The Smiley Smile Message Board

1. Action and words.

President Obama:
June 15, 2009: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan. Period.”

August 22, 2009: If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period.”

September 9, 2009: “Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this. Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.”


2. Reaction.

Envelope I received in the mail this morning (name blocked out):

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/env1a_zps46e13cb7.jpg)


3. Consequence.

The letter inside that envelope which advertised "exciting changes" to my current plan (name blocked out):

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/env2a_zps76e6b6a7.jpg)



Simple as that. I can't keep my current plan. Exciting.

Obama and his acolytes are intellectual and social pygmies. A turd is still a turd, and Obamacare is definitely a turd.

In my area this thing is a friggin disaster.

Basically there are so many fees, penalties, taxes this thing entails, the local university (major employer in my area) has to change plans (in a huge way) to keep costs down from what they previously were.

I'm all for affordable healthcare (and the republicans are idiots for not coming up with/endorsing any plan that would fix America's healthcare problem) but it seems that Obamacare is not the solution that was promised.

You want affordable health care? Get rid of any and all government involvement. Government turns everything it touches into garbage. I'm waiting for when health care in this country becomes bad on an NHS level...then maybe the pinko pygmies with their dreams of socialism will wise up - that is, if they're not dead.

yeah, government isn't the best for running health care, but everyone deserves  to have it in this country.
No sense putting the blame on the insurance companies that took off running and decided to cancel the policies and upchareg everybody they possibly can.
No ," It's all the fault of Obamacare". 
Please. Instead, let's shoot ALL the insurance execs, until they start caring for folks instead of trying to shiv them
That would be a good start towards Universal health care

And THAT is the other major issue. The insurance companies ARE part of the problem, but they only became such when government began sticking its nose into health care. Insurance was originally intended for catastrophic incidents, not regular trips to the doctor for the sniffles and scrapes and the prescriptions to go with them. It's a multifaceted issue. Intellectual property laws are the main reason that prescription drugs are so expensive, on top of the ridiculous regulations that go into making them.

Americans want to have their cake and eat it too. There is no right to health care.

It wasn't that long ago.  Just a few decades... we used to have "ole' Doc Brown" stopping in to check little Timmy in the pouring rain, at 2 am, if need be.  After all, Timmy is too sick to be out in the rain.  Carrying his little black bag and stethoscope and a warm smile, walking upstairs and into Timmy's room, putting his hand on his forehead, and saying "he's alright now Mrs Williams.  Just make sure he gets his rest."

(http://ohiohousecalls.com/img/HouseCallOld.jpg)



Enter the gubment.  Why?  It stuck its dirty finger in our collective rear-end and started mucking with a perfectly healthy and sustainable industry.

Sure enough, it all changed.  Doc Brown was replaced with a nameless, faceless INSURANCE company logo.  Sure, you still saw the Doc... but you didn't pay him.  Not like you pay your grocer, another essential service.  No, now you paid some middle man -- a very expensive middle man.  Makes sense right?  Only if you're mentally insane (or a socialist) does it make sense.

With the one-on-one free market relationship out of the way -- aka Doc Brown -- the government's second goal was poised to detonate.  OVERLOADED these companies with all the "small-claims" stuff.  We all know the drill.  Co-pays, forms... BIG bills for routine sh-t.  You see, the insurance companies didn't mind... they got ALL the business.  And they didn't have to be "consumer friendly" and competitive... cuz, you had no choice.

(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/105754/thumbs/s-HEALTH-CARE-FORMS-large.jpg)



Which brings us to today.  ObamaCare.  Their FINAL SOLUTION [cue thunder clap].  It's goal is to finish the deal.  DESTROY and REPLACE the insurance industry.  And why not?  No one enjoys the experience.

Well, the insurance companies have now stopped -- and lifted their collective heads from the feeding trough.  They're well-fed -- fat, full and "surprised" by the government knife in their back.  "I thought we had a deal!" They all say that.



So, now they're squirming.  Twitching like a dying patient being administered some ghastly, lethal solution.  They're dropping people, switching things around... trying desperately to survive the tangled nightmare of The Affordable Healthcare Act.  The chaos is just beginning.  How long they have, who knows.  Once your employer drops your plan... you'll have a better idea of the timing.


Pretending this bill is anything else is lacking in sophistication and savvy.  "The Affordable Healthcare Act" is not about caring for sick people.  It's not about providing healthcare, much less "affordable healthcare."  This man is lying...

(http://online.wsj.com/media/Obama_Fly_D_20100622185500.jpg)

It's bad enough that the past few regimes had the young paying off "the Greatest Generation's" social security and now this regime will have the young paying off the Obamacare debt ad nauseam.

The baby boomers can't die soon enough. Those cocksuckers are the ones who started this mess...

The full effects of this will be felt when the details of this plan start hitting home, and folks like me who are content to pay their bills and premiums on time start receiving letters like the one I received in the mail. I went to sleep Monday having paid my premium for October, I woke up Tuesday to a letter telling me my plan was discontinued and now I'd need to shop around for other options.

Someone, please, tell me why I should be anything less than infuriated at this development?

Whatever you feel about the ideology surrounding this, just take a moment to see what happened in my case, and research just a bit more of what could be on the way for you and your family currently being covered by an insurance plan.

I knew this was coming, let's just say the letter was addressed to "BENEFITS MANAGER" above my name, and I've been informed of this kind of thing directly through that network.

But when you actually get a letter saying your coverage is being terminated, and you'll need to shop for another plan after being ASSURED and PROMISED  that this would not be something to worry about, it's like a punch in the gut.

Before you get a similar punch in the gut with your own benefits plan(s), and count on the fact that it's coming no matter how secure it seems to be in the present moment, get ready for it by asking loads of questions and demanding specific answers on what effect this will have on *you*.

It's fine to view it ideologically or theoretically in order to debate and discuss, but the bottom line is that these are financial decisions being made which will affect your life, and if you don't know what's coming, you'd better soon ask and find out so you can plan for it before you get a letter or a memo from your company's H.R. department delivering the news.

I'm just one out of apparently many small-business or independent business folks who received this same cancellation letter from the same health organization in the past few weeks in my area. And no one is "excited" about the changes. At least I expected the punch in the gut, but that doesn't make it any less painful if you know it's coming.

Ultimately, that is the issue GuitarFool.  Sandbox regulars should hopefully be among the more aware -- and prepared, to the degree anyone can.

ObamaCare - Free HealthCare 4 Ever! Hip-hip...hooray!? (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,14738.0.html)

I'm suggesting that anyone reading this stuff here who is currently a member of a health insurance plan take the initiative and start asking questions about the effects this will have on their own insurance coverage. Whatever the ideology, whether you think this Affordable Care Act is terrific or terrible, make no mistake *it will affect you and your families directly* in the coming year.

I posted this originally out of personal frustration and to show specifically what happened to me personally. There are direct consequences to what is going on. I thought having paid up, and holding a plan I was content with paying for every month, I'd be able to continue renewing as I have for years and not worry about shopping around for a new plan as is happening this week. I was wrong. There is more to it than whichever ideological bent you see being expressed by the talking heads.

Ask the questions now. I'll repeat, if you are insured through an employer, go to the HR department and ask questions about what they see ahead for your specific coverage. If you, like me, are either a small business owner, an independent contractor, or someone who just buys their own insurance coverage through a group or an organization (or directly from an insurer), ask the questions now.

Keep in mind some of the effects have been delayed by presidential directives that somehow amended this law to exclude, exempt, and in the case of large businesses which employ larger numbers of workers, delayed for one year the implementation of this law...yet for individuals, such exemptions don't exist. Fair?

One of those potential effects is that if a worker has his/her family insured through an employer's coverage, and that employer decides to no longer cover the family members but only the worker actually employed at the company, the spouse may need to go to the "exchanges" to purchase their own coverage. And if they do attempt to purchase it, there may be a stipulation within the law that the spouse will *not* be eligible for any of the subsidies which are mentioned as a way to bring the individual costs down, due to that person's spouse being covered by their employer's insurance. Be prepared to adjust your budget, as a working couple with or without kids, should this happen. Set aside a few extra hundred every month to pay this, anywhere between 250-1,000 depending on coverage, as if it's that easy.

Which means, potentially, your monthly family budget will be affected if such a scenario should take effect.

And about that budget in general, in my situation, the comparable coverage which I now need to shop around for to replace my terminated plan will, in fact, be considerably more expensive based on the components and coverage levels of that plan than what I've been paying. In my case, it's again the exact opposite of what I was told when I heard this will bring down costs for individuals. It's just not true, take it from me as a person and not a statistic or poll.

There will be direct consequences of all this, and it will affect *you* directly. If folks in the near future find that changes have been made to what they thought was a stable health plan (like me on Monday), and those changes affect your weekly and monthly budget if not your bottom line in general (like me on Tuesday), don't be surprised when it happens, instead be prepared and get the specific facts now before you get punched in the gut, too.

Hopefully you guys can all see this; this is from the HealthCare.gov Facebook page. If the OP is being truthful this "Affordable Care Act" is diabolical.

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/q71/s720x720/526471_558248367581413_123371616_n.jpg)

That is one example out of many we'll be hearing about soon. Scary, isn't it? But now we can have a better idea of how and why the IRS is such a key player in administering this law. The IRS has the power to do just those things when someone doesn't pay their federal taxes. They can seize assets, including homes and bank accounts, and if you're being accused by the IRS you do not have the right to fight the accusations in front of a judge, as you would in a criminal or civil case.

Now let's address anyone who may be doubtful of that man's authenticity, or the accuracy of his story. Even if it turns out to be something other than real, or is fact-checked to reveal that's the case, look at the numbers. Those costs for such a plan, for such an individual are pretty much accurate to what these plans will cost.

The example is for a diabetic, income higher than what would qualify for the subsidy, second-to-lowest tier plan option through these exchanges would be around 600 dollars per month to carry that coverage.

That's about right - the lowest tier (bronze) is estimated to start at just over 200 dollars per month, give or take.

If you currently cannot afford or simply do not have insurance, and sign up for the lowest-tier coverage, let's average it out and say if you're around 30 you'll be paying somewhere around 250 or 300 a month in the higher cost areas.

You're now going to be mandated to sign up for such a plan. If you make in the neighborhood of under 40,000 annually and are single, you'll qualify for a subsidy from the government in the form of having a percentage of that cost taken out of your taxable federal income due on April 15.

What no one seems to be mentioning is whether it will be handled like a tax return, and processed as a tax return after you file with the IRS.

If that is the case, and you're 30 making about 35,000 a year and currently not insured, you had better prepare your finances and your budget to be able to pay that additional 250-300 and up per month for this lowest-tier coverage. Because your "discount", ostensibly coming through the IRS channels, will be handled like a tax return overpayment at the end of the year and not seen as a reduced monthly premium.

If I'm wrong, please correct. If I'm right, make sure your budget or salary each month is increased by at least 200 dollars if you're currently uninsured and signing up for this, or else the IRS will be on your case.

Gold and silver just became a very smart move, that's for sure. This ship's going down and it can't sink fast enough...

"There is no right to health care???"

But I have to pay taxes, right?

f*** THAT!

We paid more for Iraq/Afghanistan in tax $$ then it would take to pay for whatever the hell bad turn our health might take from here on out.... There needs to be some payback! Healthy citizens make for healthy tax payers. It's like wanting your cake and also wanting to leave it out to spoil and gather flies.... IDIOCY!

As long as we as a people allow healthcare to be just one more source of corporate profit and allow our own health to be a mere commodity: WE WILL ONLY GET EXACTLY WHAT WE DESERVE!

Misplaced rage, man. It really is becoming THE problem on the street.

Good post.

In the USA, there is a price for everything. Even things that you can't put a price on.

And i've said this before, but the USA is such an angry confused place.

It's quite ironic that at our most savage: on the battlefield, Medics give aid not only to their own soldiers, but to civilians (whom they owe nothing to) and enemy survivors..... But put a bunch of us on our fat, smug, contented asses in a US City and all bets are off! ....

"No right to healthcare" .... That's quite an insult to all the humanitarian good work that's gone on through history in our undeserving name.

No one should have to pay taxes. You're preaching to the choir on the war issue. For some reason you seem to assume that since I don't support Obamacare that I supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you'd be wrong. Although if you're worried about health care being an issue of corporate profits, then Obamacare is about the best thing that could have happened since Obamacare is nothing more than a GIANT handout to the insurance companies.

But I stand behind the fact that there is no right to health care - you have a right to PURSUE health care as that is you exercising your right to liberty and property; you seek to acquire a good from someone selling. But health care as a "right" is an example of a positive right - it requires taking from one to give to another. It is an example of force and coercion. It is immoral and an infringement upon individual rights to life, liberty, and property.

No, I don't assume a thing in regards to you supporting Iraq or not, I was making a standalone point....

And sure, man. You wanna believe there is no right to health care and that any/all related actions are a product being sold, that's your choice! Have fun with it!

healthcare is a giant opportunity for ingenuity of the highest caliber ...... but of course people would rather stroke their fetishistic fear of big bad words like socialism!!!!

"taking from one and giving to another" ...... Sure, if that's the way YOU choose to view it.

Once again: I come upon you at the bottom of some cliff where you've fallen hiking and you're gasping "help "help" ..... I can help but I pull out your wallet and you've no cash and I um, don't take credit cards.... Sorry, bro! Help yourself! ...... That is your reality, so I'd fully expect you to understand with no hard feelings.

wow that's a bad situation. I feel very sorry for you guys healthcare-wise.
Lucky for me, i've got it free, with no taxes. Let the good times roll  :woot

We're getting into philosophical and theoretical differences now. That's fine, but how about sharpening that focus onto the actual events that are taking place around the Affordable Care Act?

These are things that are actually happening to people, real people. I'm one of them. As my correspondence from the insurer are addressed "Benefits Manager", I'm speaking direct from the source. It's not repeating and regurgitating talking points, or things heard on Sean Hannity's or Rachel Maddow's TV shows, it's coming from what's really going on.

That's the whole point. Take that initiative and find out what's happening to *you* as a result of this. How will it affect your own coverage, and your own finances? That's the big stuff. Whether or not someone agrees with the philosophy is getting away from the real consequences of all this that's going on.

If we'd rather focus on debating ideology, that's fine but it's not going to do a damn thing when you get that notice in the mail or from your employer telling you what's going to happen to your insurance. Or when you get your 2013 tax forms and find all kinds of new sections to fill out regarding your heath care. Or when you find out your current monthly budget of whatever it may be will need to be adjusted to add potentially hundreds of dollars to cover the individual mandate to carry health insurance.

Distractions take it further from what's going on. Look at the details and the effects to come from all of these changes. They will affect everyone.

I guarantee it.

And on those details, we're only scratching the surface. Was it Al Jolson who used to say "you ain't seen nothin' yet!"? Or am I thinking Bachman Turner Overdrive?  :-D

Does anyone living in the US reading this thread use tobacco? Cigars, pipes, cigarettes, dip/snuff, Red Man, etc? Don't answer that.

Just make sure you get a fat wallet stuffed with a few extra hundred each month before you get your first bill for these coverage plans. More to come.

Oh, I agree with both of you guys and I am digging into the details as we speak.... I just happen to think things/mentalities like "There is no right to healthcare" is just a way of conceding defeat! I mean, with that outlook all you can hope for is your health is in the hands or the Government or the "free" market..... And bitching does one's health no good as it is.

Until it hits them PERSONALLY, most won't understand.  This was the intent of the thread I created last fall -- to share the realities of the theft WE WILL ALL GET.  I figured, it would be tough to argue reality (read that thread for a good chuckle (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,14738.0.html)).  But until they get theirs, they think it's about taking money from mythical evil corporations and "fat cats" and giving to the poor and needy.  Most people STILL THINK it's about healthcare.  It's a heist, folks.  A heist.  The shows over.  They made a copy of our vault... (if you're a fan of Oceans 11.)

It was ALWAYS about keeping people down and taking their sht.  That's what CRIMINALS do.  THEY TAKE PEOPLE'S SHT.  They never ask please, or say thank you -- and they sure as fck don't "spread the loot" and give it to others.  When have thieves ever shared the loot!?


You're not going to get that money back.  None of us are.  This brand of CRIMINAL is so depraved they even insult your intelligence while they do it.  They would steal your car and tell you "it's for affordable transportation, btch."  Azzholes.

The people that did this have a name.  They go by the name of "Democrats."  They've wanted this for a looong time.  The Republicans (save a few brave, good souls) have been lame, unable to muster anything to stop it.  But make no mistake, it is the Democrats.

It's a heist for sure! It's pointless to split hairs over who's doing the stealing be it the big bad government, the evil corporations, or scumbag Obama, for they are all one and the same.

Bean, as long as you endlessly blame the Democrats and Liberals endlessly blame Republicans: you/they are part of the problem.... By blaming the Democrats, you are doing EXACTLY what they want you to be doing! "They" being both Democrats/Republicans, of course.

You are 100% correct, mind you, but if we don't get beyond the labels, we're f***ed.

I don't know exactly what you're reading about the NHS (probably The Daily Mail), but it's pretty clear that the major failings of the system come from crucial services being sold to corporations like Serco and Atos*, who then f*** it up trying to cut every single corner for profit, not from government, and that this quasi-privatisation comes from exactly the ideology you preach - for example, the recent debacle about NHS 111, explained on a handy nonleftistevilstatemediailluminaticonspiracy Channel 4 Dispatches doc.  This explains a fair bit, I recall http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/23/who-will-hold-nhs-contractors-to-account. Or just google NHS Serco. Hip hip fuckin Hooray for the private sector.

*Atos, most famous for judging heavily disabled people on benefits 'fit to work' whilst sponsoring the Olympic Paralympic (doh) Games.  

Yours, from Socialist Nirvana,

Hype

Something caught my attention late last night, to temporarily shift away from the topic here. There was a headline when i went to log in for my email about how many people were visiting these health care websites and how that proved it's "popularity"...something like that. Unfortunately the headline has since been taken down.

Check this out as an example of the kind of hype and overstatement that we're getting as "news".

This is the original piece from the LA Times, for the record: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-california-health-exchange-glitches-20131001,0,7108713.story (http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-california-health-exchange-glitches-20131001,0,7108713.story)

And the timeline of all that led up to this can still be found on various news sites, they're still up but who knows for how long.

To sum it all up, California was expected to have one of the largest participation rates of any state in the US. Their "exchange" headquarters is named "Covered California", and is where you would either call or visit on the web in order to sign up.

So, here it goes:

News reports were trumpeting how 5 million Californians had visited the "Covered" website to enroll. This, they said, was proof of how popular the Affordable Care Act was, how many people were flocking to the site to get in. Very much like the headline that appeared as i checked my email.

OK, I thought, there's some hype there.

So the news reports are spreading, the AP wire service picks up the 5 million number and spreads it around national news outlets as "proof", etc.

Then the "Covered CA" website glitched so bad it had to be taken down for emergency repairs...it happens, no big deal. People were still signing up, they said, as soon as the site went live again. "Waiting" to enroll, was one report.

Now the truth:

It was not 5 million hits...rather, it was 500,000. That's an error of 4.5 million. There are quotes from both a state health official AND a spokesperson from Covered California reporting the 5 million number...who is getting the blame? The spokesperson, of course, they "misspoke" or had a "misunderstanding" of the number they were given.

Let's see: 5 million, versus five hundred thousand. Yeah, that's easy to confuse those figures. Fact-check, then report.

Then: Ok, they got 500,000 website hits. How many people applied? Estimated at just under 8,000. That's how many filled out and pressed "send" on a completed e-form application.

So how many people were actually enrolled in the health care plan?

ZERO.

That's 0.

Why or how did no one manage to enroll in California? The word is that the staff members working at "Covered California" and other related organizations were not trained to actually process the applications or to, more importantly, actually sign people up for the coverage plans. No word on how long that process will take.

And there it is. The kind of reporting we're getting around this where 5 million is proof how popular this plan was upon roll-out, then the actual figure is 500,000 due to a "misstatement", and the fact that no one could actually enroll because no one was trained to enroll them becomes a footnote if it's reported at all.

Good times.  :)

I agree about labels.  Usually, they're dangerous.  It can divert attention from the real concepts (that I care about anyway), which is ruler VS. citizen.  Not Republican/Democrat or Right/Left -- those are moving targets.  Secondly, people can easily assume attacking one is an endorsement of the other -- and a defensive posture may result, leading to a hardening of label loyalties.

Therefore, I'm careful to come down so definitively on a party.   But, I think on this particular issue, the Democrats own it.  And I don't want to insult anyone's intelligence pretending I see it otherwise.  As the Democrats had hoped, the issue was becoming more vague as time went on -- "ruler VS. citizen" -- all thanks to Benedict John McCain, Mitch McConnell and John Boner -- who appeared to go along, even in their "opposition."  Haze and confusion is good for criminals.

But Ted Cruz (and a few others) have helped make sure that the distinction remained clear.  No Republicans wanted this bill, and Ted Cruz reaffirmed that.  And to your point, I'm sure even many Democrats didn't want it either.  But they went along.  The unions can squirm themselves to hell.

So, in this case, slapping a party label on this nightmare is beneficial -- because Obamacare is not on the ballot.  If it were, we wouldn't be talking about it.  And to be fair to the OP, allowing this to descend (or ascend) into the "ruler VS. citizen" -- the theoretical discussion of the role of government -- is not the issue.  This is "go time."  It's real now.

http://www.dontfundobamacare.com/

In the case of labels and labeling people, yes it's something to get beyond but in the specific case of the Affordable Care Act, the facts of how it came to be signed into law are a crucial part of the narrative. To sum it up, yes indeed the Democratic party owns this bill from start to finish.

Here's how:

The negotiations which were announced would be "open" were done behind closed and locked doors as democratic members of congress worked on the details. The doors were locked - physically locked - when republicans tried to get involved in the meetings.

The eventual vote in the senate, taken on Christmas Eve 2009, was 58 democrats and 2 independents voting for it, and every republican voting against it (Jim Bunning was not present for the vote).

The vote in the house to approve the senate's bill was 219 democrats voting for it, 178 republicans (all of them) voting against it, and 34 democrats also voting against it.

The president, a democrat, signed the bill into law.

If we tally that up, not a single republican voted for the Affordable Care Act.

The democrats do, in fact, "own" this law from beginning to end in the usual "bill becomes law" government process.

So it is entirely within reason, I'd argue essential, to point out that in this case, the labels point to who was almost solely responsible for making this a law, and thus the democrats in this case are held accountable and responsible for its creation and results.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/03/need-health-care-coverage-just-dial-1-800-fuckyo-to-reach-obamacares-national-hotline/

I'd expect no less from this criminal bastard's regime...in this regard, they do not disappoint.

Er... sure about that?  :lol


Ok, wow, that site is written so stupidly I immediately assumed it was satire! With such headlines as 'Shutdown drives women into arms of older men', 'There's apparently a high school twerk team now', opinion pieces of such wisdom like 'The Income Tax: A century is enough', and a separate section for Guns & Gear!

The truth is stranger than fiction, I suppose!

Bottom line, once again: If we're not pushing for universal/"free" healthcare: we've no right to complain because it will ONLY be bad otherwise.

Free market blinded-by-the-lighters get to blame the Democrats/Obama for how awful our healthcare situation is, the rest of use get to blame corporations/Republicans (going way way back) AND Obama/Democrats..... It's one giant bitch-fest to well suit the worst parts of our nature that need constant stroking.... No one 's fooling anyone here and we've only ourselves to blame.

You're seeing the direct results and consequences of *this specific law*, and I'm just one of many who is not covered by a large corporation or company who received a one-year delay in implementation where they and their plans ARE NOT REQUIRED to comply with the Affordable Care Act until next year.

Again, it's not just me: Whether it's being reported or not, my insurance company which is the major player in my area has been dropping coverage plans for thousands of people in my area and otherwise.

The Affordable Care Act by design had certain components which would, effectively, create a set of standards sometimes based on the smallest details in a wide-ranging plan and then do full "audits" of the plans people were buying under their private insurance and declare them to be "non-compliant".

Which based on what I know through the companies is EXACTLY how my and thousands of others' plans in my own group got terminated and we received that bullshit about the bronze-silver-gold-platinum plans which will...listen to this please...

OFFER LESS COVERAGE, HIGHER DEDUCTIBLES, AND HIGHER MONTHLY RATES THAN WHAT WE WERE RECEIVING BEFORE. This is truth, this is reality, this isn't bullshit, this isn't a "talking point" - it's the way it is.

Hey, enjoy your one-year temporary reprieve from this if you're part of a big company or one that received an exemption from this, because this is affecting everyone's plan at some point in the future if it survives as it exists now.

If you're OK with potentially paying hundreds of dollars more for health insurance each month after your own group's coverage is deemed "non-compliant" with the ACA, then replacements are offered which cost more and offer less than what you had, cough up the extra cash with a smile and a feel-good notion that you're helping someone else.

I can't afford that right now, unfortunately, it's the only option I have.

And if it bothers some to see that one party and one party alone in this case brought all of this on, too bad. Someone needs to answer for this, because it just isn't fucking right to affect people who are working and paying for their insurance and are not part of the "exempt" groups who don't need to give a sh*t about changing anything. At what point does it become a more attractive option to just say "f*** it" and drop out entirely if doing the right thing and paying your bills gets you kicked in the ass through no choice or fault of your own?

f*** it, indeed. No, f*** those who lied about this bill in order to sell it to an ignorant or brainwashed public as the best solution. f*** 'em. If you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage? Sure. Ask me about that.

I can give more specifics on this 'compliance' thing too, again it was no accident and it was part of what looks more like a scheme than a solution at this point.

It's stunning to me that people didn't realize that this was about money.  The government no longer exists (or maybe never did) to help people, or protect people, it exists to take money from people.  People earn money.  People creat money.  The government can't create, or earn, money.  They have to take it.  It's the only way they can get their hands on it.

Every bill, law, whatever that the gubment comes up with is just designed to get their hands on more money.  Period. 

The insurance companies wrote the bill.  Insurance companies exist to make money.  None of this harms insurance companies, they came up with it! 

The whole point of the law, is to force you to sign a contract with an insurance company.  Nevermind that this voids contract law, since it's inception... I mean the basic tenant of contract law is that both parties AGREE to sign the contract.  You can't FORCE somebody to sign a contract, it negates the contract.

Anyways, I digress.

Now, you're forced to sign an insurance contract.  No prob.  Hell, I already had insurance!  What do i care that I HAVE to now, right?  I mean it just makes sense that we have insurance.  If you don't sign the contract.... that's alright, you just have to give the government a bunch of money. 

Butttt wait, it's not quite that simple.  For some reason, my insurance rates went up.  I'm not paying for all kinds of sh*t, like maternity insurance (I'm a 35 year old single male), mental health insurance (I'm too crazy to go see a psychiatrist) and all kinds of other sh*t I'll never use.  Who gets the extra money I'm paying for that?

Innnnsurance companies.  Who wrote the law.

Yet, year after year, this country votes for bigger and bigger government.  Our president goes to congress every few months, and says "Hey! I need to borrow more money from China!" and we let him.  Over and over again.  Then we re-elect him.  We deserve what we get.  Socialism will destroy this country as it's destroyed great countries around the world, we were naieve to think we're any different. 

BTW, as for a 'right to healthcare', you can't assert a right to have another human being do something for you.  You have a right to talk.  You have a right to assemble.  You have a right to own property.  You have a right to pursue happiness.  You do not have a right to make Doctor Jenkins down the street put his stethascope on you.

I'm not disagreeing with you here but you also have a right to affordable options if, say you have an accident or a heart attack or need treatment for cancer. What the Health Insurance companies need is proper legislation by an official watchdog. Proper laws that protect the customer. No small print that lets them hike up your premiums or change the terms of your policy. No trying to weasel out of payouts. Fines and punishments that would legally f*** them so hard in the ass if they were to do so that they would have no choice but to play fair.
And if you really feel you can't afford private healthcare insurance then OPTIONAL taxation to pay into Government sponsored Health Programs.
It shouldn't get to the point where you have John Q forcing a specialist to operate on his child at gunpoint. 

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4046470

Not that I expect some of you on the right to be moved.

I can't think of anything more grotesque than forcing people to do something they don't want to do under threat of violence.

No one wishes to see people suffering because of medical conditions, "left" or "right", and no one wishes to see people burdened with financial hardships. But the Huffington Post is being dishonest to the readers by linking those stories to what has been discussed in this thread.

First, one of the major issues for me and others in my situation is that we could afford insurance, we paid for that coverage based on the levels we chose, and now due to the Affordable Care Act the federal government audited all of those coverage plans and in a sweeping move found ways to declare them "not in compliance" with what they mandated the new standards are. So instead of me paying for a better individual plan that suited my needs perfectly and had as a key element a low deductible should I ever need hospitalization or emergency care, the new options labeled bronze-silver-gold-platinum will cost me considerably more and offer not only reduced benefits but also a much higher deductible.

