Health Care

[Rocky Raccoon]

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.

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.

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."

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back 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.

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.

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.

[guitarfool2002]

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.

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.

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?

[Bean Bag]

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.

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!    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.

[guitarfool2002]

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.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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?

[guitarfool2002]

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.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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?

[guitarfool2002]

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?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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.

[Bean Bag]

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

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.



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.



Worst. President. Ever.






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

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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

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.



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.



Worst. President. Ever.

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

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.

[Heysaboda]

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!

[guitarfool2002]

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.

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.  

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.  

[Bean Bag]

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.

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...

[Bean Bag]

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!

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

[guitarfool2002]

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.

[leggo of my ego]

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.

[Bean Bag]

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




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

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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.

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...

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......

[Fire Wind]

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?

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.

[guitarfool2002]

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?

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.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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?

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....

[guitarfool2002]

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?

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?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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?

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....