My top five favorite political cartoons this week, beginning with a tip of the hat to sweet home Chicago, by Dick Locher at GoComics.com…
by Clay Jones at GoComics.com…
by Michael Ramirez at Townhall.com (click to enlarge)…
by Pat Oliphant at GoComics.com…
by Gary Varvel at Townhall.com…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Amen to cartoon 1.
Either they’re dead or they vote often.
What’s it going to take to get more conservatives in Illinois except the removal of Dems in Crook County?
LL :(
LL:
“What’s it going to take….”. Funny you should ask. Some friends and I are of the opinion that the solution is for Chicago/Cook County to petition to become the 51st state of the union. That would make Illinois solvent and able to elect conservatives. Illinois is really a red state except for Chicago. In the last gubernatorial election 99 out of 102 counties voted for Brady, but thanks to Chicago we got Quinn.
Another glaring problem with Obamacare is becoming apparent now. It shifted responsibility for Medicare from the feds to the states and now the states are each coming up with their own rules about ‘coverage’. In Hawaii people are only eligible for a maximum of 10 days hospital stay in a year. Prior to Obamacare they used to be covered as long as necessary (no limit n hospital stays) by Medicaid. In other words; the health care that was supposed to provide coverage for the seriously ill (cancer etc..) is actually taking it away by Obamacare…HMMMM…and they billed it as health care guaranteed for everybody. The liberals are such a bunch of BSers.
Great idea Jerry. My votes never count; they always get swallowed up by the liberals.
Your suggestion would work. Actually, according to Obama, these libs could make up the 58th state! ;)
Or another solution is for me to move to Indiana where Mitch Daniels would be my Governor – someone with conservative common sense.
LL
Jerry, lol!
Explanation: I’m a native Oregonian, there is a push for Oregon to be separated into Eastern and Western Oregon (more popular in my parent’s day but still around). The whole state is strongly conservative, except for Portland metro and Eugene. Look at any red/blue vote and you’ll see counties all over the state putting up 80/20 or even 95/5 for conservative/liberal. And then Portland’s comes up about 30/70. But Portland metro is *so* population heavy in relation to the rest of the state that those 70% (ish) of Portlanders override the rest of the state.I grew up in Eastern Oregon and we all felt helpless to effect change in our backyard, because liberal Portland jept passing these insane laws for us. Every year some idiotic law would pass because of Portland and more Eastern/Southern Oregonians would lose their livelihoods, jobs, lands, even whole towns turning to ghost towns. (Oregon has more standing ghost towns than any other state). Portland makes the rules, and the rest of us are stuck trying to live with them. I think the reason why the East/West split never gained traction is cuz the rest of the West doesn’t want Portland either!
truth – can I assume then that you are against the general GOP plans of making Medicaid a state block grant?
Truth – can you supply a link to the above? Knowing you and your past, I fact check everything you post like this – and I can find a vague reference on Medicaid and limits in a couple of states, but not Medicare.
This is exactly the reasoning I posted a while ago that health care needs to be controlled at the federal level and not the state level. States have to have a balanced budget, so when there are budget issues like going on in Hawaii, what gets the axe?
But this is what the GOP wants – if you read Ryan’s path to a slow death, or whatever he calls it, he puts more and more health care in charge of the states – which would be bad news (as you’ve pointed out – thanks!).
Truth – the number of errors in your little blurb is really quite irritating – where do you get your news?
First, I believe you are talking about Medicaid, not Medicare.
Second, this “shift” to the states isn’t new with Medicaid – it has been going on like this for years where the states make the rules that are approved at a federal level.
Third, unlimited states has not been (at least recently) a feature of Medicaid because the states can make up their rules.
Fourth, the Hawaii limit specifically states that children, pregnant women, those undergoing cancer treatment, the elderly, the blind, and the disabled can stay beyond ten days – so the ONE group that you listed that would be hurt by this change is actually not even applicable.
Can I ask – are you deliberately trying to mislead people, or are these things honest mistakes? This isn’t the first time that you’ve posted wrong information, and i find it troubling.
“Truth – can you supply a link to the above? Knowing you and your past, I fact check everything you post like this” – glad you are keeping me in check :)
But your insinuations about misleading staements by me in the past are as absurd as your denial that the US supplies 75% of NATO’s military/defense budget.
Ex-RINO,
Do you still need the links? It looks from your post that you have found the info on your own. You are correct that I was referring to Medicaid, not Medicare (my typo); since it is Medicaid that covers hospital stays. This is occuring in multiple states and it is a recent phenomena since the Obamacare shifted these Medicaid costs from the federal government onto states as a part of their ’fuzzy math’ calculations and ‘cost savings’ they submitted to the CBO as a part of Obamacare for scoring. And you obviously found for yourself how Hawaii is limiting hospital stays to a max of 10 days. And other states are rationing care now by limiting annual hospital stays to 20 or 25 days and limit coverage in general except for certain variations in illnesses that will differ from state to state. The point is that the end result of Obamacare passing these costs on to states is rationing of care. Maybe it really just doesn’t matter to you today as much as it matters for you to stand by Obama but when your friend gets in a car wreck in Hawaii and needs to be on a induced coma and a respirator at the hospital and they are counting on Medicaid then you will have TEN DAYS to fly over there and admit it to yourself and your friend before you will be forced to admit the truth; wether you like it or not.
truth – can I assume then that you are against the general GOP plans of making Medicaid a state block grant?
Ex-RINO, it would depend on the amount of the grant and the conditions of implementation. I KNOW it is a bunch of BS the way Obamacare strips the federal funding for these programs and throws the costs upon the states. The negative results of Obamacare defunding Medicaid and passing the costs on to the states should be obvious to you or anybody else who looks at it rationally.
I am curious. What would you do if somebody you knew had an undianosed disorder or a neurological disorder or some other illness that wasn’t given a specific exception to the 10 day hospital stay rule?
Truth -
Okay, so you were talking about Medicaid – that’s good. Do you also admit that your fear of limiting cancer care was also wrong?(question one)
You’ve already botched the facts on this already – do you have any sort of proof that in your car wreck scenario that the person in a coma would be discharged? (second question)
(Third question) – Are you aware that Medicaid decisions have been in the hands of the states for a long time – this isn’t anything due to health care reform?
(Four question) – Is your suggestion that Medicaid by fully at the federal level and cover any cost at any time, no matter the amount, as long as somebody demands it?
You seem to be complaining of something, but the only solution would be a stronger federal program. In fact, Ryan’s plan, which you worship, would make this much more of an issue as it takes any sort of federal oversight out of this and leaves it entirely to the states.
So I suppose I’m saying, what is your point?
Ex-RINO,
You did not answer my question above so I’ll answer your question#1 and #2 and then pose a question for you to answer and then I’ll answer question #3 etc. etc.
Okay, so you were talking about Medicaid – that’s good. Do you also admit that your fear of limiting cancer care was also wrong?(question one)
In Hawaii’s case the cancer analogy would be wrong but it may be very relevant in other states so not ‘wrong’ in all cases.
do you have any sort of proof that in your car wreck scenario that the person in a coma would be discharged? (question two)
I am going off the list of exceptions you provided and accidental injury was not on the list; isn’t that proof? There, I answered your first two questions. Now I will just pose the same question I posed to you above (it is in bold below) and wait for your response before going any further.
What would you do if somebody you knew had an undiagnosed disorder or a neurological disorder or some other illness that wasn’t given a specific exception to the 10 day hospital stay rule?
And my point to you is that this is a recent phenomenon that has started occuring in multiple states since the Obamacare Law shifted these Medicaid costs from the federal government onto states as a part of their ’fuzzy math’ calculations and ‘cost savings’ they submitted to the CBO as a part of Obamacare for scoring. These negative results of Obamacare defunding Medicaid and passing the costs on to the states should be obvious to you or anybody else who looks at it rationally.
I still wish Ryan would run for president. He is man true to his convictions. His plan is the only one around that would steer our massive entitlement programs gradually back to solvency without severely limiting options. Obamacare would take the finest health care system ever and destroy it through cost controls, diminished services, and rationing…the same in every massive government run program wherever tried.
Jespren: I feel your pain!
Laura Loo: I have heard of others relocating to Indiana for the same reasons. The systemic corruption in Illinois runs so deep we may not see a turnaround in our lifetimes, so much so that some people wonder why keep bailing on a sinking ship? I could offer Wisconsin as an alternative but it seems some of them are hell bent on becoming like Illinois by getting rid of the reform minded Governor Walker.
Okay – can you show a state in which your cancer scenario was true?
In your question to me – a person is eligible under LTCS – here is the related source – http://hawaii.gov/dhs/quicklinks/Proposed-Medicaid-Eligibility-and-Benefits-Changes
On your last two paragraphs…for the third time, MEDICAID COSTS HAVE NOT BEEN RECENTLY SHIFTED TO THE STATES. THIS HAS BEEN A REALITY FOR A VERY, VERY LONG TIME.
Look forward to you answering the other questions I threw out there.
Jerry – I have no idea how, with a straight face (assuming you had one), that you can say that Ryan’s plan would bring those plans to solvency without severely limiting options. There is absolutely no way you understand Ryan’s plan if you truly believe that.
Check out Drudge. Looks like Chris Matthews is no longer having Obamagasms and has stopped tinkling down his leg.
Ex-RINO,
You still did not answer my question. I saw nothing on the link you provided that talked about coverage for undiagnosed illnesses or neurological disorders. I would like to move on with the discussion but you need to first provide a direct answer to my question. I will post it a third time for you. This time in bold and italics and wait for an actual response.
What would you do if somebody you knew had an undiagnosed disorder or a neurological disorder or some other illness that wasn’t given a specific exception to the 10 day hospital stay rule?
I still wish Ryan would run for president. He is man true to his convictions. His plan is the only one around that would steer our massive entitlement programs gradually back to solvency without severely limiting options.
I agree Jerry.
Quite frankly, I don’t get involved in the health care decisions of my friends – so I don’t think I’d do anything. Now, if your question, better asked, was in regards to what I feel about what a few states are doing in restricting stays -that is a different question.
Now, in Arizona, which is doing a similar thing, the head of hospitals said that they won’t discharge somebody who needs to be there because of ability to pay. i’m guessing Hawaii is much the same – but I think it is still a legit question because somebody, it will happen.
If I was in a situation right now, where a person was denied care because of Medicare cuts, I would curse congress for choosing to cut healthcare for the poor rather than raise taxes on the rich. The changes you are talking about aren’t because of health care reform – it is because federal stimulus money ran out, and the states are absorbing more of the cost. What are the states to do? They must have a balanced budget, so unless they raise taxes, it means cuts in services. So I’d curse congress and a society that favors the rich keeping their money over the poor getting care they deserve.
Did that answer it well enough for you so that you’ll provide answers?
truth – I’ll add you to the list with Jerry.
