Stanek Sunday funnies 10-6-13
Here were my top five seven favorite political cartoons this week. Be sure to vote for your fav in the poll at the bottom of the post!
by Chip Bok at Townhall.com…
by Michael Ramirez at Townhall.com…
by Glenn Foden at Townhall.com…
by Glenn McCoy at Townhall.com…
by John Deering at GoComics.com…
by Gary Varvel at Townhall.com…
by Dana Summers at GoComics.com…

Super surprised that 7 cartoons could be found supporting the right on this mess…here’s the real pulse of the nation on this embarrassment.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Political-Cartoons/
Wow, I’m having a hard time deciding. I like them all!
Ex-GOP – please be brutally honest to this question:
If you discovered the end goal of the Democratic demonization was concentration camp internment and genocide of the tea party: that is US citizens – would you still support their efforts?
Chris -
No
Chris -
I answered your question – now mine:
– Do you believe people who vote for the Democratic party are:
a) Evil people – that satan is working within the party
b) People who simply see different solutions to issues within the country
Ex-RINO, it is a combination of A and B.
People who consent to commit abortion are spiritually liable for that decision.
Yay, the Sunday Funnies are back! I voted for #6.
Ex-RINO, Wendy Davis was hailed by as a hero in the DemoCRATic party and has launched her ‘Hail Satan’ caucus to a run for governor of Texas. They got this name because Christians gathered at the rotunda of the Texas Capital in a rally to end abortion and they were singing Amazing Grace; Wendy Davis supporters were in the background singing Hail Satan. Get your head out of the sand.
truth -
That logic is terrible – not very fitting of even a 10 year old. Some bad people support something, so therefore the supported automatically takes on the natures of the supporters.
I mean, under that logic, we’d just roll up those supporters to all of America, because those people were Americans, and say that this country is a satanistic country.
Come on man – get a clue.
And I’m really hoping you are continuing to like your own posts, because the thought that multiple people think that was is a little sickening.
Ex-RINO, I believe that the Devil takes joy in abortion and is working tirelessly doing all that he can to do deceive people into committing abortion. Do you agree with me?
“That logic is terrible – not very fitting of even a 10 year old. Some bad people support something, so therefore the supported automatically takes on the natures of the supporters.”
At least you are willing to admit that these SATAN worshippers were at the rally. That is a start. It would have been very easy for Wendy Davis to denounce them but SHE DID NOT. Seriously, as a Christian, why would you deny that Satan is at work in a party that condones abortion?
Yes – I agree – but I also believe that the devil takes joy in the love of money and the idolization of money in our society, the lack of compassion for the poor and others in the category of the ‘least of these’. I don’t think, if Jesus had a speech on TV tonight, would say “I’m super pleased with this party, and the other party is a bunch of trash”.
Furthermore, is there much of a high ground?
“Hey, Jesus – we just voted to say that 98% or so of abortions in our state is okay. But this other person wanted to go another percent or two higher. How evil are they, and how upright are we???”
Come on truth.
You agree. That is good. Then we have a foundation upon which to build our discussion. We both agree that the Devil takes joy in abortion and works towards deceiving people into committing abortion. Do you believe the DemocRATic party platform is currently a party platform that openly embraces the largest abortion provider in the US, Planned Parenthood?
truth -
I’m not admitting anything on it – I wasn’t at the rally – and I don’t know if anybody saying anything were true Christians, Satanists, plumbers, eagle scouts, or anything else.
Yes – I think abortion is a tool of the devil. But so is money. And power. And hatred. And lying.
I would not say openly embraces in regards to the abortion aspect of planned parenthood – but other aspects, yet.
truth – I’m not admitting anything on it –
That is a shame. For someone who follows politics and and abortion as closely as you do to say that. Jill had video of it on her blog. I don’t know if you are just being obstinate or if you are aware of the video and still deny they were there screaming Hail Satan to try and drown out the people singing Amazing Grace. You tell me why are you unwilling to admit that the Devil worshippers were there supporting abortion?
I don’t know if they were true devil worshippers, or if they were antagonists and trying to get under people’s skin. Do you know 100% for sure that it was the former and not the latter? If so, what’s your proof – websites of organizations?
“I would not say openly embraces in regards to the abortion aspect of planned parenthood – but other aspects, yet.”
The CEO of Planned Parenthood was getting cheers for saying Planned Parenthood would continue to fight tirelessly to continue to commit abortions on women and their unborn children. The twice elected leader of the DemocRATic party has openly embraced ‘that aspect’ of Planned Parenthood and vowed that he will not yield on ‘that aspect’ but you deny that your party has embraced ‘that aspect’. I need to call you on BS here unless you can support your claim with some of the part of the DemocRATic party platform or at least one keynote speaker at last years DNC who spoke out against abortion.
The platform talks about reducing abortions:
“We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.”
Ex-RINO. You are seriously asking me for proof other then the fact that they were trying to drown the song Amazing Grace (a song about the the grace of The Holy Spirit given to mankind through Jesus Christ) by screaming Hail Satan. You are asking for proof that were mocking Christ and openly choosing instead to give praise to the anti-Christ. What does it take for you to call someone an ‘official’ worshipper of Satan, maybe if they were to commit abortions at the rally would that convince you?
truth -
Are you saying that every single person who was singing Amazing Grace was a bonafide Christian? Or were some just joining in because they knew the song?
I mean, how do you know? How many were yelling? How many were being antagonists and how many people were true satan worshipers?
For that matter, is the support with planned parenthood much different than the support of gun manufacturers? We all know that there are good things with both planned parenthood and guns – and evil things in those two areas. Why do you only look to the bad on one side, and the good on the other?
“We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.”
The CEO of the largest abortion provider in the US could have said that and you would have eaten it up.
truth – you asked for info from the party platform – there you go.
“Hey, Jesus – we just voted to say that 98% or so of abortions in our state is okay. But this other person wanted to go another percent or two higher. How evil are they, and how upright are we???”
Don’t go all Bob Enyart on us.
Are you saying that every single person who was singing Amazing Grace was a bonafide Christian?
I am saying that every person there who was joining in song to end taxpayer funding of abortion in Texas was in communion with The Holy Spirit that was sent down upon mankind by God as a gift of grace given to us by Jesus Christ. I am also saying that everybody who was trying to drown these people out by yelling hail Satan was in communion with the anti-Christ.
You can disgaree but if you do then you do not understand what it means to grieve The Holy Spirit and damn yourself to Gehanna.
God these are ridiculous, I’ll go with 6, at least it puts the blame for the shutdown where it should be (Congress). Maybe if the vets beat up on the Republicans they will act with more maturity than my two-year-old and decide to stop stamping their feet and refusing to play because someone else did something they didn’t like. Maybe.
“If you discovered the end goal of the Democratic demonization was concentration camp internment and genocide of the tea party: that is US citizens – would you still support their efforts?”
Lol wth, what in the world kinda question is that?
Jack – I loved it as well!
Ex-RINO, You also seem to love playing Devil’s Advocate for Satan worshippers. But that is not so funny. See my response to you at 12:59pm as a reference.
truth -
Nope.
I’m just not able to make the logical leap that people who were chanting at Texas are automatically satan worshipers, and the Dems fully embrace these people, and they are a fundamental part of the party, and therefore the entire Dem organization is supporting and welcoming of satan worshipers.
I mean, not a small jump you are making.
I guess I’m just not so quick to judge every situation as you are.
I don’t know why it’s not obvious that people who shout “Hail Satan!” while others are singing religious songs are just trying to rile people up. That’s what I thought about the whole kerfuffle, is that some idiots were trying to upset the people who were praying/singing.
Real “Satanists” don’t really “worship” Satan, and those who aren’t of an Abrahamic religion don’t believe in him, so I don’t know why anyone thinks those chants are anything but a way to rile you guys up.
You are a lost soul Ex-RINO. Let me break it down for you with a simple yes or no question.
Do you believe that it grieves the Holy Spirit when people drown out Christians hymns by yelling hail Satan in order to support the funding of abortion?
Jack, I don’t necessarily expect you to understand the finer points of faith and the Holy Trinity but ‘trying to rile up’ Christians and interrupt their prayerful hymns is patently and obviously the work of the anti-Christ. Especially when done in an effort to get funding for the killing of children.
Yes truth, probably does.
But to make the 7 next illogical steps that you do – I simply don’t see it.
It is always interesting to see what sort of discussion is inspired by the cartoons!
I liked #2 by Ramirez (the twin meteors of Debt and ObamaCare). I don’t understand why it did not get more votes.
As the two parties jockey for lead position in the 2014 elections, no one is dealing with the real problems that are going to bite us hard in the near future.
#6 was the only semi-clunker. It has the most votes at the moment just for solidarity with the vets. But it takes two to tango. The Dems have shown no inclination to negotiate.
Actually some of those Congresspeople were there to cut the police tape and make sure the vets got in to the monument. While Sen. Claire McCaskill jeered them for “troublemaking.”
She failed the lesson of Nuremberg. Sometimes you don’t blindly follow orders.
Well I just got my notice from work. Premiums and deductibles are going up for the first time in 5 years because of the affordable care act. Their words not mine.
Like I always tell you, ”free” only means someone else is footing the bill.
I’m so sick and tired of people acting like there is one political party to blame for the horrible state of our country. Not only have BOTH parties had a major hand in messing things up over the years, WE all are to blame as well! Grrr. I need to stay off the internet. Maybe I’m being called to devote my internet time to prayer and fasting instead. This place is making me sick lately.
Mary – I’ve had several friends posting on facebook that their premiums are going down – one person will save about a grand a year – so a bit of everything going on.
Ex-GOP says:
October 6, 2013 at 10:02 am
Super surprised that 7 cartoons could be found supporting the right on this mess…here’s the real pulse of the nation on this embarrassment.http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Political-Cartoons/
I couldn’t avoid noticing that this list does not have a single cartoon representing the view that ObamaCare is frightening and Democrats are refusing to compromise. Here’s what I just found:
About.com was owned by New York Times for 6 years, until recently purchased by Barry Diller. About Mr. Diller, Wikipedia reports:
“He is a lifelong Democrat and supporter of related political causes. As of September 2012, Diller’s estimated net worth was $1.8 billion.”
These cartoons aren’t “the pulse of the nation.” They are the agenda of a billionaire left-wing ideologue.
Democrats shouldn’t compromise – it’s about funding the government – why bring in an issue that was passed, validated, and was the focus of a past election? I mean, how many times does it need to be upheld?
Find me a poll Del that says that the Dems are more at fault than the GOP – then I’ll listen to you.
Del – quick question.
If one day the GOP passed an abortion ban. Then the supreme court held it up. Then somebody ran for President saying if they were elected, they’d overturn the ban. They then lost badly.
Do you feel like that law should be a negotiated issue held up in a budget debate?
“Democrats shouldn’t compromise – it’s about funding the government – why bring in an issue that was passed, validated, and was the focus of a past election? I mean, how many times does it need to be upheld?”
Ex-RINO, the DemocRATs deemed Obamacare part of the budget reconcilliation process in order to get past GOP objections and pass it without needing a super-majority. Acoording to people like Ex-RINO If it was ok to make it part of the budget process in order to pass it but should not continue to be a part of annual budget consideration. Leave it to RATs to call it part of the budget process when it is to their advantage to force it down our throats and then cry that it should never be considered as a part of any future budget; at least in years that they don’t control the House. What a bunch of sh!?heads.
EGV.
Didn’t the Dear Leader promise we could keep our insurance if we like it? I liked what I had for the past five years. Now the company is different, the coverage is more limited and it costs more.
truth – you never answered on the last thread – when Health care reform passed the senate on December 23, 2009. What was the vote?
Mary -
People who don’t support reform don’t fall into the category of being able to keep their coverage – it’s on page 472.
:-)
Too bad Der Fuehrer isn’t as determined to protect our border as he is to shut down our parks and monuments.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/4/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-defies-nps-order-to-shut-p/
Keep a stiff middle finger there Governor!
Sorry everyone the link doesn’t work. My computer is again demonically possessed. Went black on me.
Anyway, the story is that Gov.Walker is defying The Dear Leader and keeping Wis. parks and hunting grounds open.
Join me in wishing the Governor a very stiff middle finger.
EGV,
The Dear Leader promised, did he not? :)
Mary – I took it more as “we’re not getting rid of private or employee insurance to bring in a nationalized plan”. I suppose it could have been construed as a promise to each and every American – but that’s not how I took it.
Well EGV,
I thought it was pretty straight forward. We could keep our insurance if we like it. He didn’t specify only certain Americans.
Oh please, if the Democrats had a mandate to do whatever they wanted without compromise, then guess what – they’d actually have the power to do it. As it is, they only control half of congress, and the reason for that is their party line overreach on Obamacare when they DID have enough power not to compromise (with the assistance of some last minute rule bending). There is nothing so sacrosanct about Obamacare that makes that piece of legislation untouchable by the branch of government responsible for what was it again? Oh right, legislating.
K – Mary. I didn’t take it that way, but you are free to.
CT -
Nobody will answer this question – I’ll give it to you then:
If one day the GOP passed an abortion ban. Then the supreme court held it up. Then somebody ran for President saying if they were elected, they’d overturn the ban. They then lost badly. Do you feel like that law should be a negotiated issue held up in a budget debate?