In one man's case very similar to mine, in my area and covered under almost the exact plan I just had terminated due to these new compliance standards, the closest coverage he had available from this week's exchanges carried a deductible of $5,500. Which in simple terms means that if he went into the hospital, *he would be responsible for paying $5,500 out of pocket towards his bills* before the coverage kicked in.

I was in the hospital for an emergency in fall 2008, actually in that same week ended up in the ER twice. The coverage I had was perfect - I had paid for a low deductible, which had already been met, therefore tests like CAT scans and a spinal tap which added up to 5-figures were paid by my insurance.

If in Fall 2008 I had the "silver" or the "gold" plan, whatever the case, I would have been hit with a bill for over 5,000 dollars which would have, at that time, effectively bankrupted me in the short term, as the timing coincided with a slowdown in business after the financial collapse. In fact, it was in the ER waiting room on one of those visits that I saw some of that news breaking about the economy going in the tank.

So, I hope folks don't get sick.

And, I hope folks realize that what those people experienced on the Huffington video isn't quite connected with the plans that just got introduced and made available through the online exchanges just this week.

Unless their individual stories involved them signing up this Tuesday, getting enrolled and approved for coverage, and then having that coverage solve all the issues they were facing...all in the span of 4 days?

It's the implementation of this plan we're hashing out here, the already negative effects that have begun to take effect by government decisions on thousands which will soon be on millions who currently have a plan they like, and things like the individual mandate to carry insurance and the outright lies that people in the so called "lower to middle class" workforce are being told about what's ahead.

But for those folks in the photos and videos, it's tough to connect a roll-out of coverage options through government exchanges with their stories in a span of five days or less that the new "affordable" exchanges have been running.

Changes needed to be made, no doubt. Eliminating pre-existing conditions as a factor for being insured was a major one, and that got addressed.

But the financial effects of the full scope of this law will be felt by so many people, that the stories of someone who got qualified for government assistance like Medicaid will far outnumber those people who will now need to find a means to pay potentially hundreds of dollars more for worse coverage than they've had before all of this really takes effect.

Huffington is confusing the issues surrounding the implementation with issues that were not related to the new coverage standards rolled out this week, and it's just being dishonest to the readers. The solutions to those peoples' problems related to health care are not related to the issues we're discussing, the issues I'm relating from personal experience, and the issues that have arisen as the new standards for coverage were introduced just this week.

But give it time, everyone who has health care now will feel the effects of all this, and that dose of reality will outweigh the politics, the ideology, and the grandstanding when it takes money from your own pocket.

I can't think of anything more grotesque than people being left to suffer and die because they can't afford exorbitant insurance fees.

If again tonight there are people shot in a gang fight or turf war over drug corners or any other beef between rivals on the streets of Philly or Chicago, the gang members themselves let's say are the ones wounded, they get taken to the emergency room and given emergency treatment, followed up by intensive care in an effort to save their lives. Who pays the bill?

Is that my problem? Or yours? Whose problem is it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usN3rpfFoGA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usN3rpfFoGA)

It's not society's problem, either.

A persons bank balance shouldn't determine whether they live or die.

I mean, yeah, that must be so great for them. I bet they really like stealing your tax dollars by getting shot. Thug Life.

Whoa Hypehat. It was their fault for being born in an inner city slum, raised by a single parent, and given sh*t education because of their locale.

This Darwinist mentality has turned me off of Libertarianism a lot (which I used to fully support). I don't believe in handouts, I think people should work their ass off if they want to own nice things. But ALL people should be allowed to have affordable healthcare....just like they're allowed the right to a good education. Educated and healthy citizens are the centerpiece for a prosperous nation.

*edit: with that said, I think Obamacare is garbage. I know a lot of people in Guitarfool's shoes that are going through a lot of crap now because of this bill.

I think we just disagree on semantics.  You don't have a right to affordable anything, including healthcare, IN MY OPINION.

Should you have affordable options? Yes, should the government regulate the insurance industry? yes.  I just don't feel it's a 'right'.  It's a 'need'.  I 'need' a doctor to help me, I don't have the 'right' to have a doctor help me. 

couple points

Guitarfool, your posts illustrate an interesting point.  I have insurance (that I pay for) that is much different than yours, and is what I chose to get.  I never get sick and i'm at an age and a health where I haven't been to the hospital in 15 years.  For me, what was important was that I have coverage that will help me if something disasterous like a heart attack, or car accident happens.  So I purposefully bought insurance with a high deductible.  If I have a heart attack, I have 5 grand or so to pay out of pocket, but I won't have to worry about hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bills.  This works well for me.

With this new law, though, folks like you are having your plans changed, and folks like me are having our rates raised.  In the end we have less choices.


-----------------------------

Story time.

My mother developed cancer several years ago, and had an emergency situation at work.  She was rushed to the hospital, and was there for a week or so.  She had emergency surgery (her colon burst).  She had a colostomy, and was sent home.  A nurse came by everyday and helped her with that.  She got all the supplies for it mailed to the house; 9 months later she had a surgery to reverse the colostomy.  She met with dietricians, physical therapy instructors, scores of doctors.  Had a panel of doctors meet and determine what they thought the best treatement for her cancer was.  Had a surgery to install a valve to administer the chemo with... had a laserscopic surgery to treat the tumour in her brain.  Got treatment she had never even heard of for about 6 years, and then passed away.

she didn't pay a dime, because she didn't have any money.    She literally, had the best treatement in the world, with no waiting lines, and didn't have a penny to her name.  I must have met 20 or 30 professionals who were some of the kindest, most educated beautiful people I've ever met in my life who helped her out over and over and over again. 

So all this noise about uninsured people, and how people die without treatment, and all this crap is baloney.  My mother lived through it, she was dirt poor and was treated like a queen from the moment she had an issue until her life was over. 

The Real Beach Boy mentioned a hypothetical situation where a drug dealing gang member gets shot before they have the chance to shoot their rival - why on earth would you care if scum like this live or die? And why would you want to pay to save them?

Obamacare is a political scam to support incompetent professional cliques and a drug cult.
Insurance companies are ruthless businesses posing as a "mutual aid society" that makes over ten billion dollars in profit every year.
The Medical Services Industry is NOT healthcare. Its success depends on a culture of disease and pathologizing.

Viva Asclepius!
Viva Paracelsus!

The point I made about that example - and it happens several times each week in cities like Philly which is my reference point as the major city closest to me - is that when such events happen, the emergency responders and the local hospitals do not leave these people to suffer and die. They receive emergency care, usually intensive care, and follow up care to save their lives. The way the original statement was worded made it seem like some people would be left to suffer and die based on who or where they were, and that's simply not true if not a gross exaggeration of how things are.

And, again I ask who pays the bill?

What I don't think people realize is that there are and have been "safety net" type of programs that kick in for certain situations where those in poverty require life-saving care or care in general. It falls under the banner of the "Medicaid" program, for the most part, and is essentially subsidized care for those under a certain income level. Who pays the medical bills when a child is born to a mother in poverty with no insurance and living under the poverty level? Is it the same program that pays for the guy who gets shot committing a robbery or in the middle of a turf war over which group can sell on a certain city street?

Who pays for it? It's a similar safety net as the food stamp program, and the early-childhood and postnatal programs, and similar programs.

If you don't believe me, look it up.

But don't make it sound like a case of people in the recent years leading up to this Affordable Care Act being left to die because they didn't have insurance or who they are. That's simply not true.

And the irony of all of this is the bill was apparently to allow those under the poverty level to buy and carry their own affordable insurance, yet under this plan those who cannot afford even the most basic coverage even after the subsidies are taken out will end up on the same Medicaid-style government assistance program.

Which means many of those in poverty who we've been told under this plan will have affordable insurance will be on the same assistance programs like Medicaid that would currently cover them now because they don't have the income to afford it, even without the ACA.

Make sense?

Ron, I have similar experiences on both parts of your post. In my 20's, I worked off and on for companies that offered insurance, and when I was off pursuing my music and trying to live the dream of playing in a band for a living (  :) ) there were periods of months at a time between these 'day jobs' that I didn't carry insurance. Or if I did it was like you describe a high-deductible plan that was similar to the minimum auto insurance plans or homeowners insurance on your house: You paid for it not to be used regularly but which would be there for you if something catastrophic were to happen. Once the deductible was met, you would not risk getting bills in the tens of thousands of dollars based on the coverage you paid for every month.

Your point must be amplified: This was my *choice*, this is your *choice*, and we were both able to *choose* the kind of coverage we carried.

In my 20's I didn't need the kind of coverage I took out in my 30's. Simple as that. But I had that choice based on what I could afford to pay every month.

As you said very well, this plan has effectively eliminated a lot of those choices through no fault of our own, and I still haven't found a reason why my coverage or your coverage or anyone else's coverage which they pay for should be lessened, weakened, or compromised to fund this new Affordable Care Act.

On your second point, I had two similar situations with both of my parents, now deceased, who were fighting cancer in the past 7 years. Without getting too much into detail, I spent plenty of time in the cancer treatment center to see the same things you mention, and also saw enough bills to know what was going on. And if anyone who doubts what you say wants to challenge it, add my voice to support what you wrote because I've seen and had a very similar experience myself, most recently in the past two years. They got the treatment, and those giving the treatment were among the best qualified and most caring people I've been around in the medical field.

Food is vital.  More vital than Health Care, one could argue.  I rely on the Food industry every-fcking-day.  There are regulations -- but the government is not the farmer, producer, shipper, provider, clerk, store manager, cashier, or bag boy -- nor are they the chef, the waiter or the busboy.  They do not run the food industry.  Nor have they so severely over-regulated it to the point where prices for basic food needs are so disconnected from REALITY -- also known as the FREE MARKET -- that it requires me the need to get Geico Food Insurance for my all basic, daily food needs.

I don't need Flo to buy my fcking Cheerios you mtha fcking commies!!!
(http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/502bbb83ecad04f92f000008-960/progressive-flo.jpg)

And why don't I need Flo to buy my mutha fckin' Cheerios?  Because there is not a single provider in the food industry... and thank God almighty that we haven't been sedated enough to be suckered into that hell.

FREE MARKET = REALITY  Deal with it.  I know there's a lot of people who think they've come up with a "system" that betters the free market, but they're fcking lying.  The free market works because it relies on people.  And when people fail, other PEOPLE fix.  And we go elsewhere to other people eagerly waiting to give us service.  Because there's something in it for them.  END OF STORY.

There's no need to over think any of this.  If you remove the FREE MARKET from anything you will continually get sht-azz dckhead results.  And that's exactly what we've done -- and are doing ---with Health Care.  The DEMOCRAT PARTY has had the fix in for Health Care for generations.  Democrats = more government, and more government = bullsht.

All you commies that think Health Care is a right or whatever bullsht you've been fed -- just realize you're a tool of the mutha fckin' lying sacks of dog sht that are out to fck you in the azz -- then charge you for it when you can sit down.

I want to get back into the nuts-and-bolts of the Affordable Care Act, especially how this will be administered and affect people. There are so many facets of this to address, so many items which will change how people pay for coverage and what they pay, but I'm forwarding something that came in the mail related to employees who are military veterans, members of the Guard or reserves, or anyone that may be eligible for coverage under the VA (Veterans Administration) insurance plans.

The information packet actually contained something that affects everyone related to the Affordable Care Act in this one paragraph:

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/va1_zps6186a4aa.jpg)

First, and I'll address this in more detail later, the structure of collecting payment is perhaps a red flag to suggest there are gaps and issues/flaws in this plan that would at the least require a second look...

Depending of course on location and other variables, let's take the example of a single person working in the US, in their late 20's/early 30's. The average median income for a single person comes in around 30,000 dollars per year, give or take. For ease of calculation, let's round it off to 30,000 per year income.

If that person either works for someone who doesn't provide insurance, or works several part-time jobs, or is a food server, bartender, etc whose income relies on tips but whose hours may be part-time and therefore may not be insured, here's the breakdown.

If that person making 30,000 per year decides not to follow the individual mandate to buy health insurance, they're subject to a "fine" of sorts to be added to their tax bill by the IRS. For this first year, it's either $95 or 1% of their income, whichever is greater.

So that person making 30,000 per year who doesn't "comply" with the ACA mandate in this first year of 2014 would be subject to the 1% "fine" by the IRS which would be around $300. If they *still* choose not to buy insurance in 2015, and are still making in the 30,000 range, the IRS fine would be $600.

Compare that to the lowest-tier, least expensive plan under the new exchanges rolled out last week, it's known as the "Bronze Plan". Estimates, again it depends on several variables but they're as of now ballpark figures, are that such a plan would cost the individual between 200-300 per month. It's still not precisely determined, but that's the ballpark figure for the bare minimum, high-deductible "catastrophic" plan.

Factor in the subsidy which for someone making 30,000 yearly would not be too much of a factor, let's be really generous and say after the subsidy the "Bronze" coverage would now average out at $150 per month.

Again being very generous, that's a bill of $1,800 out-of-pocket for that single worker making 30,000 per year currently not insured to buy a plan.

If they ignore the mandate throughout 2014, they get $300 charged to their tax bill.

If they still ignore the mandate in 2015, they get charged $600 on their tax bill.

Would you pay $1,800 per year for something where the fine for not doing so is $300 dollars per year?

And consider how many people under the poverty level, but who may be working, do not pay any taxes when it's all tallied up and credits are given under programs like the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) so people making under a certain income, but working, essentially do not have to pay any federal income tax for that year.

Maybe I'm missing something, but does that add up? What would compel our working example of someone making 30,000/year to pay upwards of 300% more for insurance coverage they don't necessarily want or can't afford for whatever reasons?

And note the first line: "minimal essential coverage". I HAD THAT LEVEL OF COVERAGE AND BEYOND...and the government auditors determined that my plan which was on the mid-to-upper level of coverage did not meet that standard, therefore I can no longer choose to buy it because it won't exist.

We have a problem. If people out there choose not to see it or recognize it for whatever reasons, don't be surprised when it hits home.

We have a problem because we allow healthcare to be just another commodity! We ask "Who will pay the bill" with righteous indignation while we pay taxes out the ass and don't give two damns (or even know) where that money goes: but oh, as long as it's not to feed anyone!!! No one has any ideas yet everyone complains and is pissy, angry, and hateful of their fellow man and of themselves.

We are getting EXACTLY what we deserve!

Let's either work up some proactive and POSITIVE ideas or just shut up and be good little customers....

I'm so sick of the narrow minded views of the free market blinded-by-the-lighters, and the Obama worshippers, the left/right-tards, and anyone/everyone who finds their little rock to hide behind and is fine with being smug.... IDEAS and ingenuity are what is necessary or we are toast!

OK Pinder, you first.

Oh, I have tons of ideas, but this board is sadly not the place to discuss such things. I'll just be called a statist, a libtard, liberal, a commie, etc etc etc ..... which would be dead wrong, of course, but name calling is much easier than processing an actual thought.

PM me if you want to discuss.

Well I actually did throw out a few ideas a couple of days back, I stand by them. Remember I'm English and have seen the pros and cons of a public funded Healthcare system all my life (I also work for the NHS, albeit in a lowly occupation). The NHS truly is f***ed, most of their Hospitals will be run/owned by private companies within the next decade - then the sh*t really will hit the fan in regards to decent public healthcare. Gotta love the NHS, no matter how pushed for cash, staff and resources they become they still jump at the chance to help half of Eastern Europe breed like rats over here for free. Whoooohoo!  

I'm not saying state funded healthcare will, or would be perfect, but healthcare should be a bit like the legal system here. If you can't afford to pay, you will still receive care.... Describing bad examples of ANY form of healthcare that is not free market-corporate run, is a bit silly. I mean, just because a lot of bad movies get made doesn't mean people stop making movies or people will ONLY go see movies produced by the "trusted" major studios, so why be so narrow minded with healthcare? "Free market" healthcare could certainly co-exist with public funded care. There should be a "free" wing at every major hospital where you'll get seen by moonlighting docs, retired guys, or newly minted medical professionals paying their dues: much like how walk-in clinics work..... If you want state-of-the-art care or faster care or whatever, you are free to pay.

This is just an idea. Making is work is the challenge.

Did you read Ron's post about his family member who received extensive and life-extending medical care? Please read that, and understand that is not an isolated example.

There *are* programs much like you're describing already in place. I can vouch for it in my own family, much like Ron's. This involved very, very expensive treatments, injections/IV treatments, and regular tests and visits, as well as hospitalization. Had that regimen not been supported by existing programs combined with supplemental private insurance, even someone considered "wealthy" would have a hard time paying the bills, especially someone in their late 80's as was the case.

And the main program in question is Medicare, what I've already mentioned. This exists, it is in place, and if the coverage cannot be paid for yet emergency or life-saving coverage is required, Medicare kicks in for those below certain income levels.

And the real boondoggle of the affordable care act is that the supposed "millions" of people who are uninsured and cannot afford monthly insurance payments will still be on Medicare...or will receive enough government assistance to cover those payments they cannot afford.

So why change and affect the millions who do have insurance in order to basically maintain the status quo for those who currently cannot afford it yet have it covered in emergencies under programs like Medicare, and will *still* not be able to afford it under even the lowest rate plan they rolled out last week?

It's like shifting one group sideways, with little or no change other than in legal lingo for those who currently cannot afford coverage, dropping one or more groups forced into shopping a new plan downward by offering less coverage for more money out of their pockets, and moving the various members of the government up by exempting them entirely from any of the new laws as well as exempting any number of politically-connected groups who asked for and received exemptions. That exempted list is so long, it's a joke to even think about it.

The plan is so great, apparently, yet the president, the senators, and congressmen along with their staff members and office workers do not need to sign up because they're "exempt". And those who could not afford coverage and cannot afford even the payments on the plans offered will be basically under the same Medicaid-style plans as they have been where a government program already in operation will pick up the bills.

Fair?

No, I don't think it's fair at all and I think Obamacare is a sham....... But there are possibilities. Just getting down on your knees and praying to the free market (just because it's your form of religion) is not helping anything.

Who are you referring to with the praying comment?

And I was thinking about the idea of making some kind of free-service organization, for medical treatment along the lines of what the legal system does for clients who can't pay.

First, consider the issue of medical liability insurance and what that would cost to adequately cover those who would be offering such care and treatment. I'm sure it varies by region and possibly by state, but consider either researching or asking your doctor personally how much per year they pay for medical liability insurance.

Then consider how bad things would be for such a free-care type of group if one of those retired doctors or off-duty practicing professionals or med students were to misdiagnose or mistreat the symptoms of a walk-in patient only to find it was something far more serious that caused death or disability as a result of the misdiagnosis or mistreatment. Those cases like someone walking in with pains in their leg, where the med student or retired doctor may diagnose it as arthritis and recommend taking ibuprofen, when the symptoms were for a blood clot which broke loose later and killed the patient.

Someone would be potentially on the hook for a huge payout, and getting back to the legal profession there is no shortage of bulldog (i.e. asshole) lawyers like John Edwards more than willing to throw on their best pair of wingtips, grab the briefcase full of Kleenex travel-packs for the grieving family to cry into and blank forms to sign, and be wherever they smell a medical malpractice payday within a few hours.

So the costs of protecting those who might be willing to volunteer for such a free-service medical group modeled on free-service groups offered by legal professionals might be made impossibly expensive and out of reach for such a grassroots group, thanks to the extreme abuses within and around the very legal profession it's modeling itself after. Ironic, in a sad way.

That's a good question/point, but then again, didn't Frank Zappa have his prostate cancer misdiagnosed by the same blessed free market healthcare God that Bean Bag bends over and prays to each night? But oh, if it's a doctor outside that system, it's an example of how only corporate "free market" healthcare is acceptable, yet if it's a doctor within that system who fatally misdiagnoses: "well hey man, medicine is a tricky business, now please send your payment in NOW Mrs Zappa"!

The amount of mental self-editing necessary to accept the current reality is mindblowing.

Frank Zappa died 20 years ago. In terms of medicine and medical technology, especially cancer detection and research surrounding early detection, that 20 years might as well be 40 if we consider the advancements made in cancer treatment, screening, and detection since 1993. Let's say you'd stand a better chance today than you did even 20 years ago. And even the treatments for cancer 20 years ago could be far more destructive and debilitating than they are now in some cases, where the cancer itself can be targeted and the tumor attacked more precisely versus destroying much of the area surrounding the cancer along with it. With prostate cancer specifically, there have been some great advances in the treatment involving targeting the cancer itself versus the previous methods that were standard 20 years ago.

But let's not get carried away. The government through the National Cancer Institute and their working groups have recommended that we attempt to "redefine cancer" in terms of diagnosis, treatment of certain types of cancer deemed non-life threatening, and a host of other reasons. People worry too much when they hear the word cancer in a diagnosis, is the simplest way to state a reason. Another reason is too much testing, too many operations that are unnecessary, etc. These early forms of cancerous cells, they cause patients to panic when they may not even develop into full-blown cancer. Does it cost too much money to diagnose and treat such things?

If interested, do some research on this, get the exact wording from the actual JAMA paper. And consider the implications if government panels begin setting regulations on how cancer is defined, and how much money will be made available through the health care plans to come for treating early forms of cancer that may be "redefined" as something other than life-threatening cancer and therefore not eligible for defined cancer treatments under the health plans.

That's scary stuff. But for some, it's progress.

Jumpin' Jehoshaphat!!! 
 :wall

I thought cancer killed Frank Zappa, but it was the Free Market?  It's time to reopen the case.

There's a problem when Jon Stewart calls bullshit on HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius during an interview, repeatedly asking her why individuals don't get the delay in the mandate while businesses do. I give Stewart credit for calling it out. And he asked a similar question that I'd personally ask any of these supporters as they're continuing to sell this thing through talking points: Do you think we're stupid?

“But would you say that’s a legitimate criticism that an individual doesn’t get to delay it, but a business does? Is that not legitimate?” Stewart asked.

“Nothing that helps an individual get health insurance has been delayed at all. They’ll get the tax credit this year, they have plans to choose from,” Sebelius responded.

Making a joke of the complexities of the law, an exasperated Stewart then said: “Let me ask you this: Am I a stupid man?”

“So why is it that individuals though couldn’t say they didn’t want to do it just for a year?” Stewart asked again.

“Well they can. They pay a fine. They pay a fine at the end of the year, but they don’t have to — they can say, ‘I don’t want to do it. The theory is they can’t pick and choose if they are hit by a bus or diagnosed with an illness,” Sebelius responded.

Stewart seemed to acknowledge and joked that the question was not being answered clearly by Sebelius.

“Still not sure why individuals can’t delay. Can we come back and ask more questions?” he said.

“Sure.”

“Can I ask the same one?” Stewart said to laughter.

“If you want to,” Sebelius said.



Footnote: Sebelius in the interview also compared online shopping for health care to shopping for a Kayak...which Obama did as well in a public speech...I don't get it. Is shopping for a Kayak something that their target demographic was shown to be more apt to do based on market research and polls over people who either oppose or have questions about this plan?

I can safely say the majority of people I know or even come into contact with have never and probably will never shop for a Kayak. And I'm OK with that. I just don't get the focus on Kayak shopping related to health care.  ;D

Free-Market-Radical-Cells maybe?  >:D

 :lol

Yeah, the Kayak reference is peculiar.  Could be some sort of poll-tested "positive word" that softens critics -- and/or -- they're sticking tightly to a script.  I guarantee you, it's safe to assume the latter.  When you're pulling off a heist everybody has to follow the script to a letter.  "Kayak" is what it says, so "kayak" it will be.  If their writers are savvy -- and trust me, they're not that savvy -- they'll switch it to canoe or something next week -- but everything else will remain verbatim.

Regarding your post in general though -- I've suspected since the start, that there is a strategy to such madness.  Perhaps it's just a fail-safe, perhaps it was the intended goal from the outset -- who knows, who cares.  But, it's supposed to fail.  ObamaCare was the screen.  And it's the "solution" that we should look out for.  Because, seriously... Jon Stewart asking HHS on a comedy show this stuff.  I mean... dudes, c'mon, seriously?

I know the time for debate is over.  People are getting fcked. NOW.  And its paramount that Ted Cruz (and the Tea Partiers, Convervatives, Libertarians and yes, many "unelected" Democrats) remain vigilant and not let this stuff go forward.  Don't fund it.  Or whatever.  But we should also stay out in front, and not be blind to the hammer coming full-speed from the other hand.

You racist son of a bitch.

What's racist about that statement?

Keen observation.

(http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor/upload/5385/images/backlashpng.jpg)

I'd try and spell out why, but you'd probably just sneer at me and it wouldn't change anything as you're a useless moderator and a bigot, so I'm just going to tell you to f*** off.



f*** Off.

I knew you couldn't answer the question as you saw fit to attack me personally rather than defend your own remark.

Or, you could tell me exactly how that isn't racist. Is he using 'Dog' in a slang sense?

Or is he actually saying that Eastern European people act like animals? My Grandad came over to Britain from Ireland and had a family, I guess he was acting like an animal too. Y'know, not like nice indigenous people.

But ok, I'll stick to professional complaints.


You are a really fucking useless moderator.

Hypehat is one of those strange people who won't be happy until half of the planet is resided in Britain and living on handouts from the British taxpayer. Don't worry Hype-baby, your dream is becoming a closer reality each and every day!

I also think he must be on his period.

Assuming that is the offending passage in question, I see that more as a criticism of the NHS than a racist remark.

I don't see how my moderating has anything to do with this discussion.

Oh no, diversity! f***.

Or,

Mike's Beard is one of those strange people who won't be happy until he can drive this van around and intimidate people because he's a UKIP supporter.

(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1265866/thumbs/r-RACIST-VAN-large570.jpg?6)

Thomas Sowell on the concept of "diversity".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVuLyE8ZvdI

Also pull your head out of your ass, grab an atlas and check out the location of Ireland: HINT it's not in Eastern Europe.

To TRBB's 'academic' video,

That's really funny! I haven't found a good stand up comic in ages. I turned off when he essentially said that giving India its freedom was a bad idea BTW. No i didn't, I needed a laugh tbh.

Yeah, Britain is really on the verge of bloodshed, btw. We so should have kept India under oppressive colonial rule.

Oh my god, this is so stupid. You can't say 'why won't you look at the evidence, there needs to be a proper scientific look at this' and then proffer anecdotal evidence.

It would take more than a crappy van to send these freeloaders packing. Might I suggest a shotgun barrel pointed square in their face as an alternative?

It's the principle of the thing, you berk. Did I really have to spell that one out?

So it's just Eastern Europeans that you blindly hate then?

No I pretty much hate you too, you fucktard.

That's lovely! Glad we got to the point where you threatened to shoot immigrants in the face before we finished up this chat though.

As opposed to you, who would not doubt open up your wallet to them.

It's sad but I'm starting to see the possibility of a plan designed to fail in order to achieve the real goals. I tried to keep a level of optimism, of focusing on what's at hand, but I'm finding it harder to do as the days go by and we see how things have been developing after the "roll out" over a week ago.

Is it a sign of incompetence among those designing and running the new health care plan? There are flaws, there are many glitches, you might say "well every system might have flaws when transitioning from design to implementation", the administration even used the hiccups in things like the newest iPhone to illustrate that.

But then again, consider this was the (let me emphasize this..." THE signature policy initiative of this administration and the party which wrote and passed this bill. It was a "sweeping" plan that would effectively change and alter the structure of managed health care in America.

As such, would you not run test after test leading up to the roll out? Would you not program in every foreseeable glitch and hiccup during design and beta testing of the program in order to avoid these issues damaging the process when it goes live? Would you not do everything possible in order to ensure the smoothest operation and transition for those you're targeting as users of the system behind the plan?

In any business, specifically the restaurant and food service industries, a new business getting ready for their grand opening will usually have something called a "soft open". For restaurants, that would involve inviting dozens of locals to come to the restaurant before the grand opening to sample what they have to offer. The invited guests get to test-drive the food, the service, they might love it and tell all their associates about it. This is one small aspect, beneficial, but small.

The real benefit of this, and why businesses do this, is to give them a real-time test of how their systems will run. They pack the house, and all of their food, supplies, staff, policies-procedures, and everything else in the top-to-bottom structure of how that business operates from the parking lot to the bathrooms is tested. If some things are found to have flaws, whether it be something with the food preparation not being consistent, to wait times at the front door being too long, to the kitchen running out of appetizer plates halfway into the night's service, they can spot, identify, and correct these things...key point...

*Prior to the grand opening*, so that when they open to the public who are there to spend money, these flaws and glitches will have been worked out or corrected so they don't negatively affect the restaurant when the customers receive a lesser quality experience or product upon opening.