If you truly believe that “Ryan’s plan would steer entitlement programs to solvency without severely limiting options”…then, you both are either idiots, or you don’t understand the words “severely limiting options”.
By the CBO’s estimate, by 2030, a person of retirement age would be on the hook for approximately 2/3 of their medical costs.
How is that not a limiting option? Does Ryan’s plan come with money trees that each senior gets when they retire?
When the solution is vouchers that don’t grow at the rate of cots, how does that not limit options?
Let’s say for years, I bought you milk – and that milk goes up $1 a year.
Then, I start saying, I’m going to just give you the money, and you have to buy the milk. The milk goes up $1 a year, but I just give you $.50 a year more. So after three years, the milk costs $3, and my voucher to you is $1.50.
How are your options not severely limited in this case?
Seriously, do either of you have ANY clue how Ryan’s plan works? ANY clue at all?
Ex:
I am quite serious. Ryan’s plan is the ONLY workable solution out there that will not dramatically gut benefits. Remember, his plan is not exactly draconian in that it accepts decades of gradually declining deficit spending before actually balancing outlays with income. It honors the commitment given to present and near term future retirees where Obamacare does the opposite. Obamacare actually steals 500 billion from Medicare to pay for Obamacare, thus cutting back on present and near term future retirees.
Truth:
Thank you.
Ex:
Ryan has looked at the situation and concluded the most realistic way to achieve something resembling budgetary sanity is to impose structual reforms that include free market dynamics. I agree with him. I would gladly pay to see him debate your liberal of choice on the issue. I will turn the question back to you: Do you have any concept whatsoever of how pathetic and inept government health programs really are? I don’t think you do.
Speaking of money trees it seems Obama thinks there must be such a thing. Perhaps you do as well because at every turn you support Obama and his 4 trillion dollar in deficit spending he has managed to run up in 3 years.
Jerry – I’m not going to debate Ryan’s plan with you because it is obvious you have no idea what it is. And I’m being serious here.
Because I realize others might be on this thread, a few links:
Ryan’s plan:
– http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf
CBO analysis:
– http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12128
Some good parts:
– “Under the proposal analyzed here, debt would eventually shrink relative to the size of the economy—but the gradually increasing number of Medicare beneficiaries participating in the new premium support program would bear a much larger share of their health care costs than they would under the current program”
– ” … costs to individuals (beyond those covered by the premium support payment) would be higher under the proposal than under traditional Medicare, and some individuals would therefore choose not to purchase insurance … the number of older Americans without health insurance would be higher.”
So Jerry and Truth are correct…there are no major disruptions, unless you consider more elderly people without insurance a disruption, or you consider it a disruption that elderly people will be on the hook for a dramatically larger piece of the costs of health care.
The changes you are talking about aren’t because of health care reform – it is because federal stimulus money ran out, and the states are absorbing more of the cost.
Ex-RINO, I am guessing you just don’t understand Obamacare at all. I don’t blame you cause only very few people grasp even small portions of that monstrosity. But here is what you don’t seem to understand. An estimated 16 million uninsured people who get coverage by Obamacare mandate are actually just additions to the Medicaid rolls. Obamacare softens the eligibility requirements and does not provide any additional funds for the states to cover their portion of funding for these additional 16 million people. Do the math. It has nothing to do with stimulus running out. It has to do with adding 16 million people to Medicaid. The Obamacare law softening Medicaid eligibility requirements is DIRECTLY responsible for the enrollment of an additional 16 million Medicaid recipients and the states have no choice but to ration care that did not previously need to be rationed when the eligibility requirements were stricter(pre-Obamacare). It costs money to add 16 million people to Medicaid. It is not “magic” covereage that just happens for free because Obamacare says the states need to do it. Get it?
By the CBO’s estimate, by 2030, a person of retirement age would be on the hook for approximately 2/3 of their medical costs. How is that not a limiting option? Does Ryan’s plan come with money trees that each senior gets when they retire?
Not a money tree. But the plan does provide a private account that gets funded by the citizens contributions over time and grows tax deferred for individuals to use to defer some of those costs. And the account is owned by the citizen, not the government; so the government couldn’t abscond with those funds like they did with Social Security etc. Even better, under the Ryan plan when I die the government doesn’t get to keep my contributions; I can leave them to my kids to bankroll their retirement accounts or just pay it out to them in cash as an inheritance :)
If I was in a situation right now, where a person was denied care because of Medicare cuts, I would curse congress….
As I explained above. This is happening because of Obamacare. You would be better off spending your energies working to repeal Obamacare so that people do not get put into that situation to begin with.
(Third question) – Are you aware that Medicaid decisions have been in the hands of the states for a long time – this isn’t anything due to health care reform?
Yes. What health care reform has done is expand the Medicaid rolls by 16 million people and left the states with huge unfunded cost mandates while simultaneously actually stealing 500 billion dollars from Medicaid funds. Ouch… Did I say Obamacare expanded the Medicaid enrollment by 16 million people while stripping 500 billion dollars away from Medicaid funds in order to use it for other Obamacare programs? Yes, I know it sounds too ridiculous to be true’ but that is what Obamacare did. Fuzzy math no?
(Four question) – Is your suggestion that Medicaid by fully at the federal level and cover any cost at any time, no matter the amount, as long as somebody demands it?
No I am not. I am saying that it was unconscionable for Obamacare to add 16 million people to Medicaid and not have the funding in place to pay for it. This is what leads to rationing of care. Obamacare hid these states costs as part of their fuzzy math. Remember the Cornhusker kickback that got Nebraska senator Ben Nelson to go along with Obamacare? Only to have his payoff later taken away from him. Ouch again. That is one big reason why the states are appealing this to the Supreme Court for relief. The real losers aren’t just Nebraska though; it is all the citizens of the United States who counted on Medicaid for hospital care etc.
I love how it’s supposed to be super-funny that so many people my age live with their parents. HAHAHA YOU GUYS GET A JOB ALREADY!! First of all, easier said than done. A colleague of mine recently told me, “When I graduated college I had to work three jobs, but I did it because moving back home was not an option for me!” Like, OH, OKAY, three jobs coming right up! Because jobs are raining down from the sky! It’s 1992 and we can all get entry-level day jobs in our chosen field, night jobs as waiters, and weekend jobs as hardware store handymen! And the coming economic boom will have us all living in the CT suburbs within the decade, thanks to the fact that we are all limited only by our willingness to work hard! OF COURSE, JOBS, WHY DIDN’T ANYONE THINK OF THAT.
Oh, wait.
I have my ten-year high school reunion coming up (omg) and judging by the apprehensive conversations on the FB page, lots of those people are living with their parents. None of them want to be. I know of two, definitively, who are teachers, who don’t make enough money to afford the rent on a studio within reasonable commuting distance of the schools they work in. HAHA, let’s all laugh at them! Because it’s funny that young adults are experiencing shocking levels of not just unemployment but underemployment and stagnating wages!
Second of all, I hate the idea that living with your parents is by definition a situation that signifies irresponsibility or instability or just “loser-ness.” Personally, if I couldn’t get a job that would reliably pay to cover market-value rent and allow me to save money for emergencies, I think living with my parents would be the RESPONSIBLE choice. It certainly was the responsible choice for me for a time, when we were better off for having my meager wages contribute directly to the family rather than sink into paying someone else’s mortgage and the enormous transportation costs I would have incurred by traveling to work from a place where I could afford the rent. We have a strange cultural focus on living alone as a signifier of adulthood, but really it is the ability to make sucky choices and delay gratification that are far more reliable signifiers of adulthood.
Even with a decent job, and savings, I worry a lot about the instability of my finances. My job, despite being full-time and open-ended, and skilled (ie people go to school or do 2-year professional apprenticeships to learn it) doesn’t offer health insurance – I know few people my age who get insurance through their jobs; most of the ones I do know are in unions, and not all of those are blue-collar unions (ie teachers, theatrical company managers) – and the most affordable private plan I could feel comfortable agreeing to, with a $10,000 deductible, would cost me nearly $600/month. At those rates I’m better off just paying cash for everything and praying I don’t get hit by a car. But honestly? It keeps me up at night. I do sometimes consider moving back home, upping my transportation costs, working around the house to earn my “keep,” and pocketing the difference to save up to repair whichever bone I inevitably will break at some point in my life. I do sometimes feel as though staying here, paying $1100/month to live (in a tiny apartment in a neighborhood that I adore but that is certainly outside the comfort/safety zones of many) within 1-hour commuting distance of my job and be independent, is the financially irresponsible choice.
Honestly regardless of one’s political or social views on the OWS movement, it is really extremely tone-deaf to constantly act like skyrocketing numbers of young adults being unable to afford to move out of their parents’ homes is just some big joke, some cultural flood of losers and slackers.
” My job, despite being full-time and open-ended, and skilled (ie people go to school or do 2-year professional apprenticeships to learn it) doesn’t offer health insurance – I know few people my age who get insurance through their jobs; most of the ones I do know are in unions, and not all of those are blue-collar unions (ie teachers, theatrical company managers) – and the most affordable private plan I could feel comfortable agreeing to, with a $10,000 deductible, would cost me nearly $600/month. At those rates I’m better off just paying cash for everything and praying I don’t get hit by a car.”
I agree with your entire post, but especially the part about insurance. I lost insurance for myself and my kids when my “job creating” company cut me down to barely fifteen hours, because they didn’t want to pay benefits to full-time workers. My wife can add us all to her’s… if we could do without more than half of her paycheck. How in the world can someone afford to pay more than half of their barely above minimum wage paycheck for insurance? If we didn’t need to eat, maybe. So yeah, we were forced to put our kids on state insurance (it’s an entitlement, obviously, to make sure my asthmatic son has his medication). I don’t have insurance. Got forbid I get sick or hurt, leaving us with tons of ridiculously high medical bills, babysitting costs if I weren’t able to care for the kids, and a loss of income from the few hours the “job creators” saw fit to leave me. We would easily end up living with my wife’s parents, it wouldn’t even have to be much of a crisis to put us there. But that makes us lazy, I am sure.
Alexandra and Jack,
There is nothing wrong with living at home and can often be the best situation for a parent too. When I read those OWS cartoons I see them as poking fun at the people that DON’T even look for jobs or try to contribute; they are living the liberal parasite mentality and leach off mom and dad so they can party an extra 20 years before ever considering a need to contribute. Where drugs and a concert are more important then rent or contributing to the food budget.
So yeah, we were forced to put our kids on state insurance (it’s an entitlement, obviously, to make sure my asthmatic son has his medication).
You pay your taxes into state funds for insurance, so don’t feel bad about it.