EGV –
That’s not a hard question. I don’t think the question of abortion should be negotiable from a moral perspective. But, in any legal scenario, including the one you presented, only an imbecile would expect their opposition to give up.
As much as I dislike it, both parties have a LONG history of doing whatever is needed to achieve their ends, and then pissing and moaning when their opposition does it too (sometimes using the same tactics).
I have no doubt, that there is no length on this earth that Democrats would not go to to shut everything down if such a law were ever passed. They wouldn’t just use legislative tactics.
I think that’s crazy CT, and I think this whole shutdown is crazy. It need to end.
I’m fine with a compromise at this point – allow individual Americans to sign a legal document to opt out of health care reform for a period of 10 years- they can go uninsured with no penalty – but insurance companies can also legally discriminate against them, kids can’t stay on their plan, lifelong caps are in place, and medical facilities are not bound by EMTALA regarding emergencies. Just get it done with – let individuals choose and move on with it.
Ah… you *are* still on this forum, EGV! Good to see you, after my hiatus, despite our occasional locking-of-horns…
One point to mention about your last question (re: the abortion ban and a fight against it): are you still under the impression that the intentional, immediate, proximate and up-close murder of an unborn child has the same moral gradient and severity as does the remote effects of economic plans?
Case in point: you’re comparing abortion, which even you would admit is the intentional, immediate, proximate and up-close slaughter of a defenseless and innocent baby, with Obamacare, which is a lumbering, complex monstrosity which not even you can pretend will have flawlessly good results, even in the most wide-eyed of optimistic estimates. As such, this is one of those times which leads me to wonder whether you were born with any sane sense of proportion, whatsoever! And if the two things are so incredibly disparate, how on earth could you insinuate that they are both equally unworthy of the “extreme” of shutting down the federal government (whatever that means–it’s rather nebulous, and it seems to mean “close down whatever hand-picked thing Obama wants closed”, for now)? Would not those who champion abortion be in the wrong, no matter what, whereas those who champion de-funding Obamacare might or might not be right, depending on what’s in it?
Paladin – good to see you. I was worried something had happened – it has been quite some time.
I must beg off on this one though – your question seems more for CT, who said that if health care reform can be debated on and held up (though passed and upheld by the courts) – then he would expect a party to do the same over abortion.
I asked the question not regarding a morally equivalent situation – I asked it wondering if in general, people felt that bills that are passed, upheld, and continue to be upheld should be used as negotiating ploys. I’m a bit surprised, given your intelligence, that you feel I was making a moral equivalency of the two things.
She.
I don’t think Paladin’s question was addressed to me. If it was, I don’t think they’re morally equivalent.
I don’t even necessarily think they should be used as negotiating ploys. But they will be. And the more controversial the legislation, the more drastic the lengths to which the opposition will go. I don’t know where you get the impression that a law that was very recently passed, by one party who had universal control but still had to resort to tricks to get it done, that resulted in the loss of power that prevents the party from acting unilaterally now as it wishes to, that was upheld by the supreme court by rewriting it as a tax (which its proponents insisted it was not), and that has not even yet been implemented is somehow off the table settled law. It is absurd. If this were 10 years, hell 5 years down the road after implementation, I would say you have a point about raising the prospect of funding “settled law” in a funding debate. But for now, it’s fair game, and I think the Democrats played a large part in forcing it to be debated in this way by not being willing to talk about any compromises w/out the proverbial gun to their heads.
Also welcome back Paladin!
“(whatever that means–it’s rather nebulous, and it seems to mean “close down whatever hand-picked thing Obama wants closed”, for now)”
Missed you :-)
“Yes – I think abortion is a tool of the devil. But so is money. And power. And hatred. And lying.”
It’s actually the love of money that is root of many evils – which is a giant factor in abortion of course. Carry on …
“Ex,RINO, Do you believe that it grieves the Holy Spirit when people drown out Christians hymns by yelling hail Satan in order to support the funding of abortion?” – ”Yes truth, probably does.”
‘probably’ Ex-RINO? . As the son of a pastor you should no better than to do anything other than wholly reject those who hail Satan. I am sure the Lord is underwhelmed with your stance. You are a shining example of a DemocRAT who puts being faithful to party and politics above following the Lord.
CT
Apologies
The gun though is to the heads of all Americans – if we default on the debt, it isn’t going to be a few parks that are closed.
I think the GOP is lost – completely lost at this point. Will be interesting to see what direction they decide to go in. Right now, it’s straight down.
EGV,
:) Never fear… nothing sundry happened to me. I was frightfully busy (with spotty internet access) for a few months, and I may still need to be gone for days at a time… but I think I may be back on a semi-regular basis, now. We’ll see what the Good Lord has in store, on that front.
You wrote:
I must beg off on this one though – your question seems more for CT, who said that if health care reform can be debated on and held up (though passed and upheld by the courts) – then he would expect a party to do the same over abortion.
It was not intended for CT; it was intended for you, since you asked the initial question on “October 6, 2013 at 8:02 pm”.
I asked the question not regarding a morally equivalent situation – I asked it wondering if in general, people felt that bills that are passed, upheld, and continue to be upheld should be used as negotiating ploys.
And I replied (not exactly in so many words) that your question was flawed, since the cases are too disparate to allow for a general rule to cover both of them. One might as well ask, “Is it always morally acceptable to kill someone else?” (If one says “no”, then what are we to do about rightful self-defense? And if one answers “yes”, then all morality has been jettisoned.)
I’m a bit surprised, given your intelligence, that you feel I was making a moral equivalency of the two things.
(*wry smile*) You know, I almost missed your back-handed insults-dressed-as-compliments, during my absence! Almost, that is…
And CT:
Missed you :)
:) Likewise, Milady! A pleasure to joust by your side, again!
Ex-GOP says:
October 6, 2013 at 4:35 pm
Del – quick question.If one day the GOP passed an abortion ban. Then the supreme court held it up. Then somebody ran for President saying if they were elected, they’d overturn the ban. They then lost badly.Do you feel like that law should be a negotiated issue held up in a budget debate?
Romney lost barely, and the issue of ObamaCare was not resolved by that election.
As to whether I think this debate is a “good idea” and whether your hypothetical case might be a “good idea,” I know this much: The passionate supporters of abortion would hold the whole country hostage if they thought it might get their license to kill restored.
I believe that it is good to force an honest debate on ObamaCare. But I doubt we will ever get that. This budget crisis is merely a protest on the part of Americans who are still angry about the lack of due process when ObamaCare was shoved up our a… down our throats. Because conservatives don’t riot in the statehouse when legislation doesn’t go our way.
A life without internet is barely worth living Paladin – glad it has been cleared up.
So you’re implying that abortion is above politics and thus shouldn’t be negotiated on? Or abortion is such a big deal, in proportion to something like health care, that it should be fought on?
Regardless – my point is that funding the government is funding the government. I’m with the majority of Americans on this one – if you don’t like reform, deal with it outside of funding.
Hopefully this gets resolved in time to not do serious damage to the global economic system, but long enough to flip some house seats next election.
Del –
I wouldn’t mind an honest debate on it as well – have the GOP put forward their plan, and let it be measured, scrutinized, debated, and then Americans decide.
Right now though, it would go like this:
“Hi, we are the GOP. We have a health care plan for you. First off, we’re bringing back pre-existing condition discrimination. Yes, welcome back! Also, lifetime caps – so you families that have kids with serious disabilities – surprise! I know you missed the fear of financial collapse. Also – all you folks without insurance, just remember, we’ll cover you – but we DON’T want you to contribute, and we want you to wait until the last second to come in for coverage. It lessens your chance of survival – but it does ensure that the rest of us are paying for services when they are most expensive. Again, that’s our plan – don’t worry, you’ll love it!”
Yes Del – I’m ready for that debate as well!
Ex-GOP says:
October 6, 2013 at 4:35 pm
Del – quick question.If one day the GOP passed an abortion ban. Then the supreme court held it up. Then somebody ran for President saying if they were elected, they’d overturn the ban. They then lost badly.Do you feel like that law should be a negotiated issue held up in a budget debate?
I just feel like picking your question apart….
If WE passed an abortion ban, I would think that holding up the budget and other tricks would get the Democrats spanked.
But if REPUBLICANS shoved an abortion ban through, without adequate debate and scaring the pants off of most of US, then WE would support a budget hold-up and any other trick in the book.
The Supreme Court upheld the ACA, but only under protest. As Justice Roberts explained, “It is not the duty of this Court to protect Americans from bad legislation.” The ACA is constitutional, even if we don’t like it.
When the Supreme Court upholds our abortion ban, it will be because the 14th Amendment assures equal protection under the law, and no person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of the law.
And Romney lost to Obama by only 2% of the vote. The Electoral College is a just a game — a guy can lose the election and win the presidency, as you know. As a referendum on ObamaCare, the last election settled nothing. It only promised a battle royale to come, and this is it.
As long as half the country is convinced that Republicans have got our back against this dictatorship, your boys are going to have to learn how to play with our boys. As long as the Dems keep up their bully tactics, we expect our boys to firm up against them.
Yes Del – I’m really sure it snuck up on them. Obama ran on it when he beat McCain. In February of the year it passed, he addressed the issue to congress. They worked on the bill from June until the fall, when it went forward and passed.
Yes – I’m sure it snuck up on them in the middle of the night.
Wow, the guy who won an election talking about the need for reform now has ideas for reform, and after months of debate and meetings, wants to pass reform! Where did this come from???
What I find interesting is more and more, GOPers are attacking the way it was dealt with – not the actual law. I think the biggest fear on the right is that this law is actually going to help people – and that’s sad that this is a fear.
Right EGV,
There was the Cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, and not even kissing the bluedogs first. I wonder if the people who elected the Bluedogs trusted them to actually stand up to The Dear Leader and his minions Pelosi and Reid, maybe that’s why poor old Bart Stupak was forced to “retire”.
The point was to ram that bill through and the hounds of hell weren’t going to stop them.
If you don’t want to keep up with the details, an easy way to be sure Obamacare is utter bullturd is that Democrats defend it the way they defend abortion. They trumpet teeny tiny little popular provisions (tiny percentages of the bill if you will), and count on that to carry the uninformed opinion so they don’t have to defend the VAST majority of the gory details. Republicans want you to die of pre-existing conditions! Pro-lifers won’t make exceptions for the life of the mother! They want women to die!! And so it goes.
EGV: To return your compliment: I’m a little surprised, given your intelligence, that you can seriously put forth that account for the process of passing Obamacare.
“I think the biggest fear on the right is that this law is actually going to help people – and that’s sad that this is a fear.”
It’s not a fear, but as I just explained above, the trumpeting of popular provisions has been all the uninformed have heard. Since the rest of it hasn’t kicked in yet, it’s hard to counter that information gap. Especially when the media likes to reinforce it.
CT -
FactCheck put the low end of people with pre-existing conditions at 50 million. If that is a tiny percentage for you, then I’d hate to hear what a large issue would be.
And for the record, I don’t think the GOP wants a person to die of pre-existing conditions – they would die because they can’t get coverage, and thus, don’t get care for issues in general. I don’t think it is specific to the pre-existing condition.
Again though – 50 million on the low end – and 80 percent of people support that provision.
I mean – this was even on the fox page, so I know it is safe for you to read: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/30/five-reasons-americans-already-love-obamacare-plus-one-reason-why-theyre-gonna/
Last comment – all that people have heard is the fear and utter bs of confusion. I could post poll after poll of people not understanding things, and article after article of bad information that’s been put out. I mean, you’ve got right wing groups encouraging people to stay uninsured – how reckless is that?
Again – I’m all ears – put forth that plan you support CT. Is it the status quo, before reform? What about Paul Ryan’s plan? Let me know the plan you support and we’ll measure them up.
Oh and EGV,
Did I mention that according to Wikipedia, half the Blue dogs got voted out of office in 2010?
Fine lot of thanks the voters gave the Blue dogs for supporting Obamacare.
CT,
I would suggest you don’t waste your time and energy giving EGV an alternative plan. I’ve repeated the same alternative to him more times than I can count and it doesn’t register.
Personally I like Dr. Ben Carson’s plan of health care accounts. However the Dear Leader does not seem open to alternative suggestions. The Brownshirts paid Dr. Carson a visit a few months later.
Ex-GOP – both.
The first cartoon by Bok says it all. If the unions have a problem with a democratic policy than you know to RUN…
Mary – did you join the PC movement (changing your references)?
Hi Thomas R,
LOL…Not a chance.
Its either Der Fuehrer or Dear Leader, either would apply to a dictator.
BTW Thomas R, in regards to your post on the WW2 memorial. I can only say I am thankful the WW2 vets in my family, one of whom died within the past month, are not alive to see the disgraceful way the very aged and in some case debilitated WW2 vets are being treated.
I whole-heartedly agree Mary. You can tell a lot about a man by the way he treats elderly vets and school-age children (no WH-sponsored tours for kids for a year now due to “budget constraints”).
Ex-GOP Voter says:
October 6, 2013 at 10:18 pm
What I find interesting is more and more, GOPers are attacking the way it was dealt with – not the actual law. I think the biggest fear on the right is that this law is actually going to help people – and that’s sad that this is a fear.