It is standard practice. It is also common sense.

So the government in the case of the new health care system contracted a Canadian firm called CGI to design and construct the core of the public's interaction with the new plans, the government's website where everyone would log on to sign up. CGI is based in Canada, and did the work behind the Canadian healthcare computer system. They also hold an office in Fairfax, VA but the company itself is Canadian. The contract for these services was in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and rising.

And over a week into the new system, it's simply not working as it should.

Again I ask, unless you wanted something of this magnitude to fail, would you not take every precaution and run every test possible to ensure that the plan you're calling the signature plan of your administration and the most sweeping changes to the health system in generations would at least be functional for the majority of people who need to access and use it?

I want to see it optimistically, but it's tough.

Mike's Beard and Hypehat: cool down, both of you. And take the personal insults to PM, and not on this board.  

Hyphat: this sandbox is a pathetic circle of hell for smarmy little angry boys who are pissed that they missed out on the beer hall putsch.... Bile spewing little shadows of people who have settled for less than they feel entitled to and the rest of the world is supposed to pay for it  (calm down guys, I don't mean in $$$)...... Little cowards who will say racist things and then deny it. I'd rather have such discussions as these at a KKK rally because at least those folks would be honest.

As soon as Obama's out of office, they'll shut the hell up anyway and the world will go back to being perfect in their eyes.

Ha, this is much more than Obama and this started BEFORE Obama, so the straw man, while certainly disgusting, is henceforth blown away as being without merit.

You got that straight, just everyone please don't roll over and go to sleep smiling if Romney or some other Repub gets in there next...... If that happens I predict the sandbox will be a ghost town

Well, unlike many here, I have zero faith in the GOP. They're just as bad.

And yet daily you come here to spew your liberal horseshit. What does that say about you?


The funny thing is that none of my posts that got Hypehat's vagina all crabby mentioned Obama. In fact , unless he's secretly running the NHS in England they had f*** all to do with him.

My liberal horseshit (which is actually old school Conservative) doesn't boil down to some angry reactionary, panty-twisted fantasy world of me holing myself up in a cave and shooting anyone who comes near...... It's about trying to get people to stop praying to red/blue left or right and wanting the world to be reduced to some Free-Market-Road Warrior-Thunderdome nightmare.  (as long as I got mine)... It's the complete opposite and it's sensible.... We need ideas and ingenuity instead of right wing anger, useless liberal babbling,  and Obama bashing pictures.

I can't pretend to give you answers but the intent of my post (which apparently made me a raging racist SOB BooHoo!!) was to give you the perspective of someone living in another country under a socialised healthcare system to compare with your American privatised one.

As to you calling me a coward, is it cowardly to speak one's mind? Or is it more cowardly not to for fear of someone like Hypehat screaming "RACIST, RACIST OOOOHHHH HE'S A RACIST"? The fact that I don't wish to pay for Immigrant's undeserved free health treatment is not racist, it's simply common sense.  

I agree regarding immigrants, (though anyone anywhere on the planet should receive emergency first aid no matter who the f*** they are pr how fat their wallet is or isn't) but what are we going to do about it? the free market likes illegal immigrant labor too much.

This thread is seriously pissing me off. Tread lightly.

Emergency medical aid is one thing, native UK taxpayers footing the bill for Mr & Mrs Symanski's IVF treatment is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Agreed

Then again, where's all the anger in us paying to blow people up all over the world? If I had the choice between blowing up a family in a hut somewhere OR keeping a guy on dialysis, I'd happily choose the latter.

I think everyone would given the choice.

Well that's good to hear..... I think I can retire now from this thread happy :)

I have plenty of anger for the wars raging over the world. But think on this; America reduces countries to rubble and then send the contractors over to rebuild it and make billions. The UK helps America reduce countries to rubble and then send over millions in foreign aid , how retarded is my country?

And sadly the division between Labour and Conservative is next to nil. That kind of bipartisanship is scary.

And trust me, I'm sick and tired of all of the warmongering and foreign aid, especially when said aid props up dictators and religious assholes in the Middle East - especially Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.

Maybe it's just the pathetic trace of a conscience at work?

The thread isn't the issue pissing you off, I hope. Because, well, since I started it as my own anger-management therapy to give an outlet to share, discuss, and let people know what's going on in the real world of the health care issue outside of political talking points, I feel I should be able to question the tread lightly remark if it's leading to the closing of this thread or worse. I was the one pissed off last week when I got the letter that started the thing. This was my outlet since in plain English I got f***ed and I have no way to change it. The deal was done, I have no recourse to change or improve my situation. None. So I vent.

The topic got sidetracked. I see that. No cause to threaten the entire thing. I suggest if the sidetracking is getting out of line, address the sidetracking. Unless that's what you're trying to do.  :)

Or if it's the overall thread itself causing problems, then it's another thing altogether which we need to discuss.

Its the hostility and lack of respect for each other because of differing views that is bothering me. It's why I refuse to enter political discussions online.

It goes there so easily because no one likes or deserves to be put into a little box yet that's exactly what happens when words like Liberal/Conservative are instantly applied to anyone's attempts at logic.

Words like those two, by their very design, create shortcuts in thinking/expression and get us used to communicating/thinking in short hand and we feel stupid when we do that so we fall back on insults and bullying..... I stand just as guilty of this as anyone else..... just without the picture evidence ;)

Ugh, what a liberal point of view
 ;D


Well put.

Yup.  I know we're way off topic (and for a reason, since liberals are always unable to communicate, articulate and defend their positions through to the end, and arrive at a cogent conclusion -- thus leading the conversation off-topic at any chance they get to avoid their obvious defeat)... but, I just gotta say -- that's totally awesome.  "Diversity" is a scam.  It's a manufactured front in the Marxist war on Capitalism.  Divide and Concur.

Everybody's different for a reason.  People are individuals.  "Diversity" -- the industry we know today -- puts us into groups and tribes.  Just the opposite (as usual) from what Leftists claim it is.

I've been saying this ACA will be affecting everyone, whether now or later. This is just one example. Note the deductible amounts cited in the article. Once more groups and workers like those AFSCME workers in this case start seeing it on their own plans...we'll see.

http://www.wfmz.com/news/news-regional-lehighvalley/County-workers-dispute-health-care-cost-increase/-/132502/22362606/-/pjojoa/-/index.html (http://www.wfmz.com/news/news-regional-lehighvalley/County-workers-dispute-health-care-cost-increase/-/132502/22362606/-/pjojoa/-/index.html)

EASTON, Pa. - Workers in Northampton County are outraged about health insurance increases they just found out about. They told 69 News their out-of-pocket deductibles are going up about 900 percent. The county employees want action before it's too late, while officials said their hands are tied by federal law. "This is a slap in the face to everybody who works in this county whether union or non union," said Justus James, a representative for AFSCME.

County workers piled into the council budget meeting, ready to fight back against planned increases to their health care plans. "For a lot of the county employees, this amounts to 10 percent or more of their net salary," shared Stephen Barron, the Northampton County controller. "They can't afford this co-insurance." Workers said they were just told out-of-pocket deductibles will jump from $250 for a single person to $2,250. For a family, it spikes from $500 to nearly $5,000. They argue they take less pay for better benefits, but were blindsided by these huge increases. "We're getting it jammed down our throats in the 11th hour," James told council. "I want council to do something about it, investigate it and stop it."

Northampton County Executive John Stoffa said the price hikes are thanks to the Affordable Care Act. "We have to start increasing what people have to pay for their health care because we have what is called the Cadillac plan." Under the law, so-called "Cadillac plans" could be taxed a 40 percent levy just for being generous on health insurance. The government won't start taxing employers until 2018, but the county is trying to stay ahead of the huge hit they face in five years by adding the fee incrementally. "Because it's so new, people don't understand it and it's a little scary," added Stoffa. "But if it's something we have to do, we have to do it, if there's something we can work out in a better way, we will do it, if there's more we can do for the employees we will do it." At the meeting, the county human resources department asked for a new full-time employee to be hired just to deal with all the mandates under the Affordable Care Act.

MB, in case this somehow didn't get into your brain through all the bile and Sun headlines swimming around up there, your anti-immigrant hatred reflects on me and my family and you're saying my family don't belong here. Thanks for that. Makes me feel great.

And if your hatred is solely reserved for Eastern Europeans to the extent where you want to shoot them in the face, I'd say that's pretty much the opposite of common sense. In fact.... it seems.... racist? That you have gone 'oh, it's not about race, it's common sense' whilst continuing to post the same bile directed at Eastern Europeans speaks volumes.

I'm obviously not going to change your mind, but I wanted to state my position in this thread for clarity before I go out and throw money at the undeserving poor... er... run my failing NHS department, no that's monday... oh yeah, I was going to destroy capitalism. That's Thursdays.




And I didn't even fucking swear!

 :violin :violin :violin

Says the biggest and most blustering proud-to-be-a-hardcore-tribe member on this board....

Most of your crap is just motivated by attacking your childish concept of "other" "them" "liberals" lefties" because YOUR idea of what those words mean insults your self image as a big-bad Republican swinging dick..... Try walking it like you talk it for once.

So, did anybody read "The Bitter Pill" in Time Magazine, back in the spring?  It was a long article documenting the overcharging, gouging really, which is happening today in virtually all US hospitals.  Medical equipment, bandages, pills all ALL MARKED UP by 1000’s of percent, and yes, I said THOUSANDS.  THIS is what is driving the costs in health care today, in the US anyway.

Great article, but hey, it's the free market: can't keep up, you're free to go die!

But, hey: no sweat, we're all going to be millionaires really soon, right? ..... right?

Why YES!  Right now, my dressage horses are riding up and down in my car elevator!!!   :hat

It's hilarious: my hardcore Republican sister is crying foul now that the military commissary near her (her husband is ex Navy) was closed down. I was like "So? Just go to the Ralph's 5 feet away to get your groceries" and she says "Hell no, supermarkets are a rip-off" ;P

LOL Tell your sister she’s a Socialist and she didn’t know it LOL

I did and nearly got thrown from the car, but a little ligthbulb DID go on over her head.

 :lol

Well, I tried!


Great job on denying your racism btw.

Funny that nobody else considered me a racist- just you. Why was it that Jason got the gist of what I was saying on the first post and Pinder agreed with me to a point after I clarified my stance?

And please stop trying with the sarcastic humour, because frankly, you suck at it.

Translation please

Try reading the damn thing, blowhard. However, you know damn well what it means.

You still haven't told me how equating people from a certain place and select few nationalities to vermin, based on nothing but where they're from, isn't racist, but that's fine. Keep on being a terrible person. I can't stop you.

I can't speak for Pinder, but on the other hand I can say with confidence that it's because TRBB is a terrible moderator and a troll who does nothing of worth in these threads. Who didn't, btw, respond to my reaction to that idiot 'academic' and his anecdotal evidence.

The other mods are right. If you really want to keep slanging this back and forth, drop me a PM. This has got to be very boring for everyone else by now.

No thanks, I'm completely bored with talking to you now.

But, one last thing - was this you walking your dog earlier today? The similarities are uncanny.

(http://www.ubfriends.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/racist.jpg)

So I'm a "terrible moderator and a troll" because I don't agree with your analysis of the situation? Man, if I had a dime for every time I've been told I'm a "terrible moderator and a troll" for having the "wrong" opinion I'd be a rich man! As far as your comment on the Sowell video, I saw nothing much worth responding to. For someone who accuses me of trolling you sure love engaging in the practice.

But let me ask you...is this really about my issue with the concept of a "right to health care" or is it something else? Because, if so, I'd love to know.

I hear the Troll Union calling! They're coming out from under all the bridges of American and demanding the public pay for their hunchback removal surgery!!!

Hey you all, I dunno about anyone else, but I happen to have quite a bit of affection and admiration for each one of you no matter how much we might disagree.... Even Beanboy Baggins! ..... I really wish these arguments could take place over beers. The reactions would be quite different

Hey, I seem to disagree with TRBB 66.67% of the time (only agreeing w/ his opinions on The Doors) but overall I find him to be an excellent Mod!

A glass of Merlot all around!

 :afro

Moderating the insanity of this board cannot be a simple task! ... I'd be in pieces after a single day of it.

It's because when he bleats the word 'racist' he expects the word to have a hold or power on people. Because you didn't jump all over the big. bad ol' racist and thwack him with the banhammer, this makes you a terrible person and moderator.

Racism is a real/serious issue for many people in this country and it does not need to be made light of.... Not taking any sides here, but it's something to keep in mind.

Well, if statistics say that Eastern Europeans are the ones who most take advantage of the system, that's not "racism" - those who think it is are in a neverending quest for some illusory "social justice" that doesn't exist.

Once again, a whole lot of people went to great lengths and great risk to achieve some level of social justice in this country. You can have no opinion on this fact or an ill opinion on it, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen..... Just one more heartwarming quality of too many Americans: if it didn't/doesn't affect me, I couldn't give a f*** less.

Talk to my very Italian grandmother; she'll tell you stories about how Italians in this country were treated worse than black Africans and Irish. So yes, it actually does affect me. I am not exactly warmly welcomed by some people simply because I'm Italian. But at the end of the day I don't give a sh*t. The people who go on about "social justice" are the ones who think the world owes them something.

And in today's lexicon, calling someone a racist has become as nonsensical and ridiculous as telling someone to "go to hell". I take it as such and laugh about people who think they're so immune to any kind of discriminatory or prejudiced thinking - these people are the types who are so deluded, so ignorant, and so obsessed with the notion of social justice that they are in essence the most diabolical racists of all.

From personal experience, I have gay friends. We joke all the time about it. I once used the word "faggy" in general joking conversation. The first (and only) person who was offended was straight. You do the math.

Straight, white, p*ssy boy/girl liberals who have taken it upon themselves to be everyone's keepers.

Sure, but YOU have a problem with the concept of being owed something. This is a personal thing with you but you want it to apply to everyone else.... So, black people should still be sitting at the back of the bus because to change that policy would be giving in to someone being owed something? Enough folks disagreed with you and won, deal with it... I'm Mexican/Italian/German/Irish but look Middle Eastern enough that I get stopped frequently and taken back to rooms at airports while flying, fair enough, I let that one slide..... But when driving to see my folks in Idaho and getting surrounded by rednecks with Mullets at some roadside gas station demanding I tell them "what kind of an Arab I am" ..... That, I take issue with..... Sometimes man you really come off like a guy who lives in and stays in a cave where it's easy to let your negative and selfish assumptions rule you..... I don't give two shits if someone thinks racist thoughts about me, but when they interfere with my RIGHT to take a fucking leak at a gas station and live to tell about it: there stands the difference. Ignore it all you want.

Actually, the history of segregation is one where people had to pass a law to enable those policies because the privately run bus fleets didn't care where people sat as long as they wanted the service and wanted to pay. People had to get laws passed in order to make such behavior illegal. Again...segregation was LAW. I need not remind you of how many tyrannies have been enabled by people who felt that so many useless and ridiculous policies needed to be legislated.

People can think what they want about you however stupid it may be (and it is stupid); it's called freedom of conscience. You also have the freedom to tell them to f*** off and defend yourself if necessary. You can't change that type of behavior in those people. Ignorance of that behavior on YOUR part is what will destroy their type of thinking because they will realize it won't get the desired response.

As I've said before, an armed society is a safe society is a respectful society.

Then back yourself into your cave with your guns pal ..... It's all self image and negativity on your part. No use trying to discuss anything. You really are a hateful bastard and need to go back to the caveman days and find the biggest club..... Evolution really just doesn't suit some people.

Ad hominem; the last refuge of the individual with a weak argument.

Ditto to that

I sense DEEP self hatred on your part. And it informs your worldview to the letter.

No self-hatred here. I'm not a feminist. :P

of course you're not

if you don't think you deserve anything or are "owed" anything, of course you don't think anyone else does either, and when they get something you don't have, it just fuels your hatred because you don't deserve what they have so how dare they have it and on and on and on. It also makes you settle for sh*t because, well, in order to not live in sh*t, YOU would have to be worth the effort to make it so you didn't live in sh*t

It is pretty presumptuous to claim one "deserves" or "is owed" anything. Nine times out of ten people create their own problems - then it becomes a case of those who learn from those problems and those who would rather play the perennial victim and claim that society dealt them a bum hand. It is the latter type that I have trouble with. I own my mistakes. I was born in an era when people owned their mistakes instead of blaming society for them.

That's a valid opinion, and you and I are from the same era, but it is a dangerous opinion ONCE it becomes forced onto each and every situation..... I hope you can try and understand where I'm coming from.... Yes, people might feel they are owed something, but people are also wronged here and there and seeking justice is NOT simply being owed something. If you want an armed society than you should completely understand some form of justice.... Those little girls blown up in the church bombing in Atlanta way back when maybe should have been armed? Maybe so! Would you trust Rosa Parks with a shotgun? .... Those are just a couple of perhaps silly examples, but still...... Your blanket opinion simply cannot be applied to each and every situation just because that's how you want it.... it is a VERY valid opinion but there comes a point where it is stretched thin..... Just like any opinion.

It is also a matter of opinion when something someone seeks/needs etc etc is determined to be something they think they are OWED! And it is easy for YOU to glibly make that determination...... Human beings are not OWED air water, food: they NEED them or they die. To seek these things (services according to you) is survival instinct, just like a bear kills and eats your ass out in the forest. If humans are in need to what is necessary to survive, they will get them in whatever way they can/have to, or they perish. You can't make this go away because YOU determine that seeking these things means being owed something.

To be honest, I feel like I'm owed a copy of MIC and tickets to the next Brian show, but I am not owed these things.... Most people know the difference.

You are a sexist neanderthal, and immature to go with it. You wonder why there aren't many female posters on this board?  This kind of derogatory bullshit is why!  I read this thread hoping to get some clarity on the situation in the US re healthcare and get a whole lot of sexist crap about being on periods, feminists being self hateful and vaginas, also a lot of racist venom.  Grow up and try finding a response that doesn't resort to proving how backwards you are.   Moderators - I realise there is freedom of speech but people other than members can read these posts and it's not too encouraging for them is it?

I am not making light of anything - just pointing out how some people like to mention the 'R' word in an argument and expect others to freeze in fear/shame and then backtrack. Sorry that doesn't work on me. Nothing I posted that sent Hypehat on his pathetic crusade was racist, it was just me stating fact in my typical blunt manner. Not politically correct? I couldn't give a f***.

The last thing the UK needs is more people adding to it's population, it's seriously messed this country up. Immigration is not the only reason why the country is overcrowded but it has played it's part. I want the floodgates closed. I don't want MORE people coming in and then helping them to breed.
And if someone is found to be in ANY country illegally they should be sent packing - no costly appeal, no offering them financial incentive to leave (an idea recently floated around over here), they just have to leave. If that means under force if necessary than so be it. You guys patrol your borders over in the US - that's not water pistols the guards are packing now is it?

If anybody reads what I just typed and equates it to a bunch of rednecks looking for a n***** or two lynch then there is no help for you.

Oh no! A joke made about a guy having a vagina! Society is doomed!

I'm not against freedom of movement per se but I am against it when it becomes a situation where the state encourages this type of behavior. You remember what happened in Sweden. What's to stop that from happening in the UK or the U.S.?

I won't deny that in some folks, the anti-immigration stance is inherently racist; they see their country as being specifically for "our people" (think Russia for Russians, that ridiculous political movement). I don't think any land is for a specific set of people (borders are bullshit) but at the same time the state sees this as an opportunity to foster division and illegitimacy. Why? It makes people vote for them. Politicians are the worst type of parasite - they're worse than the military. Politicians have no marketable skills so they go into the bullshit business. I sometimes think that Barack Obama and David Cameron have a competition to prove just how much more of a crony pissant one can be over the other.

As I failed before to see how MB is a racist, I now fail to see how he's a sexist neanderthal. If you think a guy making a joke about another guy having a vagina is sexist...you must really not hang out around guys.

It's a wonder I can type on my keyboard at all, what with my knuckles dragging on the ground all the time.

Oh, and when a woman goes on and on with her righteous indignation complaining about how other women refer to guys as "dicks", then maybe I'll take the victim card seriously. Equality = men joke about vaginas, women joke about dicks.

I keep forgetting that as a white, heterosexual male I'm not allowed to crack a wise one about anything, such is my burden in life.

Not all guys here talk or think like that, WH.

I certainly don't.

Also I believe that Wild Honey is from Australia, a country with one of the strictest rulings on immigration in the world. So to have her claim that my wishing for less migrants in my own country is 'racist bile' sets the bells of irony ringing in my ears.

Here it is: proof a little social justice exists in this world  >:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocnVv7-koWQ

I don't think that's true about Australia at all. You're talking about when it was White Australia, nearly 50 years ago. Things have changed a lot since then, and Australia is quite open to immigration, except to certain Asylum seekers.
If you go to Australia, and check it out, there's far more Muslims, Sikhs and Asians than there are of European descent. Even my mum comes from Japan! Doesn't sound like a strict country on Immigration to me. Very multicultural and open actually.
Unlike a country like America, where it is almost impossible to get Green cards, and when you try to cross the border, the guards will shoot to kill you

Gosh, what a terrible thread this is.

So much for the topic. Oh well. I hope the health care posts can be saved for anyone interested. Because I'll keep posting info if anyone is interested.

Just reassure me that going off topic to this extent wasn't a diversionary tactic from discussing the health care debacle, and I'll sleep well tonight. (After catching Fallon and the Mission Impossible rerun on MeTv, that is... ;D )

I thought seeing first-hand consequences of a plan being put into action was interesting.
It was the pile of brainless sh*t that followed that really ruined this thread.

While waiting for Brian and Beck to play on Fallon, what if they start to play "Surf's Up" and Fallon grabs a mic, saying "Ladies and gentlemen, special surprise guest guitarist CC DeVille from Poison!!!". Similar effect?  ;D

You can get a Visa to live in Australia if you have a skill or trade that the country is in need of, or if you have family already settled over there. And as you point out it doesn't matter what your skin colour or religion is, but as you also mentioned, Asylum doesn't really fly over there, if you have a criminal conviction your chances of being let in are slim to zero and without family already over there it's not as if I could apply to move there today to perform a menial 9-5 job.

Also just to turn the subject on it's head (even more!), if I told you that I'd be just as against mass immigration to my country from white, English speaking, Christian Australians for the same reasons as I've already stated I'm against a mass influx of Europeans would you consider me to have deep, irrational hatred for the people of Australia?

P.S Sorry for diverting your thread Craig, but if someone calls me out I'm entitled to respond in kind.

Did I say I referred to guys as dicks?  Who told you that?  None of my females friends do either.  I don't agree to degrading men either, or anyone for that fact.. and...  my male friends don't talk like you and Mikes Beard,  I know there are guys like you around but I avoid them like the plague. You are so sexist you can't even see it.

I know you don't, you've always been a stand up man as far as I have been aware.  Most other guys here are great also.

Australia has insane rules and attitudes towards immigration.  It's proving to be a real challenge for both sides of the political fence; and dividing the community.

However, Wild Honey's personal politics are not on the table, where as your's are - your claim of irony is guilt by association; and a generalisation based on policy that is not within Wild Honey's control.  And, therfore, a bit ropey.  Perhaps the bells of irony ringing in your ears is really the sound of yourself drawing a long, long (really long) bow.

Wild Honey is cool - if you've got a problem with her, you've got a problem with me...and I'm sure you're probably peeing in your pants, filling out your deed poll form and packing up your house at the thought of that.

*Sigh* - one of my personal rules here is to not get involved in anyone else's arguments - especially in the Wild West that is the Sandbox. But I think this thread has gone "beyond its (mother-fuckin') remit", so how about we get back to the facts and get it back on track.

And RBB, comon', set an example...

Aaaaaand this is part of the reason why some people don't take you seriously as a moderator.

It's about respect, not about "well she says this so he must be allowed to say this" - as a mod, I would hope you'd see that.

I've set an example in this thread. I have not personally attacked anyone here, unlike Pinder, hypehat and Wild-Honey (Mike's Beard jabbed back). The fact that people disagree with my conclusions does not reflect poorly on me as a moderator; it reflects poorly on those who can't take a dissenting opinion. But, let's call a spade a spade. Nowadays, being called "sexist" or "racist" is analogous to being told to "go to hell". It's essentially an empty remark banded about by folks who have little, if any, of a valuable argument. It's also a thread about POLITICS; if you think political discussions are all "cheerio and tea and crumpets"...well, I'm sorry this one shattered your perception. I'd say as far as political topics go this is one of the TAMER ones on here!

Take the personal squabbles to PMs.

Who said it was cheerio and tea and crumpets, other than you. A key element of Politics is resolution, and you seem to be quite happy to block that as required. IMO.

While IMOing, you personally attacked Wild Honey when you you pulled this one out - "Oh, and when a woman goes on and on with her righteous indignation...etc"<insert your semantics here>; it was a personal attack, suck it up.

Happy to PM it - but not because you're grandstanding/forcing faux-closure in the public forum.

I'm not blocking anything; I disagree with the conclusions reached by everyone in this thread short of Mike's Beard and guitarfool - however, unlike those I disagree with, I don't see fit to personally attack others. The remark you quoted was a blanket statement, not a personal attack.

I'm also not closing the thread. This discussion had some merit until hypehat derailed it.

You can't just pin it all on him. You could have put it back on track if you had tried

I agree.

I live in Argentina, a free health care country. The system is quite simple: Who pays the bill? The same who pays for education, military, security, intelligence, government, justice, foreign relations, etc etc etc...
Health is considered a basic public service.
There are lots of problems and discussions: for example high taxes, corruption, low/poor mantaince, or un-necessary services like public football tv, but not having public health care seems insane.
Im not actually judging you, because I understand we have different cultures. Just wanted to show you another point of view.

Sorry for my basic english.

Finally, a refreshing alternative viewpoint that is not dripping with logical fallacies.

I opined earlier in this thread that the "right to health care" was a "positive right" - one that requires property to be forcibly taken from another (taxation) to enable such a "right". Positive rights are not actual rights because it is impossible to have a right to a product that you do not own. This is different than, say, owning a house - as the property owner you have a right to that property and the land it sits on. In the case of health care, we're talking about the product of someone else's labor. A "national system" is funded by taking justly acquired property from others (taxation). Taxation in and of itself is immoral and is impossible to defend without appealing to emotion, tradition, majority, or just plain good old use of ad hominems.

Now, you have a right to PURSUE health care. This means that you use whatever faculties you have at your disposal to come to mutually agreeable terms between yourself and a medical professional that do not violate the rights to life, liberty, and property of others. Indeed, this does not mean you have a right to the product itself. Health care is a product. Always has been. Always will be. Those who think otherwise have an entitlement problem and it is THEIR OWN problem - not the problem of the free market (under which health care was cheaper, more efficient, and of higher quality), which is the classic straw man used by the "right to health care" folks.

People want to blame the free market for horrible health care practices in countries like the U.S. when in reality the U.S. health care industry (alongside the education industry) functioned beautifully without government influence or regulation. Once the government influence and regulation reared its ugly head, insurance companies became the norm rather than the exception (people only carried insurance for catastrophic care, not a routine checkup), costs grew exponentially and the quality of care declined. Intellectual property laws also helped inflate the cost of prescription drugs way beyond what they're really worth. The U.S. health care system is corporatized; it is not an example of a free market and hasn't been since the Lyndon B. Johnson and his Great Society and War on Poverty.

The moral argument against a publicly-run health care system is very simple - short of a coup, the state never goes out of business. It can inflate the currency ad nauseam to keep itself in business, just like the U.S. has been doing for years to hide the fact that the U.S. government is bankrupt and running record deficits. As long as the state has a guaranteed source of income (taxpayers, inflationary practices via central banks, nations dumb enough to buy our debt) it has no impetus whatsoever to better itself. I really don't know how folks in countries with nationalized health care systems haven't taken to the streets, unless they love being on the state lollipop.

A privately-run health care system cannot possibly risk a consequence like going out of business. This brings us to the beauty of self-regulation. A privately-run industry will still be regulated, but by a much tougher group - customers and their wallets. As a result, capitalism makes things cheaper, not more expensive. If you offer a better product for less, you will win out. The same worked in health care for years. Only people so stupid and presumptuous as the cult known as "government" could ever dare challenge a system like that.

"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." - Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress

Once, again: just one guy's opinion... You'd be taken more seriously if your opinions weren't all laced with the same highly radiant anger and hatred..... You should really try taking a look from the outside in once in a while. The only reason I give you such a hard time is because you're a moderator and, stupid me maybe thinks a moderator shouldn't be so rigid and bursting with emotional/cynical violence toward the world. It just drips off you and is just really really ugly. Your opinions are representative of ONLY that.... BTW, are you OWED you moderator position here on this site?

Half of the government is filled with people that half the country hates.  At any given time.