Parasites? I wonder if Newt or any of the critics of the movement have ever been to an encampment or talked to some of its supporters. The Occupy movement does have its share of slackers that fit all the stereotypes, but there are also unemployed veterans and people that have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. It’s depicted as a movement of the young, but there are a good many middle-aged people, especially displaced workers, and even older people. There are also people that work part-time and “occupy” part-time, and even some people with good jobs and insurance that support them.
I do not condone violence or lawlessness, and I am not sure that their tactics are effective, but at least they are bringing some attention to the inequities in our society.
phillymiss,
The’movement’ seemed more of a bowel movement then a grassroots movement. It was organized and funded by the likes of ACORN and moveon.org and ‘da unions’ and the socialist party etc. The ‘real’ people you are referring to were never really driving the movement. They were used and that is why their message was marginalized and never really had a chance to be heard as part of ‘OWS’. For instance, jobless veterans would have a lot better chance of having their voices being heard and at making a difference at a tea party rally.
truthseeker, I do agree with you that OWS and the Tea Party have a lot of complaints in common, in the end, as far as what has gone wrong. But a lot of what you assert is flat-out incorrect. Unions did not join the movement until weeks into it, for example. If it had been professionally, covertly organized I find it difficult to believe it wouldn’t have a clear purpose and defined goal at this point, two months in. It’s a somewhat meandering, disorganized, aimless movement because it’s a bunch of people with a bunch of complaints who all got sick of being ignored and went and sat somewhere together. Its lack of focus is probably its greatest weakness; don’t you think that an organized movement would address that problem fairly easily?
As for the stereotype of “the people that DON’T even look for jobs or try to contribute” who “are living the liberal parasite mentality and leach off mom and dad so they can party an extra 20 years before ever considering a need to contribute” – how many people like that do you actually know? Probably about as many Tea Partiers as any liberal knows who are ‘really’ in it for the racism or because they hate the poor. I would guess that about 1 in 15 people I know in my age bracket are living with their parents, and I literally do not know a single one who’s doing so because they prefer it that way.
Jack –
You have my utmost respect. I don’t know how anyone with kids doesn’t just go crazy with healthcare anxiety these days. Or I guess anyone young with kids – even my fairly open-minded, compassionate colleagues who are 35+ don’t seem to understand what the market forces are really like for those of us who didn’t get a good decade and a half of earning power and professional development before all this happened. ie the “I worked three jobs when I was 24, because I’d rather do that than live with my parents!” colleague I mentioned earlier. Yeah, most people I know would rather work three jobs than live with their parents. Guess what? Not always an option.
Add to that the fact that most people with “established” careers don’t realize how increasingly rare it is to get insurance from your job these days – well. Let’s just say that when I briefly thought I might have been surprise-pregnancied ;) one of my first thoughts was that now I’d qualify for state-subsidized healthcare for a few months, and maybe I could finally get that CT scan I’ve been saving up for.
Unions did not join the movement until weeks into it, for example. If it had been professionally, covertly organized I find it difficult to believe it wouldn’t have a clear purpose and defined goal at this point, two months in.
The paid union protesters and tent cities are all that is has kept OWS going for two months straight. If it were an organic movement it would have come and gone with rallys on certain days and not the grinding tiresome effort that it has become.
Let’s just say that when I briefly thought I might have been surprise-pregnancied one of my first thoughts was that now I’d qualify for state-subsidized healthcare for a few months, and maybe I could finally get that CT scan I’ve been saving up for.
Alexandra,
Why don’t you qualify for state-subsidized health care now if you are unemployed?
Non-Fox citations or it isn’t true, truthseeker.
I can’t answer for Alexandra, but I can tell you that getting on state healthcare, just like practically every benefit, is damn near impossible if you are single unless you are like literally destitute. Food stamps aren’t that hard to get, but other than that people will let you rot. At least in my state it’s like that.
Non-Fox citations or it isn’t true, truthseeker.
I’m not sure what you meant there Jack. Did you disagree with something I said?
is damn near impossible if you are single unless you are like literally destitute
unemployed means no money and an underwater mortgage etc which means destitute doesn’t it?
I want citations for the things you are saying about OWS, please. I hear y’all talking about this, but I have never seen it cited.
”unemployed means no money and an underwater mortgage etc which means destitute doesn’t it?”
Hmmm, I was homeless and single and I couldn’t even get on housing in my state. Like I said, it may be different in other states, but the Southern states especially have pretty bad social safety nets, as much as I have read.
I want citations for the things you are saying about OWS, please. I hear y’all talking about this, but I have never seen it cited.
Which parts?
Truth – silly little question- if the sixteen million caused the problem, what year was the addition, due to health care reform, made in?
Ex-RINO.
You can read it for yourself in this CBO report on Obamacare;
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/amendreconProp.pdf
“Approximately 24 million people would purchase their own coveragethrough the new insurance exchanges, and there would be roughly16 million more enrollees in Medicaid and the Children’s Health InsuranceProgram than the number projected under current law.”
It is from page 9 of the report. These enrollees phase in over time and since the law passed the states have to prepare for these 16 million new enrollees.
Another interesting thing from page nine I see is that people put on the exchanges by their employers will not eligible for government subidies. Ouch!! A helluva lot of working middle class families are foing to be in for a shock when they find out they will be forced to pay 15k a year of their income to join the Obamacare exchanges.
“Under the legislation, certain employers could allow all of their workers to choose among the plans available in the exchanges, but those enrollees would not be eligible to receive subsidies via the exchanges”
The paid union protesters and tent cities are all that is has kept OWS going for two months straight.
Sure thing, truthseeker. I am part of a union and know lots of people who are part of unions. I also know lots of people who were at Zucotti Park until the raid.
Where did I say I’m unemployed? I said I have a good, skilled, full-time, open-ended job. I make little money all things considered, and I am underemployed, but I make too much money to qualify for even moderately subsidized insurance; there is a program called Healthy NY that has less strict criteria than Medicaid but you need to earn less than $27,000/year, which is a state-wide limit, which makes absolutely no sense given the vast difference in cost of living across this state. Like, NYC, where I live, versus little tiny towns upstate. Then take into account that even with Healthy NY subsidization, the insurance would cost $450/month. So I would need to shift down to part-time work and cut thousands of dollars off my annual income, and then spend nearly $6000/year that I am not spending right now, on high-deductible insurance. Yeah, that is a feasible option.
So let’s say I quit my job and took a cashier’s job instead, and earned roughly $25,000/year – optimistic for a cashier, and optimistic that I could get a job as a cashier right now, but let’s just say. After health insurance payments I would have $19,000/year. Let’s say I spent another $2000/year on my health (far less than what I’ve spent this year, but I’ve spent nowhere near $7000 yet at least, so I wouldn’t have reached the coverage yet even in this fairly health-hazardous year I’ve had) – I’m down to $17,000 for the year. $104/month for the monthly Metrocard for all my transportation gets me down to, estimating generously, $16,000 for the year. I have never in my adult life paid less than about $12,000/year for rent; I pay slightly more than that right now. And then food, retirement savings, emergency savings – I would have to give up almost every single aspect of a functional, responsible life to afford insurance. The choice, for me, is insurance or everything else, and pray I don’t get hit by a a car.
Like I said, my full-time, open-ended job chooses not to offer insurance. While I am part of a union, my job right now is non-union. I tried to negotiate lower pay in exchange for having my work days at this venue count towards my insurance days on a contract – the way my union is set up, you have to work 60 days out of every 180 on a union contract in order to get the union insurance, but you can work a variety of venues or jobs in order to hit that limit – all I wanted was to have the 50 hours a week I put in at my full-time job count towards the insurance I would be getting if a job across the street opened up. The company management wouldn’t go for it. Because no one is forcing them to. I always say, you get the union you deserve – every union rule is in place specifically because someone, somewhere, once took advantage of it not being there once upon a time.
I tried to have them hire me out as a contractor instead, which would make me eligible to join the freelancer’s union (you need to make a certain amount of money on a 1099), which would have its downsides but would give me, yet again, a chance to buy high-deductible insurance at about $500/month. But they wouldn’t go for it and I honestly didn’t think it was worth trying to really negotiate, since going that route would still have me spending $6000/year on monthly payments and then some $7000 on doctor’s visits etc before the insurance kicked in. If I put that much money into my own health in a given year I would probably not be financially viable whether I had insurance or not, at that point.
Which brings me to the catastrophic insurance I qualify for, privately. $10,000 deductible and $600/month. Not a wise financial choice.
I make enough money to support myself, and I have savings, and I have an IRA that I contribute to annually. I volunteer and I work more than one job. It is not a choice between concerts and movies and fancy phones, or insurance – it is literally a choice between every single necessary and unnecessary expense in my life, and insurance. This is the choice that so many people I know are facing.
Er… side topic, but: Alexandra, have you looked into alternatives to traditional health insurance? My wife and I use this:
http://www.samaritanministries.org/
2014 truth. Eligibility expands in 2014. 2014.
Alexandra. Sounds like you have a lot wighing on your mind. I hope you and your family are able to have a good Thanksgiving, and I hope you find some solutions.
Thanks, Courtnay. Honestly I mostly just try not to think about insurance too much – I check my options out every six months or so but once I’m confident that I’m making the best financial choices I can, I try to just leave it alone. Aside from that, I am happy and responsible and very lucky, all things considered – luckier than a lot of my friends who don’t have full-time jobs, that’s for sure! I don’t usually go into the specifics but truthseeker seemed to think that the only reason a person might not have or be able to afford insurance is if they’re unemployed. I’d have a way easier time getting insurance if I were unemployed, just a much harder time getting anything else. ;)
And lest anyone think that just because I’m in a union, I’m anti-management – most of my industry experience has been in management, specifically with the management company that is the one refusing to give me insurance coverage. I worked for them for five years (at that point they contracted me out, so that they could all get insurance but didn’t have to give me any). I know and understand the dynamics at play – the people who have bargaining power have insurance, and profits are still made. Just not with margins QUITE as large as the ones on my current job. I think that profit margins that are being made on the backs of the people doing the work are artificially and unfairly inflated but it’s not like jobs are raining down from the sky, so it is what it is. Sucky situation.
Speaking of Thanksgiving, my gentleman friend left a random free-from-work turkey in my fridge before he split town for the week. I don’t know why he didn’t put it in the freezer. Now I have to cook this dude and I don’t usually cook any meat at all (I am an omnivore, I just don’t cook meat because I will probably poison myself). I know nothing about turkey, and what is the deal with stuffing, and whatever else. But I’ll be working long hours tomorrow through Sunday, Thanksgiving included, so it looks like today is turkey-cooking day! I’m scared, but I keep trying to remind myself that not everybody gets a free practice turkey and has free reign to hide whatever evidence results. Heading out for a turkey baster and a roasting pan now – wish me luck!
Just cook it long and slow, like about 325 degrees. Get one of those roasting bags–they are great for a juicy turkey.