This is a thoughtful comment, Ex. I express my respect!
The first part is politics: Most people are already afraid of the ACA. So Republicans don’t need to attack the law…. the burden of defending and explaining already lies on the shoulders of those who support it. The Democrats have not yet made a compelling case to the American people. Meanwhile, it is easy for the Republicans to remind us that we voted them into control because we were angry at the way the ACA was shoved through our Congress.
But the second part of your comment is disturbing. Is there really anyone who is so dumb that he believes the ACA could work, and yet opposes it? Perhaps…. politicians are pretty dumb, and their values are often skewed. So there may be Republicans who feel that way.
Of course, there are Democrats who believe the ACA will work — and that’s dumb of them. And there are probably even Democrats who know that the ACA will fail, and yet they support it! — That has got to be the dumbest and most cynical position of all.
I have to smile at these, even with my teeth gritted. The resistance from new voices against Obama Care is heartening to me.
Ha Mary – yes – your “plan” – treat the 2013 world like it’s 1950 – barter for your kidney transplant by offering chickens…yes – I’m familiar with your awesome plan.
Del -
Yes – the GOP has long been saying they need to get rid of the law before it is implemented, because at that point, people will benefit and people might like it, and it’s much harder to replace then.
If you don’t believe that Republicans are spreading fear on health care reform, let’s just end this discussion now, because we’re in two different realities.
“It’s not a fear, but as I just explained above, the trumpeting of popular provisions has been all the uninformed have heard. Since the rest of it hasn’t kicked in yet, it’s hard to counter that information gap. Especially when the media likes to reinforce it.”
Except that every single person I have talked to has no idea what the ACA actually does, what the requirements are, what it entails for the average American, etc. I mean that not like they hear a couple good things and are shocked when they find out the “truth” is horrible. I mean that as in they bought into the fear-mongering that Obama is personally going to fine everyone thousands of dollars for not having health insurance and the IRS will steal every cent you have if you don’t pay. Once I explain what it actually does, with as little bias as I’m capable of, people have much less of a problem with it. I don’t know where in the world you’re getting that there’s some “glossing over” of the ACA, because Republicans have done an excellent job with the misleading or outright false propaganda. I’m not saying that the Dems haven’t lied and misled in the past, and that they don’t use propaganda, because they do, but this stuff is the GOP’s show right now.
And anyway, Alexandra said it best on the other thread. Like it or hate it, there is nothing “unfair” or illegal about how the ACA was passed. I would be just as upset if the Dems pulled what the Republicans are pulling with the shutdown about some other issue, because it’s petty, it’s not helping the country. If they want to repeal the law I suppose they can put it up for a vote for the billionth time, but threatening our country’s livelihood is just ridiculous.
Jack – I wish I could like your comment 10 times.
Jack -
Did you see the Jimmy Kimmel video of people explaining how they hated Obamacare, but loved the Affordable Care Act?
A good representation of what I find out there.
I have one friend who hates it (he’s a pretty strong right winger), though will have better coverage and is going to pay less per year for it. I mean, what do you say to that?
EGV,
As I told CT, no matter how many times I’ve explained it to you it just doesn’t register. Though I must say, you are far more confused about it than I realized.
” Did you see the Jimmy Kimmel video of people explaining how they hated Obamacare, but loved the Affordable Care Act?”
Lol I haven’t seen it yet but I’ll check it out. But seriously, it’s true. If you remove the “Obama” from the explanation people seem to be much more rational about it. I explain it as simply and factually as possible and even if people don’t agree they seem to realize that they’ve been misled or just flat out been lied to, depending on who they have listened to.
My favorite is still a certain person on this blog telling me I’d be paying like 200 – 300 dollars a month in premiums because I don’t have enough income for subsidies and my state didn’t expand Medicaid, while conveniently “forgetting” to tell me I’m exempt because my income is too low for the mandate. Haha, lying is so much fun. You totally prove your point when you lie to try to scare someone into agreeing with you, it’s Rule #7213 in the Manual of Acting Like a Politician.
Oh that’s right Mary – send all the hospital bills to churches, and make them pay. Maybe chickens weren’t a part of it…or were they?
EGV,
I apparently didn’t make it simple enough for you to comprehend, though I did give it my best shot many times over. Chickens? Definitely your brainstorm.
Sure, back in the day before there was insurance, people could only charge what they could get back – so people figured out how to make due, and doctors worked out agreements. No?
I think those agreements could involve chickens.
EGV,
As you did on the other thread, you are beginning to ramble. I will again advise you to take a break, have a beer, and we’ll talk later.
CT,
See what I mean?
CT – feel free to ask Mary about her healthcare plan – but she has a long history of getting backed into a corner, pretending she’s confused, and bowing out of the conversation.
EGV,
Good grief its worse than I thought. Please go have that beer.
I like chicken.
“and 80 percent of people support that provision.”
Yes. That’s why it’s all they talk about. Get it.
Mary,
No worries. I long ago realized that he says he’s all ears, but he’s all mouth.
Jack,
I’d be very curious to hear what you’re telling people will be the repercussions for the “average american” b/c the repercussions are going to be pretty dramatically varied. I mean that sincerely, no snark. As for how the IRS will enforce, that remains to be seen. Their usual methods of enforcement don’t give me a lot of hope (and that’s w/out their political bias of late).
“Like it or hate it, there is nothing “unfair” or illegal about how the ACA was passed”
Well there’s certainly nothing illegal. But if all that’s legal is fair, then there’s also nothing unfair about the tactics here.
“I’d be very curious to hear what you’re telling people will be the repercussions for the “average american” ”
Just the facts, ma’am. I don’t speculate on economic effects, because I’m not an economist nor do I claim to be smart. But I CAN read, and I can tell people that no, you won’t get 4000 bucks in fines for you as an individual if you don’t get insurance next year because the fines are capped at a certain amount. I can also tell them that the IRS is limited in how they are allowed to enforce the fine (it’s not like they do with regular taxes, there are specific limitations to what the IRS can do for this particular tax). I really try not to let my personal bias speak, I just tell people what the act actually says, instead of just made up things like certain people like to do. Like I said, I don’t speculate on what it’s going to do to specific people. I WILL tell them the requirements and the law, if they ask me. I’ll correct blatant misinformation.(Yes, I realize I speculate here on this website but that’s different, I just like debating you guys lol).
“If all that’s legal is fair”
I never said that.
Fine CT – post it for Jack to see – post what you support on health care.
I’m all ears, but nobody offers anything but complaints.
I’m all ears, but nobody has solutions.
You have short memories – do you not remember the status quo?
Sure, health care reform won’t be perfect, but remember when the GOP was in charge for years, and health insurance was in a spiral out of control? You should remember back to those days – they weren’t that long ago. And to return to that?
I’m all ears if anybody would actually offer something up.
My guess is you’ll turn and run CT – offer up some solutions and let me fire darts at it – support something.
*clarification, I talk to people at my economic level (super poor) not middle class people, so when I say that they aren’t going to get $4000 in fines I’m just speaking about the people I have talked to, the fine is 2.5% of income by 2016, less in the years before that, and most of the people I’ve talked to are exempt anyway so I don’t get into that with them. They just worry that they’re suddenly going to debtors prison or something on January first.
EGV – I have told you some of my ideas for fixing the system. Many times. Call it running b/c I won’t repeat them. Means nothing to me.
Yeah the status quo – where the vast majority of americans had health insurance and were happy with it, but we had a couple of really serious problems that needed reform (rising costs, insurance tied to employment, pre-existing condition exclusions unless moving between employer plans, people priced out of private insurance). If you’re telling me that in all your supposed reading and searching (b/c you claim to be very informed on this) that you have never seen alternatives that you think are better than Obamacare, what could I possibly say to convince you. I don’t have anything you haven’t heard before. So, just start firing darts in random directions. You know what I support.
Understood, Jack. Thanks for the clarification.
“you have never seen alternatives that you think are better than Obamacare, what could I possibly say to convince you.”
Wait, he has never said he thinks Obamacare is the be all and end all, he’s actually specifically stated several times that he’d prefer a single payer system.
I think sometimes people confuse people who don’t think Obamacare is the worst thing ever with those who think that it’s a great program. I personally don’t think it’s great. I think it may be marginally better for a while than what we had, but ultimately I think something like Australia’s system is best. I would imagine that many people who “support” the ACA actually feel like I do more than think it’s amazing.
CT – I’ve seen bits and pieces of plans that I like – but to me, it’s really come down to this:
– For health care to work in the free market, you need a big base of people to contribute to the system. For every $200,000 cancer case, you need 200 people that pay in $1000 just to cover that (and that’s without the insurance company turning a profit). So in a free market system, the biggest problem is if you create a cost spiral – which is rising costs leading to more people who see health care as unaffordable. Those people drop, which makes it a thinner pool, which rises prices faster, and the next group of people drop until you have a thinner and thinner pool of only the sickest people.
Now, America has a special extra bit of icing on the cake, which is EMTALA, which means that medical facilities are required to treat patients when they are in an emergency situation.
So, to make it work in the free market, you’ve got to keep people in the pool – you’ve got to get people to pay into the system. Otherwise, you’ve got a system of freeloaders – folks who don’t pay in, and then only get care at the time it is more expensive.
So, to sum up this rambling…single payer system is the best – controls cost and has better outcomes across the world (for less money than we pay).
But if you want to make it work in the free market, you HAVE to get people to pay into the system, which requires a mandate. And if you want to get rid of pre-existing conditions, you HAVE to have a mandate. To eliminate pre-existing condition discrimination without a mandate is economic suicide.
Sorry for the rambling – but I think people just don’t understand the big picture. It all gels together – you can’t just pick and choose components like picking food from a menu.
Ex, Ken is gunning for you on another thread, like always, lol. Just thought you should know. I think it’s funny he only commented on a thread you haven’t been on.
Ha – thanks Jack. Good ole Ken – I can’t believe the institution hasn’t locked up the computer he uses…
Lol, I just think it’s funny when people try to tough talk on threads that the person they are bashing isn’t even on. It’s like everyone’s thirteen years old and omg did you see Karen’s shoes, don’t tell her I said this but they are so ugly!! Just childish.
“Wait, he has never said he thinks Obamacare is the be all and end all, he’s actually specifically stated several times that he’d prefer a single payer system.”
Granted, but based on that it becomes even more obvious that he’s not interested in plans that I would be likely to support (which he and I have in fact already discussed, several times. Hence my dismissal). His be all and end all is the polar opposite of free market, and as we can see in his monologue above, he has considered the options he wants people to suggest and found them wanting. Just as we have found Obamacare wanting. He wants Obamacare plus. I want Obamacare less. We are heading in opposite directions from the getgo.
“I would be just as upset if the Dems pulled what the Republicans are pulling with the shutdown”
LOL – here is a guy who is happy about Obamacare because he and his friends get it on another person’s dime. And when the Republicans insist on a reprieve for me and the other citizens who aren’t excited about it he gets upset cause they are pulling something. Jack, what will you and your friends do for health care when you run out of other people’s money?
I have more respect for the poor people who go without insurance and then need help when they get in an accident then I do for the one’s who feel entitled to a lifetime of premium insurance plans on someone else’s dime.
” LOL – here is a guy who is happy about Obamacare because he and his friends get it on another person’s dime.”
Um, excuse me? I beg your pardon sir, but are you a little slow? I don’t get “Obamacare” (which is NOT healthcare or insurance in and of itself, it’s a law that spells out requirements, it doesn’t provide any insurance itself besides subsidies and Medicaid expansion). I don’t qualify for a subsidy, and I don’t qualify for Medicaid because as far as I’m aware my state isn’t going to do the expansion. I’m stuck in the no man’s land of people too poor to qualify for subsidies but make a tiny bit too much to qualify for Medicaid. The only insurance I “take” is state insurance for my kids, which hurts my pride but I do and have paid state taxes so I am putting into what I am getting back, as much as I possibly can. I don’t have any friends so I don’t know what you’re babbling about, but most of the people in my neighborhood are in the same spot I am in. I have told you I’m not getting anything out of the ACA multiple times, I even mentioned on this damn thread I think that I don’t get anything out of it.
“And when the Republicans insist on a reprieve for me and the other citizens who aren’t excited about it he gets upset cause they are pulling something. Jack, what will you and your friends do for health care when you run out of other people’s money?”
Again, I have to ask you if you’re just a little slow. I don’t believe anyone should just use other people’s money. That’s why I believe in universal healthcare. Everyone should be paying some amount of taxes if they are able bodied and can find some work, and healthcare should be provided to everyone through these taxes. This question is as stupid as asking me what I am going to do if my house catches on fire when I run out of other people’s money to pay the fire department. Healthcare is a basic right that should be available and affordable for all citizens. Even if they are some barely above minimum wage making loser like me.