Yet they are willing to put their health in the government's hands.




That's some nipple-twistin' fcked-up suicidal-sht right there.

They're not willing! It's being done without their consent.... I don't much like putting my health in some giant for profit corporation either, yet we do it every day. Hell,we put our health in the public's hands whenever we get inside a car or bus! .... You guys are just blinded by hatred for government of any sort. There is no rationality behind it and it's all self image based, and blind, irrational hatred does no one any good.

Funniest thing about you guys is: if we had no government and some dodge city "armed" society, healthcare would most likely be either free or administered under the barrel of a gun.....

So it's because I'm a moderator with an alleged status of being "so rigid and bursting with emotional/cynical violence toward the world" that you give me a hard time...congratulations. You proved my earlier point about prejudice and discrimination better than I ever could. :)

Taking a look from the outside in is what turned me away from statism. I used to be the "social justice" type and then I grew up.

I'm also not owed my moderator position on here.

But if healthcare was offered at more competitive rates, who here would go for the cheaper option (unless financially they had no choice)? You often pay for what you get in life, would you be willing to pay Russian Roulette with your health? If one guy is willing to offer his services for less, how do you know you won't end up with this guy.....

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7134/7672961340_ea2a375d5f_z.jpg)

you've only proven that you're hateful and angry and will keep shadowboxing away and whatever real and imagined enemies come near your cave..... Not prejudice or discrimination. Just calling it as I see it.

Good doctors (ie: expensive ones) make mistakes all the time, frequently deadly ones, just as cheap jack ones do.

If I don't like the service I'm getting from the GOVERNMENT, then what's my recourse?  There's no other options!!!!

If I decide that some evil "for-profit" CORPORATION isn't delivering the goods... I try a different one.  Knowing this, corporations TRY to do good.  They want my bidness.  That's called INCENTIVE.  Why is this so endlessly fcking difficult for the PINKOS to understand?

You guyz are so lost... and you blame me, us... the rest of the country that isn't lost.  F you guys.

I understand the commie leaders... but nothing can explain you followers.  The commie leaders -- they're getting rich.  It's a scam, with us getting fcked -- and them getting rich.  But I have nothing in my intellectual canon to explain you followers.  Are you this easily duped?  You're not getting a cut of the loot.  You're not on the payroll.  Do you actually think they're gonna share what they steal?

You followers are so disenchanted ...that you're willing to except PERMANENT disenchantment as a viable alternative.  Maybe so everybody else can be miserable... who the fck knows.

Set up your own communist utopia -- tell me how it goes.  Right?  Nope.  Never.  Shtty people with shtty ideas are never content with the rest of us having success.

The one thing all socialist nations have had in common is this - socialism has always been for their people, not their leaders. Case in point, look no further than North Korea. Those people starve and kill each other while the Kim family lives like kings.

Or look no further than Detroit.

(Non-health care...but semi-related...post ahead)

This week the former mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick, was sent to federal prison for 28 years. This after earlier convictions that had him serving time locally for a few months.

Has everyone seen present-day Detroit, any video footage or even anything that shows the streets as they look today? Earlier this year the big news was Detroit was bankrupt. They could not pay the bills. Oh, the outrage! This is wrong! How can those (fill in the political party affiliation) allow this to happen?

To put it bluntly, a corrupt mayor, a corrupt administration laden with cronies and political allies, and a general sense of living off the people's backs getting income from work you didn't do *might* have something to do with it.

So Kwame and an old friend decided to literally strong-arm various parts of the Water Department and the construction industry. If you wanted to even get a shot at a contract with the city works dept- or Detroit in general, you and your construction company had to pay Kwame Kilpatrick's friend for such access. Then Mayor Kwame would take a piece of that payment in "tribute", just like they gave "Paulie Cicero" a tribute payment after a good score in the film Goodfellas.

Only this was a public official strong-arming Detroit companies and playing with public money, or in other words "taxpayer money". Because the amount in question came in around something like 74 million dollars.

Which is why Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick is now serving a 28 year federal sentence. See, the feds don't go into a case like that unprepared.

Reminds me of Philadelphia not too many years ago, where Mayor John Street had this criminal of a brother named Milton Street, and if you wanted to do business around the airport, especially regarding transportation, you had to arrange a meeting (in Goodfellas terms a 'sit-down') with Milton Street, who would then be able to grant access to his brother. And if you were good to Milton, he'd put a little extra effort into getting your contract bid onto his brother's desk. Oh, and if you happened to be a woman who happened to run a business and happened to be "friendly" with one of the political allies of this crew, you might just get your bid from your company in the center of His Honor's desk rather than in the "inbox" with hundreds of other bids when it came to high-profile contracts in the city. or if the bid failed, they may just have an opening for a "consultant" or an "assistant" in City Hall that would start your salary around 80-100 grand per year with benefits, and you'd only need to show up some of the time to get that salary. This in a city that every year owes more in debt than it can ever pay.

Fun stuff, right? It happened.

Getting back to the point...Both Kilpatrick and his childhood buddy were driving around their city that was bankrupt, in luxury cars paid by the taxpayers, with professional drivers, going to expensive restaurants, clubs, functions, gallery openings, entertaining celebrities, Kwame himself at one time being touted as a potential "rising star" in his party, with an eye toward higher elected office. This in a city with crippling and pathetic poverty rates, high crime rates, and a general lack of much to be positive about if you're one of those living in that poverty.

Yet when Detroit finally went bust, officially, who put any blame on Kilpatrick and that kind of public corruption that saw figures like 74 million in question? No, it's not that! Can't be, Kwame was a good mayor, he got set up, it was a conspiracy...

That's what I'm talking about - There is such a level of misinformation, of people who simply do not know what's going on in front of them yet are easily convinced by someone speaking to them with even a shred of authority in their voice, and there is at this point a dishonest and complacent, if not compliant media that acts more to deliver messages than to investigate and report facts.

That's where it comes back to health care, and I'll get into that later.

I read a story this morning about public opinion regarding the health care plan roll-outs last week. Written by the AP, total bullshit. They went so far as to say a "better deal" was available through the plans...that is blatantly false. Not just a lie but an insulting one at that.

But, consider North Korea: The leaders live in luxury, the people grovel. Consider the old Soviet Bloc nations in Europe: The leaders drive luxury cars, the people walk, take mass transit, or drive a Trabant that would fall apart in a heavy rain. Consider Detroit: Kwame Kilpatrick lives in high society and wealth with his old buddy and family, as he drives around his city he sees abject poverty and despair, shells of buildings and of a society too.

Yet, he still has his supporters living in Detroit who think he got set up. In spite of all evidence.

So you see a luxury car driving through a poverty stricken neighborhood back in the 2000's, one might think "that really takes some nerve"...then the window rolls down, you see it's Mayor Kilpatrick, the mood changes to "Good Morning Mr. Mayor!!!", and all is well?

Such is the power of keeping people under-informed and misinformed. Such is also the power of using politics to convince the non-political members of the public to blindly follow your leadership. Do what we tell you, we'll take care of the rest. When that fails, we'll mandate that you do it. Either way works for us. Right?

Off the soapbox for now.

It's because we're not pinkos, moron!

Oh, and hanging around this board 24/7 posting little pictures and calling people pinkos is a sure sign of success?

You don't know a damn thing about me! I think Obamacare is crap, but your imaginary corporate incentive has killed many a person. So, what do we do? Well, we neither bend over for Obamacare nor your blessed corporate incentive! We think is what we do and we come up with solutions while YOU park your ass on the couch and cry foul! You think I'm some beret wearing communist because I dare question your fat complacency? Hell no! I don't want some communist wasteland but I don't want a corporate oligarchy either. And it doesn't have to be either
 one. So quit calling well meaning people who see clearly communists/pinkos because you are dead wrong.

Tags become meaningless when the politician is crooked, The last few posts show that a commie society or a democratic society both have an equal opportunity to trample over the little guy if the person(s) running the show are corrupt. Do we judge a system by it's greatest success or it's biggest failure?

Thanks for your support Al, it means a lot :)

Yes, excellent piece of white knighting.

Are you saying that I have my own "tribe."  And that I am a hypocrite for see "diversity" as a scam that puts us into tribes.  It's a weak point.

I don't want Americans to be separated into warring factions.  I don't want our President to whisper in the ear of one team "if I had a son, he would have looked like us.  Not them."  I don't want that.  I want that to go far, far away.  Life is difficult enough already.  Look at the resources we've expelled to deal with this nonsense.

I don't want people -- who previously had health care -- to lose it, and I don't want them to pay fines because they did.  Nor do I want them to pay more and get less.  Who wants that!?  I don't want ANYTHING the Left is doing.  Nobody does.  Yet because it's their team -- people support it.  No matter what colorful language you use -- realizing all this does not make me like that.  Seeing a villain is not akin to being a villain.

Speaking of dead wrong, I'm trying hard to imagine your imaginary predictions of "corporate incentive killing many a person."  What is that sht?  If we're talking health care and can refrain from reciting verbatim the low-brow, pinko manifesto pamphlet you snagged at some campus rally -- I don't see corporations killing anybody....

I only see doctors who take an oath to treat people no matter what.  I see drug companies making all sorts of new medicines -- competing to get things tested and to market.  And I see that fading.  I see insurances companies attempting to deliver a product that GOVERNMENT ENTITIES have purposefully knee-capped into the stratospheres of failure.  So its citizens get so enraged that they turn to the only savior left, in their minds -- Big Government.

Remember the story that GFool related awhile ago... the ol' world scam of paying for protection from the very people that are selling the protection.  Do you ever watch mob movies?  This stuff is plain as day Pinder.  C'mon!!

Pinder doesn't want it either. He has said it several times. There does seem to be a mindset these days that people should be satisfied with less, because they should be grateful that things are could be much, much worse - not acceptable IMO.

So what's the solution? Where do you turn? The corporate fatcats who control the healthcare market are sticking it to the customer and the government are now helping them do so. The same government which is supposed to have it's people's best interests at heart. Would no government regulation make it better or worse?

Well put, Mike's Beard!

Bean Boy: I AGREE with you, about 98% and that leftover 2% does not make me a pinko!

Like, I said before: no Government regulation: well, we've seen where that went, NO GOVERNMENT:  healthcare would be free.....

We don't have a competitive insurance market right now.  Please, if you get ONE thing out of all this bickering -- understand this.  What we have is NOTHING like a free market insurance industry.  It's an incestuous gov't/corporate fascist relationship.

The solution is always -- ALWAYS -- to get the gubmint out.  I realize that's a "hatchet" approach that scares a lot of people... but desperate times, etc.  It only seems scary because people have been conditioned to believe A) gov't has a our best interests at heart and B) corporations are evil.

Both of those misconceptions are the result of fascist propaganda.  This is what fascists do.  They take over corporations, eat its brains, make the lifeless body do their gov't biding (think fascists) and create the staged impression that the corporation still exists.  And when things naturally go to hell (are we there yet?), they blame the host body, kill it in front of the angry mobs of people and toss the lifeless corporate corpse to the side of the road.  And yes, that includes the thousands of jobs at the dead corporation, in case you were concerned.

THIS IS WHERE IT MUST START.  We can't even begin to talk about anything else until we get rid of the parasite.

Get rid of what, Government???

There would be NO free market with no Government. I know you HATE HATE HATE Government but it's the only thing standing in the way of complete chaos ...... I really wonder how much you guys have traveled..... My dad was an airline captain and I'd been to more countries than I could count by the time I was in junior high. I sustained some injuries on the major side of minor in New Zealand while skiing and got amazing care. Do you think for a second I was angry at humanity for not having to pay? Hell no! .... You guys who sit here just so cocksure that we have it best here in the US and that anyone/everyone in ANY other part of the world lives in absolute misery and are jealous of us: you are severely deluded..... Other countries have their downsides, but so does the US....  Bean, you talk about Gov/Corporate fascism, yet you only talk about doing away with one element: Government .... I believe neither that the Government has our best interests nor do I believe that corporation are evil.... There are BAD corporations and there is BAD government. TODAY: they are so intertwined to be one and the same.

You are right that something drastic needs to be done: hatchet approach as you call it. I'm not afraid of that but am certainly afraid of those who's opinions are so one sided/ridged and severe that they allow themselves to become gleefully deluded.... Bean, get rid of Government and your blessed free market will not save the world.....

Don't be so extreme Pin.

It's not raining cats and dogs yet.  I mean, inside.  Fire and brimstone is not raining down inside our homes... aaaaannnd I'm pretty sure there's no Government around the house.  To clean the dishes.  Mow the hedges.  Broom the dog.  You know... that sort of stuff.

We also shouldn't need insurance for a toothache and an upset tummy.  But that's the goal. Right?  ;)



Listen... I'll call it "Free Market."  You call it.... "All day sunshine, goodness."  Hell... call it "free healthcare!"  What do I care.  You may be on to something.  Seriously... the gov't will still be around; check in on ya at night.  Read yo email.

 :lol

Something to ponder:

When the structure of what would be the US government was being established, and a Constitution being written to establish it in writing, consider these questions.

Was it a list of rules and regulations designed for a government to use to keep its citizens in line and under control, establishing a set of laws for the public to follow and the government to enforce?

Or was it a list of rules and regulations for the government to follow, along with structural checks and balances, established to prevent a centralized government from assuming too much power over its citizens, or any branch of that government from assuming too much power over another branch?

Only one answer is correct, and to the credit of the authors, unambiguously so...and written that way for a specific reason.

Food for thought.

What was Obama's famous quote on this very subject?

Paraphrasing -- "the Constitution is set of NEGATIVE liberties... only saying what the government can't do... not what it can do..."

Oh boy.  You see... that's why you have to actually attend the class to get a degree (or for that matter, actually do something to get a Nobel Peace Prize).  And that's why Obama's grades are STILL SEALED from public view.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xS4UfaBaOVs/TWKKhkIcA-I/AAAAAAAAGas/GqYK_-hVD74/s1600/hammer.gif)

Fascism is here.  Watch.  You can put the history books down America -- cuz it's here.  Watch it unfold and tell your grandkids you saw fascism when it came to America.

My frustration level is very high with all of this, especially in the last two days. I can go on here posting account after account of the problems this Affordable Care Act is causing, how inept and incompetent the "roll out" has turned out to be, how few people are actually signing up for it, or not even being able to get to the proper screen on the websites to sign up...

Then I'm channel-surfing last night, I hit on a political roundtable show during a commercial break of my current retro favorite the original "Mission Impossible"...for fans, they're on the later seasons now, specifically the season where Lynda Day George was pregnant and they had Barbara Anderson filling in...

Anyway, after all the reports like mine, after people like me with no political activism connections or affiliations have been reporting what kinds of problems we're now facing thanks to THIS LAW and the party which passed it, the "talking heads" and supporters of this party simply refuse to hear about the facts. Peoples' insurance rates going up literally a few thousand dollars, peoples' deductibles reaching impossible levels to meet on an average salary...yet these supporters and political hacks continue to deflect the questions, ignore the points being made, and try to find some new boogeyman and catch-phrase to blame for "trying to derail a plan that will help millions of Americans!"

Bullshit. Bullshit. (repeated for emphasis...  :) )

Let me pose one question, anyone reading please consider this, and I seriously would like to hear reactions to this and opinions. I'm posting it in bold, comment followed by question:

"Follow your own laws, follow the laws you wrote and passed for the rest of us."

Why are the politicians and their staff employees not required to "comply" with the Affordable Care Act if they wrote the law ordering all Americans to follow it?

Why are the politicians opting out?  I'd love to hear other's as well.  Mine's a two-parter...

FIRST
It's a bad law.  It's baaaaaaaaaad.  Politicians never had one single intention of following along with this bill.  NEVER!  It's sooo bad that the hotline's phone numbers is 1-800-FCKYOU.  It's soooo bad, its website doesn't work -- and(!!!!) it cost us over 600 million mtha fcking dollars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to build the website that don't work.

Fck us?  No, no, no...  How many people still think this heist is about healthcare?  Fewer, I'm sure.  Imagine -- someone, essentially standing in their burglarized living room -- lamps knocked over, picture frames broken.  Jewelry gone, personal items ransacked.  Mumbling something from the "FREE In-Home, Interior Decorating" brochure.

Anyway... it's a bad law and the politicians know this...

SECOND
They knew all along.  It was the plan.  How did the politicians know all this was coming?  Cuz they read the bill to find out what's in it?  Wait, no... they passed the bill to find out what's in it.  :lol  Ha.  No, actually... they knew all along.  And now we know.  See how that works?  Now it's time for the politicians to collect.  $$$$$

It's called a heist.
Corporation A, you want out?  U wanna waiver?  Well, what are you gonna give the fine lady from California??  Hmmm?  'Choo got for Miss Pelozi mutha fkcer?"


Pay for protection  So why are we getting the blow???  Ain't that bad politics?  No.  It's not.  Not if the Media Talking Heads keep telling everybody it's "free in-home, interior decorating." Politicians can get the money safely to Mexico by the time the opposition hits critical mass.  Right now, people still think Ted Cruz and the T Partee are "crazy."

So, no.  No critical mass.

Hot off the presses....
Obamacare's Website Is Crashing Because It Doesn't Want You To Know How Costly Its Plans Are
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/14/obamacares-website-is-crashing-because-it-doesnt-want-you-to-know-health-plans-true-costs/

"On average, the cheapest plan offered in a given state, under Obamacare, will be 99 percent more expensive for men, and 62 percent more expensive for women, than the cheapest plan offered under the old system. And those disparities are even wider for healthy people."




Obama rox!

(http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/obama-busting-a-move-550x366-e1309818221884.jpg)

I honestly don`t get why the right isn`t behind the ACA as it`s pretty much guaranteeing huge revenues/profits for the private insurance companies. There was really no point to passing the ACA after the public option was dropped from the bill. I`d much rather see a single-payer system like Canadian Medicare or the British NHS come into place than a giant handout to the insurance industry (which in a certain sense, ACA/Obamacare is just that).

Fair enough.  For different reasons, we don't like Obamacare.  Let's hope we, us -- all of us -- can come together and get Obamacare stopped then.

And so we're clear -- no one on the "right" wants a handout to any industry.  I don't know who put that thought into your head.

Secondly, if that's what you believe it is -- isn't Obama and Obamacare everything a Leftist hates?  Or is it everything a Leftist blames others of doing?

Obama's been a disappointment to the left since day 1, but if more liberals/leftists/progressives/whathaveyou had done their homework in the last two elections maybe we'd be in a second term of Ralph Nader right now.

Is what we're experiencing today, historically unique?  There's probably always townfolk wanting more out of their party.  More out of politicians

However -- the Demoracts are telling their Republican enemy that their base is the enemy!!  And the Republicans believe them!!!    :lol  :lol :lol

Dat's gotta be a first.



ELVIS DOESN'T LIKE
(http://prudencelennon.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/elvis-presley-on-stage-in-1975.jpg)

Stefan Molyneux destroys Obamacare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9r93OxpE8g

I was going to mention the last two weeks' developments, but why bother. It will hit everyone directly soon enough, even the most ardent supporters of this piece of sh*t law, this terrible pile of sh*t law that's hurting good people for no reason other than misguided ideology and misplaced activism. At the point those folks who do nothing but defend it get a cancellation notice or a notice that their rates are to double or triple as people have been receiving, then we might see something happen.

When it starts hitting the liberals in their wallets, I'll sit back and laugh. So far my company hasn't cancelled their coverage...

Rates are going up at my company too.  People's response?  "We dodged a bullet."  That's right, our rates are going UP... and people feel lucky.

Is this "progress?"  This is what Liberalism (formerly known as Progressivism) can do to the Health Care industry.  These are the Progressives.  And they're just getting started.

(http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/7/7/8/9/4/9/Progressivism-78711771865.jpeg)

The same Progressives that "cleansed us of the evils of alcohol" back in the 1920s with Prohibition.  The same Progressives that wanted to engineer a more perfect & pure society -- through abortion and eugenics -- to get rid of minorities and "undesirables" as they saw it.  Now they're going to make us more healthy.  The price hikes and dropped coverage are just the beginning.  Wait til the quality of care erodes.  Doctor's quit.  Hospitals close.  Small practices disappear.  Specialists?  Good luck finding one.  It's just starting.

How do we get rid of Progressives and their Plans?  People have to EXPERIENCE Progressivism first hand, sadly.  That seems to be the only way.  Progressives don't go away "just because."  They're extremely head-strong,  so they NEVER admit they're wrong.  And they've hoodwinked A LOT of people (voters) with their rhetoric and propaganda of GRAND SOLUTIONS.  In this case, they promise to FIX all the worlds health care ills.  Sure...

So they're not easy to get rid of.  For now, we will ALL get to experience the brilliance of Progressivism.  Cuz when they "help" -- it's for everyone!

I'm guessing your company is one of those that may have gotten the one-year exemption from the various "mandates". I'm hoping for your sake that it doesn't affect you or your co-workers, I mean that sincerely, because it's been a real pain in the ass for myself and the numbers of people like me who got "the letter" and are feeling pretty helpless about the whole thing.

I don't mean to put a dark cloud in the sky here, but this law is going to affect the entire system of private insurance across the board, whether or not it's just the individuals and small businesses like myself who have already been affected, or the larger companies and group plans who will be affected.

In short, I think this is the biggest scam ever put forth on the public who works and pays their bills on time, at least the biggest one in recent times.

NBC News - of all places - just went public last night with a report that Obama himself knew as early as 3 years ago that the bill would in effect cause millions to lose their health insurance plans, yet he and the supporters continued to lie and mislead with various campaign-style slogans and rallying cries such as the ones I posted in the first post of this thread. And those were from 2009...yet the lies continue. Notice the various Tweets and responses from various hacks in and around the WH and the DNC...now the tactic is "well, yes, you may lose your coverage but you'll get a less expensive plan! All will be better!"

Horseshit. The plans for one are not less expensive for even partially comparable coverage to that which was canceled, and what is less expensive involves high deductibles and reduced coverage and reduced choices of those coverage levels. It's not "better".

In terms of, say, the automobile industry, it would be like the government taking over a BMW dealership and replacing all of the luxury cars that people who can afford them would want to buy with something like a "Smart Car". The BMW buyers would ask "I can afford a BMW, I want a BMW, I think the BMW fits my needs better than anything else, so why am I no longer able to buy one?"

To which some government idiot would reply "But these are better! They're less expensive! You have many choices of colors, dashboard options, you can even plug in your iPod and have full Bluetooth capability! Not to mention it's better for the common good and for the environment, it's a terrific car."

"But, Mr. or Mrs. government hack...I like the BMW, I want a BMW, I have the money to pay for a BMW, and I don't take my iPod with me in the car, and the BMW models I like are already fuel-efficient and suit my needs and requirements for a safe luxury car just fine."

"Well, BMW owners, you can now choose from many different colors of the Smart Car. It's better and less expensive. If you want a car, choose one of the Smart Car models. The BMW doesn't meet our standards of having Bluetooth capability and fuel efficiency, so it's no longer your option to buy one."

"But I don't want Bluetooth, I don't use it, my current BMW is above the fuel-efficiency guidelines already......"

"Too bad. Here's the Smart Car line of colors. Pick one."

The health care debacle is doing just that to people who willingly paid for the health insurance of their choice.

At what point do the people (myself included) being affected by this health care debacle take a cue from the ideologists promoting such "changes" and do the whole collectivist thing, and collectively show up for a little civil disobedience and an old-fashioned rally at some national monument or buliding and start chanting in unison the lines borrowed from Rage Against The Machine "f*** you, I won't do what you tell me!". And collectively tell these people we're done with this nonsense.

Oh, one can dream... :)

But perhaps as the months go by and more letters and notices go out, we'll have a large collective of disgusted people ready and willing to chant those lyrics to the right people and get something done.

Welcome to the Tea Party.  You're free to call it whatever you want.  It's not really a "party."

(http://www.teaparty911.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/tea-party-featured-image.jpg)
(http://media.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/photos/tea_partysm/tea_party09.jpg)

Believe me, I'm aware of that - remember one of the first cases that got a lot of this started was a local "town hall" meeting on health care with Sen. Arlen Specter, who was my own area's senator, and one of the reasons why I have such a disgust for politicians. Specter was at this meeting, and groups of voters showed up with direct and informed questions about the impending health care bill. Instead of being a man about it, Specter acted like he was the teacher in front of a group of children, he didn't know as much as the voters, and he was as elitist and as dismissive as his reputation suggested he acted behind closed doors but which he held in for public appearances.

And that was where a lot of the sentiment started bubbling up, when fools like Specter who got the golden ticket on our tax dollars were found to not only be ignorant of the same bills they were telling us to support, but also dismissive and derisive of the people they are working for.

Witness that even in the wake of the information that the media finally latched onto this week, you'll still hear people repeating talking points and propaganda about the health care issue and related points as if they feel *BETTER SERVED* by helping propagandize and support their favored political party and dismissing critics or any criticism in general...to the point where they ignore or dismiss or seek to "explain" the situations like I posted on page 1/post 1 here with a load of bullshit.

I think the groundswell will come when among the millions already having the plans canceled you'll find many people who feel duped and deceived by the party and the health care act they supported, and the result of their being duped will cost them out of their own pockets. Like the AFSCME union I posted about a few pages ago...these folks who carried signs and marched in favor of this law are now getting screwed by the same law they supported. I can't help but say "tough sh*t".

And at that point, when they don't have an extra few bills in the wallet to take the girlfriend out for a nice dinner or take the kids somewhere fun on a random Saturday, they'll get mad enough to act.  

You don't need an organized or named movement to have that kind of anger translate into something bigger.

Stay healthly, drive safe - you will not need any HC.

Brian knew and he was light years ahead of the curve when he said Chow down on your Veg-a-tables.  ;)

I agree Gfool.  It doesn't need to be "organized" in a traditional sense.  And, it's not, really.  That's why I said Tea Party isn't really a party.  To label them as such is a device of our media/State to ISOLATE and DESTROY.  Saul Alinsky 101.  It was just people.  People showed up WITHOUT the leadership of a party.  Like the townhalls.

I very much remember how it started -- the Townhalls.  Yup.  I remember the UNION THUGS, beating black men who came to ask questions.  I remember all that.  Can you imagine if that happened while Bush was in office?  He would have resigned.  Many of them were Demorat Townhalls -- for Demorats/unions only.  So there was NO PARTY affiliation to any of this.  Just angry citizens.

I remember "Benedict" Arlen Specter, too.  Condescending piece of sh*t.  Sellin' his people out.  Just like a lot of the f*ckfaces in the Republican Party.  John McCain.  Mitch McConnell.  Lindsey Graham.  I wonder if ole' Specter is getting his due, BTW?

(http://www.everlastingtruth.com/pictures/whistlehell.jpg)

I think when it comes to the tea party, Aaron Sorkin put it best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGAvwSp86hY

I'm all for free speech, but sometimes your cuntish remarks are really offensive.

The NHS saved my sisters life. She's be dead if it wasn't for them of ovarian cancer. You don't live in this country, what the f*** do you know? The NHS is brilliant. It's only in trouble because it worked too well, and we have a bunch of upper class wankers in power who want to destroy it on ideological grounds.

In fact there's not a single person I know who hasn't had their life made better by our wonderful healthcare system. My 91 year old nan can hear again because of a cochlear implant. Thanks you NHS!

And you're sitting there in another country judging us. Tell all that to my beloved sister you d*ckhead. She'll soon put you straight.

Stephen, I'm not taking sides in this argument but I think you can be a little bit more civil in making your case which I think is a pretty good one but your aggressiveness towards TRBB and calling him names isn't going to help you.  I see nothing wrong with having an opposing viewpoint, in fact I would encourage such arguments but while one person might believe something different, they're still human and they deserve to be treated like such.

Er, what part of these sentences confused you? Bear in  mind I've already made it pretty clear I'm in the UK by talking about "our" NHS


Two years ago my sister came very close to death and was saved by the wonderful staff of the NHS. When I hear it criticed, especially by some ignorant twat in another country, it makes me really fucking angry.

Now RealBeachBoy is a big supporter of free speech, as am I. He has a perfect right to criticise the healthcare of a country of which he has no direct knowledge, and I have the perfect right to call him out over it.

Now when you've........

a) Nearly lost a close relative to cancer and had to watch the wonderful organisation that saved her dismantled.

b) Learnt basic comprehension skills

then feel free to chastise me  :)

I apologize, I hadn't been following the thread closely enough.  I was just a little thrown off.  Don't get me wrong, you have very good reason to be angry at that comment but I just think everyone on this board should try to be more civil towards each other.

To be honest, I know little about the NHS as well but I'm also pretty sure that it's been very successful.  To call it a bad example is a little strange.  Hell, the British are so satisfied with their health care, it was given a tribute in the 2012 Olympics.