DO NOT FEAR THE TURKEY.
OMG it’s so gross. OK. I can do this.
Paladin, that is interesting. I have a lot of questions to research about it but I am not a Christian in the first place.
Alexandra,
If you took the cashier job and only made 25k gross then you might be eligible for other subsidized assistance. Or, if you really need the CT scan, would going on unemployment get you onto a subsidized medical coverage? It might also get you food and/or other assistance. If you really need the CT scan due to a serious illness then I would say don’t let pride get in the way of your health.
2014 truth. Eligibility expands in 2014.
Ex-RINO,
Forcing people onto Obamacare exchanges doesn’t start immediately either. Are you saying that states, like people, should not be trying to prepare for this HUGE new expense until 2014. We should all just make like the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion and Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz and ignore Obamacare like it was “the man behind the curtain” cause it doesn’t fully devastate our budgets until the year 2014.
What did you think about that other ditty I pulled off of page 9 of the Obamacare CBO report?
“Under the legislation, certain employers could allow all of their workers to choose among the plans available in the exchanges, but those enrollees would not be eligible to receive subsidies via the exchanges”
truthseeker, are you saying that I should quit a full-time job that pays a living wage but offers no benefits, to go on unemployment and state insurance? Do you really think that in any healthy economic system that would be considered rational advice? Do you think that maybe the fact that that is the best advice you have to offer – “drop out and go on the dole” – means there is something wrong with this system? I am capable of working, I am employed – if I quit my job and moved back home would you then lump me in with the “liberals” who “choose to live at home”?
I choose to work. I choose to support myself and I choose to save for a rainy day and I choose to save so that if I am fortunate enough to not die of a preventable illness then I can survive in my old age. It is a choice but that is my point – these are harsh choices with no good options.
I do not have a serious illness. I have a sinus infection that I’ve had since last December. It has not gone away for even one day despite four courses of antibiotics, three courses of steroids, and months of daily (or twice-daily) nasal rinses. It is at times excruciatingly painful, and does sometimes interfere with my ability to live life normally (makes it hard to eat and I lose weight if I’m not careful; my eyes get sore around the corners because I am so congested so sometimes I can’t wear my glasses – and I NEED my glasses; I literally cannot see clearly six feet away without them). So it is very important to fix it, but is it more important than every single other thing in my life? The logical next step, according to the doctor (all out of pocket fees there) is likely surgery, since it’s probably something trapped in a deviated septum. But I need a CT scan to determine that. And so it goes on the priority list.
Obviously the CT scan is only the first of many expenses involved in fixing this. I had about $2000 saved up for it but then needed some emergency dental work last month, so all that money (and then some) went there instead. So now I start saving again.
Your options are the same, in the end, as the ones I come up with: I can choose between every single thing in my life, or insurance. Is beating a sinus infection worth giving up my job, my home, my transportation, my savings, my retirement? What happens to me in five years if I spend my late twenties and early 30’s unemployed – how do I eventually support myself? Or do I just not support myself? How do I ever have and care for a family? Assuming I can get a job after being unemployed for so long and letting my skills languish and grow somewhat outdated, if that job doesn’t offer insurance do I just refuse it and live on public assistance my whole life, since I will doubtless only incur greater and greater medical expenses as I get older?
And is it REALLY SO FUNNY, hashing all this out, that lots of people my age are facing harsher choices than mine and choosing to live with their parents?
have you looked into alternatives to traditional health insurance? My wife and I use this:
http://www.samaritanministries.org/
Paladin, this is cool. Thanks for sharing it.
OK, Courtnay – I am doing ok with the turkey so far. It is creeping me out though. I’m just glad that I had a rare moment of non-procrastination and did my baking yesterday, on a whim – I was supposed to do it today but boy am I glad the oven is free now. I made tray after tray of these: http://www.thekitchn.com/thekitchn/dessert/fall-recipe-cranberry-squares-with-walnut-shortbread-crust-133199
I firmly believe that we don’t eat enough bright pink food. :)
Is beating a sinus infection worth giving up my job, my home, my transportation, my savings, my retirement?
I would say YES in a heartbeat. Giving up your savings to beat a ‘sinus infection’ is well worth it when the sinus infection is as debilitating as yours sounds to be. I know I would not hesitate to dip into my retirement fund and pay for my daughters CT scan if she needed one. I don’t know your medical history or you personally well enough to make the determination for you though. And you do not need to look at it as ‘going on the government dole’. You sound like a hard working person and you have paid into unemployment and a stint on unemployment does not need to mean giving up your job, home,retirement etc on a permanent basis. Now might even be a good time cause when Obama gets voted out of office in 2012 the economy will likely roar back and you will likely have better opportunities for gameful employment then you have today.
And is it REALLY SO FUNNY, hashing all this out, that lots of people my age are facing harsher choices than mine and choosing to live with their parents?
Alexandra, You seem to have a resentment towards people poking fun at young adults who move back in with your parents just because of a public perception. Quit worrying so much about what others think. The cartoon is poking fun at kids that would move in with their parents just for a free place to stay and sit around and watch TV all day and borrow the car to ‘hang out’ all night. If you live at home cause you are ill or live at home and contribute then you would not be so sensitive to people who ‘look down upon you’ cause there would be no need for you to feelbad about yourself. At least in my house, my kids are welcome any time; even the economy is bad and they can only find work for minimum wage I am proud of their work ethic. My kids aren’t that old yet but my three oldest have held jobs since junior year in high school and it is a blessing for me to have them around as much as possible. :)
truthseeker, I absolutely resent people who do not know anything about the economic difficulties and circumstances of the people they “poke fun at,” and who instead insist that they are making fun of some mythical people who COULD HAVE jobs with living wages and benefits but who instead prefer to live at home and surf the web all day. I asked you before how many people you know who do that. You didn’t answer. I don’t give a rat’s butt what anyone thinks of me but when someone takes my very legitimate economic and political complaints, and those of a significant portion of my generation, and dismisses them by instead attributing them to this mythical TV-watching slacker and laughing about how lazy and privileged those people are – well, I care about that. Not because I care what you think of me – though I do care that so many of my peers are ashamed of their living circumstances because of jerks laughing at them – but because for every person who thinks that, it’s one less person who will do anything at all to change an economic system that is broken.
I think, truthseeker, that if we are expecting the public to make up the profit margins of private businesses, that is a broken economic system. Why should the guy at the top of the company make an extra two thousand dollars a month on top of the tens of thousands of dollars he’s already pulling in profit, and the entire working population of the state has to subsidize that? Because that’s what is happening when people with full-time jobs STILL NEED TO USE public benefits. Based on what I know of small business insurance costs, and my own company’s profits, the cost of providing insurance to me for one month would be made up in less than one day of the money my company pulls in; they could insure all of the [small – four people] crew in, literally, less than one day’s income. But they don’t – because they are not required to, and they’d rather the money just went to the profit. And so it is for some reason the duty of the public to subsidize the difference? Why? Why not ask that business why its employees need to be on public assistance?
Young, healthy people with minimal, minor ailments are not the exception, they are the norm. If jobs are not meeting the most basic standards of living for even the people who are the norm, not the exception, then the problem lies with the jobs and the people providing them, not the public.
I am not saying every business is a problem. I think the insurance industry is the problem and I think that if businesses could not pass on their employee expenses to the public programs, we’d see a lot more push – from businesses as well as from individuals – for insurance companies to become more efficient and less exploitative. Small businesses are harmed by this every bit as much as individual people are – I know that both as an individual person and from my years in production management, which was itself a small, four-person business.
And who, do you think, is going to subsidize those public benefits, once everyone whose job absolves itself of the responsibility of paying real wages goes on benefits? If a business can save money and make a couple thousand dollars’ more profit per month by doing away with insurance for its employees, why shouldn’t every business do that? And then every business’ employees should just – what – quit, move home, and go on public assistance? I suppose that if we all just dropped out of the workforce and went on subsidized care once we found ourselves with the most basic of medical problems, that’s one way to get a single-payer system – only that way, there’s no one left to pay it.
I am always welcome in my parents’ home. I’ve worked since my sophomore year of high school and I’ve lived both at home and away since graduating high school. I lived at home when I was very ill in my early 20s, and I lived at home to care for my mother when she was very ill shortly thereafter. I spend my one day off each week helping my parents and visiting with them. They will not be around forever to give me free room and board while the rest of the working public buys me insurance. I am 28 years old and want a family, children, a life that I earn for myself. Public assistance can keep me alive but is merely staying alive the best thing that a young, healthy, hardworking, educated, skilled person can hope for in this country? Is that really what you’re saying? And do you somehow think that is okay? Do you think that is what this country is worth? Do you accept that?
I don’t. That’s all I’m saying. And I think it’s pretty rich for someone who would tell a young, healthy, educated, skilled, able worker to quit a paying job and move home and live on public assistance, that he’s not laughing at THAT PERSON, he’s laughing at all those young, healthy, educated, skilled, able workers who choose not to work at paying jobs and who instead mooch of the working members of society. You’ve got some fuzzy logic.
Hi, Alexandra!
First: you’re not the only one who’s jittery about cooking turkeys! I’ve been told, time and again, how “easy” it is, but I still watch turkey-preparers in awe! :) Be of stout heart, and defeat the bird! (All right: in the interest of full disclosure, I *do* have a y-chromosome, so that may affect all things culinary… save for the grill, and save for recipes which are meticulously spelled-out, in baby steps and exact amounts–none of this “a dash of such-and-such” nonsense, if you want me sane, or the food palatable, by the end of it! ;) )
Re: the Samaritan Health Sharing: I haven’t looked, but I do wonder if there are secular versions of that sort of thing, about in the world somewhere. That, or you could join our RCIA classes in Wisconsin, free of charge… :) Just kidding on that last bit, mind you!
Oh, Paladin, you should talk to MK sometime about me and Catholicism. We had a couple years of very lively, enriching discussion (not really debate – I am legitimately agnostic on religion and thus don’t really have much to debate, just much to learn). Not really here, mostly via e-mail. I will tell you that if I ever became Christian I would totally be Catholic, if that helps!
Plus Sundays are one of my busiest days of work, and the only day I can reliably squeeze in my volunteering in the morning. So I would be unlikely to meet the church-attendance requirements regardless ;)
I have looked into local/regional programs of unconventional natures before, which is how I stumbled on the freelancer’s union, but it is always good to remember to broaden my twice-yearly peace-of-mind searches every time I repeat them.
As for the turkey – well, I am not really a great cook, myself. 90% of what I cook is vegetables, partly because that’s what I enjoy but also partly because, choking aside, it’s hard to kill yourself with a badly cooked vegetable. Most days I live on quinoa, beets, kale, and brussel sprouts, with regular appearances of black beans, chick peas, and rice. And Cheez-Its. Cheez-Its are where I get my, uh, daily recommended dose of salt. Sure. ;)
So yeah. I found a Martha Stewart wine/butter turkey cooking method and here’s hoping for the best! I always trust Martha. Except when it comes to advice on stock trading.