You know what’s ACTUALLY going to cost you a lot of money? If I get cancer. Or if I get another illness like that, or have an accident, or end up with a chronic condition (and I do have a compromised immune system because I don’t have a spleen, I’ve just been extremely lucky so far to only have a few health incidents). You and the real citizens who apparently deserve basic human rights unlike losers like me who were born into poverty and haven’t clawed out yet will end up either letting me die, or eating thousands or even tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars when I get seriously ill or in an accident. Because our country has horribly unaffordable healthcare, and the costs only get worse the more we leave it to the free market, you guys are going to get screwed unless you want to let me die or become disabled from injury or illness, or if anyone like me gets ill or hurt.
Do you think I like being poor truthseeker? Do you think I was just sitting around one day at age eighteen and thought “you know what sounds awesome, crushing poverty and the shame of having people (from what it seems how you guys talk about those in poverty) literally hate you because you might need some help every once and a while! I’m totally gonna do that!” I don’t like charity, I don’t like welfare, I don’t like help. I find it shameful that I have no discretionary income or even enough for basics, I can’t even take my children to see a movie ever, much less provide them things like health insurance or a decent house in a safe neighborhood. Don’t you dare so much as imply I enjoy needing any help. Do you know that I’ve never even once taken food stamps even though I have qualified for them my entire adult life, except for a brief time while I was married? I DON’T like being at this level of poverty, I work as much as I possibly can while being a single father with no real family at all to help me with my children, with my irresponsible ex-wife not giving me any real financial support and not taking the kids as much as I would allow so I can get a second job and work more. I am not lazy. I am not a leech. You do not get to imply this of me and you can screw right off with that crap. I pulled myself out of freaking horrible circumstances and I manage to work full time and take care of my children. I got from rock bottom after a childhood that you couldn’t even dream of, and off the streets where most of the people I was around back then, the only true friends I’ve ever had, are dead or in prison, and you don’t get to imply anything bad about my work ethic. I never had family or people to care about me or teach me how to do things, I did it on my own, I taught myself, I never depended on anyone else if I could help it. So screw you and screw off, you selfish person.
*clarification, I talk to people at my economic level (super poor) – …I don’t qualify for a subsidy. Huh? Subsidies are available on a graduated scale for people and families with incomes up to four times the poverty level.
I have no problem with finding ways to make sure the uninsured get help when they get into an accident or need care. That has always been a part of our health care system and I approve of it. I do have a problem with people who feel ‘entitled’ to premium insurance plans on somebody else’s dime. Socialism is a great system until you run out of other people’s money.
Oh, and truthseeker? I remember your whining about having to pay fees when you defaulted on your student loans. Well guess what, buddy, you chose to go to college. You apparently felt entitled to other people’s money so you could get an education, and you apparently felt that being in bad circumstances meant that you got to not make your payments on time as agreed when you took out your loans. That was your choice. You CHOSE to go to college. I never chose to be born, I never chose to be beaten badly enough to lose my spleen and get a compromised immune system, I never chose to break my ankle, I didn’t chose to get pneumonia, I didn’t chose any of my health problems. So you’ll judge me for not being able to afford healthcare and you begrudge any type of system that would help people before they get to the point of costing thousands of dollars, but you think it’s fine and dandy when real, true deserving citizens like yourself get to selfishly spend other people’s money to get an education and not pay your loans. What an entitled, hypocritical ingrate you are.
Dude I bought antibiotics off the black market from one of my old drug dealing buddies rather than rack up a couple thousand more in debt when I had strep throat. I nearly killed myself by letting my pneumonia get really, really bad because I didn’t want to go into more debt and cost everyone money by getting it treated. When I broke my ankle I didn’t want to go the hospital but I couldn’t walk so I had to. I am never, ever going to be out of debt. My debts, solely from medical bills, are more than I make in a year, significantly more. This is a terrible system! This is not how a civilized country should run! How are people ever supposed to get out of poverty if they get garnished 15 – 20% of their income for debts that they’ll never be able to pay off? You realize that our healthcare is more expensive than every other country because people like you begrudge others any type of preventative or cheap medical care? I would LOVE to provide myself with medical care, and I would love to get an education and get myself out of this hole I was born into, but it’s impossible. It’s just not doable. What do all you judging, mean, un-Christian people expect people to do? Do you have any idea what it’s like to have not even a high school education, not have any family that you can be around, have insurmountable debt and two children to raise by yourself with no help? You’re so selfish. I would give my last dime to someone who needs it and I have, but you’re willing to watch people suffer and get deeper and deeper into poverty as long as you get to hold on to all your money. But wait, you don’t think you’re selfish, because you don’t begrudge maybe a little help for those you deem deserving if they have a catastrophe. Because it’s better, apparently, for our nation to spend billions more than other countries just so you don’t have to contribute directly to healthcare for everyone.
“Subsidies are available on a graduated scale for people and families with incomes up to four times the poverty level.”
See, CT, this is a perfect example of people not understanding even the basics about the ACA. And I’ve explained it to him several times, he just refuses to learn.
The subsidies are only offered to people between 133% and 400% of the poverty line. The expanded Medicaid was supposed to cover people who are between 100% and 133% of the poverty line. That’s the category I fall into. Too poor to receive the subsidies, should have qualified for Medicaid. But, some states refused to expand Medicaid, because red states like nothing more than punishing people for being in poverty. So, you have a million people in my state, the people who really, really needed it, who don’t get any health insurance at all. I mean, we don’t have to pay the fine but we don’t get any health insurance, we’re just in the same impossible situation that we always were.
Learn what you are talking about if you want to whine about the ACA and the horror of people who need it getting insurance, truthseeker.
To be clear, that’s what I learned last time I searched, about this uninsured gap. They might have fixed it by now. No matter, I’m sure you’ll still insult me for thinking I shouldn’t be put in even more debt if I get sick truth. God forbid that my countrymen assist me in making my life just slightly less intolerable.
Oh, I knew I wasn’t remembering something correctly, lol. I knew I’ve never made over the poverty line. The gap for insurance is if you make over 22% and less than 100% of the poverty line. I make like 96% of the poverty line, something around here. I confused that with the 2-4% subsidies, which are available to people between 100% and 133% of the poverty line. So yeah, I remember being angry to find out if I just made 600 dollars or so more a year I could get subsidized, but at the income level I am at there is no help.
Truthseeker we had this exact same conversation just a few months ago. Why are you still accusing me of being a leech and expecting other people to care about me? I don’t, I just want to cost people less money when I inevitably get sick again and I don’t want to add any more to the debt I can’t pay off.
Now I feel seriously dumb for getting all mad at truth for not knowing the numbers and then screwing up the numbers myself because I was all worked up lol.
So a breakdown:
0-22% of the poverty line: most people qualify for Medicaid.
22-99% of the poverty line: People in states that expanded Medicaid get Medicaid, otherwise no Medicaid and no insurance subsidies.
100-400% of the poverty line: Most people qualify for somewhat of a subsidy.
I hope that’s clearer, I apologize for losing my temper and giving false information accidentally, I’ll try not to let it happen again.
“I have more respect for the poor people who go without insurance and then need help when they get in an accident then I do for the one’s who feel entitled to a lifetime of premium insurance plans on someone else’s dime.”
And this is where the message doesn’t match reality truth -and something that you need to reconcile in your worldview of healthcare. The vast majority (over 90% in my area of the state) of care given to those without insurance is never compensated – is never paid for. So in reality, those folks who get care are paid for by those with insurance.
This is what you and CT doesn’t seem to get – that health care doesn’t work like the free market unless you treat it like the free market. If I want car, but can’t afford a BMW, the market drives me down to a cheaper car. In health care, if you can’t afford a car at all, you’re told to wait until you are super sick, and then we’ll give you the BMW on everybody else’s dime.
So CT – I’m all for you pushing things further to the free market, but unless you’re willing to say you’ll let people die, or you’ll forcibly bill charities to cover people’s unpaid debts – then I don’t see how your solution is anything but passing the buck when care is the highest – which is wasteful and more socialistic than anything in health care reform.
Poor people have insurance. It’s called medicaid in my state. And Stroger Hospital is nothing to sneeze at either. And TS is correct that this medicaid thing is on my dime.
So no Ex – poor people don’t die as you claim. The trough has not dried yet for them…
No, Thomas, what’s on your dime and much more expensive is letting the people who make above 22% of their income have no way of getting insurance, so when they do get sick they cost you thousands and thousands, rather than letting them have access to affordable healthcare options before and saving the precious taxpayers a lot of money. .
Seriously, what is wrong with you people? I’m pretty sure that charity is a big thing that you’re supposed to be doing, not bashing poor people and begrudging every dime that is spent to take care of them.
“You realize that our healthcare is more expensive than every other country because people like you begrudge others any type of preventative or cheap medical care?”
Jack, you outline well some of the problems and gaps both in our current system and under obamacare. And clearly, you have read much more than most in your attempts to understand the law. However, I take issue with this statement. Our healthcare costs are more expensive, but it’s not b/c people cannot access preventative or cheap care. It’s mainly because of the way insurance operates combined with medical liability and the overconsumption of healthcare under our current system of insurance.
EGV – no, it is you who can’t seem to comprehend that in any free market there will be gaps and failures – that doesn’t mean the market can’t operate freely. It just means that in an area as important to human dignity as healthcare, we will need to fill those gaps in some way (as a civilized society). Focus now. I support filling the gaps. With aid from our government in some form. (I am open on this as there are a number of options for providing aid). I do not believe in a radical free market in this area – no “survive if you can pay, die if you can’t” (sorry to burst your convenient bubble). BUT Obamacare makes the current gaps in the market worse, without addressing the reasons for rising costs (and even exacerbating some of them such as the fact that people overconsume healthcare when divorced from its cost).
Who is bashing poor people? I was just stating a fact that every one of us subsidizes those at below poverty and that they have access to insurance through state-sponsored welfare programs. Again Jack, you are reading too much into my comments as I did not invalidate the need for these programs or state anything that indicated how I think about poor people being poor.
Whatever, if you don’t see how dehumanizing you and truthseeker’s word choices are towards those in poverty you just aren’t going to.
And, like always, neither you or truthseeker or anyone will give up any solutions. “Poor people already have insurance!” no they don’t, I don’t and there’s no way for me to get it. Last I read there were a million people in my situation in my state alone. What is your suggestions? As I see it there are two choices for people stuck in this place, quit your job and just go on welfare and Medicaid and food stamps, or continue to rack up thousands and thousands of dollars in medical debt.
CT I don’t know what you mean by “overconsumption of healthcare”, and I think you dismiss the effect of not being able to access preventative and other cheaper care. Don’t you think it would have been cheaper to treat my pneumonia quickly when it started rather than have it ignored until it was a three day hospital stay? Stuff like that happens all the time and that’s a LOT of money.
You know Jack, I was born and raised for the first 14 years of my life in an Eastern Bloc nation where we had everything rationed for years under the watchful eye of the big brother. I lived not being able to have access to more than you cannot even fathom in your dreams. I don’t dehumanize anybody.
If anything those that claim that the big brother is their solution for every thing in their lives, dehumanize themselves.
WE ARE THE BLACKSMITHS OF OUR DESTINIES.
No one wants Eastern Bloc style socialism. Do you guys honestly think that Australia is a socialist government? The UK? Germany?
And again, like every single conservative except for a precious few, you have a couple soundbites and no solutions.
Again Jack I was not referring to pro-socialistic ideology here. That is beside the point now. Immigrants come to the US from all over, roll up their sleeves and bust their butts and DO NOT become the burden of the state. They take charge of their destinies. Some Americans also do so by preferring not to rely on gov hand-outs and yet some others are too happy to over-burden the welfare system. I have soundbites heh. I busted my butt here as a newby immigrant and owe everything I have to my two hands and my brain.
That is the solution: two hands and a brain. But you are welcome to defer to the big brother…
Oh my god you are all terrible people, this is why I hate conservative ideology and I’ll never step foot in a church.
I’m not lazy, I AM NOT LAZY. I don’t expect people to take care of me. Stop implying I am, it’s freaking rude and untrue. I DON’T take government handouts, I don’t use the food stamps or other stuff that is available to me at my income level. I prefer skipping meals at the end of the month to listening to you assholes judge me. I don’t even take actual charity from people. What I am talking about is how healthcare is NOT affordable at my income level. At all. No matter how much I work, no matter what I do, I can’t afford these prices. It’s impossible unless I want to go on the dole. I HAD to put my kids on the state insurance because that’s literally the only way I could afford to take care of their health.
So yeah, soundbites are all you guys have. Your solution is “work harder” when it’s IMPOSSIBLE. Social mobility can’t exist if people are crushed under thousands and thousands of dollars of unavoidable debt. None of you have any solutions for this.
No one said you are lazy Jack. By two hands and a brain I meant taking charge of our destiny. Why do you always read what is not being said. It takes time to accomplish things and achieve. But all of us owe it to our hands and a brain. We can think and do for ourselves and the big brother does not have to for us. America is a land of opportunity where all things are possible. If we defer assigning our worth to the big brother that will tie our hands and immobilize our brains. Laziness has nothing to do with what I said (but I do have to work twice as hard to express myself you understand)..