(http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_olympics_nhs.jpg)

OK, sorry Rocky. His remark just galled me, I'm probably over reacting.

watch out, he can boot you being a mod ya know.  ;)

(i'll stick to crtique of my own countries HC)

He's welcome to ban me. Wouldn't be much of an advert for free speech though.  :lol

Don't get me wrong, I like and respect TRBB. He's a good guy. He's pissed me off in this instance though by thoughtlessly and ignorantly criticsing our wonderful health service.

"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." - Stephen Fry

Grow up. No one has a right to be free from the "burden" of choosing to be offended.

"I'm offended!" = "I am unable or unwilling to otherwise account for my lack of social, mental, and emotional stability so I will just respond with an empty statement that adds nothing to the discussion in the vain hope that you will compensate for said lack on my part."

It's an attempt to appeal to my emotions. I am free to criticize the NHS all I want as you're free to call me out over it. Not to wax overly patriotic or anything but don't act like you Brits have never, EVER criticized any other country's policies. Then maybe I might take you more seriously.

But no, I won't ban you. I'm not going to make you a martyr.

And yes, I'm glad your family received treatment. My disagreement with the means does not equal disagreement with the ends.

You know, for as long as I've been a mod here, I've never banned anyone for personally attacking me. Not once. If I didn't take it as well as I dish it out, well...it would be hypocritical on my part.

OK, I won't use the word offended. How about bloody angry then?

I'm telling you that, despite what you read, our health service works really well. It has saved the lives of millions of people. The staff are, in my experience dedicated and wonderful people. At present it is being systematically destroyed by a bunch of very rich Eton schoolboys who have never wanted for anyhthing in their lives.

I'm telling you that you know nothing about our health service, and to come on here and say "as bad as the NHS" or whatever it is you said makes you look like an ignorant twat, which you're not!

And I'm not trying to be emotionally manipulative by mentioning my sister. I was voicing genuine hurt and anger at your remark. Free speech is also about having to deal with the impact of your words, and take responsibility for them, wouldn't you say? I get the impression you like to be controversial, and take pleasure in winding people up with some of your more sweeping statements. Sometimes it's funny, in this case it wasn't.

And you're right, Britain has poked its nose into lots of places it shouldn't. A lot of what is wrong with the world today is a direct result of our interfering. But the NHS is something we got very right, and is something that makes me genuinely proud to be British.

Irregardless of what you meant or didn't mean however, I apologise for the harsh tone.

Stephen

It's not even a matter of me wanting to be controversial in this case. It was on my mind and I said it. Maybe I was less tactful than I should have been, but hey...isn't the first time I've lamented a lack of foresight on my part. I'm actually not trying to wind people up in this thread. Sadly, the health care debate turns even the most ambiguous political commentator into a Fox News clone.

Trust me, I don't want health care to get any more worse than it is in this country. Sadly, the cronies in Washington see it otherwise. My opposition to a nationalized system is one of economics and the potential for corruption and decreasing quality. People absolutely have a right to pursue health care. I have major problems when an unaccountable entity known as government takes control of medical care. I also have similar gripes with the insurance companies as well.

Religion, politics, autotune, Mike Love and healthcare.

In fairness to both parties here, there have been more than a few posters who do not live in the US who have chimed in about the US health care debacle, in some cases taking sides and supporting the direction and the ideology of the Affordable Care Act. And I'd say yes, anyone can express an opinion, but just like someone living outside the UK offering their opinions of the National Health, those posters are commenting on a system they don't have any direct knowledge about. And a major difference is also growing up within a government-run program your entire life versus a health care system like I just had taken away from me. It carries little or no weight to me for someone outside the US to question opposition to the Obama plans when you've never lived in the US and had more positive experiences, if not life-saving experiences under that very system which is being dismantled and destroyed. Much like Stephen's experience with the NHS means more personally than someone not living within that system would comment against it.

It's yet again a two-way street, and worth keeping in mind that the same feelings that stirred up in a UK resident with firsthand positive experiences reading a critique of the NHS from someone in America feels much like someone in America would feel reading similar comments against those challenges to the Obama plans or the notion of government-controlled health care in general coming from outside the US.

Its cool now, I think.

TRBB knows I still love him  ;)

On the health care issue itself, some pertinent information has emerged from all the smokescreens of the past two days since the pro-ACA forces have gotten their copy of the official "talking points" so they can flood the media outlets and websites with the company line designed to tell the people like me who got the letter why we're "wrong".  :)

There is an issue of timing and the notion of "grandfathering" that may or may not become more relevant than it may seem.

The revelation from NBC News (again, of all places) this week was that the Obama administration knew as early as 3 years ago, 2010, that there would be millions of plans canceled as mine was canceled, a number some have said may reach 19 million individual policy owners who buy insurance outside of a large employer. The political hay is being made over Obama's repeated comments that again I had posted here in the first post 10 pages ago about keeping your current plan...period. He continued to repeat that same "guarantee" in his own speech's wording well into the 2012 campaign, and the suggestion now is that was a lie and a deliberate attempt to sell this policy based on misinformation which they knew was false.

So that's the political side of it.

The nuts-and-bolts involves when exactly did the insurance companies actively renewing and selling their plans know that under the ACA mandates, specific and very minimal changes made to those policies would cause them to be considered "non compliant" under the ACA and therefore subject to termination?

The grandfathering issue came in when the mandates said any plan sold prior to a specific date, I believe October 2010, would have been "grandfathered in" and therefore exempt from the new list of requirements. HOWEVER, the asterisk was added to that which read any changes, even if the deductible was changed by a few dollars for an extreme example, would make that plan non-exempt and up for termination due to non-compliance.

See where I'm going with this?

I renew my plan every year, as everyone does. Renewal means a phone call or a letter saying "yes", I want the same coverage next year as I had this year. No packets of forms to fill in, no referrals, no nothing but a few "yes" answers. My insurance carrier *did* change my plan in ways that didn't affect my current standards as much as it did change some of the parameters which I never use anyway...

...but were they offering products as a business that works on a contract system which they knew as early as 2010 would be "non compliant" and subject to termination, yet did nothing to inform those signing the contracts that this was the case?

This could be something substantial. Contract law within private business agreements is very, very complex yet specific at the same time. You cannot sell or market a product or service that requires a contract agreement while holding the knowledge that the products you're pushing customers into purchasing will be found to be non compliant and therefore null and void.

Locally about 7 years ago we had a large restaurant who still may be on the hook for several thousand dollars to customers who they sold "gift certificates" to and booked parties with, within the span of weeks before they knew they would be closing down the business due to financial debts and bankruptcy issues. You *cannot* sell a gift card or book a large party, sign contracts, and all the legal terms within a week of the date you know the business will cease to exist, and not disclose to the people signing the contracts that the entity your contracting with will cease to exist within the next month.

Much like you cannot sign contracts to sell a house knowing but not disclosing everything that pertains to that property.

This now, to me, becomes an issue of my being asked to sign and comply with a contract that was sold to me without full disclosure and perhaps under false pretenses. If the standards were known to the Obama administration in 2010 yet he deliberately misled with his public statements, that's one thing...but if my health insurer knew in 2010 that the plans they were having me contract for were not in compliance yet failed to inform me of ANYTHING OF THE SORT until October 1 2013 when I got the letter...

Houston, we have a problem. And it may go to a higher legal authority. Hopefully. We'll see.

Really powerful stuff here ::)

Regardless of whether they can vote, half the country doesn't vote, so excuse me if I don't feel bad about the poor little black lady who can't vote for Obama. Two-Party Mass Democracy is the American version of the myth of the metals, Obama is a neo-conservative and like the other neo-conservatives he's a political platonist and an enemy of the open society. I find it hilarious that after years and years of bitching and moaning about the big bad neo-cons, as soon as the democrats elected a neo-con of their own, they've switched over to bitching about the big bad tea party.

Socialism is the worship of "Society":

"You bear a name and need no proof of your existence, you find faith and do no miracles to earn it, you get honor and have neither concept nor feeling thereof. We know that there is no idol in the world. Neither are you human, yet you must be a human image which superstition has made a god. You lack nor eyes nor ears, which nonetheless do not see, do not hear; and the artificial eye you form, the artificial ear you plant, is like your own, blind and deaf. You must know everything, and you learn nothing; you must judge everything, and you understand nothing, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth; you are talking, or you are pursuing, you are on a journey, or peradventure you sleep, while your priests lift up their voice, and you answer them and their mockery with fire. Offerings are offered you every day, which others consume at your expense, in order that, on the grounds of your hearty meals, your existence seem probable. For all your fastidiousness, you nonetheless welcome all, if only they do not appear before you empty." - Georg Hamann's dedication to "The Public", from "Socratic Memorabilia", 1759

Once the 10 who signed up for ObamaCare get it, we will see stories.  How it saved mama's foot.  But no stories of the millions who paid millions -- when it should have cost hundreds -- for her.

These people will not be heard from.  The people who paid for it.  People who paid the fine.  People who lost their health insurance.  Their employer dropped it.  And they couldn't afford Obama's plans.  So they opted to pay the smaller ObamaCare fine.  The fine the Supreme Court upheld.

Their budget forced them to choose.  Pay the mortgage/keep the home (and go without health insurance) -- or just pay the fine.  The mandatory fine for choosing NO PLAN.  No thanks.

So they have no coverage.  On top of the fine.  Their previous policy was dead.  The news didn't mention any of this.  How much more it cost for ObamaCare.  Their old plan was cheaper.  It was dead and it was better.  They are still uninsured.

Add my support for the NHS too.

Saved my wife's life, not to mention the childbirth, home visits from midwives, pre- and post-natal classes, discounted prescriptions. Family members have had heart surgery, knee surgery, hernia operations... I could go on and on.

And what do we pay? A small percentage of our meagre incomes.

Being an adult means taking care of your neighbours when they need it.

Those who badmouth the NHS have an agenda that has nothing to do with treatment or the level of care the NHS provides.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/08/private_school_vs_public_school_only_bad_people_send_their_kids_to_private.html

Hail Baal

There is so much in the past week which has come out, blatant lies and cover-ups told by the creators of this law, which are worth noting.

The big one, the biggest perhaps, was the discovery by a reporter (NOT a politician or any of their well-paid staff and researchers) in a Federal document updating the status of the law and noting changes and amendments to it from JUNE 2010, laughably on page 2000 or something of that report, where the Obama administration officials noted and specifically cited the issue I raised about "grandfathering" existing health care plans after the law took effect.

This was *not only* for individual plans like mine, which as we saw are getting terminated by the thousands each day, and which are now being called "cheap" or "substandard" by the democrats including the president when they're nothing of the sort.

Rather, it involved employer-based coverage plans, of the type most workers have as part of their full-time job. The number is estimated at around 151 million workers carry this insurance.

And the federal document and notes from June 2010 cite a figure that at the minimum, HALF of those workers' plans will be terminated after they're found to be "not in compliance" with the new law.

Just like my individual coverage.

It will be happening to you, too. The figure is estimated around 75 million for the plans to be canceled, on employer-based coverage alone. add in the 15-19 million individual plans which are already set to be canceled, as mine was, you're looking at potentially 100 million people getting a notice that their plan was being terminated.

And the options are bronze-silver-gold-platinum, which all four could be lumped together and called simply "sh*t". Higher rates, higher deductibles, lesser benefits.

Oh, but NO!!!! the democrats and pundits this week have been telling me...you will get BETTER coverage, better plans, your previous plan was cheap, garbage, no good...we have a better plan!

Yep, and I'll be paying for services I don't need. Like maternity care and female birth control, not to mention various pediatric services and other things I don't need yet will still be paying for.

I'll compare it to living in the desert and being forced to buy flood insurance on my homeowners policy. Or having a clean driving record with no accidents and being forced to buy the same kind of liability and higher rates that a person who has had 2 drunk driving convictions would carry.

Those under employer based coverage, enjoy the yearlong temporary reprieve from the mandates. Because you may be one of the 75 million estimated who will be shifted into the "metallic" plans in 2015.

Funny how they knew this in 2010, published it, yet NOT ONE POLITICIAN ON EITHER SIDE BROUGHT IT UP IN THREE YEARS SINCE THE REPORT WAS PRINTED.

Period.

FRAUDcare:

Cause every 62 yrs old male bachelor needs pregnancy coverage, paternal care & pediatric dentristy.

Keep this in mind, this was the exact tactic used when the bill was designed in order to declare these millions upon millions of existing health plans "non compliant" so those people could be put into the "exchanges" in numbers large enough to fund this catastrophe. They need a quota of so many million new subscribers, and they knew those millions with good plans would never voluntarily drop their existing plan to go into the exchanges, so they rigged it. Simple and pathetic.

Notice the same lies being told this week by supporters of the law when they try to say the current plans like mine weren't good enough, so the new coverage I'll be forced into will be better for me.

If I'm a single man of any age, and buying a health plan for the next year, knowing my situation why would I need to buy any form of maternity, pregnancy, or any other care related to pregnancy or children if I don't have any, am a male, and know for a 100% fact that I will not become pregnant in the next 12 months...or biologically speaking, ever?

Yet, because my plan didn't cover enough prenatal care in general, it's garbage according to the law's supporters and talking heads?

Again, I use two simple words in reply: "lies" and "bullshit".

Or to flip it around, what about requiring a female of any age, single, to buy insurance related to prostate cancer?

So damn simple to see the fraud in all of this, yet ideology and politics (not to mention blind devotion in and support for certain politicians) gets in the way of common sense.

I guess more people than I thought don't mind being lied to if they love and support those telling the lies.

And pray tell, what agenda do you hallucinate those against nationalized health care have?

I'll bite. Temporarily.

True story: A former neighbor of mine had a history of heart issues. This led to a multiple-bypass surgery, this was about 10 years ago. Having known and worked with several men his age (55+) who had similar surgeries, the post-operative regimen included a very strict, very controlled diet which included no caffeine, no alcohol, definitely no tobacco, and other very specific directions from the doctor in order to remain healthy.

How should we have reacted then when walking to the car one weekend afternoon we spotted him drinking a can of beer and smoking a cigarette in front of his place?

At some point there should at least be an attempt to accept some of the responsibility along with accepting the care from the neighbors. If neighbors are being told to take care of each other, I'd suggest those being taken care of should take some measures to earn that notion that someone will take care of them.

You cannot expect people to pay for your care if you ignore the burdens and responsibilities of receiving it.

Also, you as a neighbor: If a neighbor comes to you and says "I'm really short this month, I need some money to help cover my bills and my kid, can you loan me something?" And you voluntarily say yes, in the name of taking care of your neighbor, and write him a decent-sized check to cover his bills, and help him out.

Then a week later, you're walking out your front door and you see a brand new Harley motorcycle sitting in the guy's driveway, and he yells over "Check out my new bike!".

Would you feel just a little bit duped at that point? Would you loan him money again?

Now I'm expected to be forced into helping with no standards of responsibility or accountability or even honesty being included in that agreement?

See, that's the lefties and their idea of "personal responsibility" - having others pay for their lack of personal responsibility.

You've presented a single case among nearly limitless examples both for and against, so I'm not sure how responding to one single case will provide a suitable answer for every different example out there, but here is my simplified answer to your simplified case... Yes.

Yes, the guy who needs heart surgery gets it. Maybe there's qualifications, and i'm not a policymaker, but as a general rule, yes. Tough sh*t. So he's smoking and drinking afterwards... so, he'll die? Problem solved. No more surgeries for him. If he doesn't appreciate it, tough luck. :)

I'm not sure if i'm a "lefty" under attack here (i'm not "left" or "right" btw), but in case i am, or if my post is under attack, i have no lack of personal responsibility. I work hard for a below-average salary. Money, beyond a certain minimum level, just isn't that important to me. I enjoy my job, i work hard, i support my family, and thank foda i don't have to worry about putting a price on my health, because that's covered by the NHS. One less thing to worry about in life, and i can concentrate on more important things than money :)

I"m not sure why you're quoting my post and linking to this article. This article is disingenuous in the extreme and, to me, reads more like satire than journalism.

Homerun. Thank you.

Get more people care. When they need it.  For lower costs.  And for longer than just one generation.  That's the goal.

Socialist-type plans don't work much beyond one generation.  To be exact... they don't withstand external "contaminants."  Such as, a flood of immigrants.  Or a baby boom.  Or a DROP in the birth-rate.  Workers to pay for it all and the loss of tax revenue when they're not working.  Any Life fluctuation is not accounted for in the socialism "nitty gritty."

Is the NHS sustainable?  Talk to your kids or grandkids, they usually get the bill.  If all this sounds like an agenda -- I'm cool with that.  An agenda out in the open is no problem.  It might even save a life in this case.



PS:  ObamaCare is much worse than the NHS.

I've presented two cases, one from personal experience and one hypothetical which can be molded and shaped any way to outline the same thing.

There is less of a call to act responsibly than there is a call to act based on pure ideology or the emotion of "we have to do *something* to help". Yes, but what if the method of help is not effective, or beyond that actually becomes detrimental to those trying to offer the help?

See, that's what no one ever answers. Instead of answers, such a question is met with challenges and ideology-based hectoring along the lines of attacking those for even daring to ask the question.

I've seen it more times than I'd care to admit. And it tells me - personally - that the folks going back to the emotional-ideological playbook can't answer it with any level of logic. When logic fails, emotion takes over. So, we get cries of "but we need to help!".

Okay, so is "helping" in the case of seeing a neighbor's garage on fire running to fill buckets with water to put it out as a first reaction, or calling the emergency line for the fire department first? They could both be done to "help", yet one is and should be the immediate reaction.

And having lived for years in a major city, Boston, I interacted with the homeless nearly every day and night as I walked. I got to see that in between the truly needy, the truly helpless (when I'd walk past a shelter for homeless military veterans where they'd serve hot meals and the line would be around the block some nights), there were corners where you would see the same persons there every day. There was even a guy who would walk up and down Massachusetts Ave on a regular basis asking passers-by for help because he had run out of gas. He needed some money to get a gas can filled up so he could be on his way, 20 dollars, 10 dollars, whatever would help him out.

The first time I saw him, I almost bought the story, but I didn't have any spare cash to give him. Then when I saw the same guy about a week later on the same city block telling the same out-of-gas story as I got, I knew it was a ruse.

Tell me in any way why or how I would be expected to help that guy who was lying in order to get people's charity money? Am I expected to open my wallet and give him a 20? Who knows how many passers-by did in fact give him money, only to find him run out of gas on the same block days later.

Again, where is the level of responsibility on *that individual* when he says he needs gas money, someone gives him gas money, he takes it, and it turns out to be a scam from the beginning?

But you're suggesting that man is entitled to take and receive people's help? Where is the return, or isn't that necessary if the emotion says "that poor man needs my help"?

And again, I'm happy the NHS works for you personally, as it should. But that's in the UK, and within a totally different system and way of life than in the US. So what works within that system could run against much of what another system actually is. A square peg in a round hole. It wouldn't fit.

And before it gets into communism/socialism-versus-capitalism, that's not the point of this thread and I won't let it go there again.  :)

You're not looking at the big picture, Guitar Fool.  When it comes to helping the homeless, yes, giving money to people on the streets is incredibly irresponsible, both for the people asking and for the people giving.  But there are other ways to help such as volunteering to cook and/or serve at a soup kitchen which I have done many times and it is an incredibly rewarding experience and there's no getting cheated in it.

And there it is, spelled out: The exact kind of scenario I described. Emotion over logic, assumptions without knowledge. Now I'm not seeing "the big picture", do you assume I cannot see it, am not experienced or knowledgeable enough to see it, or just choose to ignore opinions which are more correct than mine on what exactly the "big picture" is?

There is no mention in your post of the issue of personal responsibility, there is no attempt to answer the question of what the return is for the help or even if there should be a different expectation...rather it's a case of my failure to see your definition of the big picture. Not the exact issue I raised, mind you, but a distraction and diversion into something else.

The emotion is helping the homeless. The assumption is I'm not seeing it the right way, or perhaps is that emotion also based on a perception that I'm somehow less sympathetic or that I simply don't "care" (love that buzzword) about either helping the homeless or the plight of the homeless in general.

What knowledge of me gave you the ability or even the right to make any personal assumptions about me when you know next to nothing about me, my past, my family, or damn near anything else necessary to assume and state anything about me apart from writings on a message board?

That's the old playbook being dusted off again. Just make assumptions, run purely on emotion, maybe suggest I don't care as much as you or someone else because of an opinion I expressed that disagrees with your own.

It doesn't bother me as much now because it's so easy to spot when it's thrown into a discussion, especially on anything remotely political in nature. So I take it for what it is.

Or maybe you know my history better than I do? Or else should we say because I posted something that gives you the ability to form an accurate profile of me enough to make suggestions to others?

Not gonna happen here.

And I commend you for volunteering to help the homeless. I seriously do. As my Dad was a veteran, he was very concerned with helping homeless veterans, but in his later years he was physically unable to do all that much in person. Yet we would take used clothing to veterans' clothing drives, support numerous charities helping homeless and veterans benefits, and do various other perhaps smaller things to help a cause he and I cared about.

Again, your volunteer work is very much appreciated and unfortunately very much necessary in these current times. I hope the food banks and programs like Manna and other meal programs don't become even more necessary in the next few years with what has been going on.

But that was not my point, nowhere near my point, and to raise it in this way was, I'd suggest, misplaced.

Since it's raised, though, ask yourself this: You volunteer of your own free will to give your time and effort in the ways you do. Would it be any different if you were mandated or forced in any way to do similar acts, even if it was strictly with money or even a mandate that said you are required under law to give up X amount of hours each week to work in the kitchens feeding the homeless, with no pay?

It gets to where the act of charity becomes a requirement, and there is no choice in the matter from the individuals required to perform those acts. It's not charity, it's your job, but with nothing given in return and nothing expected from those receiving your mandated time and efforts to receive them.

Yes, it is always so much easier to be a moral crusader with someone else's money. I mean hey, your conscience just SWELLS at the thought of someone else paying for your or someone else's indiscretion.

Your "big picture" is hallucinated on your part. It doesn't exist.

The people who run the soup kitchens pay for the food themselves.  This is their choice.  This is not mooching off "someone else's money."

RR, you are dealing with very angry people on this thread.... People who have made awful choices in life and have settled for less and intead of it teaching them some humility, their bad choices have only made them bullies.... It's just misdirected and impotent male violence that would have made them great blue collar workers getting in bar fights on the weekends (if such jobs still existed) but instead, they stay in their caves and kick at the walls through their keyboards in futility, or they read up on and spout their philosophy while robbing themselves of the chance to apply (or by golly: test) their patchwoven views in the real world.... YOU have done things/experienced things that have tested and shaded whatever your base inclinations/views might have been and you have learned and grown from these experiences..... These guys would do the same if the thought ever occured to them but instead they will only cling to whatever small dust particles of knowledge merely stroke their own inner rage........ Trying to discuss such subjects with them is futile because it is all about them and their self image first/foremost, and it will always be about that no matter what issue they pretend to be discussing...... They are in reality the most dangerous type of miscreant individual in society other than IRS agents.

Just a pointer in case you choose to continue with this.

Or continue to make statements based on nothing substantial or nothing based in actual knowledge of the persons you're making them about.

Directly from the ol' dusty playbook, where the emotion of the situation allows false if not libelous assumptions and statements to pass as "fact" in order to make a point. And the persons who are left to determine "are they talking about me?" since there is no direct reference to whom is being challenged or called out labeled as "they" or "these people" or "them", but rather blanket statements designed to minimize all of the ideas, opinions, and people which disagree with the more advanced thinkers defining their own notion of the big picture in one fell swoop.

We're better than this. Let's try to live up to it. Deal?

I believe you, TRBB.  Because it is the Left who bans people in this world.  The Left limits speech and build walls to keep people in line.  All while pretending they're the open-minded, free-thinkers!   :lol  What a farce!  What a farce!

You know... this is something that has blown my mind more than anything in the creepy world of politics.  AND, mind you, why I got into (discussing) politics.  I saw a rat and couldn't sit idly by while these rats shat in their neighbor's pool, then call the authorities for health code violations.  Nice analogy?

I love holding a mirror up to the left and watch them spew their hatred as a result.  It's a hobby.  Does it stop them from blaming us for their own actions?  Oh, heavens no.  I know they're incapable of seeing themselves and making deep, soulful adjustments based on seeing the truth.

I realize that.  But since it drives me nuts to see them blame good, honest people, for what they do -- I've made it a hobby to drive them nuts in return.  Discussing the issues with them is, by-n'-large, pointless.  There's rarely room for comprise or understanding.  And why should their be "compromise?"  I'd rather rid the world of their influence and be done with it.  Then we could focus on natural issues, like disease, disasters and bettering the human condition throughout the rest of world -- which is CLEARLY achieved through Capitalism and freedom.  Which will cause the Left to squirm.

Why?  Why does the left hate Capitalism?  Cuz it works.  And they want people to think that it is they who fix the world's problems.  Not Capitalism.  They want people coming to them for all their ills.  Hence ObamaCare, hence Government HealthCare.  Are you sick?  See them.  They want to be seen as the smart, talented people in charge of the world -- guiding it with their intellect and compassion and understanding.  Of which they have very little of each.

And it's seriously a real shame that an exchange of opinions can't come down to discussing those opinions without trying to impugn the people making them, or trying to elevate one side as "more informed" or "more advanced" in order to avoid the issue at hand.

It usually happens where there is no convincing answer to a question like "what about the personal responsibility?", so instead of conceding even partially or even admitting there may be some flaws which have led to lesser than great results in the past up to the present, the people asking the questions are maligned.

But then again, since this is a topic about health care, perhaps there are not enough ways to defend the indefensible, no matter what amount of PR and talking points have been attempting to defend a plan which has been a total disaster even in its nascent stages and has turned into a laughingstock rather than a grand populist design which will benefit everyone.

And when certain people are caught lying outright, and recorded repeatedly doing so for three years despite knowing the "truth", I guess that carries less offense than someone calling them out as a liar.

But when real people deliver real facts from real experiences, it's hard to make claims that they are being deceptive or dishonest in order to promote an agenda. Unless we're "forging" the hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters and rate-increase notices which have gone out, and will be followed by potentially 75 million similar letters within the next year as the employer mandate extension expires.

And that may be why the conversation keeps leaning into the same boring-as-f*** ideology debates that have sunk nearly every one of these threads in the past few years.

Divert, distract, and when that doesn't work cause chaos and disrupt. Then malign and destroy those who don't agree if there is no logical way to refute their claims. And allow the people discussing the topic to become the topic over the topic itself. "Rules For Radicals" 101.

It only works with people ignorant of the tactics.

No tactics here! How can it not get personal when both "sides" are basically sitting here babbling about how it's impossible to talk to each other? And we are our opinions to a large extent. If you can't handle the light being cast upon yourself, then maybe consider who your own opinions represent or misrepresent you...

And you mean to tell me when Bean goes on and on and on about the "left" he'a not talking about actual people?

Designed to get away from the questions and answers that don't fit the ideology. But I digress.

Back to health care for a moment.

The talk of volunteering and helping the homeless raises an interesting question regarding volunteering and charity in general.

Let's take a hypothetical example of someone who buys their own health insurance, works a typical work-week of 40 hours plus necessary overtime if warranted, and who may also volunteer a number of hours for charity. Or someone who donates to charities on a regular basis.

That person is faced with having to change health care plans, which may include increased monthly payments. Or that person may have had a basic plan which now will be replaced by one adding a certain level of coverage at a cost.

That person works so many hours a week already to generate their income, support themselves and their family, and handle all the bills which come in. Unless they are on a commission-based sales job where the pay fluctuates with their job performance week-to-week, most workers exist on a defined and set income every month. For many, there is no way to generate income beyond that, within that job, unless the demands for their work or services may offer "overtime" payments. But such overtime isn't a personal choice as much as it is based on demand. Someone working at a warehouse or in a pharmacy cannot say to their manager "I'm going to work five extra hours today" and expect overtime if there is no demand from orders or customers to require that person to work five extra hours. A security guard cannot say "I'm going to stay an extra three hours tonight" if another guard is coming in on time to take over that shift.

Most workers are limited to the same supply-and-demand controls that dictate how much time they will need to spend on the job, and how many hours they will expect to get paid for doing that job. Again, unless it's commission-based sales where your amount of effort and "hustle" can generate more results and closures, you're on a fixed schedule with fixed pay. And even in sales, there are jobs which set limits on commissions where individual salespeople cannot "top out" and go above the maximum amount of commission they can receive.

Health care, 2013 into 2014. That person's monthly premium will increase by 250 dollars each month under the new plans. Their jobs only allow them to make so much each week, they cannot simply stay overtime and demand overtime pay if their services are not required. Someone with a fixed and scheduled client list cannot free up more hours in a day to work in more clients during the week if their schedule is already full.