Ex says:
Jerry – I’m not going to debate Ryan’s plan with you because it is obvious you have no idea what it is. And I’m being serious here.
Ex, you really need to brush up on your debating skills. On the outside chance you might want to learn some facts I will quote you a piece out of today’s WSJ ediotrial:
“The Paul Ryan-Alice Rivlin premium support reform for Medicare–the only reform that won’t require harsh government price controls or care restrictions–was deemed unacceptable (by the democrats)”.
And oh, you may want to climb down off your moral high horse on who cares more for medicare–Obamacare steals $500 billion from medicare to help the numbers look better for Obamacare.
Alexandra,
I your math gets fuzzy when you insist on jobs that pay a living wage and provide unlimited health insurance for everybody who works regardless of their position or productivity. In order to get the living wage and the other benefits you are supposed to provide a service to your employer that they can sell to other people in order to pay your benefits. Unions guaranteeing these types of benefits for people who are not able to produce enough to earn the benefits are PUBLIC SUBSIDIZED. It is a ponzi scheme where some people milk other people and our children and grandchildren in order to live better than everybody else does today. And you are ok with that as long as you can be one of the people in that union. Nice rant but if you and all the other 20 somethings want all those benefits then you need to earn them by providing a service to an employer and they will be happy to subsidize your living wage and your medical benefits. Like I said previously, you and a lot of other people will have a better cahnce in 2013 when Obama is voted out of office. Till then you can keep your full time job and either dip into savings and sell your car to get the CT scan if you think you need one or you can keep your savings and your car and live with your allergies. Your employer does not owe you anything; you earn what they give you. If you showed the ability to take on more responsibility then they would hire you for one of those other positions that includes the insurance you are so desperately seeking for yourself.
Alexandra, what do you think would happen to you under Obamacare? According to what I see your employer would likely put you onto the exchanges and you would be forced to pay into those exchanges wether you want to or not AND you would not be eligible for any subsidies. Your savings might need a little dippping then wether you want to or not because you would be out another 15k a year; but at least you might get your CT after you meet your deductible.
“ Nice rant but if you and all the other 20 somethings want all those benefits then you need to earn them by providing a service to an employer and they will be happy to subsidize your living wage and your medical benefits. ”
Lol, one of the funniest things I have read all week. Tell her to quit her job and get assistance, then go back to the snotty conservajerk line of “well, you must not be working hard enough”.
Nice try, truthseeker. I am not okay with anything about this situation, least of all that only union employees get benefits. I provide a service to my employer that my employer sells to the public. What do you not understand about that? I am doing my part of the deal – I am working in an EDUCATED, SKILLED capacity in a manner that brings in more than enough money to cover the living wage and benefits and still turn a healthy profit. Did you read the part where I said that my work DOES COVER the cost of insuring me? But my company can and does choose not to pay it, since there is absolutely no disincentive to them making that choice? The union jobs that are available to the union I am part of – which is NOT A PUBLIC-SUBSIDIZED UNION – cover the cost of insuring themselves. And everyone earns a profit. People earn millions of dollars of profit, but people also get to go to the doctor.
You seem to think that, because I get no insurance, I must not be providing a service and skillset to my employer that covers the cost of the insurance. Why is it easier for you to believe that millions of people – people in my situation or similar situations – are lazy or lacking in workplace value than to believe that a select handful, a few hundred, are taking advantage of a broken system?
If you showed the ability to take on more responsibility then they would hire you for one of those other positions that includes the insurance you are so desperately seeking for yourself.
You know absolutely nothing about the responsibility I take on or the positions that get insurance. There is no position in my company that would give me insurance because of the way my industry is structured, fragmented into different jobs. I was part of a four-person team that managed an $88 million dollar project over the last two years, so don’t tell me anything about being willing to take on responsibility.
I have not said a word about Obamacare. I have said that this system is broken. I don’t know why you think that identifying the problems in this system means I agree with the only other option on the table. I think Obamacare is crap and I think this system is equally crap.
Alexandra,
Employers hire people who make them profit. And if you had skills that other people wouldn’t be able to provide for less then they would pay you the benefits to keep you on. If you have such a skill set that you are making that much profit for your employer then time to call their bluff or look for another employer.
Tell her to quit her job and get assistance, then go back to the snotty conservajerk line of “well, you must not be working hard enough”.
I am just being honest with her about ALL of her options Jack. Living at home or not at home. Selling her car and dipping into savings to pay for a CT scan or living with her medical issues incompletely undiagnosed. Continuing to work where she is at (when she is being so grossly under-compensated) or going on unemployment which is also her perogative. I don’t see why these options are funny to you but whatever floats your boat. ;)
I don’t have a car – I choose not to live with the expense or the insurance. I use public transportation for everything, from my daily commute to my trips to my parents’ house to day trips further away. If I moved back to my parents’ house, I would need to buy a car or quit my job.
I dipped into my savings for the emergency dental work – dipping into my savings for the CT scan would not solve the problem, so I have to save up more money for that. If I were dying then I would go into any amount of debt to save my own life, but I’m not dying – just in pain. Personally I think that if we have to choose between being in pain, and being employed, that’s a broken health-care system. If the answer to coming down with a chronic but minor infection is to quit your job, sell your stuff, and go on public assistance (good luck getting unemployment benefits if you quit as opposed to being fired, though) then I think that’s a broken system.
truthseeker, are you the only person who can do your job? In the world? Are you irreplaceable? No one will do my job as well as I do for less than me, which is why I have my job. My management company gave it to me because they had no more work for me in a management capacity this year, and they trusted me to do good work, and because I have done excellent work in the past they wanted to see me still feeding myself each month. But they could probably find someone to do it almost as well as me for the same amount, if I quit. Which is why I take what they’re offering. I do the job better than they absolutely need me to, mostly because I can only hope it will get me a better job somewhere else someday, so they probably couldn’t find someone to do it quite as well as I do for the same amount of money. But there is nowhere else to go and they know it. If there were anywhere else to go, I’d be there. Remember that I tried to negotiate to lower my own wages, in exchange for working benefits out. There is no reason for them to negotiate with me and they know it. They’d much rather toss an extra $100/week my way and tell me to work the rest out myself.
Should only those very few people in the world who are absolutely indispensable and irreplaceable have health insurance and a living wage? Because there are not many people like that in the world. Most of us do our jobs well and could be somewhat easily replaced if we left. If the money that my work brings in covers the operating expenses of the business, a living wage and benefits for me and the other employees, AND a healthy profit for everyone at the top, is it ethical, moral, or just to act as though I do not deserve a living wage and benefits? Just to increase the profit at the top? All just because there are lots of people out there who are worse off than myself?
It’s okay to admit that there are no good choices. I’m not saying that there are. I’m not saying I have the answers, or the right answers – I am saying, as I have been all along, that while I have all the main signifiers of fiscal and emotional responsibility, I still sometimes worry that I am making a financially irresponsible choice by working and supporting myself. I think that when young, healthy, able, skilled, willing people worry that working and supporting themselves is the IRRESPONSIBLE choice, I see that as an extremely problematic system. You seem not to. I expect better from this system and I personally view the binding of insurance to employment to be an anti-free-market, coercive force. I am pro-business and pro-entrepreneurship and I think that when you have people who can’t afford to start businesses, only to run the ones that already exist; and when you have people who can’t afford to leave bad jobs because they won’t be able to afford emergency medical care, or who are faced with only bad jobs because there is no incentive to provide good jobs, that’s an anti-capitalist force coercing the labor and entrepreneurial markets. But that’s just me.
Truth -
On vacation, so I haven’t been online much – but let me just quick make sure I’m at the same place you are at:
Your initial claim was “nother glaring problem with Obamacare is becoming apparent now. It shifted responsibility for Medicare from the feds to the states and now the states are each coming up with their own rules about ‘coverage’. In Hawaii people are only eligible for a maximum of 10 days hospital stay in a year. Prior to Obamacare they used to be covered as long as necessary (no limit n hospital stays) by Medicaid. In other words; the health care that was supposed to provide coverage for the seriously ill (cancer etc..) is actually taking it away by Obamacare…HMMMM…and they billed it as health care guaranteed for everybody. The liberals are such a bunch of BSers.”
We’ve since said that
– It is Medicaid, not Medicare
– That Health Care Reform did not cause this shift – Medicaid has been a states-federal partnership for a long time
– That the cause of the these limits is not due to Health Care Reform, which doesn’t kick extra people into Medicaid for several years – but instead is due to the sagging economy. More specifically, and I can provide links if you’d like – stimulus dollars kicked money to the states, so they were able to better balance their budgets last year. Now, that money is out (in regards to the portion going to the states), so to balance their books, these things are coming into play. It has absolutely nothing to do with Health Care Reform, which again, doesn’t really affect Medicaid for a few more years. You tried some very bizarre argument about “getting ready for it” – do you know of any evidence of a state changing the rules a few years in advance of legislation? To what, bank the money? Maybe put it in a CD?
– We agree that your original scenario in regards to somebody with cancer is false
So when you end that liberals are a bunch of BS’ers, we might just switch that to you – because if you take out the parts that are false, I think all you have left is your name!
I have not read the link you provided yet – was in the car most of the day – but since we’ve shown that the Medicaid changes aren’t until the future – I’d like to wrap up this discussion first.
So back to question four – your dodge it with your claims that it would wrong of reform to dump 16 million people in right away, which was false – so let’s ask again:
Is your suggestion that Medicaid by fully at the federal level and cover any cost at any time, no matter the amount, as long as somebody demands it?
Jerry – So your “proof” is an opinion article from the WSJ? Also, it doesn’t say that there wouldn’t be severely limiting options. It says it wouldn’t have price controls or care restrictions – that is different though.
Again, I can give you half the price of milk, though you still need to buy milk, and keep giving you less of a percentage each year.
I’m not use price controls or care restrictions – the beauty is, you are doing it yourself. So the author it true – the government isn’t putting restrictions. Ryan’s plan has the seniors decide based on their income. The poor, then the middle class will have to skip care because they can’t afford it – the rich will get the care they want. No government price control or care restrictions – they are free market restrictions. Let people die because they can’t pay – the conservatives win!
Ex-RINO,
Almost everything you posted in your recap above was WRONG. The only thing you gotb right was that I stated Medicareonce when I meant to state Medicaid. Other than that….saying you are ‘not keeping up’ is an understaement. You are bordering on oncoherent and you are not even taking the time to read responses. btw- I already specifically answered the question you say I am ‘dodging’ so get back in your swimsuit and order another refreshment cause your mind is somewhere else. ;)
Alexandra, is there room to improve the system so that people can get better benefits from employment. YES. Is the system broke? NO. I have seen a lot of people in my day who had no medical coverage and got life saving emergency care at hospitals and none that have been declined. Just sayin. And Obamacare is going to destroy the system we have. If you thought it is broke now….watch out if Obama gets re-elected.
