate, in front of the American People. I officially have nothing nice to say to and/or about any Republican. The Senate Republicans are the scum of the earth, and anyone who supports them is swimming in the same scum.

I'm over it.

Amen and amen to all of that
 

But to be fair most Democrats are just as slimey as the Republicans. But to be fair, at this point the only decent handful of politicians in Washington right now are in the Democratic Party (and the Independent, Democratic/Socialist Bernie Sanders).

And I agree, anyone supporting any Republican at this time in our nations history is, in my opinion, a traitor to this country and should be treated accordingly. They are dragging us back to pre-revolution days. I honestly think that is what they mean when they say they want to "take our country back". Back to when women and blacks and any other minority were simply rich white men's property.

How these rich white men are (still) convincing poor people to fight for their rights to own them is baffling, just baffling to me. But then again when the only news and information available to these poor communities is Fox "News" and Rush Limbaugh....well, it does begin to make sense. Keep the poor people afraid of the other poor people so they never band together. It has worked for generation after generation.

in response
 

So, what this means it does not change what you have now - insurance co's being able to raise rates as much as they want. They were trying to raise rates 20-30-40% as this bill was being debated. But the change is that they can't drop you, like they had been doing.

So, if the co does drop it's plans, they better give that benefit money directly to the employee so they can shop for their own coverage. This may be helpful to getting us on the path to single payer. HC should not (in my opinion) be employer based. Hopefully you work at a union shop so the union can fight to make sure this happens (benefit $ goes directly to employees).

You know what the second most satisfied group of healthcare recipients are in the US? Recipients of Medicare. Know what the first is? Recipients of the VA. (Our Socialist Medicine). Know what the least satisfied is? Private Insurance.

Part D is what you get when Republicans are in charge. They care nothing, not one iota about human people, only corporate "persons". Period.

More Republicans in charge I imagine. Just a guess.

With all due respect, you just went off about how Government can't do it right? Who do want administering this single payer system? A private company? That answers to ....it's shareholders...not the people using it's service? Give me the Government (who I can fire at 2 year intervals if need be) running this system any day over a private company only out to make a profit, answerable only to the bottom line. That is how we got in this mess to begin with Healthcare (actually it's denial) for profit.


Again, you want a CEO making 7 million a year deciding your and your son's health care "coverage" People who rail against the government running things, I ask. So we should privatize everything? Is there nothing so precious to you that you want to have control (through the political process) over who gets to "control" it? You want everything to be about the bottom line and making sure someone makes a buck off it? Like corporations have not f-ed the country up (can we say a housing bubble that nearly destroyed this country? how about a military contractor that lost 9 billion dollars in cash and electrocuted our troops in the shower? how about giving away American's well paying jobs to communists so that their shareholders could make more money, geesh I could go on and on about predatory capitalism, talk about a gushing artery)

Whew! Enough.



Again, the contradiction. You hate the Government running things, but you want single payer. I don't get it. Please explain.

Key -

Thank you for your response. It was late when I responded and I am certain that I was not as clear as I could have been. My apologies. I see your responses and questions very valid and I will be back later to try and clarify.

C

Yeah, Rachel Maddow's whole show last night was done using the Republican image with the "just say no" thing written over it. Yes, the Republicans have attempted to stop everything being addressed by democrats ( along with a handful of dem's who have proven where they stand which is alongside the republicans).

here's the way I see it laid out now... We KNOW who is going to vote how on whatever issue comes down the pike, and like the healthcare law, there were enough votes to pass it. So why bother watering shit down anymore. You know you have enough votes, just do it, yes you can..yes you should...

I no longer have any faith in either of the primary parties and will seek independents who have a proven track record in their voting history to spend my vote on.

My reponses are in blue
 

I'm at your side. I can get ticked at some of the Dems and Obama, too (he is too moderate), but, the GOP of today has lost any semblance of a soul or conscience. Mostly a bunch of privileged white men that just can't take having an African American president above them.

I am wondering if the GOP is going to shoot itself in the foot with the latest antics concerning Wall Street Reform. Perhaps they might want to pull back on their cockiness about the mid-term election outcomes. Any immigration legislative proposals might also bring a very big onslaught of organized Democratic support among Latinos also with the AZ actions.

I don't always fall in with far-left or progressive ideology on everything, but, I am disgusted with the Republicans (and Blue Dog Dems), their wing-nut Teabag auxiliary and brainless cheerleader, Sister Sarah. Glenn Beck is nothing more than a propagator of domestic terrorism and even more vile and mentally disturbed than Limbaugh.

Health Care reform even in the form it ended up (far too moderate), will indeed make a big difference to me as it kicks in over the next few years. hell, if the only thing that was included was the pre-existing condition clauses, I would benefit even though I pay for my insurance myself in CA!

The corporate house of health care still needs to be hit, and hit hard by a single payer system! This is not a done deal and as all of the reform measures take place, people will see this, especially small business.

I'm curious can you explain what the difference between these are:

Scenario 1: There's a program that people can buy into. This pools the risk. Those who are healthy are, essentially, paying for those who are less healthy. By the time that you, yourself, become less healthy there are other people who have flowed into the system to pay for those who are less healthy which now includes you.

Scenario 2: There's program everyone contributes to. The population that is more healthy pays more into the system then they use in services. The population that is less healthy gets more in services then they are *currently* paying in.

Now, have I described an insurance policy, Medicare or single-payer national healthcare?

The thing is, that description could more or less apply to *any* of them!

So my question is this:

Why is it that if in one scenario, a large, corporation is making profits beyond the dreams of avarice it is a Good Thing (r) and the way the world should work but if in another scenario it is the government that is paying the health care providers that is 'tax payers paying for other's health care'. Both are pools of risk, the two seem pretty much the same as far as I can tell. The *difference* is this: Aetna has one goal and that is to make a profit. If, in the course of doing so, someone happens to get needed medical attention no one at Aetna will shed a tear. But if there is SOME way to deny your claim, they will.

Now, as far as paying for others. In my department, there are a bunch of middle-aged folks, with middle-aged people's problems, and a number of twenty-somethings. The fact of the matter is, the twenty-somethings are *paying* for us middle-aged people. The kids, as we call them, hardly use their healthcare at all while us old farts use it rather often. Should the kids be able to pull out of the insurance because it'll be a decade before they start using the health insurance in a manner closer to what us older folks do?