So where do we suggest those workers find a way to make that extra 250 dollars a month to pay their increased health care premium every month? If you already put in as much time as your schedule allows, where do you go? Perhaps instead of Monday through Friday, you'll consider opening your schedule to clients on Saturdays and Sundays. Ok.

What if you can't get enough clients on Saturdays and Sundays to make the extra money? Well, you could try getting a part-time job on weekends. Tend bar, mow lawns, work at a restaurant, if any have openings for a 2-day per week job.

Now if you happen to volunteer on weekends, let's say you go to a homeless shelter on Saturday afternoons for six hours, or even less, how will that work into your schedule if you now need to find extra work to supplement your already full weekly work schedule and the only open times and shifts are on weekends? Obviously you won't be volunteering as much if at all if you're working those same hours for the extra pay you'll need every month.

And obviously if you were setting aside even 75 dollars a month to give to charity or donate in any way, that 75 dollars will now be going toward paying your own mandated health insurance coverage first, since that would take precedent in your own budget.

If it goes through as designed and potentially millions of people will see such increases, would it be surprising to see a drop in individual charitable giving and individuals volunteering their free time in various ways if their monthly budgets would suddenly need to make up for several hundred dollar increases which they currently do not have available?

Or should they just subscribe to the "tighten the belt" mentality which people are always being told to do in their private lives yet government and government officials seem to never be required to do in their own spending?

So instead of going on a real vacation, maybe we should hoodwink our kids into thinking a stay-at-home "Staycation" is just as good, where Dad can put up a tent in the backyard, we'll light a campfire, turn the garden hose into a water-ride like any theme park would offer, and roast some of those dollar-store generic hot dogs over the fire. Just like the real thing.  :) Then we'll have some extra money.

Food for thought.

any/every remark, comment, converation point/approach can be looked at as a tactic if one wishes, but then that in itself is a tactic...

OK, so my tactic is to steer the convo around to the personalities of those making the comments and how much of their line of B.S is simply a reflection of their base personality.... Same goes for me too.

I think this is an important point to raise when "discussing" such topics. It's like if I'm talking to Ted Bundy about my love life and he's saying "Just kill her, man" .... How much of it would be him actually listening to what I'm saying and thinking up a reasoned reply, and how much of it would just be him being...... Ted Bundy?

So we'll get back on the topic, would you share some of your opinions on the Affordable Care Act a month after the first post? My initial post now looks like the calm before the storm, as events unfolded far beyond what I thought would happen aside from me and others in my area getting this letter and losing my current coverage. But my feelings and opinions on the topic itself have remained the same, and in some ways have gotten even more strong against this particular "law" as more information has been discovered about it. And that's way beyond the website issues, which is only one aspect of the situation at this point.

What's your own take on the whole deal?

My view is that it is hideous in so many ways and a giant gift to the criminal insurance companies and the pharm industry.

I have a friend with stage 4 prostate cancer and he lost his 100% private insurance coverage (that most months he just barely managed to afford, I should add. But "shhhhh") and is now supposed to be happy to sign up for 80% coverage under ObombaCare. Not exactly ideal for someone in his case. Then again, I also have a friend with a 16 year old son with bone cancer who was denied coverage, apparently until now.....

As long as he have this hateful, selfish attitude toward one another, we will settle for an absolute dire healthcare situation in this country. People I know who can (or could) afford great care have long thought the situation was just tops, while a whole lot of other people had to face just how hideous it was.... With the examples I provided, I am a bit conflicted. Or rather: I think Obamacare is 90% horrendous and the other 10% is up in the air....Seems about right as we are a deeply conflicted people in this country.

Cue the BeanBag "left" bashing and "funny" picture parade.....

And Guitarfool: I know it's a tactic on your part, but this is a public messageboard, not a courtroom. People are free to just ramble their emotions when/if they feel like it.

I hope actual people get rightfully disgusted with the actual people that gave us ObamaCare.  The Demorat Party.  Barrak Hussein Obama.  That's the issue, not me.  Not my tactics.

Where's Rock N' Roll?  He, like you Pinder, said Obama and his ObamaCare was MASSIVE Capitalism.  Really?  Ya'll said it was a free gift to big evil insurance corporations.  LIE.  You guys (and the big evil insurance corporations) bought Obama's LIE.  Hook.  Line.  Sinker.  People are NOT running to insurance companies to buy plans.  They're losing their plans.  Insurance companies are LOSING business.

What are you gonna do when you lose your HealthCare?  You can't afford ObamaCare.  And insurance companies are unable to offer affordable alternatives, as mandated by the Affordable Health Care Lie, er Act.  Thank you AFFORDABLE health care act.  Thank you Obama.

(http://lh4.ggpht.com/-79T-_Px45V4/TfA_uFThsHI/AAAAAAAAAAA/2sA1Vd5x2-E/s512/Thanks%2BObama.jpg)

Obama's lies. "You can keep your plan.  Period."  Now Obama says: "I didn't say you could keep your plan.  I said you could keep it...uh, if the plan doesn't change."  No you didn't.  Fking LIAR.

(http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Obama+liar+message+563971_469115803109000_139717551_n.jpg)

Worst. President. Ever.






Funny pictures, eh Pinder?  Aren't they hilarious.   :shrug

My plan's not changing a bit.  But you see, I still care about others and their situations. I don't know why I bother with you. It is very delightful watching you sputter out on a daily basis when you simply can't do a single damn thing but beat your chest. And even if you could do anything about anything, you're too blinded by your imaginary enemy "left" to and too pumped up/indoctrinated as a "righty" to be of any use to anyone.

And I guess you missed the part where I called Obama "Obamba" and said his plan is hideous...

But you need someone to beat on, I get it.

And your pictures are never funny, they just make me sad for you and sad for us. But at least you'll shut up and be happy if/when we get a Republican prez in there doing the very same or worse things while the rest of us will still have to be aware.

You are simply a partisan at it's most basic definition. It's frankly amazing that you'll attack/paint those disgusted with Obamacare as lefties just because they aren't quite as rabidly right and out of control as you.... Great way to build united opposition to something no one likes: calling them names and putting them into little boxes because it suits your rage..... You're just not a leader Bean.

Joke overheard at a Republican cafeteria

Republican #1: “Obamacare is slavery!”

Republican #2: “And it’s so hard to sign up!”

BUDDA BOOM BUDDA BING!

If the tactic is steering the topic back to the actual topic and asking out of curiosity and to ground the discussion a bit, exchanging ideas and opinions and all that, then I plead guilty as charged!  :)

I think it's important to get opinions on this based on what's actually happening. If people who are so far sitting back and assuming their own plans will not be affected in the next year are gathering the "facts" from watching television or reading newspapers, they're missing out. Ask your friends and neighbors, ask them what if anything they are experiencing around this law.

And report it as such, rather than through a haze of outright lies and bullshit as we've been getting from the likes of the president and the really smart people like "Zeke" Emmanuel..

I'll restate this again, I'm sure, but keep in mind before leaving to work this afternoon I received a letter with actual numbers for what I would be paying in 2014.

Would an increase of almost 50% be surprising? In simple terms, take what I pay now, divide it in half, and add the amount of that half to what I'd need to pay in 2014 for coverage that's not even as good as what I had.

So much for bringing costs down.

So much for keeping my own plan, since this is one of those f***ed up Obama Exchange "silver" plans.

So much for a better plan, since as I said back on page one, the details include higher rates, higher deductibles, and less coverage for me in favor of coverage that the Obama administration and the HHS department thought were more important for me to pay for.

Things like me, as a currently single man, needing to pay for various maternity coverages and pre-natal stuff.

But that's the deal I'm given.

Basically, I got f***ed royally. Most people who got the letters are getting f***ed royally.

And we have a president who got caught in lie after lie, at least since 2010 when his own administration's reports outlined "grandfathering" and canceling plans in order to shift them into the metallic plans like this silver sh*t I got offered today. He gives a speech yesterday where he lied again by saying what he said...only it's not what the man said, nothing of the sort actually.

Unless the word "guarantee" means something different than I know it to mean, and unless the word "period" instead means "asterisk" and we were supposed to not take him at face value but assume there were conditions, even though they were unspoken and unreported.

So much for trust, honesty, and the basic notion of telling the truth.

But hey, if as an adult man I should become pregnant in the next few years, my terrific health care which I'm being told is better for me will cover it.

Enjoy.  :-D

I drive a regular car, but I think I'm going to start shopping for motorcycle insurance to add to my policy, even though I've never been on a motorcycle and don't intend to ever ride one. Oh, and my area has no scientific or physical way to ever flood because of elevation and the location of the nearest water, but I think I'll call my insurance broker and add flood insurance.

Happy voting in 2014. They care about us, they really do.  ;)

First -- Yes, I'm "pounding my chest" as you say.  In vain, perhaps.  I realize that.  But I'm not "beating on you."  So, which is it:  Pounding my chest or beating on you?  And, which is it:  you're "delighted to watch me sputter," or are you "sad for me?"  How many Pinders are there?  Which one am I talking to?

Second -- I also realize you don't agree with ObamaCare.  It doesn't "go far enough."  Which is insanity, but another topic.  The point is -- I listen.  You don't.  You keep calling me "partisan."  Republican.  I could launch into the Republican Party like a roman candle.  John McCain and Mitch McConnell, et al.  But they didn't give us this nightmare.  They sat on their thumbs and played nice, but that's cuz they're useless suits.

Third -- I don't want to "build united opposition" with you.  Not as you mean it.  I'm not a Republican like John "Reach-across-the-aisle, and-make-a-deal" McCain.  I'm a Conservative.  I want to sully the name of the people that did this.  Supported this.  I want everyone who fancied themselves, hip & cool because they attended an Obama rally and fainted, to second-guess their ability at choosing a leader.  Go home and cry.  Complain that I'm a big meany, if that helps.  I'm not John McCain and the Republican Party.  Far from it, I think.

Fourth -- ObamaCare is the next step to single-payer, gov't HealthCare.  You know that, right?  So, you want this.  Whether you realize that or not.  Whether you tell people you're against ObamaCare or not -- you want this.  They need to first dismantle the Employer-based HC System.  They need people like GFool and all the rest of us, to lose their plans.  Pay more.  Go into the exchanges, pay the fine.  Whatever.  Just get less care or pay more.  This is what ObamaCare does.  The point of Obamacare is to DESTROY the Private Health Care Insurance Industry, Pinder.  For crying out loud -- it's not a gift to insurance companies.  It's their demise.  And the demise of quality care.  And choice.  Yeeees, choice.

Lastly -- I'm "not a leader?"  Interesting that you say that...

I don't get it.  What's a "Republican cafeteria?"

Considering what a similar plan would be in another industry besides health care, try this hypothetical example:

What if the government working with all the internet service providers like Verizon, Comcast, and whoever else regionally provides subscription-based access to the internet decided to formulate a plan to enable high speed internet access for free to those who currently cannot afford it or simply do not have it. The internet is a part of everyday life, it could be argued, so why not consider it "essential" and offer it for those who cannot afford to subscribe and pay for high speed access?

If this hypothetical plan would offer this kind of essential service to those who currently do not have it, would you support it in theory?

Now what if they asked for something in return from the current subscribers in order to fund bringing in potentially millions of new high speed connections, again on the theory that it has become essential?

And what if that something were a 50% increase in your own current monthly rate, which taking even a rounded off average of a monthly charge of 100 dollars would now be 150 dollars each month?

And what if in order to accommodate the millions of new connections, they'll need to slow down your current connection speeds from where they are under fiber optic and high-speed cable connections to a level just under an average DSL line?

So instead of 100 per month for your high speed, you'll pay 150. And instead of your current internet speeds, which you're happy with and suit your needs, you'll now go back to a speed closer to that of DSL, or depending on the area, perhaps even a fast dial-up speed if it's a time of peak usage.

But for the "big picture", you'll be funding a lot of people's access to the internet. Even they won't have high speed, in the long run because of the sheer numbers involved on the networks, but they'll have access.

Who would agree to that?

And just an observation in general, it's curious to not see more people even in this thread defending the Affordable Care Act as it exists today. The ideology perhaps, but the actual law itself and the execution of and results produced by it so far? Next to nothing, apart from the most ardent political hacks on TV and the like.

It can be summed up like this:

Nanny Goobermint ruins everythng it touches. Massive bureaucrisy Cloward Pliven strateegery.
there fore the present HC system as you know it will not exist in a few years.

However, the true movitivation is CONTROL. All Democrats and most Republicans want O-Care to stay

See the recent IRS scandal vs. tParty for a tiny glimpse of what Uncle Scam will be able to do to the ciitizenry of these United States when armed with all your bkgd-info and commie care for a cudgle. They can deny care to anyone they want to and its Logans Run in real time.

Dr. Ben Carson busted the presidents chops, in front of him.  In a very gentlemanly manner, by the way.

(http://bossip.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/ben-carson.jpg)


He was audited immediately after that, I'm told.

Once again, your entire approach seems to be 99% self-image based.... And when did I say ObamaCare doesn't go far enough? I said it was hideous and I mean it..... My point is, don't divide and conquer to the point where you're knocking off folks who share your essential belief about what it is you're on the ramage about just because they don't despise it with quite the same jackhammer intensity like you..... I respect your opinions, Bean, I really do.

You are obviously blessed with high intelligence AND a sense of humor. It's just that we all know where you stand and there comes a point where you have to ask "OK, but what are we going to do about it"??? Bashing Obama only does so good (no matter how much pleasure it gives you) becsuse he'll be out of there soon enough, so let's hear some ideas other than throwing out all the Democrats because that's not going to happen, and even if it did, they'd still have their hand up the elephant's ass, if you know what I mean......

I know it's just for an analogy, but this is kind of in the remit of public libraries already, which we do pay for.

But...with that access at public libraries comes what could be considered a more strict set of guidelines regarding use and access of the service. First and foremost, you cannot walk into a public library and access the internet at any time of the day or night. If the library is closed, you can't get into the building to access the internet. Simple as that.

Second, public libraries block specific websites and web content from being accessed. So you cannot log on and start uploading and/or downloading at will, nor can you access certain URL's based on content. So it's "free", but with restrictions you or I don't have as we log on at home.

Third, you are not able to simply walk in and log onto a computer terminal at the library. You have to sign up, you need to wait in line. If 20 other people are there before you, and there is a waiting list, your access is determined by the demand of the other members of the public who are there for the same access.

Fourth, consider public libraries in general. If you wanted a copy of any random book, you could buy it and own that book. You'd have access to that book anywhere, anytime. If you perhaps can't afford that book, or don't want to pay full price for it, you can go to the public library. BUT - you need to have a membership/'library card' to access it, and what if someone else has borrowed that book? You cannot simply walk in and get that book whenever it is convenient for YOU. What if the person who currently has that book on loan decides to bring it back when it's due and sign it out again? You still cannot get that book when you want it (or need it). So your access to that book may be "free" in a sense, but there are conditions. And it's not accessible whenever is convenient for you. Rather, your access depends on the needs and demands of others accessing that same library.

And when you do access that book, it's on loan. Plain and simple, it has to be returned by a certain time, under the conditions you've agreed to through the membership or library card system at that library.

If you pay for your own copy of that book, it's on your shelf or in your bag whenever you want to access it.

So there is...IS...a trade-off. If someone else is there seeking the same demands for internet access, or for a book, you're waiting in line behind them. What if that person, who has borrowed the same book you need, decides to keep the book and not return it?

You don't get the book.

What if you want to access the library's free internet access to download or upload personal files, and the hosts or websites you're looking to access are blocked by that library's network?

You don't get the access you want.

But it's still free, through the library, right?

Free, but with very defined conditions and restrictions.

And if you instead purchase that book or subscribe to the internet at your home, those conditions are removed immediately, and you can log on any time or pull the book off your shelf anytime you wish or need to access it.

Now, health care. There already were in place programs and options available for low-cost health care, minus pre-existing conditions and other loopholes. Which, by the way, I agree needed to be fixed.

Those included what was offered to me almost a decade ago as I was shopping around for health coverage as "catastrophic" plans. Simply put, it carried a high deductible, reduced everyday benefits, but came at a very low cost. These were for people who were in good health, perhaps young and healthy/active with no serious medical conditions to speak of, who wanted a "safety net" plan in case of something "catastrophic" like an accident or a sudden serious illness. After meeting the deductible, you were in fact "covered" so you did not receive a $200,000 bill if you happened to fall down a flight of stairs. But it was not for people who make regular visits to their doctors or need specialized care on a regular basis.

Basically, it existed before this current sham of a law was enacted.

And the "Medicaid" program also existed, which was for low-income or poverty-level citizens who could not afford to pay for a monthly plan, should they become sick. It's in the same category as the Welfare program or housing assistance or even food stamps. And for seniors, it was "Medicare", slightly different but a version of essentially the same thing. However with Medicare, there was the notion of "paying in" to the system as you worked similar to unemployment insurance or Social Security.  

But you had to sign up.

Now is it a surprise that even wading through the threadbare information coming out as early as the first week of October, that a majority of the people looking for this "new" health care have instead signed up for Medicaid?

So we're supposed to believe that all of these people now accessing Medicaid either were ignorant of or simply didn't bother to sign up for it at any time in their adult lives? Or they didn't inquire about it to see if they were eligible, say, 10 years ago and instead remained technically "uninsured"?

And getting those people who have just signed up for Medicaid, or those who had access to but never took out a low-cost "catastrophic" health plan along the lines of exactly what they will most likely get under the Affordable Care Act...

...Was changing the entire system and requiring someone like me to not only lose insurance but now pay more for less coverage worth getting people onto the SAME PLANS WHICH EXISTED BEFORE THE LAW WAS WRITTEN?

And again, yes access at the public libraries is free. But there are conditions and limitations. That's part of the bargain. Get something free, give up this in return. And hope the persons accessing the free services are responsible enough to return the books they borrowed to that library when the book is due.

This health care plan takes those underlying issues to extremes of expecting "sacrifice" from too many people, to the point where seeing the actual dollar amounts and "sacrifices" actually mandated from those individuals who have been living up to their responsibilities might be the Waterloo of the entire plan, which may also take some of the ideology behind it along with it to the scrap heap.

Not to mention, they're closing libraries left and right, and bookstores too.... Pretty soon, alll that will be left is Amazon where you'll need credit card or bank card, not to mention a secure address for shipping, just for access to a book. Or a Kindle where access to a power source is also necessary....

Let's use the issue of libraries closing to consider another analogy to the health care situation.

Let's say I were to propose a system of voluntary charitable giving targeted to keeping the libraries funded. Every time a customer buys a book on Amazon and goes to checkout, every time a customer in a bookstore goes to the cash register, every time a Kindle user agrees to purchase and download a book, a question would be asked. "Would you care to donate one dollar toward funding and preserving your public library?". If on Amazon, you'd simply check a box yes or no, and whatever your bill would be, a dollar would be added. Just as grocery stores having a charity drive ask the same thing at the cash register, it would be for each book or book download a customer buys. The funds collected could even be targeted by area, using customer zip codes and other billing info as the guide. It's relatively easy to access and write those parameters into an online sales model, or even as a bookstore who uses online accounting makes up the quarterly reports.

Every dollar donated goes toward the public libraries in that area, the ones most in danger of closing would be first in line.

Strictly voluntary, but I'd say most people who regularly buy and read books no matter what format they choose would be more than willing to offer up a dollar.

Even beyond that, what about a minimal 5 cent per book tax levied on each new book sold or downloaded to further help fund the more vulnerable library branches in need of funding?

BUT...

Suppose the voluntary giving model is found not to be sufficient? Suppose the 5 cent per book surcharge tax still doesn't close the funding gap sufficiently? There just isn't enough money coming in through the voluntary, optional giving system, or the minimal per-book surcharge collected on each sale.

Consider, then, if the public library system in general is essential to the common good, if the government were to apply a model similar to the Affordable Care Act, and enact a funding system in the form of a tax structure affecting the services and purchases by the consumers.

Most hardcover book new releases run between 20 and 30 dollars new. Lets round it off on the low end to 20.

The new mandatory library funding system would order that people currently buying books pay more on their end in order to fund the libraries who are struggling to stay in operation.

Each new release you would buy for 20 dollars on average would now cost you 30 dollars, as they'd take as in my case with the health care "silver" plan they recommended for me a *50 percent increase* over the normal price, add that to the normal price, and a 20 dollar hardcover book would now cost 30 dollars. And that extra money paid would go to the IRS and other government agencies to fund their programs to keep the libraries in danger of closing in operation.

Would you as a customer agree to pay 30 per book rather than 20? Or 15 for every Kindle download versus 10, if it were in the name of helping the "common good" through libraries?

Or would you be more willing to check off the "yes" box and offer a dollar or more if presented with that option voluntarily?

It again comes down so much to ideology, and the notion of voluntary giving versus mandated charity. And when exact dollar amounts are presented to people, the game changes as they actually see how much is being "mandated" right out of their wallets.

And then they start asking "where exactly is my money going, and why?", and the ideology starts crumbling under the weight of the everyday peoples' reality and budgets.

So I ask hypothetically, who would be willing to pay 30 dollars for a book that now costs 20 dollars if that extra 10 would go to funding public libraries?

Or would a voluntary donation choice you could make with each book you purchase be a better option for you?

Problem with a voluntary option is, there's the danger that not enough people would donate.... It's like when PBS shows The Rolling Stones 1972 Tour film and I tune in and then bitch and complain when they break every 10 mins to ask for my money..... The irony is usually lost since I just want them to shut up and get back to the concert..... Brings up a good question: if we could just check off boxes say, on the stub of each paycheck and mail it in, what neighborhoods would have paved roads and working stop lights, libraries, public pools, parks, etc, and which wouldn't? ... Or would none? ..... I keep trying to get at an idea of what sort of reality you guys want? It seems to be either Beyond Thunderdome/The Road Warrior (where none of us softies sitting on this board all night/day would stand a chance) or some paranoid statist nightmare. All we hear about is what doesn't work and then any examples people post of places in the world where it DOES work, they are just dismissed out of hand.

As for the book thing: I used to work for Borders and (before they were a publically shared company) they didn't ever discount books and the extra bit customers would pay where they could get it on a discount elsewhere went directly into the local library system (Torrance CA), and up until 911 the store I worked for did booming business and customers actually boasted about helping out the community....... Then, "ordinary people's money and budgets" as you put it, really is what it always comes down to....

And what I'd argue it always should come down to. The difference with the health care situation today is that people will see close to the exact dollar amount they're being asked to pitch in involuntarily, rather than have it be a nameless few-dollar tax or surcharge which they pay regularly on everything from phone bills to a gallon of gas and don't really pay attention.

If you set up a situation where instead of a dollar more to cover a social program, people will see several hundred dollars more on their monthly health care bill, it won't be good. Especially if the people seeing the increases are already struggling to pay their own bills. And people will not only react but respond with action. And the nature of the ideology itself behind the law will be questioned.

The fact that lies and distortions campaigned for and sold this law only makes it worse. And if anyone questions the increases or changes being reported, you have me as a direct reference and example of how it affects people, with exact amounts.

Well, put and Bean Bag's relentless pointing out of the lies (and he is correct) aside, we all get that and have long gotten it ....... So, what sort of a system do we strive for, advocate??

We need a single-payer system, it's that simple.

I think food and water is more important than healthcare, Rocky.  What system do you propose for that?

My approach has always been twofold.

First, alert people to the nightmare (not everyone is).  I created a thread (that has since morphed into this thread) detailing the reality of this bill, as it unfolded.  To show, just as predicted, what's actually happening as a result of the Affordable HealthCare Act:  Higher premiums, not lower.  People losing care, not gaining care.  Higher costs, not lower -- and the death panels, will also arrive.

Second, direct people's anger.  Get people disgusted with the actual slimeballs that did this.  "We gotta pass it, to find out what's in it."  The extremists -- the Democrats.  The Noble Peace Prize Winner, Barrack O'Bama.  Not because I'm "partisan" (you're right, Obama will be gone soon) but because, anger -- properly aligned and focused, and based on truth -- is what will be required to overcome a massive government insurrection on the most basic of human freedoms.  Our body.

We've never rolled back an entitlement program -- surely not one as massive as this.  One-sixth of the US economy.  The scale of this is almost indescribable.  The anger and sorrow that people will experience as this rolls out, flattening an entire generation like a giant typhoon -- must be properly directed.  The media is very good at blaming their opponents -- "the other party."  And the "other party" is so bad, and so willing to be loved, that they will always go along.  Once the Democrat media starts saying "sick people over 70 are too expensive to take care of -- not because of the program, but because the program wasn't funded enough -- Republicans wouldn't raise taxes.  They did this."

That's where this story will try to go.  That's not gonna help anything.  So we need to focus, like a laser beam -- for once in our life -- focus our disgust and political angst squarely at the people that did this.  We are blessed only with the truth and the fact that the program is called ObamaCare.  And little else.

Talking about "what we're going to replace it with" (which is what I think you're asking) comes later.  It's so far down the line, in my thinking.  Basically -- the house is on fire... it's not the time to talk about what color the drapes should be when we rebuild.  Planning ahead is good but, I find the task before us, so scary, massive and drastic -- that I'm running on fumes as is.



In conclusion -- it's really all about ANYBODY who supports the bill.  One by one, we will need these azzhats to lose their respective elections.  And if making Obama so toxic... that others think twice.  If it makes politicians attempt to understand just how toxic he is, and how angry people are -- then that's what we have to do.

Bean, for once we agree completely :)

It's amazing to watch all of this unfold, but I think come apart at the seams is a better description. What more can be added to what's already playing out? People are angry, and asking questions. That's what I said way back on page 1 - ask the questions about how will this affect you. And it didn't even need to reach that point as it's now in the millions, the number of letters which have gone out.

I'm still angry. At least now versus October 1st when all of this arrived at my own front door, there are many more exactly in my situation feeling the same way. And as that number rises, look at what is still being done by those who crafted this fiasco in the first place.

Marginalize the numbers. Oh, there's not that many, it's only a small number, people cancel plans all the time. The new plans are better and more affordable. You'll now have maternity coverage! Thanks for that, as a man I really needed to pay for that versus the "junk" plan I had before this stupid law made it non-compliant.

Keep on that, you bunch of idiots. Dig the hole deeper.

Lie, lie, and continue to lie. Lie not only about the bill itself, but then also lie about what you lied about, about the bill itself. Keep it up. With the decline in credibility comes the decline in the ability to do much of anything substantial. Yet there must be an assumption that people like me who are actually directly affected by this are either ignorant or not as smart as the guys like Zeke Emmanuel who continue to lie and distort, ostensibly because they know what's better for me than even my own stupid self.

Now millions know who they are and what they are about. That's a good thing.

Solutions? I could list them. But as pointed out, the house is burning now, it's not as important to pick out your new furniture as you're watching the flames as it is to actually try putting out the fire, and minimizing the damage before the fire spreads.

Speaking of lies, outright lies, we now have the spectacle of a group of democrats whose political seats are on the line in the next elections. They called a meeting with Obama, a fact coincidentally not reported to anyone until some reporters got wind of the scuttlebutt going around DC. They gave him an earful, apparently, about how the lies are harming their chances. Of how they're having to field thousands if not tens of thousands of calls and letters from their constituents demanding answers on this law. And all of those are not some GOP-led ploy, but rather their own voters and supporters who have gotten "the letter" and have seen firsthand the exact opposite of what they were told the law would offer them. Namely, affordable care, reduced rates, and the ability to keep their own plans if they wished.

So we see now these democrats like Feinstein (CA) and Landreiu (LA) suggesting they were all but blindsided by the spectacle of their constituents if not their own friends and family members getting cancellation letters, and being forced into more expensive plans.

Problem is, that's an outright lie.

It's just starting to break, but look further into a senator named Mike Enzi (WY). He read the bill, and in 2010 took to the floor of the Senate with a proposal to stop what is happening now, namely to correct the "grandfathering" elements of the law which are in large part behind what's going on as we speak.

He was voted down, in fact every democrat voted against it. So when they suggest "we didn't know this would happen" or "we were misled" up to Fall 2013, they are quite simply full of sh*t. And they're lying. Since they in fact had this proposal in front of them and presented to them in 2010, and all of them to a person were against it.

Now they're left not only lying, but looking like fools. Of course, if they took the advice "you need to pass to bill to find out what's in the bill", they're in perfect lock-step with the plan from the beginning.

And Obama and his administration have created their own Catch-22 in a way. Now they're said to be looking into options to allow us to keep our current plans if we want.

Problem is, the very design of this bill, and how it would be funded, hinged on moving people currently buying their own insurance into higher-priced government exchange plans.

Let me repeat that: In order to fund the plan, millions who were currently buying insurance would need to move to the exchanges. And since they would not do so voluntarily, the plans would be audited and declared "non-compliant" in order to terminate them, and force those private payers into the Obama exchanges, which would then add millions to the available funding and keep the new "Affordable Care Act" feasible.