I don’t know why you keep acting like I have said anything in support of Obama or his healthcare plan. I don’t give a rat’s butt about saving or preserving the system we have in place now since it does not benefit me in any way and in fact actively harms me by inexplicably linking my medical care and my employment – I don’t see any reason why my boss should get a say in my medical care, personally – but I have no interest in supporting Obama’s healthcare “solution” either. I think it will probably make things worse by prolonging the slow and painful demise of a system that is already clearly not working.
I don’t think that “not dying from lack of emergency care” is the same as having a functional, good healthcare system. If I were worse off I’d be better off, medically speaking. If I had a heart attack I could walk into any ER and get help, but that doesn’t mean I am wishing for a heart attack. If I had no job I might get my sinus infection taken care of – but that doesn’t mean I wish for no job. I think that living with and in easily treatable pain just because it’s your best option means that we need some serious changes, and yes, I think it means the system is broken.
However, all I hear from the right wing on this issue, including the Tea Party and including every single jerk who laughs at my less-fortunate home-dwelling peers and classmates, is the standard “You aren’t working hard enough” “You’re working too hard – you are ONE OF THE GOOD ONES who deserves help so quit your job, rest a bit, and accept it!” “If you were worth anything then your boss would already be giving it to you” crap from upthread. So pardon me for not looking to the Republican party for my solutions. If you have no idea where I’m coming from then you cannot possibly help me get where I want to go, and if you look at me and see someone who is simultaneously too hardworking and proud to accept help, yet too lazy and not-valuable to deserve insurance, someone who both SHOULD move back home and SHOULD STOP mooching off her parents because hahahahaha 28-year old women living at home, then you probably don’t have the right solution.
——–
For all who are waiting with bated breath: the turkey is done and it’s glorious! I am really sick of babysitting this jerkface bird though, and I’m glad to be done with this. I took a picture of myself holding the neck and e-mailed it to all my friends and family. I even got a ton of cleaning done in between bastings. So all in all it was a productive rainy day off!
if you look at me and see someone who is simultaneously too hardworking and proud to accept help, yet too lazy and not-valuable to deserve insurance, someone who both SHOULD move back home and SHOULD STOP mooching off her parents because hahahahaha 28-year old women living at home, then you probably don’t have the right solution.
I don’t think of you like that. I didn’t accuse you of being scizophrenicr; which you would to be to simulataneously be a mooch and a contributor. Nobody said your health insurance needs to come from your employer. My point to you was that when an employer finds an employee who makes them money then that emploter will pay them more PERIOD. It is a good system and it works. The Tea Party/ Republican solution is to lower the cost of care so more people can afford it. Getting government out of the way by removing the laws that prevent people from purchasing insurance across state lines or forcing one size fits all insurance policies on people would be a great start and by themselves would probably make insurance affordable to you and a lot of other young Americans. Make sense?
BTW – if I had my way I think you should be able to get your faincee’s insurance policy even though you are not married :)
That is a truthseeker idea and not a Republican one.
truth – I find it a little ironic that you say I’m not reading and keeping up, and said I’m “oncoherent” (incoherent)…yet you’ve already conceded you botched more than the Medicare vs Medicaid. Your use of a cancer patient was also incorrect – do you need further pointing that out?
Also, in regards to the 16 million – is your claim that the changes with health care reform and medicaid have already occurred, and that is the cause of this shortfall?
The information I’m presenting regarding the federal stimulus dollars isn’t made up – here is an article - http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-10-23/states-limit-medicaid-hospital-stays/50886398/1
Last point. You completely dodged the question (question four) – unless I missed the post. You had a shifty answer where you talked about Health Care Reform pumping on extra people – which is not true.
So your belief seems to be in line with the thought that all people should be covered for unlimited services all the time? I’m guessing that because you’re upset that Hawaii is limiting hospital stays for people – so the only solution I can see is better funding for Medicare and fully funding stays for any reason – is that your belief?
Alexandra – truth is full of it. Truth’s and the GOP solution is to reverse Health Care Reform, which will dial back the millions of people who will finally get insurance. They want to reopen the medicare donut hole. They want to bring back the phrase “pre-existing condition” and allow insurance companies to discrimination and deny coverage based on that. And they want to bring back lifetime and yearly caps on coverage.
Last point. You completely dodged the question (question four) – unless I missed the post.
Ex-RINO,
YOU told me you haven’t had time to read the link I gave you and I told you that you completely missed the post.
My point to you was that when an employer finds an employee who makes them money then that emploter will pay them more PERIOD. It is a good system and it works.
But it doesn’t work that way. I make my employer money and my employer just gets more money. Because my employer has absolutely no incentive to provide me with benefits. Look at it from the company manager’s perspective: his job is to manage the producers’ money and earn them as much of a profit on it as he can. Would he not be remiss in his duties if he went voluntarily giving out benefits that he was not required to give to us? It is his responsibility to take the money they give him and protect it. If there is nothing anywhere saying that I deserve insurance for the long hours and skill level that I bring to the table, then he is by definition under this system mismanaging the producers’ money by giving it to me. He might as well buy me lunch. My company manager is one of my best friends; we go back years longer than this individual project. I am not angry at him for any of this. He is not my boss the way we are structured – he cannot tell me what to do and wouldn’t even know how if he wanted to – but he manages the money that keeps the company running. If he is not making as much ROI as he legally can for them, then he is on the chopping block himself. This system is no more his fault than it is mine. He has insurance because – ironically – he is protected by the white-collar union that his job falls under. His benefits are not going anywhere. So he is safe from the ruthless ever-increasing profit margins. And guess what – his insurance, vacation time, sick days, and other benefits are just factored into the budget, and everybody at the top makes a profit anyway. But because my insurance is optional, it is seen as hindering profits rather than as just the cost of doing business. Because there is absolutely no reason to see it otherwise.
Your ideas for lowering costs don’t really make much sense to me, no. I fail to see what opening up competition across state lines will do when so very few people have the means and circumstances that allow them to choose their insurance provider anyway; again, we come back to the strange linking of insurance to employment. To me, it makes the most sense to think of healthcare as infrastructure, and go from there. How do we build a system that sustains itself and does not fall apart with the use we can reasonably anticipate it undergoing? Health insurance companies fall apart if people use them, or if people are allowed to use them. They fly high when people are paying into them but their methods for long-term viability are clearly unsustainable; the fact that the costs increase by something absurd like 15 or 20% each year is proof of that. They cannot sustain themselves and normally I wouldn’t care – I think businesses that fail should fail – but they hold our lives in their hands.
Why do you assume my partner has insurance of his own? I don’t think you even want me to start on the specifics of his situation. ;)
Ok truthseeker – I’m off to watch my neighbor’s kid for a few hours. Have a good night!
Why do you assume my partner has insurance of his own?
Cause he got a free turkey….
Have a good night too
Ex:
The point is that your argument is not with me but with Paul Ryan, Alice Rivlin (who, by the way is a Democrat), and the editorial board of the WSJ, among others. I do not need to provide more than this as 1) it is a waste of my time becuase you would reject it all anyway, and 2) you have access to the internet and surely you can look up source materials and opposing views without my assistance.
So, knowing that the WSJ is wrong, why don’t you enlighten them? It seems you have more insights than anyone on this matter.
Jerry – I’m not saying the WSJ wrong – I’m saying your interpretation of the article is wrong as using it as your basis for saying Ryan’s plan is not ‘severely limiting’.
Ryan’s plan does not use price controls or government regulations to limit care. Ryan’s plan essentially eliminates medicare in favor of vouchers, and if people can’t afford care, then they go without. So I disagree with your assessment that Ryan’s plan is not “severely limiting’. If you didn’t have the money to pay for care, which you would have received under traditional Medicare, don’t you think you’ve been pretty severely limited?
Truth – you didn’t reply to much of my last post – I’m guessing I was pretty spot on then…
In regards to question number four – your response was – “No I am not. I am saying that it was unconscionable for Obamacare to add 16 million people to Medicaid and not have the funding in place to pay for it. ”
Now that we agree that the 16 million have not been added, and the current shortfalls in Medicaid are because of lack of funding on the state’s side, I’m guessing you are hoping that Congress passes a further stimulus that includes money to the states. Or are you saying the Hawaii policy, which you previously curses, is now supported by you?
Cause he got a free turkey….
Truthseeker, do you not understand even after all of this conversation that even people who are gainfully employed full-time, and valued by their employers, who are paid a living wage, are not getting “benefits?”
For example, my company gave me a drill/driver combo in my preferred brand, just because my normal drill was overkill and unnecessary for the work I do at this job; and next week they’re buying me a birthday cake. They appreciate me and like me. They just don’t give me insurance.
Ex-GOP,
You can play gotcha tag with one of your kids or if they aren;t available visit some kids on Thanksgiving and play gotcha with them cause I don’t have time for it. If you ever have an thought/idea of your own that doesn’t come expressed in the form of a link and want to carry on an actual dialogue (and you have the time to actually read the other persons comments before replying) on an issue please let me know. ;)
Have a Happy Thanksgiving.
Now that we agree that the 16 million have not been added, and the current shortfalls in Medicaid are because of lack of funding on the state’s side, I’m guessing you are hoping that Congress passes a further stimulus that includes money to the states.
Also, you may want to rent the Wizard of Oz cause your mind lives in a faryland. Your analogy that the 16 million new enrollees into Medicaid that begin in 2014 are not affecting the states rationing of care today is incredulous. Tell me, if the US started a massively aggressive program to harvest all the oil available in the US and the first drop wouldn’t be harvested till 2014 would that have any effecy on trhe price of oil today? ;)
Cause he got a free turkey….
Truthseeker, do you not understand even after all of this conversation that even people who are gainfully employed full-time, and valued by their employers, who are paid a living wage, are not getting “benefits?”
Alexandra. I understand that to be case more often in small businesses or for independent contractors. The assumption I used was turkey means corporate which means likely insurance available. Was that your way of telling me I was wrong about your fiancee having insurance available to him through work? If so, then next time just come out and say it instead of trying to use it as an opportunity to rant that I didn’t understand our previous conversation. Have a Happy Thanksgiving :)
I don’t really understand why you’d think that turkey means corporate, or why corporate doesn’t mean “contracted out,” which it often does, but oh well. The main scenic and automation shop that I work in conjunction with contracts out about 50% of their project managers, so that those people are working as independent contractors right alongside the managers who are getting full benefits – which is what happened to me when I was a manager (to clarify, I was not a scenic project manager; I was a production manager).