America was the land of opportunity when we had a booming economy, when education was remotely affordable without loans (unless you are lucky enough to have parents that could either send you to college on their dime, or you had the opportunity to go to high school and do well and get scholarships) and our unemployment wasn’t sky high. Oh, and when healthcare costs were manageable on a normal income. And don’t forget that we lost a lot of the jobs that paid a living wage that didn’t require a college education. You guys are working off a premise that’s faulty in the first place. Can’t you see what’s happening? Even people with decent degrees are having trouble finding work that pays a living wage and gives them any type of discretionary income and health insurance. You guys honestly have to stop thinking it’s the fifties or the nineties and look at the reality now. I can’t remember how old you are Thomas but aren’t you in your mid to late thirties? So you became an adult when things were quite a bit better for the average person, I became an adult right before the economy collapsed. And people like to disregard the effect that having a stable family to depend on has on people’s opportunities, but it definitely makes a difference especially when you have children. I don’t know what your family situation was like or anything but it does make a difference. America was much, much more successful when we had stable families as the norm, it’s not a coincidence.
And you are implying people are lazy, that’s all this “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” stuff is. The attitude is that America is the same as always and the only reason people aren’t successful is because they haven’t worked hard enough and they don’t actually need help. It’s not the reality. All it takes is one or two accidents or illnesses and you’re basically screwed. I don’t see that as the “land of opportunity”, it’s more the land of “hope you’re lucky enough not to get sick!”.
And I’m sure the Canadians that frequent the blog really appreciate hearing how they all expect big brother to take care of them, just because they have nationalized healthcare.
Oh my god you are all terrible people, this is why I hate conservative ideology and I’ll never step foot in a church.
I prefer skipping meals at the end of the month to listening to you assholes judge me.
So not cool.
It’s fine to accuse me of all kinds of stuff, but God forbid I say anything back.
Actually I do feel bad, I shouldn’t have said that you are all terrible people, because you aren’t, and I shouldn’t have cursed.
Thomas R – medicaid is for folks that qualify – I’m talking about uncompensated care in general – folks that don’t have insurance – that gets paid by those who have insurance, thus driving up costs.
CT – feel free to provide data if you’d like, but a few points of yours I’d like to respectfully hit on (from your 2:27 post)
– Tort reform has happened in many states in the country, and has shown very little effect regarding cost of health care (most projections put in the 1/2 percent range). Are you saying that those states that already have tort reform should go even further, or were you not aware that the majority of US states already have tort reform laws?
– I’m all for better understanding the free market solution to health care issues – let me know if you’d like me to present you with a very specific, real problem (I’ll give you a few), and you can let me know how to handle in the free market. If you don’t want to answer, I won’t waste my time, so let me know.
Thomas -
And people do die from lack of health care – if you don’t think they do, then you must place no value in preventative care. Why do you have family members get checkups – breast exams, colonoscopies – anything like that, except to figure out something early in the process and deal with it then?
I mean, if somebody has undetected cancer, than gets stage 4 cancer, is near death and rushed to the hospital and dies there, don’t wash your hands and say “well, they got the best case possible – not the fault of a country with too many uninsured”.
The logic just doesn’t hold up Thomas – again, unless you see absolutely no value in preventative care.
Liberal 101. Avoid conviction and always express yourself as seeing both sides of the issue. For example say you appreciate and understand a good work ethic and then follow it up by rebuking conservative ideology because it discourages an entitlement mentality. And then throw in your disdain for the church as good measure. Ughh
Jack, I do give you credit for your conviction in respecting the life of the unborn…..but other than that all I see is a lost liberal. I know you probably don’t care but for my two cents a liberal like you is a million times more convicted than a liberal like Ex-RINO; even though he calls himself a Christian and you do not.
Again truth, you guys have literally nothing to refute anything I’ve said, no solutions yourself besides “Continue drowning in debt! We won’t let you die but we’ll sure make sure you wish you were dead.”
Give me a solution then. You guys think you’re perfect and that the world is everyone’s oyster, tell people under or near the poverty level how they can avoid being in insurmountable debt without someone helping them out with insurance.
InB4 truth says “Charities!” when that doesn’t remotely fix the problem with increasing rising costs and inability for people to provide their own health care.
And for goodness sake there is nothing contradictory about having and respecting work ethic and finding conservative (the Tea Party, weird, American version of conservative, at least) ideology disgusting. Thinking that healthcare is something that should be available to everyone in an affordable way does not mean that you think people shouldn’t have to work, no more than thinking that everyone should have a police department available means that you think that people shouldn’t have to work.
What I think is hilarious about American conservatives is every single one I’ve spoken to that crows about how they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and didn’t need no help from anyone to get out of poverty… went to public schools, or had Pell Grants and school loans, had food stamps at some point, or maybe used welfare or state insurance or any of the programs for poor people. Through the state. While they complain about others using the same programs. Because they prejudge others as not as deserving as they were. Case in point, truthseeker. I’ve leeched off the government less than you have.
Jack, I do not believe that everybody ‘deserves’ the same things in life. Peace and contentment come from within. I paid a thousand dollars or less for the last three cars I’ve owned and I would rather be riding in a car with all the bells and whistles (heck, it would be nice to have one that all the windows worked in, but I don’t feel entitled to have the same car that the ‘rich’ people have and I don’t really think a car can bring me happiness. I don’t struggle with finding a ‘solution’ to the ‘problem’ that everybody does not have equality in health care because I don’t think everybody deserves equality in health care. I think everybody deserves a minimum amount of sustenance and critical care they suffer an accident but I see the public health care system as a marketplace and I am ok with people being able to afford different ‘levels’ of care. If you had a problem with kids not being able to, say, afford dental care; then I would say you should become a dentist and open up your own clinic and treat kids for less.
So, yeah, you’re opinions are exactly what I find disgusting about American conservatism.
Healthcare isn’t a CAR. It’s not an option. If someone doesn’t get the healthcare they need in a timely fashion they can die or become permanently disabled. People who get sick and cannot work will burden the economy unless you’re willing to let them die or become homeless when they can’t support themselves. The more you make people depend on emergency care (very expensive) instead of a level of preventative care and care for chronic illness, the more money YOU are spending unless, I repeat, you want them to die.
It’s not about being equal. It’s about having everyone have the basics in life so they don’t cost more money than they would otherwise, and they can possibly get to a point where they can contribute to the economy, and of course you know not being a heartless jerk and watching people suffer because of circumstances they don’t have control over. Your way of thinking will forever cost you more money unless you want to let people die. That’s really all there is to it.
Lol your last sentence is awesome. So basically, you think that you have no responsibility to everyone else in your community and country, that everyone ELSE should worry about taking care of those who need help. What a selfish philosophy.
“I’ve leeched off the government less than you have.”
Huh? My student loans that you always harp about were paid back in full with interest and penalties. What in the H E double hockey sticks are you talking about?
I’m mostly just messing with you. I think it’s funny you begrudge everyone else help to get out of the gutter but you were willing to take it yourself. And you complained about the penalties when you failed to pay back the money on time as agreed. It’s just highly amusing.
I said “If you had a problem with kids not being able to, say, afford dental care; then I would say you should become a dentist and open up your own clinic and treat kids for less.”
And you replied: “Lol your last sentence is awesome. So basically, you think that you have no responsibility to everyone else in your community and country, that everyone ELSE should worry about taking care of those who need help. What a selfish philosophy.”
Jack, I don’t know how you can make these leaps of insinuation but you really are making no sense. I tell you to server other people by becoming a doctor and charging less and you twist it into me saying I have a selfish philosophy. You are lost in space.
“I’m mostly just messing with you.”
Sounds like code for for making crap up and wasting my time.
truth – based on your 8:44 comment, I just doin’t think you’re much of a fiscal conservative. You’ve essentially chosen the most expensive path – don’t treat things when they are small – wait until they are expensive. It doesn’t make sense.
Do you change the oil in your car or do you wait until the car blows up and change the engine?
It just doesn’t make sense – fiscal sense, logical sense – it is really odd thinking.
I mean, you’re saying you aren’t willing to subsidize Jack’s care so that he can get in and get pnemonia checked, and get medication – but you will if it becomes serious enough to require hospitalization.
“Jack, I don’t know how you can make these leaps of insinuation but you really are making no sense. I tell you to server other people by becoming a doctor and charging less and you twist it into me saying I have a selfish philosophy. You are lost in space. ”
Sigh. I’ll try to explain it really slowly for your benefit. How does someone become a doctor, unless they have access to a bunch of money from their family or whatever, without taking government assistance (in the form of school loans, Pell Grants, etc)? What should single parents do with their children while taking classes and presumably working full time to try and offset costs, do you have any idea what childcare costs? How do you feed your kids while trying to make it through college? What happens if you get seriously ill while going to classes and don’t have insurance? Are you going to help? How do they get to the point where they are a doctor/dentist and providing cheap healthcare?
“Sounds like code for for making crap up and wasting my time.”
Wait, I thought it was perfectly acceptable to just make up stuff about people? You’ve done it several times on this very thread!
I don’t understand how people can’t admit the fact that leaving people in tens of thousands of dollars in debt for unavoidable healthcare expenses actually damages their ability to be a productive member of society in the long run, not just the short run when the hospital and tax payers have to eat the costs of treatment.
I lost the comment I was typing and when it refreshed…watching the comments devolve into this crap …it’s not worth it to retype.
I think I’ve said what I have to say anyway.
Jack,If you were sick and needed medicine then you should get it; but I would never support the government forcing $14,000/yr policies on everybody just so you can get an antibiotic when you need one (you could visit critical care once a week for checkups at that price. Yes, I said 14k per year. The government might subsidize the costs but that government subsidization actually raises the cost of policies on the marketplace. Your response is to whine because I am not offering you other solutions and I say that is no excuse for implementing colossal cluster you-know-whats like Obamacare as solutions. And you are being disingenuous so it it would be a waste of my time to try and give you specifics about hypothetical that you throw my way about single parents working their way through college etc. I know this is something you reject but I put my trust in the Lord and teh Lord has always provided…not always what I want but yes always what I need.
truth –
Two things.
1) Most people don’t pay near that much.
2) You fail to mention though that you are quite alright sticking the hospital, and thus those who are insured, with large bills. So you aren’t cool with personal responsibility and empowering people to take care of their own health, but are cool with funding and providing incentives for people to not contribute.
You sound like a socialist truth – very comfortable spending other people’s money.
Truthseeker, how would you provide medications for people if they are sick and have no insurance? That’s why you guys are driving me nuts, I feel like you just dodge the issue. You’re either okay with the skyrocketing costs, bankruptcies, and tons of debt caused by these people not being able to pay once they get care, or you have another solution. So what do you do? How do you think that it should be provided for? And I suspect your Lord picks and chooses who he thinks deserves to be provided for.
Ex-RINO, you are wrong. Because of Obamacare most people are now being forced to pay 14k or more for Obamacare compliant insurance policies if they can even find an insurance provider who is still providing policies to individuals.
No they aren’t truth:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303983904579095731139251304.html
“Across the country, the average premium for a 27-year-old nonsmoker, regardless of gender, will start at $163 a month for the lowest-cost “bronze” plan; $203 for the “silver” plan, which provides more benefits than bronze; and $240 for the more-comprehensive “gold” plan.”
How do you get $14K out of that? Cite a source please.
I guess I consider those state exchange plans to be a complete waste and nothing but a rip-off. What good is a policy like the bronze that leaves the insured to pay huge deductibles and 40% of the medical bills? And the number of doctors and facilities available on the state exchange plans are fewer than we are used to pre-Obamacare and those numbers are dwindling even further as ‘implemenation day’ draws nearer. The $14k plans I am talking about plans that are comparable to what we are used to having pre-Obamacare that cover 90% of the medical bills and have reasonable deductibles. Insurers that offer these types of plans are not participating in the state exchanges.
40% is certainly better than 100%. I’d kill to only be able to pay 40% of my hospital bills.
Odd complaint, in my opinion. Uninsured people are responsible for all their medical bills, and do not have access in most cases to affordable preventative care and care for chronic conditions, but you’re complaining that these plans have… too high of a deductible? That doesn’t make sense. Out of pocket spending is capped, so you’re going to pay less than you would uninsured if you get pneumonia or whatever.
The policies that you’re talking about, offered by those companies not taking part in the exchange, tend to have very high premiums. Which can be less affordable than low premium, higher deductible plans for many people.
And not only that Ex-RINO but if you wanted to be honest you would list the price without subsidies and it would really show how crappy Obamacare is.
According to a recent study by the Kaiser Institute “A family of four making $50,000 in Wyoming, for instance, would pay $1,237 a month on average for a midlevel plan before subsidies, compared to $584 a month on average in Tennessee. After subsidies are added in, however, the cost to both families would be $282 because the amount they pay is linked to their income, not to the cost of coverage.”
Smoke and mirrors….
Without subsidies on the Obamacare state exchanges people will be paying $1,200 a month for a crappy mid-level policy that only covers a fraction of their medical costs.
These government subsidies are driving up the non-subsidized cost of policies and making health insurance unaffordable for individuals who are not on the government teat.
When the DemocRATs sold us this bill of goods they claimed that it as part of the budget reconciliation process by claiming it would lower the deficit. Bwahahaha! It is astounding that people actually claim that our government is going to lower the deficit by enrolling millions of more people in Medicare and subsidizing millions more peoples insurance premiums. And it is even more astounding how many people believe the one’s who say that. Oh…My….Gosh
“I’d kill to only be able to pay 40% of my hospital bills.”