Problem is, it also depends on new people buying into new policies. That's not happening, at least so far nowhere near the goals and quotas they had set for the plan in order to financially support it.

So if you heed the call of these senators like Landrieu who lie and claim they didn't know the effects on people would have been this serious, and change it so they can keep their plans, it cuts the funding which was one of the key elements of the plan to begin with.

And it puts the whole thing into a tailspin.

So a combination of poor design, assumptions about the people who would be affected, lies and distortions in attempts to sell the plan and marginalize those questioning it, and a dose of old fashioned "supply and demand" where many people shopping for a plan ( "just as you would on Amazon and Kayak!... ;D )  have seen what products are being offered and are not rushing to mail in their payment just yet, have created what looks to be a massive shitstorm of errors, lies, and incompetence.

Difference is, people are seeing it firsthand this time. It's not buried on page 7 of your phone bill or electric bill or your yearly property tax bill.

All these politicians need to lose their jobs.  Their fat, cushy, 24-hour catered jobs.  They're not governing or officiating -- they're ruling.  Living like rulers.  If they're ever caught in a lie, like Obama is, they just lie again.  Because the Media will not call them out.  Obama is now lying about the plans.  Says they're probably even better than the one you just lost.  Really?  Cuz, I'm pretty sure they're not.  Oh, by the way...2014.  People who currently get their plans from their employer (ie, most Americans) -- will start losing their plans in 2014.  That's real soon. ;)

The Media is in bed with the State.  They're "dating."  They attend the same schools.  They attend the same parties.  They trade jobs when they get fired or lose an election.  And when they're done with their spouse, they'll even trade those too, I think.

I don't know if people understand this fully.  The reason voters (dead or alive) keep reelecting entrenched, Statist politicians is because the media has made them out to look cool.  Like role models.  Rather than serve their Constitutional role, the Media opts to keep people entertained with the exploits of Miley Cyrus and Good Morning America and trying to trip-up Sarah Palin on what magazines she reads.  Yeah, awesome!  Informing Americans about how their government staged a coup on their HealthCare is not as important as getting New York street-women birth control pills.  We're only supposed to believe it's all unicorns and rainbows, as a result.

I mention this because the media knew all this was going to happen.  They chose to remain "neutral."  Which is how Poland fell in 1939.  They're supposed to protect and inform us of this crap.  To grill Washington when it even whispers of such an act.  Yet many (most) media outlets chose to even promote it.  WebMD (a "junk" medical site) was bought out.  Did you'all hear about this?  They were paid millions by the Obama Administration to spin yarns about the wonders of the Affordable Healthcare Act.  Out here in America, we call that shet "lies."  But in Washington, they call it "grossly misleading."

They're lies.

It keeps getting better. Take a moment this afternoon to browse the headlines about the press conference today. According to the AP, the headline is: "Obama To Allow Sale Of Canceled Plans".

Am I the only one bothered by that? Exactly WHAT authority is being referenced in order to report that Obama has the power to "allow" anything without going through the legal process in which laws are written, passed, and amended?

Or is this health care law fiasco under a different set of legal boundaries, where a president can simply "allow" or "disallow" anything he sees fit to change? Since when does any part of the Executive Branch have greater authority and power to change a law independent of the Legislative and Judicial, and the systems in place regarding laws in general?

Damn, this has gone into the surreal at this point.

It's both exhilarating and frustrating to see people finally wisening up to the circus that is Obama.  Barrack Obama is a classic tale of style over substance.  He and his gang have no clue how to improve things for the country.  Obama himself seems to think his sheer ego is the answer.  Of course the Republicans aren't faring much better these days as they're too busy squabbling amongst themselves.  At this rate, I fear things are only going to get worse. 

The time for tolerating liberals and their sick degeneracy and lunacy is over. They should be condemned to the dustbin of history along with their intolerant and collectivist ideology. They made their beds. And, in typical liberal fashion, they expect others to lay in them. Liberalism is a mental disorder and needs to be ostracized from civil society.

Sort of.  A spiritual disorder maybe.  Not in a religious way, of course.  But, in a standing on a mountain top, taking a deep breath way.  How we position ourselves -- down deep.  Our souls?  Whatever I fancy -- it's how we form our line of thinking.

(http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper/previews/03418_seaofclouds@2x.jpg)

I don't know what would drive someone to think they should do this.  Take over (and manage) the United States HealthCare system.  For every citizen of the United States.  Why?  Money?  Caring?  Their own self-image?

What were they thinking?


They may have been thinking of doing just what they're doing.  To make a system that left Obama in charge.  Or whomever's there, doesn't matter.  Kind of like he's doing.  Pass the bill to find out what's in the bill.  We find out what's in the bill, after they pass it.  Not a stretch, is it?  Almost like they planned it from the beginning.


Knock knock.
Who's There?

Progressives.
Progressives who?

This time, it's whatever we Progressives want.
(http://www.mrscribs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Prohibition-2.jpg)

Spoken like a true sociopath.....

As much as we agree, this is where you guys lose me..... And you are smart enough to know better.

Maybe people wake up one day and decide to be conservatives (ala Michael Savage: who displays much more nuance than you) but I promise you, no one just decides to be a liberal. Why? Because the word means next to nothing to anyone but you.... Besides, if selfishness, mean spiritedness, cruelty, bluster, ego shame, violence (financial and physical) continue to exist, so will whatever the hell it is you've decided to call "liberalism"  ( which Obama/Obamacare certainly are not)... Deal with or just stay in your cave.

You know, if, a year ago, I had heard a similar sentiment like the one I expressed last night, I would have agreed with you on the "sociopath" thing. But the label is misplaced. It is liberals who are the sociopaths. Always deflecting the blame, always ducking out of the problems they create. Tolerance and open minds are for everyone but them in their eyes. In their unending quest for social justice, tolerance, and open-mindedness, they proved themselves to be the ones wanting in that regard.

They should be ostracized until they learn just what an "open mind" is.

I want to point out something said in the press conference yesterday, something that got lost but which I think is almost as revealing and as accidentally on-point as anything else being quoted from the press conference. This is the exact transcript of the answer I'm referencing, I'm putting in bold a few key sentences.

You know, I — I’ve got to say I meet with an awful lot of folks, and I talk to an awful lot of folks every day. And I have lunches with CEOs and IT venture capitalists and labor leaders and, you know, pretty much folks from all walks of life on a whole bunch of topics. And if you looked at my schedule on any given day, we’re interacting with a whole lot of people.

And I think it’s fair to say that we have a pretty good track record of working with folks on technology and IT from our campaign, where, both in 2008 and 2012, we did a pretty darn good job on that. So it’s not that — you know, the idea that somehow we didn’t have access or were interested in people’s — people’s ideas I think isn’t accurate.

What is true is that, as I said before, our IT systems, how we purchase technology in the federal government is cumbersome, complicated and outdated. And so this isn’t a situation where — on my campaign, I could simply say, who are the best folks out there, let’s get them around a table, let’s figure out what we’re doing and we’re just going to continue to improve it and refine it and work on our goals.

If you’re doing it at the federal government level, you know, you’re going through, you know, 40 pages of specs and this and that and the other and there’s all kinds of law involved. And it makes it more difficult — it’s part of the reason why chronically federal IT programs are overbudget, behind schedule.

And one of the — you know, when I do some Monday morning quarterbacking on myself, one of the things that I do recognize is since I know that the federal government has not been good at this stuff in the past[/size], two years ago as we were thinking about this, you know, we might have done more to make sure that we were breaking the mold on how we were going to be setting this up. But that doesn’t help us now. We got to move forward.

What you heard there is stunning, actually. It's an admission that one of the federal government systems that Obama seems to be pointing a finger of blame at is almost exactly what people who have complained about similar federal government programs for years have been saying. If you try to open or expand an individual business, we have said, the laundry list of regulations, codes, and red tape are amazingly cumbersome, and in many cases prohibitive of running that business efficiently.

The one paragraph alone, describing having to navigate "40 pages" of specs and "all kinds of law involved" in order to put a plan in motion is EXACTLY WHAT THE COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FOR YEARS! The federal government is the problem! Hello?

So now Obama is on the record pointing a finger at government process and procedures in terms of setting up his health care website and IT matters in general, and in contrast cites his campaign's efforts online and in social media as being effective by calling in the best and the brightest in order to achieve (and exceed) their stated goals.

So, I might ask, if the admission is that the federal procedures and regulations and 40 pages of specs and the whole ball of wax is part of the problem behind the health care website failures, WHY would you in any way logically propose MORE of that kind of onerous regulation and procedure on us?

So the admission is there that the system basically sucks, and is causing more trouble than if it were not in place with the White House's IT systems, yet who is advocating and imposing even more of these systems on the citizens?

Damn. It got spelled out right there at the lectern on live television yesterday, I hope more people will catch on and see what the president himself thinks of the federal government boondoggles which have hindered his agenda, yet seem to be the best solution for our personal, daily lives.

Obamacare has insured -3.9 million people.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303789604579197733759439274?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_4

But who are you even talking about? Is it merely anybody that does not share your views on such subjects to the letter? When you talk about "liberals" you are basically talking about humans who have not decided to jump on a particular ideological or political bandwagon, therefore if your view of the world is simply miscreant and anti-social, please don't try and push it off anything more....

And once again: who is advocating Obamacare here? I'm certainly not, but I'm liberal scum simply because I do not share your negative and defeatest outlook? (people needing to be ostracized, and removed from history)

The reason I take issue with this is because you guys are here using Obama and ObamaCare as gigantic symbols of liberal idocy when they are really quite the opposite..... ObamaCare is a policy that is designed to profit private industry, and it looks like it is working in that exact way in practice. In fact, the ACA ensures that private industry dominates the health care market (you guy's favorite word) .... The ACA requires that health care plans specifically carry a set of 10 essential services that insurance companies are, really, in no obligation to pay for. This means that policy costs are expected to escelate radically and the public is largely forced to obtain coverage .... This is not news to anyone who recalls the right wing, pro-business Heritage Foundation from 89 (itself a rewriting of a Nixon initiative from 74) which noted that such a program would "mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance" ... For all these reasons, the major health carriers are currently experiencing major financial victories from ObamaCare and predict more and more to come. Someone wrote earlier that insurance companies are LOSING business, which is a complete fabrication. A recent article in Forbes stated that health care carriers are projecting "robust revenue growth and profits from a boom in business from newly insured Americans under the ACA. In fact a CEO from Wellpoint released a statement saying they were raising their 2013 membership EPS guidance which reflects their "strong performance, and continued preperation and outlook fofr coming market changes under the ACA. Similar statements have come from Aetna, Humana, and the UnitedHealth Group .....

So, once again: I can't help but see all this posturing from you guys as pure self image based chest beating and shadowboxing with an imagined "liberal" enemy..... Are there issues with folks who are not right wing? sure, But once again, until we learn to stop leaning on these self-editing terms like "liberal" "conservative" we'll never solve a damn thing ...... Is Obama a fraud? Sure he is, but if you think the problem here has to do with him being a "liberal" or with "liberals" in general, think again .... It is concerning that you guys persist in willfully deluding yourselves and others that it's just "them damn liberals" who need to be scourged from history (we've heard such talk before, haven't we? It's dangerous claptrap) while in plain view, insurance companies are namechecking ObamaCare as the reason for growing confidence and expectations for their bottom line. But facts don't matter when we're dealing with folk who choose to allow the very people they despise shape, form, and direct their self images, and by rote: their ideologies......

The Affordable Care Act was a compromise when enough votes for a full industry takeover via implementing a single payer, fully government run system failed due to the lack of votes, in light of the late Ted Kennedy's seat being won by a "no" vote and Sen. Joe Lieberman not supporting the full-strength bill. The goal was an all-out takeover of the health insurance industry and a transition to a government-funded, single payer model. That failed.

So maybe I'm just misunderstanding what's being suggested, but when the ultimate goals involved a takeover by the government of a private industry, which in this case was a move to eliminate the private health care insurance industry in general, I fail to see how it's a positive for the industry that's being systematically dismantled and taken over by the federal government.

Look what happened to the millions of individual accounts which have already been rendered non-compliant. The government needed a certain quota of enrollments into the "Obamacare Exchanges" in order to fund the program itself. And knowing that individual buyers like me would never voluntarily give up a current plan which was filling our needs and which we were overall satisfied with in general in favor of an exchange-based plan where we'd pay more and get less for services like maternity care, pediatric dentistry, and alcoholism counseling which some of us are 100% we will *never need* due to simple things like being a single man or a post-menopausal woman, they had to "force" people like us into buying into the new exchange-based plans.

And the way they forced that was to declare plans like mine which may not have covered pediatric dentistry non-compliant.

Which is a total scam. And a fraud. But that's been covered.

The way the plan is unfolding and unraveling through a combination of inept federal government operations, lies and fraud, and pure incompetence, it might be more effective in demonstrating the inherent flaws in the whole notion of government "taking over" and trying to run a private industry than any debate of ideology or political theory.

As people start to see firsthand the notions of "So is this the way the federal government runs things?" where they've had all the previous experience with private industry...and if after the government taking over and promising better coverage and reduced costs leads to the exact opposite result...the ideology behind wanting any form of a federal government takeover of a private industry or service will fall victim to people's own reality as it affects them negatively.

And to point out again, Obama himself complained about the government red tape and bullshit surrounding his own government's IT programs, and how it made the IT programs less efficient than the private sector with similar programs, including Obama's own campaign operations, heavily focused on internet and social media components.

That was as ironic as it was funny as it is just plain pathetic.

Don't like the government regulation red tape and the hassles that come along with it? Simple. Don't assume in your ideology that a federal agency can take over and run any business or service which the private industry already does more efficiently.

"More efficiently" doesn't say very much. I mean, it worked just fine for some in an "I got mine" sort of fashion, but was dismal for many.... But why are we even arguing? It's obvious neither the federal government nor private industry is capable of much other then taking care of the bottom line and staying in office. My point is blaming the enture universe on liberals will get no one anywhere.... Might as well blame Darth Vader or Bruce Johnston.

Like, +1, This. , etc.

And the problem I had with your recent replies is that they're not correct, when the charge is that the grand scheme here was a collusion between the feds and the private insurance industry. In fact, it was not, and if that's the story being presented in order to make someone or some entity a "villain" in order to shift blame, then I'll call it out. Let me state this again, for as many flaws as there were within the private insurance industry, and as many issues that needed to be addressed and fixed, the fact that the original intent of the health care bill was to dismantle, render obsolete,  and replace the entire notion of private insurance. That's been a goal for one particular political ideology for decades now, from Teddy Kennedy to Hilary Clinton up to the present day "architects" like Zeke Emanuel. But even with a democrat majority in the Senate and one in the House, they simply could not muster enough yes votes to push it over the finish line.

Which is how, and where, and why the current Affordable Care Act which is nothing but an embarrassment came to exist. They did not want private insurance to be a competitor, even with the compromises, but it became clear that they simply could not in one fell swoop take away everyone's current private insurance and replace it with government-controlled insurance along the lines of Medicaid, which still exists and which the majority of "new" enrollments are going into. And that new system now has to take on millions of new recipients, and a lot of that will now fall to the states to fully fund such a program. ironic, isn't it? Fed says this is the law, states pick up the balance of the tab. See how long that works.

Again, though, falling into the narrative, there needs to be a boogieman to blame for the chaos, after the "organizers" have already either created or exploited the chaos already in existence.

And if we follow the Alinsky theory, that boogieman has now become the insurance industry.

And Obama's "fix" will do not much more than throw the entire system into even more chaos, to add onto the website debacle, the mass-cancellation debacle, the "extension" and "exemption" to the mandates debacle, and any number of other debacles we have seen play out just this fall.

When that chaos hits at full-speed, there can be a boogeyman to have the finger of blame pointed at, and there can also be the "organizer" who can step in and start organizing and providing all the answers the panicked public is longing to hear from a voice of authority.

Guess who is the boogeyman? Guess who is the saving grace organizer? And guess what the solution proposed will be to calm the chaos and soothe the hurting masses?

Classic, and I mean *classic* Saul Alinsky theory, "Rules For Radicals".

So tell me, if such a plan fits neatly into the design of a man and his book which espouse a very specific political ideology, why can't that ideology be called out or at least called into question when the sh*t really starts hitting the fan and it simply does not work in practical terms, or everyday life?

Or can any of these failures never be attributed even slightly to a failed principle or a failed theory on which it was based rather than finding a boogeyman to blame for getting in the way of the progress?

And what is not correct?

Speaking of efficiancy (as you put it) the US has had one of the least efficiant health care systems in the first world for years and that system had (and is still) been controlled by private industry. It was/is not only a vastly more expensive system than others but it is one that not every citizen could actually benefit from. For the most part, as many a study has shown, it was those private aspects of health care that were far more inefficiant than the public aspects such as Medicare. In fact, the reason why health care prices are so high is because the amount of money invested into private companies wasting money on research and development to concoct copycat drugs to compete in the marketplace and because of outrageously expensive high administrative costs of private health care in comparison to public systems and because the US is THE only country in the industralized world where it is illegal for the government to use it's purchasing power to negotiate drug prices. And that's putting aside the fact that the main players/shapers/framers of the health care policy noted in the 70s that what made the system work was that private industry could profit by denying care. I mean, it was a terrible and completely inefficiant system. The boast that "private industry" does it better is terribly deliusional, when in reality, other countries provide health care for everyone at lower cost to the taxpayer..... But, as I've stated, it seems clear that such facts can be easily and happily brushed off when the real motivating factors for your opinions are the spectral, fantasy boogeyman of "liberalism" and your dream image of the "free market" .... I take issue with this because it is a very dangerous mindset when people want other's lives and health to be determined and left to the fate of willfull delusions which feed a convoluted self image.... Do I advocate being a blind "liberal" and bending over for Obama and waving that flag? Hell no! But denouncing him and his policy is really waging a weak battle. Bean Bag is correct in that knocking down the phoney heroic Obama totem is a crucial act in waking people up but it's not enough. Losing EVERY sort of willfull delusion is the way. And that includes such misty eyed faith in the "free market" that has been displayed in these threads.

Some choice reading.... A bit slanted, but still.....

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/75077/how-they-did-it

The government does not provide Coca-Cola.  Nor Pepsi.  Yet these products & services exist.  Do they not?  And they're cheap.  Even the poor enjoy them, along with TV and McDonalds.  It's to the point now that the poor outweigh the rich.  Literally.  Used to be the opposite.  Strange?  No.

I have the utmost faith that a free-market will provide, Pinder.  In abundance.  It's the point of a free-market.

A free market has not existed in American Healthcare for awhile.  Many don't realize that.  We've had an insurance market.  So in my analogy, what we've had is -- not Coca-Cola, Pepsi and McDonalds sold to us cheaply at the grocer or fast food joint -- but a program where I pay Blue Cross & Blue Shield monthly, out of my paycheck (if I'm lucky!) to pay who-knows-how-many middle men.  Then on top of that, I pay a co-pay of $20 each visit -- to get my soda and fries, that should have cost $5.  Meanwhile, the insurance company pays McDonalds back, $350 for the meal.

Does that sound like a free market? No.  That's insanity.  That's Leftwing, Liberal Progressivism, left home alone.  That's how the (outgoing) Health Care industry was designed by Saul Alinsky Progressive Demorats, like Tedward Kennedy.  It was made to drive the cost of a burger and fries from a realistic, free market $5 -- to a socialist paradise of $350*  (*with food insurance).

Now, Oh!BamaCare is taking the current system to a previously unimaginable level of madness.  A "soda and fries" will soon cost $2,000 dollars.  It's happening.  Thank you Obama.

To get the basic services of Health Care back into reality... we should only have insurance for big things.  Like we have for our house.  Or car.  That's the point of insurance.  That's their business.  We pay them to insure us.  Not feed us.  The free market will take care your daily needs.  Because it can.

But it does not, Bean, and it never has..... we have to take care of ourtselves because the free market really wants to harm our health which is why we have such crappy nutrition in this country. The big money is not behind those who care to push good health. Any free market that will see billions and billions served at MacDonalds is not a free market that will take care of anyone but their corporate bottom line..... The choice is our and ours only, but the money is not on our side..... I agree with much of what you said in your post, but the free market will not take care of us......... Nor has there ever really been a free market in this country..... Call it Liberalisn or Corporatism, or right winder-ness but those words are all just ways of distracting oneself..... I should really just nod my head and agree with you, because liberalism is indeed to blame for much of what I myself can't tolerate, but it's just one rotten apple in a whole rotten barrel. I would adivse you open your mind just a bit.

Btw, your comment about the poor being fatter than the rich displays hideous ignorance,. I'd explain it, but you already know damn well..... Then again, if you're stuffing yourself full of soda, fries, and burgers nonstop while rubbing your belly and thanking the free market for such gifts: you have some very serious problems that Obama or Liberals have nothing to do with and neither them, the free market, or your beloved right wing will or can help you.... If I made only the worst choices with my health as well,  I guess I'd worship the free market for allowing myself to do so too, so I guess you're starting to make sense...... But we all have our vices and our weaknesses, and I think it makes perfect sense to both praise and curse the heavens for making them avilable to us.

You sure have a strange way of agreeing with me Pinder!  :lol

Nevertheless, I'm not backing down -- and you're not convincing me that I should.  My point was -- a free market is best suited to provide the best services for the masses.  And at the best possible price.  To back up my claim, I cited the successes in other essential services.  I used food as an example, since I believe food is one of the most essential of all essential services -- necessary for all life.  And with the food industry, I for one, love the freedom, affordability and variety that the free market provides the food industry.

To your point -- if I choose to eat healthy -- I see that the market is vastly more capable of providing and responding to my dietary demands.  And as more people get in the health food racket -- something amazing happens Pinder...

(http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/64/6400/ZHH9100Z/posters/fantasy-wizard-dragon-magic-pegasus.jpg)

...more and more abundance and variety occurs as a result.  It's a cornucopia of choice!  MORE CHOICE.  BETTER OPTIONS.  And all of it at increasingly BETTER PRICES.  It's a miracle!  I'm not talking right-wing ideology or professorial dreams.  But hard, microwavable FACTs.  Real results, in minutes or your pizza's free.  This is NOT what happens in Socialist models -- where demand CRUSHES supply with the cold iron fist of LIMITED SUPPLY.  That's sad.   :'(  Socialism is scam.

The same applies to health care.  Yes it does, dammit.   >:(


What's the Role of Government?
Glad you asked.  Government has the fancy role of officiating.  Just like in a sporting event.  They get the stripe shirts and whistles.  But they should NOT be players in the game.  They should NOT be quaterbacking, calling the plays, or deciding who wins and who doesn't (affirmative action).  Likewise, they shouldn't be manning the drive-thru, for that matter.  They're should NOT be choosing the menu and serving the meals.  They should NOT be controlling doctors, giving us shots and putting their fingers up our b5tts.  They should NOT have access to my "files."

(http://www.schoolofhardrocks.org/sohrauditorium/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/touchdown.jpg)



Listen, everyone:  The US Federal Government is not a provider.  It's not a care-giver.  Government is not a chef.  That's not opinion, just reality.

(http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/52050a12ecad04e237000009/the-10-most-ridiculous-things-to-come-out-of-the-anthony-weiner-sexting-scandal.jpg)
"You sayin'... I'm not a care-giver?"

I used fast food and soda as the lowest common denominator.  It's hard to miss how "well fed" our citizens are, eh Pinder?  But the same applies to tofu, if that's how you decide you must see it.  If tofu was good (even if it's not, but you think it is) there's a place to buy it.


I just don't understand how people can see the abundance and say:  "No, not a good model.  It's not working."  How is it they look past the overflowing options we are blessed with in a free country -- and spit at it.  Do they not realize that if their favorite option doesn't exist, that the free market allows them to start providing it themselves, for a profit?!  How can they say that the abundance, affordability and endless choice THAT WE ALL ENJOY in every other aspect of our lives -- from fancy restaurants to greasy diners, from bars and nightclubs to shoes and hats, from music and movies to sweaters and pants -- is something that we must deprive other services -- essential or not?

But I digress.  O'Blamo is destroying the healthcare system and lying about it, cuz he thinks we're too stupid -- and that he has enough control over the information pipeline, that he can maintain the lie.

I've already explained what is not correct. Next.  :)

Speaking of costs, let's tackle that one for just a few lines before moving on.

Interesting how the issue of TORT reform, medical malpractice, and the entire meddling of the ever-present trial lawyers' lobbying muscle is not mentioned when we're gnashing teeth over the "high costs" of medical care in general.

Again, consider seeing it for what it is on all levels and layers. It's easy, in fact downright compliant to point one finger squarely at the "Big Pharma" industry for all the inflated costs, as you have done yet again.

But did you ever consider why in the past decade or so, whenever you go to a doctor or specialist for a procedure or a diagnosis, you first need to have blood drawn and screened for all manner of maladies or warning signs? Some would rightly suggest - and I would agree - it's better to cover all the bases, and screen for everything under the sun in order to be 100% sure.

The problem is, the very act of diagnosing anything, in any field or science, is not always 100% accurate nor exact. As close as we can get to the 100%, yeah that's a good thing.

But transfer this to the field of medicine. Why do you now need to pay a visit to a bloodwork storefront lab like we have "Quest Diagnostics" in this area? There were times I had to go or take someone there for bloodwork, and the waiting room was literally full to standing room only capacity. Each person there with a doctor form ordering blood to be drawn and screened.

Look at how much THAT adds to the overall health care bill. And what is a part of WHY all of that takes place now versus the past?

In part, doctors and medical offices in general are doing a CYA by over-ordering tests and screens. CYA = Cover Your Ass.

They already carry far, far too much insurance liability coverage to protect themselves against malpractice suits. Now they are in fact overly eager to order 10 blood screenings to confirm a diagnosis and back up a treatment plan rather than the perhaps necessary 2 or 3, in order to protect themselves against multi-million dollar lawsuits.

Those lawsuits...the kind that made a real piece of sh*t like John Edwards a very, very wealthy man. The kind of lawsuits that made the old-school image of the "ambulance chaser" lawyer who would monitor a police scanner for ambulance and accident calls, and show up at even the most minor fender-bender armed with a briefcase and a "horse collar" to put on the patient for whiplash...whether they had suffered whiplash or not.

It was and is big bucks. At it's worst, it was responsible for all manner of fraud, dishonesty, and resulted in a major payday for dishonest, fraudulent lawyers.

Now it's in the mainstream.

And guess who one of the biggest campaign donors and supporters of the democratic party (again, the 'architects' of this bullshit health care law) happens to be?

The trial lawyers' lobby. Including the John Edwards brand of medical malpractice attorneys who make a fortune ruining doctors and laughing all the way to the bank.

Which is why, in part, medical costs and health care costs are so damn high.

But mention TORT Reform in these debates, and just sit back and observe the denials, the backpedaling, the distractions, etc.

NO, NO, NO! That's a small part, and not even a factor!

It's...wait for it..."BIG PHARMA" and all of the capitalist abuses the industry exploits!

Again, the ideology needs a boogieman to promote its agenda and hit on all the talking points. Here, "Big Pharma" is always the bad guy, most responsible for the troubles.

And just like all of these debates, it ignores other key factors if not whitewashes them entirely out of the equation, because the other key factors *MAY JUST BE* issues like malpractice suits and TORT and all of that crap...issues on which the major supporters of politicians toeing the ideological line (at least in public) make their living.

Paging John Edwards. He's just one, but what an example. I hope he's enjoying living the luxurious life in his mansion(s). I wonder if he still rolls up the sleeves of his (blue) dress shirt before he tells his maid to clean the master bathroom again, she missed a spot.  :)

And since it was raised, and ties into the "health" topic in general, let's look at choices. Specifically choices in public schools, in efforts to promote "healthy choices" through government mandated changes to diets and menus offered to students.

This was a major push of the administration. Healthy choices. Get the bad stuff off of the school menus, offer healthy stuff instead. Get the sodas and sugary drinks out of the schools. Limit what is served, and what is available to buy.

Look what is happening. You may need to search deeper but you'll find similar reports.

Kids - all ages - in some schools are simply rejecting the healthy foods being given to them under the mandates.

The schools are ordered to give some kind of fruit option to the kids' lunches. Guess where some schools report most of the fruit has been going?

Right into the ol' trash can. That's right, the "mandate" is to give the kids fruit so a healthy diet can be promoted.

And how successful is it overall if so much of the fruit, perfectly good food, gets thrown in the trash?

Do they mandate that kids actually eat that fruit? See how long that works.

But that's one example of removing choice in order to promote another behavior, which in turn does not solve anything beyond the point of saying "well, we provided the fruit instead of potato chips."