You are wrong about a lot of things, not least of them being that he is my partner, not my fiance. For a variety of reasons, including insurance but also including extenuating personal circumstances, we will not be getting married anytime soon but we most certainly have committed to each other for life.
And Happy Thanksgiving to you too, truthseeker! I will be at work tomorrow, as I am right now, for no holiday pay (none on Christmas either) so what I’m more excited about is taking the night off and going to my high school reunion on Friday!
truth – that seems like such a fitting end to this convo - post one moans about the use of pesky little facts and links in conversation (as opposed to what, crazy things my Aunt Joan says or that I read on some propaganda site?).
Post two dodges the question that still remains unanswered in regards to an actual solution – which really is the typical GOP way – complain about something without offering any solution to the problem!
You hate facts and have no solutions…I think a job at Fox ‘News’ is in your future!
Happy Thanksgiving!
Ex-RINO,
The only dodge around here is ANY fact trying find it’s way out of your mind. And it’s verifiable just by asking you to state simple facts like this…
Tell me, what percent of NATO’s military/defense budget does the US pay for? ;)
K Truth – I’ll ask it one more time – slightly modified since some more info came into play:
So you are upset that Hawaii’s Medicaid program isn’t fully funded (at least at a level to have unlimited hospital stays) – Is your suggestion that Medicaid by fully at the federal level and cover any cost at any time, no matter the amount, as long as somebody demands it?
Ex-RINO,
I answered that question for you 60 hours ago and you read it. I know you did cause you keep talking about my answer while claiming I dodged the question (I think five times now). I’ll repeat answer for you here just for humor sake. It was a really simple four word answer with only eight letters total in it so I am sure you will be able to comprehend it if you read really slow.
(Four question) – Is your suggestion that Medicaid by fully at the federal level and cover any cost at any time, no matter the amount, as long as somebody demands it?
No I am not.
Now how about you answer my question just so I can have another laugh.
Tell me, what percent of NATO’s military/defense budget does the US pay for?
Feel free to come back with questions of your own AFTER you answer mine.;) Then I’ll answer them one at a time while interspersing all the unanswered questions that I asked you previously dodged. (and you, unlike me, really did dodge questions). ;)
I will be at work tomorrow, as I am right now, for no holiday pay (none on Christmas either) so what I’m more excited about is taking the night off and going to my high school reunion on Friday!
Nobody is forcing you to work those scoundrels. If you work on Christmas and don’t get holiday pay then one of two things is true.
1) Either you don’t like conflict and you have a hard time standing up for yourself or
2) You must really love your job .
And, sadly, a third thing that must be true is that you don’t feel that love for God/Christ enough to insist on it. That will end up costing you a lot on Sundays too :(
Gosh truthseeker, how hard is it for you to understand that the economy and job market sucks, and it may very well be that Alexandra doesn’t have the option to find a job with comparable compensation? Or perhaps she has other reasons for staying that you know nothing about? You make a whole bunch of unwarranted assumptions about her.
Jack,
She sounds like a capable worker who has chosen to take the path of an independent contractor. That can pay off big but it has certain disadvantages that everybody knows going into it. Sure I wish everybody could afford insurance on their own and I think that has to be the eventual solution (driving down the costs of medical care). But people know that going in. When I was her age I took a job working for a small business that did not offer medical benefits and it sucked not having them. I went on unemployment and bettered my resume and found a job that did offer benefits. That is why I told her going on unemployment can be a viable option and should not be discarded out of hand. My old boss took me to lunch a few years later and tried to get me to go back to work for him but he couldn’t get me and one of the big reasons I didn’t go back to work for him as an independent contractor (even though he sweetened the pay) was cause of a lack of stability and lack of benefits. I know the job market sucks now but my advice is to keep looking. And I know not everybody has faith but I whole-heartedly believe that the Lord Jesus Christ watches over those who place their faith in Him and that is why I had the strength and grace to overcome my challenges when I was her age and working for a wage I couldn’t live on.
Thank you, Jack.
For pete’s sake, truthseeker. Lots of businesses are open on Sundays, lots of businesses are open on Christmas. Those businesses need employees there. We once had a flood in our basement on Christmas and a plumber came right over – for an extra fee. Thank God for him, too. Thank God he “didn’t love Christ,” I suppose. If you have ever done a single thing on Christmas, or Sunday, stopped at the grocery store or gone to see a movie or even just filled up your gas tank or passed a toll on the way to a relative’s house, YOU are the reason that someone is working on Christmas, or on Sunday. Maybe you’re even an occasion of sin for that person, since without you and people like you they would not be coerced into working on a holy day.
I don’t like working on Christmas because my whole family gets the day off and I’d rather spend the time with them; and if I have to work on a holiday that most people get off then I’d rather be compensated adequately for that sacrifice. That’s not realistic at this time. I absolutely do not have a hard time standing up for myself, and if you need any proof of that I’m glad to send you transcripts or even in some cases actual recordings of conference calls and meetings over the years in which I have taken a verbal beating and given it right back, all names and dollar amounts etc removed of course. I have cried at work exactly twice – once when my computer was stolen (all my old college term papers! all my pictures!) and once when I got hit by a car and, while largely unharmed, went into a state of delayed emotional shock, unfortunately in front of a bunch of my colleagues. Aside from that, I have been screamed at in front of hundreds of people, I have fired men twice my size, and I have negotiated tens of thousands of dollars out of an allegedly empty budget, and I have done it without breaking eye contact. Asking for something I deserve is not a thing I shy away from. But I know my options and I choose accordingly. Working on Christmas is not worth the day’s pay, but it is worth the year’s pay.
Since I do not get holiday pay, I am unlikely to get one of my two subs to cover my work for that day. My subs are not obligated to cover for me when I take off – the burden is on ME, not them, because the job is mine. If I can’t cover my shift then I need to be there, barring an extreme emergency, as the company literally will not function for the day without someone covering my job. All I can do is either work the day, or refuse to work the day, which IS quitting.
I DO love my job. I am lucky in that. It challenges me intellectually and physically, and allows me to utilize skills like carpentry and welding and automation programming and basic physics. I learned a whole bunch last year, in a one-week whirlwind, about the effect of knots and splices on weight limits – that was great!! I am lucky to truly love my job. I am unlucky in that my job does not compensate me adequately for my time and effort, but since they are not obligated to, then in this economic climate that is not a realistic demand and I know it. When the climate is better, my compensation will get better, because I will either leave or be in a position to demand more. Right now we both know there is nowhere else to go. Absent legal protections, that is the way the market works. I took this job because it was open-ended regular pay until I found something better. As someone who has survived my entire adult career as a freelancer, I trust that work always comes along – but I also know that sometimes it takes a long time to come along. I have done my share of two-month stints between jobs before. This way I am paying rent and feeding myself while I wait for the next, better job.
As far as loving Christ, as you know by now even if you have only read my comments in this thread and none other, I am agnostic. In the literal sense of the word – I do not claim to know whether there is a God or not, and I always seek more information, more guidance. CS Lewis is my favorite, but I adore Peter Kreeft as well, sticking in the Christianity vein. But judging by your responses to the needs and obligations of a working-class person whose schedule requires SOMEONE to fill the shift even on Christmas, Christianity is not something I’m interested in, because it is apparently concerned more with how you appear than with what you actually do and feel and think. I get some of Christmas for myself, and for my family. Some few hours of that day, I will spend away from home, and I will get paid for those few hours. Is it the getting paid that is the bad part? If I went on a several-hour walk instead, would I still be “not loving Christ?” What if I did physical labor – worked in a soup kitchen, say, as I have done for several Christmases now – but didn’t get paid? What if I did physical labor and did get paid, as I will, but devoted the hours I was working to a higher purpose? Offered them up, as Catholics are so fond of saying? Or would I still only be “loving Christ” if I went to church, then sat at home and played with whatever toy I’d just gotten, all day long, but did it in the company of family and got no money from it? Personally I think that any belief system that values a specific date over intents or devotions or efforts or actions is a pretty shoddy belief system. But I suppose that’s why I’m not a Christian.
That’s not exactly a fair thing to say, to be honest. If I were a Christian I’d know that you were full of crap and I would know that God is not who, or how, you say He is.
My grandfather was a devout Catholic who worked almost every Sunday in his adult life until he died – young, of an infection from an injury – and who also worked many Christmases. He did it because he had ten kids and no other options. You’re welcome to judge him all you want but his ten children, who raised dozens of grandchildren between them, including me, survived and thrived by the skin of their teeth based on the work he did. I am glad that he did not subscribe to your version of Christianity, because I would not exist today if he had, since my mother probably would have starved to death or died of some mundane illness before she ever met my father. If your god would judge him harshly for that then he’s no god I care to even capitalize the name of.
I may have no children, but I devote the free time I earn through supporting myself to those in need, whether it is collecting and sorting books for juvenile detention centers, or watching my neighbor’s daughter on a moment’s notice in exchange for the occasional batch of baked goods. If that is less Christian than taking one specific day off, then I have no interest in being a Christian.
I once spoke to a Buddhist monk, who said that he knew monks who insisted on certain things like hand positions or postures for meditating. He said that he rejected this philosophy, because what of the man who is missing a hand? What of the quadriplegic? What of the man for whom it is possible, but painful, to sit in such a way? Can those people just not be Buddhists? Buddhism is for everybody, he told me. Even those who cannot sit in the positions we associate with Buddhism.
Can gas station attendants, nurses, waiters, toll-booth workers, pilots, and – yes – carpenters, not be Christians? Is Christianity not for everybody, even those who cannot simply take off the days we associate with Christianity? Even those who provide the life-saving services, the entertainment, and everything in between for those lucky enough to get certain days off instead of others? If that is the case, then Christianity is certainly not for me.
She sounds like a capable worker who has chosen to take the path of an independent contractor.
This is rich. I did not go into my adult life hoping to be an independent contractor. This is where I ended up for lack of any better options. Me and lots of other people my age. I am making the best of my situation but don’t mistake that for having ended up this way intentionally.
I know the job market sucks now but my advice is to keep looking.
I am looking. I am looking and working at the same time. Why do you think that because I have a job, I must not be looking for a better one? Do you have any idea how much easier it is to get a job when you’re not unemployed? My colleague’s company – a large corporation, with benefits and all – has stopped even looking at the resumes of people who have been unemployed for longer than six months. I have been at THIS JOB for six months now. No, thank you. This is the best option for me at the time and just because I do not accept it as good enough for forever does not mean I will give up and quit and enter a cycle of public assistance and poverty that is far more difficult to get out of than a crummy job.
But I am curious how you “bettered your resume” by going on unemployment.
I self-studied and certified in the specialties that interested me and that I knew would make me an asset to businesses in my field.
Those businesses need employees there. We once had a flood in our basement on Christmas and a plumber came right over – for an extra fee. Emphasis on for an extra fee.