Jack, even if you did kill to get the policy you’d probably end up dying anyway from the lack of affordable care. The really sad part is that if you were on your own you’d be liable for 100% of the hospital bill but the insurance companies are going to get off with only paying about 25% of what the hospital charges them anyway.
Insurance companies reimburse hospitals less than hospitals bill uninsured people… since forever? It’s not something that started happening with the ACA.
I still just see you saying things you don’t like, but I still don’t see you put up a solution. How do you think we should take care of the skyrocketing costs of healthcare, uninsured people not being able to pay for their care costing the tax payers a lot of money and putting thousands of people in ridiculous amounts of debt? I know you don’t want people dying, but you don’t seem to have any real solutions to the economic problems.
Jack, the economic problems caused by the cost of health care are complex. I would do it gradually by adding simple fixes that can be understood and implemented with bi-partisan support. I would begin by repealing Obamacare which is actually having huge detrimental effects and begin by opening up insurance markets nationwide and making custom insurance policies available to people again.
Okay how does insurance companies selling nationwide help costs? And how does the custom insurance plans help costs and help make insurance affordable for people who can’t afford it? What effects do you expect out of those measures?
In the US insurance companies in one state have never been allowed to sell their policies to customer’s in other states. Opening this competition up would lower the cost of insurance policies nationwide. The custom insurance plans would also help lower the cost of individual policies because people of modest means would be able to tailor their policies to only include the benefits they want or that they can afford. For instance they choose to have a plan with million dollar cap on benefit payouts or one where they had to pay out-of-pocket for doctor’s visits and this would lower the cost of their health insurance policy.
Okay, so let’s say that these policies will bring down healthcare costs somewhat (which I kinda doubt but I’ll go with it at the moment). But what do you do with people who have zero income at the end of paying bills for healthcare? How do you keep them from draining the system when they inevitably get sick?
There is no silver bullet that will provide health care for the free. An x-ray costs money whether the person getting the x-ray is wealthy or poor. I think everybody deserves some degree of care but in a capitalist society the poor will have fewer treatment options available to them then the rich. For example; two people get into a car wreck and smash their ankle. A person who is able to pay for a plan that has better doctors in the plan may have ankle replacement options available to them while the person on a different plan may only have the option of getting their ankle fused. I am ok with that. I would want to build a system where there was a balance so people could pay more for their health care plan and have the ankle replacement option available to them because they could afford; even if only the ankle fusion option was available to others so that the people who had no money or resources could get some level of care but they wouldn’t completely drain the resources of the health care system.
“Truthseeker, how would you provide medications for people if they are sick and have no insurance?”
The first thing I would do is lower the cost of medication by opening up international drug markets to US citizens. Our government passes laws that make it illegal for US citizens to buy/import their medicines from outside of the US and this is artificially keeping drug prices inflated in the US.
Thanks for the age compliment Jack (haha). Move me up a decade.
America is still the land of opportunity Jack. The influx of immigrants speaks for itself. I understand that it was not well received when I referenced immigrants above but how many come (even illegally) and make lives for themselves and their families should tell you not to minimize the greatness of this nation. Even with all the current difficulties you speak of, remember that two hands and a brain always make the difference.
Truthseeker, I just don’t understand where you think the care for people who can’t afford it is going to come from. Even if you think they should just get crappy, minimal care, you haven’t explained how you think we should fund it. And what about people who need mental healthcare (which generally requires appointments and medications instead of a one time visit), or chronic conditions (which also require maintenance appointments and prescriptions) or preventative care and such. Only providing for catastrophic or emergent cases is just going to cost everyone more and more.
Thomas, I do think that the US is a great nation. But patriotism doesn’t mean that you think your country is flawless and doesn’t have any serious issues. We do have serious issues, regardless of whatever issues immigrants have in their home countries that they leave to try and find a better life in the US. The fact remains that things are getting rougher for the average US citizen, and especially for those who live under or around the poverty line, your opportunities are severely limited if you do. And I’m actually a second generation immigrant, I guess, my mother came here as a young person from Cuba because her family was fleeing Castro’s regime, don’t think that I don’t think that the US has opportunities, I just think things are getting rougher and social mobility is getting much rougher. And the problems in our healthcare system contribute to that.
And honestly all it takes is a couple mistakes/accidents early in life and this “land of opportunity” business doesn’t apply to you. If you get arrested on a drug charge at age eighteen, even if you go through rehab and do everything you can to make up for it, your job prospects will be forever severely limited. If you have one accident, bam, you’re in tens of thousands of dollars of debt and you’ll never get out, and your credit is forever ruined if you can’t keep up with your bills. There goes your dream of ever buying a house of your own. If you don’t have a loving stable family that encouraged academic achievement and either helps you financially or supports you in doing well in high school and getting scholarships, there’s no option for you to afford college unless you take government assistance, there’s just no way to pay for it. And let’s not even get into if you struggle with mental illness, how badly that can impact your ability to work, and how little help there is for you if you don’t have some way of getting insurance. It’s difficult, and no matter if you have “two hands or a brain”, not everyone is to blame if they can’t get out of poverty.
truth -
First off, I give you sincere props for actually putting forth some stuff. Most people run, or hide behind bumper sticker slogans. I do, honestly, give you props for solutions. Truth is, none of us set policy – so understanding all the views and being informed is the best we can do.
A few thoughts on your posts:
1) truth – the bottom lines costs are the costs. I’m guessing if somebody asks you how much you pay for insurance, through your employer, you don’t give them the presubsidized cost – or the cost before tax breaks. The cost is the cost is the cost.
2) I see you talking a bit out of both sides of your mouth. Previously, you’ve said that catastrophic plans should be allowed – that there shouldn’t be regulations on the types of plans. Now you’re bashing the lowest quality plans on the exchanges for having too much out of pocket. How can you say you support one type of catastrophic plan while bashing another?
3) The nationwide exchanges – I think it was Georgia tried one – nobody showed up – I mean, no insurance plan in the entire nation submitted to be on it. I’ve seen this concept thrown out – but is there any proof or projections it would work? I mean, an outside of a state group would have to setup rates with providers in an area they are unfamiliar with – where is the savings, unless insurance companies setup in massively deregulated states (like bank laws) – but that wouldn’t be good.
4) Good to see you’ve come around on drug prices – I mean, if we can take advantage of these government run countries where they set prices – it’s like outsourcing our medicine because we haven’t wised up to negotiate like other countries.
5) On your 1:00am post – you can sum it up this one – “I support health care rationing”.
That’s why I don’t understand when people criticize universal healthcare systems for rationing. All healthcare systems ration to some extent, and they always will until we have cheap, unlimited resources or something. It’s just that ours rations based on money rather than other factors. I see a lot of conservatives complaining that some people won’t get immediate transplants or whatever because of their age or other factors if we had more universal care, but they are cool with someone not getting a transplant because they are poor? I’d honestly rather a poor twenty year old get a heart than a rich eighty year old, if they have the same need for it.
“I’m guessing if somebody asks you how much you pay for insurance, through your employer, you don’t give them the presubsidized cost – or the cost before tax breaks. The cost is the cost is the cost.”
Ex-RINO, if someone asks you how much an insurance plan costs do you answer them with how much it costs you or with how much the insurance company sells it for?
All subsidies do is raise the average cost of insurance policies.
People ask how much a person pays – that’s what they ask.
Looking forward to your responses on everything else.
“How can you say you support one type of catastrophic plan while bashing another?”
Because one sells for 5 times the other unless you are sucking from the government teat and having others pay for 80% of the cost of your policy.
truth – I posted the cost information.
Again though – I don’t get your fundamental issue here.
Why would you be okay with paying for somebody’s emergency care, but not okay subsidizing their cheaper, preventative care?
“I think it was Georgia tried one”
Ex-RINO, I googled ‘health insurance nationwide Georgia’ and got no relevant hits. Where did you read about this. My guess would be that nobody applied because it is illegal and it was a scam.
“truth – I posted the cost information.”
Ex-RINO, do me a favor and post what it would cost Jack and/or all the other people who are not eligible for subsidies.
Found it truth
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/no-out-of-state-insurers-offer-plans-in-georgia/nQTQg/
Confirmed – no out of state providers signed up.
“Good to see you’ve come around on drug prices”
Huh? I have always said the free market was the best and all I was recommending was to remove the government regulation that cause our drug prices to be so high. If in your mind that is ‘coming around’ then so be it.
I guess I’ll just repost this:
No they aren’t truth: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303983904579095731139251304.html “Across the country, the average premium for a 27-year-old nonsmoker, regardless of gender, will start at $163 a month for the lowest-cost “bronze” plan; $203 for the “silver” plan, which provides more benefits than bronze; and $240 for the more-comprehensive “gold” plan.”
In Florida, the lowest plan is $163 a month before any subsidies. So about $2K a year.
“Confirmed – no out of state providers signed up.”
The article isn’t clear what law they passed to allow this. Can you reference the law for me? If Georgia passed a state law then it would be meaningless to a nationwide exchange wouldn’t it? It would be like Colorado opening a pot exchange and trying to sell medical marijuana in Wisconsin or even Washington. The interstate commerce would still be illegal.
truth – lots of information out there on the law – offered by a dude named Ramsey – house bill 47.
http://www.thecitizen.com/articles/01-16-2011/rep-ramsey-ptc-introduces-bill-allowing-out-state-health-insurance-options
“We are convinced that the best way to provide Georgians with more affordable and varied health insurance options is to unlock the forces of the free market and put more power in the hands of the health insurance buying consumer,” said Ramsey.
Yes – are you as convinced now Ramsey after nobody showed up to play?
Again truth – maybe good in theory?
Ex-RINO, if you continue to be that dense then I will quit answering your question cause you are wasting my time. Read what is posted to you and answer honestly.
What is the average cost of a bronze plan on the Exchange for people who do not qualify for subsidies?
Those are the prices truth – the article has a graph with most states represented – bronze plan without subsidies.
http://online.wsj.com/news/interactive/EXCHANGES0924?ref=SB10001424052702303983904579095731139251304
Graph makes it clear these are pre-subsidy prices.
“– are you as convinced now Ramsey after nobody showed up to play? “
Thanks for posting that. You confirmed that this was a state law. Do you understand the reason nobody showed up to play in Georgia’s ‘nationwide’ exchange is because other states would be breaking federal law if they participated?
Truth you could have just asked me if you’re curious. The cheapest plan that I could get, since my state decided to not expand Medicaid and I don’t qualify for subsidies, is around $170 or so. It’s almost what I spend on food a month, not really affordable. Thanks, Florida GOP.
If it broke federal law, it never would have become a state law – it would have been held up in courts.
Look – truth – admit you can be wrong – I’ve posted an article of a bill in Georgia that people clearly thought was a good idea, and everyone was shocked after the fact that nobody wanted to sign up. It wasn’t because it was illegal. Stop hiding behind laws, and for once say “yes, I was wrong in this case”.
Is that so hard?
Seriously – you think it was illegal and that was the issue? Can you point me to any articles after the fact that say “no surprise it didn’t work because it was illegal”.
Republicans were surprised!
Come on truth.
“Graph makes it clear these are pre-subsidy prices.”
No Ex-RINO, the quote from the Kaiser Institute that I posted to you yesterday at 11:04 pm makes it very clear…
“A family of four making $50,000 in Wyoming, for instance, would pay $1,237 a month on average for a midlevel plan before subsidies, compared to $584 a month on average in Tennessee. After subsidies are added in, however, the cost to both families would be $282 because the amount they pay is linked to their income, not to the cost of coverage”
You can read it for yourself here:
A family of four making $50,000 in Wyoming, for instance, would pay $1,237 a month on average for a midlevel plan before subsidies, compared to $584 a month on average in Tennessee. After subsidies are added in, however, the cost to both families would be $282 because the amount they pay is linked to their income, not to the cost of coverage.” – See more at: https://www.jillstanek.com/2013/10/stanek-sunday-funnies-10-6-13/#comment-467244
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/September/25/Federal-Exchange-Rates-Lower-Than-Expected.aspx?p=1
“
“Seriously – you think it was illegal and that was the issue? Can you point me to any articles after the fact that say “no surprise it didn’t work because it was illegal”.”
Ex-RINO, can you point to any other state that even passed a law that would make it legal for them to participate? Why do you think Georgia had to pass the law in the first place to make it ‘legal’? Most likely the reason it didn’t get held up in the courts is because the Attorney Generals of other states knew it would be challenged. It really is quite common for states to pass symbolic laws to diss the feds. You should know that.
Jack,
Thanks for offering the info. I know you have done a lot of research on this. What would be the deductible and the percentage of the bill the insurance company would pay for you on that cheapest plan?
To be honest I didn’t bother to look into the deductibles much. There aren’t any bills that I can skip, I can’t free up $170 a month unless I get another job, which I can’t do because I’m a single parent and I don’t have any extra money for childcare and no one will watch them for free. So I didn’t bother to examine the plans too closely for something I can’t afford. I’ll never be able to afford, it just depresses me. I think I remember one plan that was a 2K deductible but the premium was $200 a month.
