Health Care

[guitarfool2002]

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

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?

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

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?

[guitarfool2002]

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. 

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.

[Bean Bag]

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!!!


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.

[guitarfool2002]

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:



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.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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!

[Mike's Beard]

OK Pinder, you first.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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.

[Mike's Beard]

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!  

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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.

[guitarfool2002]

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?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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.

[guitarfool2002]

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.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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.

[guitarfool2002]

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.

[Bean Bag]

Jumpin' Jehoshaphat!!! 
 

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

[guitarfool2002]

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.  

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Jumpin' Jehoshaphat!!! 
 

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

Free-Market-Radical-Cells maybe? 

[Bean Bag]

 

[Bean Bag]

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.  

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.

[hypehat]

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!  

You racist son of a bitch.

[Jason]

What's racist about that statement?

[Pacific Coast]

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?

Keen observation.

[hypehat]

What's racist about that statement?

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.

[Jason]

What's racist about that statement?

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.

[hypehat]

What's racist about that statement?

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.