“Thank God for him, too. Thank God he ‘didn’t love Christ,’ I suppose.” Maybe you are wrong. The fact that he charged you the extra fee probably means he did love Christ and thus knew that it should be expected for work on Christmas.
“That’s not exactly a fair thing to say, to be honest. If I were a Christian I’d know that you were full of crap and I would know that God is not who, or how, you say He is.”
Alexandra,
Easy tiger. I am sure me and your grandpa would agree about holy days. Why are you so full of anger. Being Catholic I am sure your grandpa would have concurred with much of this since it comes directly from the Catholic catechism.
2184 Just as God “rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done,”121 human life has a rhythm of work and rest. The institution of the Lord’s Day helps everyone enjoy adequate rest and leisure to cultivate their familial, cultural, social, and religious lives.122
2185 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper to the Lord’s Day, the performance of the works of mercy, and the appropriate relaxation of mind and body.123 Family needs or important social service can legitimately excuse from the obligation of Sunday rest. The faithful should see to it that legitimate excuses do not lead to habits prejudicial to religion, family life, and health.
The charity of truth seeks holy leisure- the necessity of charity accepts just work.124
2186 Those Christians who have leisure should be mindful of their brethren who have the same needs and the same rights, yet cannot rest from work because of poverty and misery. Sunday is traditionally consecrated by Christian piety to good works and humble service of the sick, the infirm, and the elderly. Christians will also sanctify Sunday by devoting time and care to their families and relatives, often difficult to do on other days of the week. Sunday is a time for reflection, silence, cultivation of the mind, and meditation which furthers the growth of the Christian interior life.
2187 Sanctifying Sundays and holy days requires a common effort. Every Christian should avoid making unnecessary demands on others that would hinder them from observing the Lord’s Day. Traditional activities (sport, restaurants, etc.), and social necessities (public services, etc.), require some people to work on Sundays, but everyone should still take care to set aside sufficient time for leisure. With temperance and charity the faithful will see to it that they avoid the excesses and violence sometimes associated with popular leisure activities. In spite of economic constraints, public authorities should ensure citizens a time intended for rest and divine worship. Employers have a similar obligation toward their employees.
2188In respecting religious liberty and the common good of all, Christians should seek recognition of Sundays and the Church’s holy days as legal holidays. They have to give everyone a public example of prayer, respect, and joy and defend their traditions as a precious contribution to the spiritual life of society. If a country’s legislation or other reasons require work on Sunday, the day should nevertheless be lived as the day of our deliverance which lets us share in this “festal gathering,” this “assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven.”125
I self-studied and certified in the specialties that interested me and that I knew would make me an asset to businesses in my field.
Great. I do that and get paid for it so I see no need to quit my job and move home to better my resume.
As for the plumber, I suppose we will never know if he would have demanded more money to compensate for his hypothetical love of Christ, because my parents, being decent people, offered him an extra fee just about as soon as he answered the phone; and set aside some of our dinner for him to enjoy or take home with him. He brought his daughter with him because he couldn’t leave her alone and we gave her some of our stocking stuffers while she waited. But it’s good to know that it’s not actually WORKING on Christmas that is a sin – it’s working but not demanding more money that really puts you in the spiritual slammer. I suppose that if the plumber demanded more money from my parents and they refused to pay it, they could have gone out and found some homeless guy on the street and paid him $30 to stand in our basement all night and bail water out until the plumber might fix our problem for his normal rate, and maybe the homeless guy would have taken it, because he would have needed that $30 more than he needed to “not work” on Christmas. According to you that means the homeless man does not love Christ? Or is $30 an acceptable bonus payment for a Christ-loving homeless person? I don’t need $30 badly enough to go work in someone’s basement bailing out water, but I do need six months of pay badly enough to work for a few hours on one specific date that I would rather have free.
And, of course, according to you, my grandfather would have been a better Christian to let his kids go hungry and sick and unclothed rather than to occasionally work on days most of the country is given off. I think you missed some parts of those quotes you gave me, including:
“Family needs or important social service can legitimately excuse from the obligation of Sunday rest.”
“Those Christians who have leisure should be mindful of their brethren who have the same needs and the same rights, yet cannot rest from work because of poverty and misery.”
“If a country’s legislation or other reasons require work on Sunday, the day should nevertheless be lived as the day of our deliverance which lets us share in this ‘festal gathering'” (ie, “what you do is not as important as how you do it”)
My favorite one, for irony, is the one that basically backs up what I have been saying about the moral and ethical obligations of employer treatment of employees:
“In spite of economic constraints, public authorities should ensure citizens a time intended for rest and divine worship. Employers have a similar obligation toward their employees.”
When I bring up the ethical obligations employers have to employees, and what I view as the legal obligation of our society to ensure that employers abide by those ethical standards, you tell me that my boss would give them to me if I actually deserved them.
I didn’t even have to go find those myself – you just quoted them for me.
I am not angry at all, because I am not a Christian. I’d be pretty annoyed if I were, though. All anything you have said about Christianity does is, if you are in any way correct, solidify my belief that it is a sham. I know, in my heart of hearts, in my soul, that if there is a God, that God will want me to do my best, not just to skate by on technicalities like “oh well, I went to a movie with my family on Christmas and that meant someone else had to work that day, but technically I didn’t work so it’s okay, at least I didn’t get paid for anything at all so I am still a good Christian.”
Speaking of which, you never answered my questions about the other things that people do on Christmas. Like, okay, how I used to volunteer – “work” (for free! not even for bonus money!) – at a soup kitchen. This year I can’t do that, because in order to keep my job, which will keep me out of poverty, I have to work. But because working on Christmas is not, for me, about how badly I need that day’s pay, but rather about just needing to keep the job itself, I am donating the money I earn that day to the soup kitchen I would otherwise be volunteering at. BAD CHRISTIAN, BAD! You should be sitting home showing the world how much you love Christ! And, well, all I can say to that is, thank GOD I’m not a Christian.
————
Happy Thanksgiving! I am on my way to the train station now, to go to my parents’ house, where – just like next month, on Christmas – I will spend hours being thankful for my blessings, and resting with loved ones. Later this evening I will take that train back and spend another few hours working, and then I will go back to spend the remainder of the night with my family again. I hope you are thankful for the good things in your life and I hope they multiply with each coming year, but I hope you are also mindful of those who do not have the same particular blessings that you do.
But it’s good to know that it’s not actually WORKING on Christmas that is a sin – it’s working but not demanding more money that really puts you in the spiritual slammer.
I am not angry at all, because I am not a Christian. I’d be pretty annoyed if I were, though. All anything you have said about Christianity does is, if you are in any way correct, solidify my belief that it is a sham. I know, in my heart of hearts, in my soul, that if there is a God, that God will want me to do my best, not just to skate by on technicalities like “oh well, I went to a movie with my family on Christmas and that meant someone else had to work that day, but technically I didn’t work so it’s okay, at least I didn’t get paid for anything at all so I am still a good Christian.”
Alexandra, you are completely misinformed if you think what I said or what the catechism says is that you couldn’t work in a soup kitchen on holy days. I think you are just ‘reading red’ so to speak. btw- I had posted a very long response including my personal answers to your questions (took an hour to write) but I included several links to the catechism and the post failed… ARGHHH!!
In a nutshell….. You are correct that if being a Christian meant holy days are for charging people more it would be hypocritical and WRONG,
All that stuff about working on Sunday for extra money that you project on me over and over couldn’t be more wrong. If I worked at a soup kitchen it would be OK for me as a Christian. I don;t see how you came away with all that if you actually took any time to contemplate what I posted from the catechism. For exampleit states clearly that part of what Christian Sundays are all about are works of mercy and charity. That is serving the Lord and that is what holy days are for. It is the antithesis of trying to go out and find work to make extra (excessive) money above what is needed. If I was that way I would be going out of my way to work n Sundays and get paidfor it wouldn’t I?
The purpose of every day for a Christian is to put God into everything you do. “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND”.
“I am donating the money I earn that day to the soup kitchen I would otherwise be volunteering at.” And that is beautiful behaviour and more Christian than many self-proclaimed Christians are. That would make you a ‘GOOD Christian Good’. Don;t be so negative. You are obviously filled with the Holy Spirit as shown by your charity and your work ethic. If you were to go back and read what I wrote from the catechism again with an open mind and you would see that your version of what a Christian should do on holy days is virtually the same as the catechism prescribes. I can’t give you faith but I can honestly repeat to you again that I believe bringing Christ into your life in an open fashion would do amazing things for you. You already act Christian any way in everything but proclamation and your actions are obviously filled with the Holy Spirit in ll ways except openly proclaiming Jesus as your saviour. I hope your coming days are also filled with multiple blessings. May the peace of Jesus Christ be with you and your family this Thanksgiving and in the days to come.
I charge more to WORK for money on holy days cause it keeps me out of the rat race on holy days!!
Well Truth – that’s a fabulous answer – “No I am Not”
So at the end of this all, looking back at your first post. You were really mad about the wrong program having limitations that you cited the wrong cause for, and a wrong example to back up you anger that in the end, you seem to say that you aren’t even angry about – because if you don’t want it fully funded no matter what, than your two options are big government restrictions on what a state can or can’t limit under Medicaid, or you’re okay with a state running their program how you see fit (which I’m guessing is what you agree with). Fantastic job Truth – I think you outdid yourself this time!
The NATO info is pretty easy to find – in 2010, the US kicked in about 70%. Now, one thing to keep in mind, we did kick in the highest as a percentage of our GDP, but there are other nations that kicked in a high percentage of their GDP as well – so dollar wise, things aren’t equal, but many nations were at about half the GDP we kicked in (though the actual dollars were 5-10%). Make sense? Hope that is the info you were looking for.
The NATO info is pretty easy to find – in 2010, the US kicked in about 70%.
In a way I am almost sad that you posted such an accuratw answer. I had asked you that question no less than 15 times previously and you answer was always somewhere between 20-25%. I suppose we can just chalk it up to a side effect of liberalism; I thought your insistence was just you trying to be obnoxious/annoying at the time.
Sorry Ex-GOP. I take that back. I went back and referenced it and it was ‘Reality’ that insisted that the US only provided 20-25% of the NATO military/defense budget. My apologies.
Reality says:
November 6, 2011 at 5:33 pm
You can type it as slowly or as fast as you like, it still won’t change the facts.
The US contribution to NATO is in the low 20% range in every area.
I have provided three links of many that are available which all say the same thing.
All you do is repeatedly cite one comment by one person.
Get over it.
Truth – thanks for the apology – this thread has not been one of your finest moments… are you and I done with this conversation so I can unsubscribe? I’m guessing Jerry doesn’t want to debate Paul Ryan, so I’m thinking of jumping off…