Emotion, ideology, feel-good notions...but the result is that perfectly good fruit ends up in the trash, where no one can benefit from it.

Tell me, is that a good result?

How about another Obama "mandate" designed to get kids to eat healthy...along the same lines.

There was an effort to make local corner stores in certain city neighborhoods order and stock more fresh fruit and vegetables. The thought was, the kids in those neighborhoods would buy more healthy foods if the healthy foods were more available, and more visible in the stores they'd frequent before and after school. Instead of buying unhealthy chips and candy, the store instead would increase their orders of fresh fruit and veggie-based items which would steer the kids into buying them...and eating healthy.

Trouble was, just like the fruit mandate in the public schools, no one was buying the fruit. Store owners were made to buy and stock the fruit, in greater quantities than they knew the market would actually demand and purchase from them, and the customers did not buy the fruit. And therefore, they had to throw away a lot of what they had just purchased, and take a loss.

Because even if their stores promoted fruit and veggies over snacks and candy, the kids didn't buy it. Nor did their parents. And if the store stopped carrying the unhealthy snacks, the kids would find a place that did, and buy there.

While a lot of good, fresh fruit went bad, and a mandate for stores to promote healthy choices looked great in theory, but in the reality of those neighborhoods, the results don't back up the theory and ideology.

But that doesn't matter...results don't matter, right? As long as the *intent* is there, as long as the theory results in action from the people being "mandated" to do something, the results could fall flat on their face...at least "we meant well".

Yes, and there are some dumpsters which are full of uneaten fruit to back this up.

The Republicans have a golden opportunity to reorganize for the 2014 Midterms right now since obamacare isn't doing so well.

Ah yes.  Deliciously ironic.  The Government, which has total control of what goes in/out of pubic schools (Kremlin?) still manages to struggle with choice.  Even with something as basic as food.  One does not need to have a vivid imagination to experience an ObamaFood takeover.  After the success of the ObamaCare takeover.

Choice.  Or mandate?
Leftists get those two words confused.  They freaked out when Conservatives proposed school vouchers.  Vouchers would have allowed Parents "choice" in attending schools.  Choice to a leftist does not mean "citizens have the freedom to choose."  It means, it's their "choice" in what gets "mandated" to you.

What's the Big Deal?
So what.  Leftist have a different meaning of the word choice.  What's the difference.

As you pointed out, kids (who are also people) chose quite differently from what their Progressive superiors in Government chose (for them).  When it came to their mandated lunches -- healthy or otherwise -- people (just simple kids) acted on their own.  Naturally, they chose what they wanted.  They chose.  Choice.  It just happens, naturally.  Like water flowing downhill, people naturally have the instinct and ability to choose what they want.  Right or wrong -- choice persists.  It's a natural, untameable (and beautiful) force in the universe.  And, why..  liberalism, by contrast, appears to be quite unnatural.  Contrived.  Struggling.  Website's down.  Plans canceled.  Care, diminishing.

Choice/Mandate.  Natural/Unnatural.  Don't take my word for it -- just ask these ladies.  They know what's good for you.

(http://www.samanthastephens.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Lips-That-Touch-Liquor-Shall-Not-Touch-Ours.jpg)

Exactly.  They do.  The question is do they want to.  There's a tendency among "powerful" people to hold on to that power, under the claim that they'll manage it better.  We as citizens must demand that they return the power to We the Peeps.


EDIT:  ...or maybe give the power to those honeys, in my post above.  No... no... the Peeps.  Give it back to the peeps.   :-D

Once again: no one is pushing for socialism ....... Not much more to say.

(http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2011/0315/20110315__PeepsBig~p1_300.jpg)

What if we give it to the real Peeps, and they're declared "unhealthy" and therefore banned? Then the power reverts back to...oh no. It could happen. Maybe if we can find a way to make healthy "Vegetable Peeps", we can sidestep the ban temporarily.   ;D

Just don't sell them in packages larger than 32 oz, at least not in New York City.

Political writer/commentator Mark Shields, on PBS NewsHour Nov.15 2013:

MARK SHIELDS: It wasn't -- it wasn't, this is mine and I'm going to make sure that it never happens again. I mean, this has got to work.

Judy, this is beyond the Obama administration. If this goes down, if the Obama -- if health care, the Affordable Care Act is deemed a failure, this is the end -- I really mean it -- of liberal government, in the sense of any sense that government as an instrument of social justice, an engine of economic progress, which is what divides Democrats from Republicans -- that's what Democrats believe.

And that's what Democrats believe. Time and again, social programs have made the difference in this country. The public confidence in that will be so depleted, so diminished, that I really think the change -- the equation of American politics changes.


Maybe that explains even just a little bit what is also behind this health care issue to explain the intensity of some of those defending it, or at least what is perceived as being "at stake" if this plan continues to fall apart at the seams.

I think you're way off on that.  I care little for the artificial flavor, I just know the company that makes the poison -- whether it's Socialism, New Euro-Quasi-Commie-LibroMarxism or just good ol' fashion Fascism (which is probably the more precise answer) -- I don't care.  It's bad.

I admit, I not certain of your preference, though.  Other than your belief that the Free Market is fantasy.  Do you enjoy the free market with everything else though?  I do.

I enjoy reality in all it's contradictions and don't need to be a religious fundamentalist for the "free market" in order to do so, nor do I need inflated boogeymen to bash in order to prop up my self image.

Charles Krauthammer said something similar - that this ObamaCare debacle could be the end of Liberalism.  I'd love for that to be true.  But we've yet to rid the world of evil, and it's a fool's errand to think it can be done.  You just have to defeat the next thing, and the next thing.

It's why I mentioned, Prohibition.  Sure, Prohibition did the Progressives in... but for how long?  FDR became President in '32 and wouldn't go away -- giving us all sorts of Government bullsht-promises and failed programs -- not too mention, a lost decade we call the Great Depression.  How much did that cost us?  Sht, how much have you paid into the Social Security scam?  We're still paying for that!  They don't go away.

After Prohibition, the nastiest of the hardcore Progressives just changed their name to Liberal (corrupting a good word) and have worked hard over the last 100 years at reprogramming minds.  Now they have our kids' brains hostage in Pubic Schools.  They've convinced many women that their men are evil -- and that the baby growing in their womb -- their own child -- is a disease.  How they did that defies even mother nature!  But this is what they do.  They're good.  Praying on emotions or something.

They of course own the media -- newspapers, TV (that's starting to change, thank you internet).  And they're so far up Hollywood's azz it's sad.

Should we even mention Colleges and Universities?  It's like a petri-dish growing all sorts of weaponized Left Wing Progressive fungi and spores.  Barrack Obama came from Harvard.  Nuff' said.  So you can right that place off.  Big Business can be bought (GM, GE, Google) to do their bidding -- they even got science (Global Hottening) and some kooky demonic religions (Jeremiah Wright/Black Liberation Theology) - in addition to their own brand of Christmas-hating, Christian-bashing secularists.

But, I'll take this victory -- once it's repealed.  We have to stop them on this.  This gives them way too much power.  They jumped the shark, again.

Kind of a Nihilist then, eh?

Not at all.... I'm just not going to go to the alter for an idea just because it sounds good on paper (your fantasy of a "free market" IS very appealing) but which does not work for a vast majority of the population in reality.... Kneeling down with your hands in the air does not make something work unless you'vre drifted into having a basically religious faith in it.... The free market needs much work and until then, I will call it out on it's faults just as you rightly call out liberals on theirs, but your belief that it is liberals and liberalism/socialism/every kind of "ism" you dislike as the sole reasons for the faults of such a system, you're just kidding yourself.

No system is perfect, because people aren't perfect.  Nothing's perfect.

The difference with the Free Market is, at any point, without approval, penalty or any forfeited monies that the government stole from you via "taxes" -- you can just say "I want nothing to do with McDonald's."  And that's that.  No forms to fill out.  No trip to the DMV or visits to "the website" that don't work.  You just make it happen.  That's choice.  Not that fake sht the Demorats are selling.

So in a sense, it is perfect.  I guess, as perfect as anything can be.  If you disagree... I suggest you put me in charge of all your food for the next week.  Just a little trial.  Don't worry, like Obama, I care 'bout you.  I know what's best for you and everybody else you care about -- or whatever Progressive people say to get themselves off.

Sound like a deal?

(http://www.hokum.hu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Gyp-Rosetti.jpg)

I actually grow my own vegetables and don't pay for groceries for weeks on end, so the free market really doesn't do much for my food needs, nor does the government..... So, no deal. Sorry.....

How about this sort of a trial: you spend an entire week worth of posting on here without using the words "liberal" or "Obama" ? .... You could still discuss all the same issues/raise all the same points, but your mind just might be blown.

I'm not letting Obama off the hook at all, mind you. And you know the fallicies of your free market analogy damn well. Once again: something looking really great on paper does not necessarily work that way in real life. You know this, I know this, and the criminals you worship through blind choice (and those you rightfully despise) know better than anyone and take it all the way to the bank.

Man, I've been saying that for years. Although when I've said it before, it was along the lines of something looking (and sounding) really great in a college classroom coming from a tenured professor or in the conference room of a "think tank" but not working as well when real people are involved as more than statistics on paper.


I'm not stepping into the two-person debate here, but the last sentence raised an eyebrow...

Would you in turn use that statement to suggest the "Occupy" movement and its proponents were kidding themselves when they directed most of their blame and ire about the "1%" at "capitalism", in their case capitalism being that "ism" which they dislike?

I think they were kidding themselves in many ways, but am curious if it works the same when plugged into the last sentence's formula.

No. I would not say the same thing in regards to the Occupy Wall St movement. For one, they had a clear and direct mission statement as to what their exact beef was with, to quote: " the lack of legal consequences for those who brought about the global crisis of monetary insolvency, and an increasing disparity in wealth." (the words "liberal/conservative" were not relevant in this case) ...... That's a whole lot different than simply disparaging and blaming (as far as to advocate it's destruction as has been suggested on this board) a mere mindset or political ideological identity usually used/propped up by the opposing political ideological identity in order to make their views seem less severe..... (it's much easier to get away with a lot when one particular mindset is simply seen as battling another. We are a war loving and violent people, so it works) ... So, no. The comparison does not work....... Do I think Occupy Wall St was making the issue a bit too black and white? Sure. Do I think their tactics were mostly pointless, sure? You're barking up the wrong tree since I was no Occupy participant or cheerleader (you guys seem to think anyone less batshit angry at "liberals" than you just must be Occupy supporters) ....  Not that I think their basic point was invalid, but rather their tactics/plan of action was useless.

I'm not barking up any tree, but was just curious about the scenario when the -ism being blamed was capitalism. I don't know and could care less what groups you are or aren't involved with directly, and I never assumed you were an "occupier". Oh those occupiers, bravely clutching their iPad with full WiFi access and feverishly texting other occupiers using the latest model iPhone while rallying against "the rich" and lending a hand when the kid with the beard and his friend with the dreads and the baja start hammering together boards with a total lack of carpentry knowledge or skill, yet "meaning well" and feeling like they're really getting back to the salt of the earth ethic by hammering in a few nails to build their shelter while the camera crews are still there... ;D

Sorry, I get carried away.  :)

Now if you suggest those Occupy rallies were not railing against capitalism, I'll have to disagree. But in all honestly, I was just curious to hear the opinion.

I think OWS was (and is as it still exists in some sort of incarnation) a very flawed movement and I think there were too many people there for the wrong reasons but there was one thing that it did prove and that was showing that people can still get together and peacefully protest in the spirit of the civil rights movement.  Because there were a lot of people who really knew what they were doing out there and they got their message across and that's at least something.  But I do think it could have been something so much more.

(http://uncgbls.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/occupy_wall_street5.jpg)
(http://www.rightchange.com/images/buttons/capitalism-is-the-crisis.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cZLtuoOJj3k/TsXaWG85mMI/AAAAAAAAKAU/JwDUdpsB-qY/s1600/Capitalism+crisis.JPG)
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2011/10/25/1319572459453/A-banner-reading-Capitali-007.jpg)
(http://libcom.org/files/images/library/greed%20or%20capitalism.jpg)


It took a simple Google image search of "occupy" and "capitalism" and less than a minute to find these...So once again, the Occupy movement seemed to either be railing against capitalism or else they just liked painting the word on their signage.  :)

"Guitarfool: "I'm not barking up any tree, but was just curious about the scenario when the -ism being blamed was capitalism. I don't know and could care less what groups you are or aren't involved with directly, and I never assumed you were an "occupier". Oh those occupiers, bravely clutching their iPad with full WiFi access and feverishly texting other occupiers using the latest model iPhone while rallying against "the rich" and lending a hand when the kid with the beard and his friend with the dreads and the baja start hammering together boards with a total lack of carpentry knowledge or skill, yet "meaning well" and feeling like they're really getting back to the salt of the earth ethic by hammering in a few nails to build their shelter while the camera crews are still there... Grin"


Ha! Yeah, that's a pretty apt description. I knew more than a few people down there badgering me to show up and "support" and I was like "Yeah, um, but I'm too busy working to make a living and not living off a trust fund like you"  :lol

Some of them pehaps railed against Capitalism in general, but there are always those types in every crowd like the angry villagers at the very back of the crowd in Frankenstein who just picked up and torch and ran whatever way everyone else was.... The more asture of Occupy kids named names....

Bean, of course there were idiots out there just like I said there was. I could pull up just as many pictures of signs that don't mention capitalism but why bother? And wouldn't you agree that in this country people should be free to hold up a "f*** Capitalism" sign if they feel like it?

Nor was EVERY SINGLE PERSON in that movement a trustafarian. Capitalism does not work for a vast number of people. You should be able to accept this fact without some great religious crisis of faith being necessary...... Capitalism is kind of like The Beach Boys: it can give us Today/Pet Sounds/Holland and it can also give us Summer In Paradise or nothing at all from 1996 to 2012 other than shameless repackaging/re-selling.

Er, wait! No one bought Summer In Paradise, so I suppose it's better used as an example of the free market working perfectly!!!

Self-sufficiency is commendable.  But, you're ducking.  Put me in charge of your food.  And in charge of the food of those you care about.  For a week.  This will be a wonderful example of the wonders of Progressivism.  And NOT being free.  And living under the rule of your superiors, just like how the 'Rats want to control your healthcare.  Why wouldn't you accept this?   :lol


No dice.  You didn't accept my terms, so I can't accept yours.  And frankly, my terms had your own best interest at heart.  To educate you.  To school you on the horrors of sacrificing your freedom.  And the freedom of those you care about.  Now, you're right -- I'm no "nutritionist" of course.  But, it's not your decision once you accept my terms.  I'm a Capitalist, yes.  And to prove a point, I will be acting like a Progressive snot.  Making you eat things you may not want (and paying waaaaay more for them.  But... you didn't hear that from me.  That was to be a surprise).  So, you can imagine... I'm going to make you eat things you wouldn't normally choose.  Can you say biggie size that?



Tell us the fallacies of a Free Market then.  I've been bashing Progressivism to no end.  I think I've done a good job.  What's your beef with freedom and its market?  Be honest, though.  I am able to recognize hypocrisy fairly quickly.

It's pathetic when even a woman whose story was cited by Obama as an example of how great the plan is working ends up getting screwed by the very plan she supports.

And it will be more stories like this which continue to crack the foundation of the entire scam, erode public trust in this government and specifically the party behind this, and as that commentator said, perhaps take down with it the policies and ideology behind this plan.

If it weren't real life and a real person who got stung by a bunch of lies and liars, one who still seems to be a loyal supporter nonetheless, I'd have something sarcastic or funny to add. But this stuff just isn't funny anymore, it's affecting real people.

Feel free to toe the ideological line.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/19/woman-cited-by-president-as-obamacare-success-story-frustrated-by-sign-up-process/ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/19/woman-cited-by-president-as-obamacare-success-story-frustrated-by-sign-up-process/)

Woman cited by President as Obamacare success story frustrated by sign up process
Posted by CNN Senior White House Correspondent Jim Acosta   
Updated 1:20 a.m. ET, 11/19/2013

(CNN) – Washington state resident Jessica Sanford was bursting with pride when President Obama mentioned her story during a Rose Garden event on health care reform last month at the White House.

"Who wouldn't?" Sanford asks. "I'm a nobody really to have him mention my story."

Back in October, Sanford had written a letter to the White House to share her good news. The 48-year-old single mother of a teenage son diagnosed with ADHD had just purchased what she considered to be affordable insurance on the Washington state exchange.

"I was ecstatic. I couldn't wait to call the doctor for an appointment on January 2nd," Sanford told CNN about the feeling she had when she first enrolled.

Her heartfelt letter made it to the President's hands and then into his October 21 speech.

"'I was crying the other day when I signed up. So much stress lifted.'" Obama said, reading from Sanford's letter.

The president said Sanford's story was proof, despite the technical problems with the healthcare.gov website, that the Affordable Care Act was working.

"That's what the Affordable Care Act is all about. The point is, the essence of the law – the health insurance that's available to people – is working just fine," Obama said.

But then, after Obama mentioned her story, Sanford started having problems. Sanford said she received another letter informing her the Washington state health exchange had miscalculated her eligibility for a tax credit.

In other words, her monthly insurance bill had shot up from $198 a month (she had initially said $169 a month to the White House but she switched plans) to $280 a month for the same "gold" plan offered by the state exchange.

Sanford said she was frustrated with the state's error. But she decided to purchase the new plan and thought everything was fine.

It wasn't fine. Last week, Sanford received another letter from the Washington state exchange, stating there had been another problem, a "system error" that resulted in some "applicants to qualify for higher than allowed health insurance premium tax credits."

The letter said the state exchange was "disappointed to have discovered this issue" and apologized.

The result was a higher quote, which Sanford said was for $390 per month for a "silver" plan with a higher deductible. Still too expensive

A cheaper "bronze" plan, Sanford said, came in at $324 per month, but also with a high deductible – also not in her budget.

Then another letter from the state exchange with even worse news.

"Your household has been determined eligible for a Federal Tax Credit of $0.00 to help cover the cost of your monthly health insurance premium payments," the latest letter said.

"I had a good cry," Sanford said about her reaction to the latest news from the state.

As a self-employed court reporter, the new quote was simply out of her range.

"This is it. I'm not getting insurance," Sanford told CNN. "That's where it stands right now unless they fix it."

Sanford, an Obama supporter who voted for the president twice, is careful to say she blames the state of Washington's online marketplace for the mixed signals and not the White House.

She is sorry Obama mentioned her during the October 21 speech.

"I feel awful about it. I support (the Affordable Care Act)," Sanford said.

But the messy rollout in the other Washington, the nation's capital, was not far from her mind.

"What the hell? Why is it the same story as the federal government?" Sanford says in disgust with the Washington state exchange. "They didn't have it ready."

"They screwed up," she added.

Sanford reiterated her frustration in a post to the Washington HealthPlanFinder's Facebook page last Friday.

"Wow. You guys really screwed me over," Sanford wrote. "Now I have been priced out and will not be able to afford the plans you offer. But, I get to pay $95 and up for not having health insurance. I am so incredibly disappointed and saddened. You majorly screwed up."

In response, a HealthplanFinder posting tried to direct Sanford to a broker for help.

"Jessica, we are very sad and disappointed that the tax credit miscalculation affected you so heavily," the comment read, suggesting she try to find a new plan on the site. Sanford responded on Facebook the issue was affordability.

Bethany Frey, a spokeswoman for Washington HealthPlanFinder told CNN on Monday night, "I'm already looking into this with our client specialist team. I'll let you know what I hear."

I'm "ducking"? Hilarious! And why would myself or anyone put someone in charge of their food who spends their days/nights scouring Google for pictures of Obama to make fun of? There is no point answering such questions to a religious zealot who already knows the answers anyway.... Bashing "progressives" is just your thing, your fetish, what gets you off. Nothing will ever change this. You can sure spot hypocrisy alright unless it's coming from yourself which is why "true belivers" are always so frightening...You've found your calling in this world and you'll stay on that bus all the way over the cliff..... Ok, back to Google Images....

You're trying desperately to equate free markets -- WHICH IS YOUR FREEDOM TO NOT HAVE ME (or some other "zealot") CHOOSE YOUR FOOD -- to religious fanaticism.

Talk about falling on your sword.  That's like a parent saying to their kid "well, it's your money, Billy -- you earned it.  Do with it what ever your heart desires."  And then Billy (aka Pinder) says "NO!  I'm not gonna kneel at your alter!!  Don't enforce your fanatic ideology on me!!!  You... you... ZEALOT!"

(http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/16423561/2/stock-illustration-16423561-crazy-napoleon.jpg)

:shrug

Let's release this thread from any further torment, shall we?

I'm not trying to equate anything with anything. I'm just refusing to see the world in black and white when the human eye and mind can process color... But with religious maniacs it's always black n white.

Realizing this is Christmas week and everything, I wanted to get this off my chest and also have it serve as an update on what has been going on with my own situation regarding health care. This happens to be the "deadline" for signing up. Notice I haven't posted anything here over the past weeks, and though speculation may have been other than reality it's for the simple fact I ran out of energy through having to deal with this mess and sign up for a 2014 plan.

Basically, as anyone can see or hear in the reports, it's not working out. It's making things worse for people who have been "doing the right thing" to borrow a phrase, and what you hear from the supporters and designers of this plan just isn't true. Let me restate that: They're lying to us about this plan/law, in spite of the facts which continue to come out, and they have been lying to us for over three years.

Do we allow this to happen? Do we accept the outright lies which were told, often with emphasis in the form of a "period!", in order to not only deceive but to try to "sell" something to the public which they knew was something other than was being advertised? If you say something which you know is false, it's a lie.

If we settle for this, and continue to allow it to happen, then we deserve exactly what we get...but that doesn't work for me, either.

In the past month, the feel-good cheerful "holiday season" no less, I have spent hours on the phone dealing with my health care plan. I had a good plan, one which fit both my needs and my monthly budget pretty well, only to see it stripped away by this new "law". Millions of others saw the same thing happen, but that's old news and I reported this back on page 1 or whatever it was in this thread.

I spoke with the insurance company, at least three or four departments including sales and a special "Affordable Care" division designed to answer questions related to the new laws. I spoke with a handful of employees at the small-business organization which has been the broker for my plan for 6 or 7 years. It reached the point several times where I was literally shouting into the phone, and where even the "experts" could not answer basic questions. If I had a dollar for every time one of these workers said "sorry" I'd be rich. It got nowhere.

Bottom line - The plan I had is gone, and I have to settle for something which is a piece of sh*t with high deductibles, reduced coverage, higher premiums, and overall the feeling that I've been ripped off in the name of the "greater good" that this new law will bring forth.

One word: Bullshit. But that's old news, again back to page one of this thread.

Let me explain a few things you might see in your own health care situation soon. remember there is a delay on the employer mandate which lasts a year...so those who are saying "My plan hasn't changed...", *Do Not* be fooled into thinking your plan will not change within the next year. It's just being delayed, by one of close to twenty "revisions" added by a president and administration acting with little or no executive authority to make random changes to a law seemingly at will whenever they feel like doing so.

I live within 10 miles of two good hospitals. I was born there, had surgery there, been to the ER there, and my entire family has been treated there for everything from cancer to broken bones. All of my and my family's doctors were affiliated with these two hospitals. Here's the catch: If I were to need emergency care, and an ambulance would be called, all three of the ambulance services which cover my area would go to either of these hospitals as a general rule. It's set up just like the way fire departments are dispatched according to areas of coverage, where one company is the first-call for certain areas.

So when I was on the phone for those hours, a plan was presented to me as an option to replace my plan which I had taken away. What they failed to tell me originally was that the plan would not cover the only two hospitals in my area, and that I would be on the hook for potentially thousands more dollars should anything ever happen to me where I had to go to the ER.

Yet, a few of these phone reps actually tried to sell me on the plans by listing hospitals which are at the minimum 45 minutes away. Why? Because my zip code and county is in the same region.

News flash: I live in one of the larger counties in my state, bordered by another very large county. I'd need to drive over an hour if not more to reach the full span of these counties...and none of the ambulance services cover and transport to these hospitals.

But they're hospitals covered in this plan, you should be happy! Again, bullshit. It's not reality, it's not even possible to affect that kind of coverage when any ambulance or ER type situation would find me at one of two area hospitals. They simply won't go 45 minutes or an hour outside of the coverage.

Yet I'm supposed to "settle" for something like this, where a trip to the ER as I had to make in Fall 2008 would see me hit with a bill for $14,000 plus to cover the bill?

How is this "affordable"?

When I went to that ER, and got everything from an MRI to an EKG to a spinal tap to treat the serious symptoms I had experienced, I had a plan where I paid a copay of something like $250 and the plan covered the rest. Again, I had gotten bills totaling over $14,000 for this ER visit and I was covered after the 250 copay.

That's what I paid extra for in my plan.

Now, I'm paying more for this piece of sh*t plan in 2014 which carries deductibles well over $6,000 as well as copays near $500 dollars, and reduced coverage for hospital stays and ER visits...which means I'm basically screwed financially if anything should happen as it did in 2008 where I need to go to the ER for an actual emergency.

And the new plan for 2014 is costing me more, yet offering less. But what I'm paying more to cover now includes maternity and natal services, as well as pediatric dentistry...one of which as a man I will *NEVER NEED* and the other which I pay for through a separate dental insurance plan.

No one on the phone calls could answer the questions. Not a single one. Simple questions, far from unreasonable. So I had to sign up for a lousy plan just to "comply".

Because, remember, the designers like Zeke Emmanuel and various democratic party hacks were telling me that my old plan was no good, that the new ones are better. The president himself said we could keep our plans, keep our doctors, keep our hospitals. Period.

I don't take kindly to being lied to. When it affects my budget, it offends me even more. But if people want to put ideology and support for a certain philosophy, political party, or politician above the notion that being lied to is wrong on so many levels, then 8you* will get exactly what you deserve when the full effects of this law kick in and change your own plans.

Now, the latest amendment to this plan is the White House last week saying that people like me who had their plan dissolved because it wasn't good enough can now buy "catastrophic coverage" to replace it.

For those unfamiliar, "catastrophic coverage" is the bare-bones minimum coverage which has exorbitant deductibles, little coverage, and no sense of financial security should the worst happen. That is, unless you think getting a bill for $14,000 rather than $16,000 will benefit your life in some way.

So why unload all of this now? Partially because I continue to see supporters of this law lying and deceiving and "selling" something they know to be untrue to the people at large. I see Michelle Obama telling Al Sharpton last week that we as Americans should talk about health care over our Christmas dinners and family gatherings. I see a president and his supporters still toeing the party line on this, in spite of all the actual realities that people like me are reporting as flaws and negative consequences of this plan.

Please keep in mind: You *will* be affected by this law if you currently have insurance. The delays do not last forever. Be prepared. You may not be covered for your local hospitals or ER, you may not see your doctors or specialists in your "network", and you may need to prepare for spending thousands of dollars should anything happen to you requiring emergency or other immediate medical treatment. What was a few hundred copay will now become covering perhaps $4,000 out of pocket before your own plan will kick in.

If this is "good", explain it to me. Because it's not just the opposite of "affordable", it's actually worse. And the financial effects of this could be devastating.

Where is the peace of mind? Where is the notion that I and those like me are "doing the right thing" by paying for health insurance? Where is the notion of having insurance to cover the worst case scenario and not having to worry about thousands of dollars that could force you into bankruptcy if you happen to get hit by a falling icicle or something and require care in an ER?

It's gone, vanished, stripped away in favor of a law which still to this hour could not be presented to the public in an honest way, and needed lies and distortions in order to gain even the most bare tacit approval.

I hope this law falls apart. It just may, due to relying on a business and financial model that cannot be sustained as it exists now, even with over a dozen "revisions" and counting. I hope no one has to deal with the stress, frustration, and the feeling that you are inconsequential and insignificant enough in the minds of the law's creators that you just need to comply and accept something you know is not only bad, but worse than what you had paid for in good faith in previous years.

I hope those who continue to lie to us are held not only responsible but also accountable. Ironically they will not be subject to the law. Go figure.

And I'm supposed to "Rock The Vote" and support this same group of liars and fools?

Nope.

That's it, I had to unload that stuff before Christmas. If there are people who will follow Mrs. Obama's advice and start talking health care at family Christmas gatherings, use me as an example. I've got the facts, figures, and details, and have had them since October 1st when I started this crazy thread. Feel free to mention this if anyone doubts the negative results of this supposedly great law, put forth by those supposedly forward-thinking intellectuals and idealists who know what is best for the common good. And for those who lie to cover up the truth and realities of this whole mess.

I hope it doesn't happen to you, I sincerely do, but be prepared to go through similar if not the same experiences as I had over the past few months with the new health care law.

And Merry Christmas, and Happy Holidays to all.  :)