I had read that the cheapest plans in some states carried a $4500 deductible and only covered 40% of the bill. What good is that?
“I’d honestly rather a poor twenty year old get a heart than a rich eighty year old, if they have the same need for it. ”
Jack, that is pretty bold of you (and imo pretty terrible) to judge one person is more deserving of life then another. If that is the way the Obamacare death panel feels then the elderly should be terrified of government control when people can decide that the elderly are not as deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as twenty somethings are.
You’ve already decided that the poor are less deserving of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness than rich people.
We have limited organs. No matter what we’re rationing them. Should someone who’s lived a full life and already raised their children get the heart, or someone just starting out and still has kids to take care of get it? It has to be rationed, because there aren’t enough to go around. Why do you think it’s better that the poor person die than the rich person, regardless of other factors?
And for the record, I can’t WAIT until we can grow artificial organs, so the ethical dilemma of who gets what never comes up again. But you may say something like “well the poor person shouldn’t have an actual transplant available to them, maybe just a heart valve repair or something”.
You do realize Jack that my two hands and a brain analogy is and never was meant to assign blame. There are always things one can control in life even with mental illness, I think you will agree. Also, I think that all of us are beyond discussing our parents. We are on our own now and somehow we manage, right? I am and always will be a proponent of moving forward instead of being stuck on “obstacles.” That is what the analogy truly should reveal to you: that there is always a way out.
I think you misunderstood what I meant about stable families. I wasn’t saying that people should be like “boo hoo my mom and dad don’t love me” and not even try. I am just saying from my observation that having a stable family to depend on certainly makes things a little more bearable. I live in a Hispanic neighborhood, like most Hispanic cultures the families around here are tight knit. From what I observe people sometimes call their families when they need to help in emergencies, and if they are running low on food they just have to call Mom and she gets some groceries, that Mom and Dad and siblings can help with babysitting in a pinch or maybe even as a permanent thing. And I found out that adults even call their parents if they are just feeling sad or overwhelmed and their parents will talk to them and help them think of solutions. My ex used to do that all the time, call her parents just to talk about something and vent and get some advice. It’s weird. I think that must be why foster kids and orphans and abused kids generally have a rougher time in life, it is really hard to not have a support system and I don’t think there is any way to replace the family. If you don’t have a family you don’t have babysitters, and you don’t have anywhere to go for meals if you’re out of food, and you don’t have anyone to loan you a hundred bucks if you’re short on rent, etc. But anyway, that’s all I meant, I don’t think people should excuse themselves from being responsible but I think it’s weird people act like you turn eighteen and suddenly not having a family is okay because you’re an adult. There’s no replacement for family. They are the people who are supposed to care!
My point is that our growing up is old news Jack. Looking forward and concentrating on making being on our own a success is the preferred modus operandi here. You must possess something that has assisted you in this survival? The hard part is to be able to find that in you and use it to your advantage.
I don’t know any specifics about Florida but certainly I think there are plenty of support networks all over. Reach out Jack..
I don’t think you get what I’m saying, I know that it’s my fault I don’t have a support network and stuff. I wasn’t making excuses. I’m just saying, part of the reason many people become successful is because they have family around to help them. And it’s really hard to replace that because your family are the people that are supposed to care about you.
You are correct that I am not going that route. I will acknowledge that you are correct that having such a family is ideal. You did not though and yet you are here, managed to have a family of your own and sent your genes to the future (so to speak).
I think we either have a choice to live in the past or the present – and what we do in our present defines our future. Does this make sense?
No I don’t understand what you think I’m saying wrong. I already said people should be responsible and not make excuses.
You are not saying anything wrong Jack. All your statements are correct in theory. Realities are what throws us off. You need to take more credit for who you have become independent of your biological parents.
I don’t really understand. We were talking about becoming successful and getting out of poverty in the US, and I mentioned not having a stable family makes that more difficult. I said it’s not an excuse and everyone should have responsibility for their own lives. I do take credit, I realize it’s my fault I don’t do better and not my parents, I was just mentioning it’s hard sometimes to need a babysitter or something and not have anyone. I don’t really understand where we’re disagreeing, I do take credit. I understand that it’s my fault I’m stuck. I’m confused by this conversation.
I thought that this positive psychology can help built you up more. We have not disagreed on anything. I picked up where you assumed I was blaming poor people with my two hands and a brain analogy and than this just took off and here we are. This talk is now officially over.
Carry on…
I’m sorry Thomas I am genuinely confused, I’m not trying to misunderstand you.
Thomas I reread our conversation and I’m really sorry that I’ve not understood you correctly. I don’t mean to take you out of context pr misrepresent what you are saying but sometimes I just can’t grasp things. I’m still not sure what you are trying to get at or what you are saying to me, but I hope you get that I’m sorry that I called you some names earlier and apparently am not getting what you’re trying to get across.
truth – a few things catching up on…
1) So you are saying that a premium is $1400 a month by posting that in Wyoming, it’s $1200 a month, and Tennessee it’s $600, but either way, most people qualify and pay even less. And that is proving to me that people pay $1400 a month? The issue though is you asked for a price, I gave you a price for an individual, and you wanted family.
2) On the Georgia plan – five minutes of research would have shown you many other states have talked about it or considered it. It isn’t illegal. It’s perfectly legal – and in this case, it didn’t work. Again, you said national exchanges would work. I pointed you to a situation in which it clearly did not work. So it’s my, fact based approach, against your rhetoric with no backing. I win at this point.
3) A $4500 deductible with 40% coverage does work for some people (if that truly is a plan – haven’t looked for it so I’m taking your word). If a person is fairly healthy and has a padded savings account, they would get low rates, free preventative care, and would be able to pay for the issues that came up. The key though is in your perfect world, people don’t have insurance at all, so if they get cancer, they have no coverage. In this world, they have coverage for those big things.
4) I also must agree with Jack, and think it’s lame of you for saying he supports giving services to a 20 year old over an 80 year old, while you support giving it to the rich over the poor.
I just don’t understand why it’s bad to think that if there is one heart available, and a 20 year old and a 80 year old have the same need for it, that the 20 year is probably, sadly the one who should get it. The twenty year old probably has an average of fifty to sixty years ahead to live, contribute to the economy, provide children for the future, provide for their elderly parents. The 80 year old is not less valuable as a human, but the heart will get less use. I don’t see how that’s “terrible”, we don’t have enough organs for everyone! We should give them to the people who can use them the most. Alcoholics are not allowed on the transplant list for this reason, is that wrong? The alcoholic isn’t a lesser human being, but the organ will get less use if he or she gets it.
What I think is terrible is rationing based on money, when it comes to things like organ transplants. How is it moral to give the heart to the 80 year old just because they have more money?
Jack and Ex-RINO you are heartless. I could almost kick your ass if we were having this discussion at a bar instead of on a blog. To have the audacity to claim that elderly don’t deserve life as much as a twenty something does is beyond the pale.
Jack -
There once was a guy – let’s call him phil. Phil believed that if two people presented themselves for competing services, the person with the most money should win. Phil also advocated for a plan that would fund health care for the elderly at a race slower than projected growth, meaning that many seniors would simply bypass care and die. Phil also advocated for a system in which he would not pay for somebody to get care when the issue was small, but was okay paying when the issue was life threatening and might kill the person. And sometimes it would.
And then one day, Phil lost his mind, and accused other people of evil when they suggested if two people were competing for the same resources, maybe the person with the most money shouldn’t win.
I don’t think Phil realized both how funny, and how massively hypocritical his mock outrage was.
It would be insulting if he hadn’t proven himself to be so ignorant regarding health care and logic in general.
Truth –
You agree that there are not enough organs to go around, right? That’s how it is until we can get a good, workable artificial organ technology. So, we have to figure out how to distribute the organs that we currently have. What criteria do you think we should have? Is it simply money with you? What if it’s a poor elderly person and a rich elderly person, who should get the heart? A teenage girl or an old lady? What’s your criteria, if amount of use a person will be able to use the organ for shouldn’t determine it?
Do you disagree with the rule that active alcoholics cannot be on the transplant list?
I don’t think elderly lives are less important than younger people’s lives.
Ex-RINO, IMO one day of Mother Terasa’s life at age 87 did more good for society than your entire life.
Would she have made it to 87 under the health system you support? Probably not – she didn’t have much money, thus, was expendable to you.
I don’t understand why you are freaking out, truthseeker. It’s simply true that there are not organs enough for everyone. People wait for years to have a chance to be next in line, many die on the waiting list. There has to be distribution criteria. It’s mostly based on health, but money plays a big role in it too. What do you think the criteria is, if you don’t think it should be “who will this organ do the most good for”?
I support people in getting health care using whatever means they have available to them. There are many means to get health care. Having money to pay for it yourself is only one of them. Being a loving person who makes friends who help in times of trial is another. You, on the other hand are the only one who has stated anything about denying people care when you said you would deny an elderly person the ability to purchase health care because you deem other people to be more deserving. You stated you deny elderly people health care; I didn’t say I would deny a poor person health care.
Ex-RINO, if it were up to you and Obama the HHS would be approving and denying people care based upon their political affiliation. That is the the way DemocRATs roll.
So you think the criteria for organ transplants should be whoever can buy them?
So you’re fine with letting a young single parent die, or something, so Dick Cheney can get a heart transplant? You don’t seem to understand that we are talking about organ transplants. This is not like a bypass surgery. We have a limited amount of organs for transplants available. You seriously think that people should just be able to buy organs?
So you think UNOS is immoral for putting people on the transplant list?
You’re rationing healthcare, truthseeker. You think rationing by money is okay.
Just so you know if it came down to me and a 13 year old boy who both needed a heart transplant, both had the same health, I think he should get it before me. Even if I had more money than him.
I think people should get on transplant lists and get them on a first come first serve basis.
Well I guess that’s valid enough, but usually they do it by health (and money always plays a role, as always in our healthcare system). If someone becomes very, very sick suddenly, and needs one immediately, do you think it’s right to let them die because someone else waited longer, even if the person is much less ill and can live much longer? That doesn’t seem right.
Do you think that people that are alcoholics or metastatic cancer should be allowed to get transplants? As of now they aren’t allowed. Do you think that’s right?
And I thought you think that people should be able to buy whatever healthcare they want as long as they have the money. Do you think the rich person should have to wait in line then, or is the transplant list for people who don’t have money?
I’m really trying to get your ideas on healthcare but they are really confusing.
Jack, money can play a role too. But I would give somebody on the list an organ based upon how long they have been waiting and of course having a doctor that was ready/willing to perform the transplant.
“Money can play a role too”
And there it is…slipped back in.
You didn’t answer my other questions. And what role do you think money should play in organ transplants?
Seriously? What role does money play? It is easier to find doctors and hospitals to perform the surgery when you pay them and if you can’t get a doctor and a hospital to do the surgery then what good is it to get an organ?
Jack, I did answer all your questions but maybe it was too simple for you to take at face value. I wouldn’t presume that I could pick and choose the value of people’s lives..
Truthseeker… you are picking and choosing the value of people’s lives. You’re rationing based on money. You want policies in place that would make it terribly difficult to for a poor person to obtain an organ transplant in any case. How do you not see that?
Would you seriously want some teenager to not be able to get an organ because of how much money his parents made and they didn’t have the cash to get in and see a doctor in the first place? You already said you won’t pay for preventative and maintenance care for poor people, in your healthcare system. So you want people to wait until they are desperately ill, go to the hospital, get on the transplant list (or not, depending on what charity is available to them), and then die while the wealthy person who was able to get on when they first got somewhat ill and can afford to pay out of pocket for a surgeon, and still is in good shape, gets the organ.
Ex, anyone? Am I the only one who sees it this way? This seems like a terribly unfair system you got truth. Healthcare should be based on need and effectiveness, not wealth and how lucky you are.
Maybe that’s how truth would fund things – auction off medical services.
I mean, it’s a tricky situation. I’d be a bit more open to truth’s explanations if he wasn’t so rude and condescending about it. He botched the national exchange conversation – he still can’t figure out how pricing works in the new world of health care and then he starts yelling and screaming that we don’t value the life of an 80 year old (by threatening violence), and then makes the point that he doesn’t value the life of whomever has less money.
Train
Wreck
I know, it’s a bit awkward. I’m trying to understand but it really does seem like an awful and dog-eat-dog world type of system.
And I think it’s hilarious that truth (and many, many others have this same type of thinking) thinks that rationing based on wealth is any better than rationing based on numerous other factors.
“Truthseeker… you are picking and choosing the value of people’s lives. You’re rationing based on money.”
Jack, Maybe you can’t see it the way I do cause we have different concepts of what rationing is. Let me ask you a couple of questions to see if I can understand you better. A new Mercedes Benz costs more money then poor people can afford; do you see/consider that to be automobile rationing?
Truthseeker, stop trying to compare things like automobiles and housing and such to necessities such as healthcare. It doesn’t work as an analogy. I am perfectly fine with the fact that people who have less money don’t have as nice things. That is the way the world works, and I don’t think anyone is entitled to a nice house or a nice car. I refuse to admit that poor people don’t deserve healthcare like everyone else. I don’t agree with paying for truly elective procedures, but for life-saving and quality of life care, having less money shouldn’t mean that you shouldn’t be able to access it.
You are rationing healthcare based on money. That’s just the truth. If you’re okay with that, just admit that is what you’re doing. You think that if you have more money, either due to an accident of birth or hard work or whatever, you deserve healthcare more than a person who is poor, either due to an accident of birth or lack of opportunity or whatever. We obviously aren’t going to agree because I think healthcare is a basic right, and you don’t apparently.
Rationing – to restrict to limited allotments.
Saying that a Mercedes Benz is rationed because poor people can’t afford it is not a proper use of the word rationing. Now if Mercedez Benz only had a limited number of cars for sale and they wanted to make sure as many people as possible got a chance to purchase a Mercedes so they made a policy that no person could buy more than one Mercedes Benz regardless of how rich they were…that would be rationing.
”Truthseeker, stop trying to compare things like automobiles and housing and such to necessities such as healthcare. It doesn’t work as an analogy.”
Jack, the term rationing was originally created to describe how the military portioned food to soldiers when food was scarce. It had nothing to do with price. It is you who are using the term rationing in an inappropriate manner. Rationing was not originally a term used to describe health care and has nothing to do with price so you need to open your mind a little here. Rationing is a term used to describe the limited distribution of a scarce resource and the elegibilty or size of your ration was not based upon wealth or age or any other criteria.
truth – maybe you should read up on economic health care rationing.
If you are talking about a scarce resource (like an organ), and you are talking about using economics to decide who gets it, that is economic rationing.
The BMW isn’t quite a fitting example because the person who doesn’t get the BMW will go buy a used Volvo. The person who doesn’t get the kidney doesn’t go down the street and buy a different kidney – know what I mean?
It’s okay if you believe rationing should take place based on money – it just would then suggest, quite strongly, that you don’t threaten violence in a bar to people who suggest that other criteria should be used. You aren’t quite as pure and moral as you thought -you’re just using something else to sort our who gets what – and you are favoring the rich.
Truthseeker, price and scarcity are very closely related, but ok, organs are SCARCE. Just like food was for soldiers. They can only be distributed on a limited basis. This means some people will get that heart and some won’t. It’s not a question of deciding that some people get it and some don’t – that’s the starting point, it’s a fact – it’s a question of what criteria you use to decide who gets it and who doesn’t. You use money as a deciding factor, but make no mistake, you are still deciding that some people “should” get that organ over others.
I agree that organs are actually one part of health care where the term rationing is properly used. Show me where I said that organs should be sold to the highest bidder? You can’t. Jack clearly asked me what I believe is the proper way to distribute organs and I clearly stated that people who need organs should get on a list and the organs should be dispersed on a first come first serve basis. But still some people ignore what is posted and claim that I want organs rationed based on economics; cause they are obstinate imbeciles with little-to-no ability to listen or even try to comprehend what others clearly state to them. After a while it becomes a waste of time to even respond. Watch, his next response will still insist I said I believe in economic rationing of organs……wth
TRUTH I asked you to clarify what you meant by money playing a role in transplants. You said that obviously people needed to be able to pay a doctor to do the transplant. How is that misunderstanding what you said? I didn’t think you were pro-buying organs, but obviously you think that someone has to have a certain level of money before they can get a transplant in your mind. What am I misunderstanding?
Jack -
Of course truth isn’t wrong – he’s never been wrong in his entire life.
I am hopeful that something good is going to come out of all this government mess that Ted Cruz and the crazy fringe right has caused – Health Care Reform’s popularity went up 20% in about a week – the GOP is taking the majority of the blame, and it could be what’s needed to finally drive a stake in the heart of the tea party – which we need for folks like you to get health insurance, and for this country to start moving forward again.
Lol he’s never been wrong and he’s never, ever done anything that he should apologize for.
Where did you hear that the GOP was taking the majority of the blame for this mess? Last I saw it was I believe 38% or so blamed the GOP, and 24% or so blamed the Obama administration, and the rest blamed both. I would LOVE it if the voters blamed the GOP and got some decent people in next year, but people seem to like to forget about things that infuriated them just a couple months ago.
Yeah, all those nasty Tea Partiers and their talk of fiscal restraint! Break out the credit cards!
There’s sure to be a pony underneath Obamacare!
“but obviously you think that someone has to have a certain level of money before they can get a transplant in your mind.”
Jack, what you say above is true. Your ‘misunderstanding’ comes when you twist that into saying that I believe it is ok to use money to ration health care is intellectually dishonest. On October 10th at 8:42pm you stated virtually the same thing when you said; “There has to be distribution criteria. It’s mostly based on health, but money plays a big role in it too”; and you seem unable to comprehend that was practically the same thing that I was saying when I acknowledged what you said and stated that money plays a role.
Ex-RINO, Political business as usual and the status quo two party system needs to end and we the people intend to make a difference again like we did in 2010. I was disappointed in the 2012 election results but the Tea Party is here to stay.
“Jack, what you say above is true. Your ‘misunderstanding’ comes when you twist that into saying that I believe it is ok to use money to ration health care is intellectually dishonest. On October 10th at 8:42pm you stated virtually the same thing when you said; “There has to be distribution criteria. It’s mostly based on health, but money plays a big role in it too”; and you seem unable to comprehend that was practically the same thing that I was saying when I acknowledged what you said and stated that money plays a role.”
No, you misunderstood me, apparently. I DON’T approve of using money as a criteria to ration organs, and you do. That’s how it works NOW (though people cannot flat out buy organs, the ability to pay is a big factor), and I don’t approve of it at all.
I’m not misunderstanding you at all. You believe that people should get on a transplant list, and get first dibs on an organ regardless if people lower on the list are much sicker than them, and that their ability to pay is a criteria as well. That IS rationing based on money. There’s no way for people living below or near the poverty line to come up with a few hundred grand to get an organ transplant, and if they cannot afford insurance to help with the cost they are going to die. How can you not understand that you are advocating rationing based on money? Why can’t you admit it? If you think that’s fair or reasonable, just say so, but stop acting that’s not like you are doing.
Person who makes 20K a year who cannot afford insurance, gets desperately ill and needs a heart but does not have the money, but a less sick person who also needs the transplant, and who makes 500K a year has the ability to pay. Let’s say that they got on the transplant list at the same time, give or take a few weeks. The heart can only go to one of them. If I understand you correctly you think it should go to the person who has the money. That is rationing by using money as criteria. If that’s okay with you, admit that is what you are doing. You ration healthcare based on income.
And you do it to a lesser extent with your ankle example further up the thread. You think that poor people should have less options for medical treatment based on their income. That is rationing by money. It’s not a difficult concept and it’s extremely frustrating that you’re trying to paint yourself as some populist, magnanimous person and calling me and Ex immoral, when you do the exact same thing we do, only with money as a criteria instead of things like health, age, etc.
“If I understand you correctly you think it should go to the person who has the money.”
If being the key word here. Cause you don’t understand. Reread what I posted October 10th at 8:54 pm and then ask yourself how anybody could read that and come away saying that I believe people should be denied care cause they are poor. At this point I can only say that you are incapable of comprehending what a person says without interpretting it through your pre-conceptions or you are being obstinate and ‘just having fun’ by being incorrigible.
I could tell you that EMTALA is a good thing imo…but you will still say that I am for denying the poor care.
Hans – don’t get me wrong – a big part of me loves the tea party – most of the time, they are just doing things like ensuring the passage of obamacare (without the tea party, Harry Reid probably loses in Nevada and they don’t have 60 votes in the Senate…) – it’s just times like this when you get a partial group of a party holding a party hostage, thus holding the whole government hostage.
truth –
I’m more than a little tired of you talking out both sides of your mouth, and then name calling when people call you on it. Your other favor tactic is ditching the topic all together. It’s getting old.
So let’s get back to the nationwide exchange – Jack can keep hammering you on poverty issues.
You said that these plans would work, but they were illegal (you said that twice) – and that asked for more states?
So here you go:
http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2012/rwjf401409
Some highlights:
– This paper makes it clear that states have had the authority to do this for a long time. A specific quote: “With or without changes to federal law, states already have full authority to decide whether or not to allow sales across state lines…”
– Six states have enacted legislation (Georgia, Maine, Wyoming, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Washington) to implement a market or study
– Kentucky and Washington studied the issue and found that legislation wouldn’t be worth it. The key was that insurance companies said it was too expensive to build an entire provider network in an area they weren’t in.
– Wyoming and Georgia passed laws, and in both places, no out of state insurers entered the market.
A key conclusion of the paper seems to fly in the face of what you feel is important:
“While critics acknowledge that allowing the sale of across state lines policies could increase the availability of lower premium plans for some, they argue that this is true only for the healthiest customers who may be able to access lower-cost plans while premiums would increase significantly for individuals with preexisting conditions or families who need more comprehensive coverage.”
So given all that:
– You appear to be 100% wrong regarding the legality of selling across state lines
– You appear to be 100% wrong that it would work (as proven by two states)
– You seem to be advocating for a plan which would drive up the price for families.
Response truth? Or what, did I ‘misunderstand’ you earlier?
Ex-GOP,
I can no longer bear reading these Obamacare threads thoroughly. I admit to not being expert on the nuts and bolts of it.
All I know is the big picture. Our medical care was once the envy of the world, but I fear we will see it eroding very soon, as Obama not only redistributes wealth but misery.
For decades the major complaint was medical costs. But instead of tort reform and encouraging competition, he insisted on getting coverage for illegal aliens and those too young to have a real need for it.
It is a pipe dream. He is swamping the lifeboat and all will be in danger of drowning. Doctors are leaving and students are avoiding the medical field, because as much as we dream of a socialist paradise, we are still capitalists for ourselves and our families.
These same young people are not signing up, because they figure they can stay on their parents’ coverage and then just pay the measly fine. So Bush was ridiculed for “not paying for” the expansion of coverage for medicine. As if the Left didn’t want that. Another case of their biting the hand of those who bow to their wishes.
So you’re really proud that Reid was reelected? He looks and acts like he just stepped out of an East German “1984” world of Big Brother Bureaucracy.
You can continue to put your faith in the State. As for me, I only trust “We the People.” The most vital check and balance.
Hans -
Let me first say that I’m guessing that I’m the most open to looking at health care thoughts of anyone on this board. Truth posted about national exchanges – I research it. CT and others have talked tort reform – I looked into that. I’ve read through Paul Ryan’s plan(s) – something I don’t think other have done.
I really beg you to either jump in or jump out. Either do some research and look into the topics or don’t post at all on it. I could fire 20 questions at you on this one post – things you are wrong on – things you are vague on – but you’ll just do this same little game – you’ll either disappear or feign ignorance while posting your thoughts anyway.
Bottom line – we haven’t been the best in the world on health care for a while. The reason for that isn’t health care reform – we slipped a long time ago because we see health care as a profit center- not as the care of people.
Those who advocate for tort reform to drive down costs are simply stating rhetoric over fact. The majority of states already have tort reform, and it’s affected cost in a very minimal way.
And if you’re for competition, then embrace the exchanges. My guess is you blindly talk about encouraging competition, yet don’t understand that for years, conservatives have talked about exchanges as the way to encourage competition.
It’s simply a stupid, tired argument regarding “swamping” the system. If you truly believe the system will be “swamped”, then you are advocating that it isn’t swamped now because costs keeping people from getting care they should get. Are you advocating for economic rationing? It seems like you are – and that’s a pi** poor way to run a health care system.
Again – read up on the issues or jump out of the debate. You’re kinda wasting people’s time at this point.
(and as a side note, I’m not proud Reid was reelected – I’m just starting if the crazy tea party lady hadn’t won to run against him, he probably loses, they don’t have 60 votes in the senate, and reform never passes in the first place).
Well, I’ll leave it to you then. Good luck on Obamacare. I still think it will be as successful as LBJ’s War On Poverty.
It’s awfully hard to respect the “care” of a boy/man you don’t respect.
Truth your comment at 8:54pm on October 10th is
“I support people in getting health care using whatever means they have available to them. There are many means to get health care. Having money to pay for it yourself is only one of them. Being a loving person who makes friends who help in times of trial is another. [snip a whole bunch of insults to Jack]”
That is the same thing you’ve been saying, that you support rationing. People have to come up with the money or they don’t get care (except you’re magnanimously going to allow them not to die in emergencies). I don’t see how this contradicts that you’re healthcare rationing by money.
Ex-RINO, you are full of crap. You say you are a Christian who believes abortion is murder and yet you gleefully get in bed with the those who support the abortion industry. You would deny life saving health care options to the old because the resources are better used elsewhere on people who can ‘be more productive’ with themselves. You have no scruples and it shows when you debate.
“I don’t see how this contradicts that you’re healthcare rationing by money.”
And I don’t see how you can accuse me of health care rationing just cause I tell you that surgery costs money. It is just a fact Jack. And it is a fact to everybody including those who are against having to pay for their own health care.
Ha – truth – that was pretty expected – I guess that does not mean you are able to answer the very direct questions in most post on the national exchanges?
Could you have had a more typical response after I just wrote: “I’m more than a little tired of you talking out both sides of your mouth, and then name calling when people call you on it. Your other favor tactic is ditching the topic all together. It’s getting old.”
Ex-RINO, Your posts claiming that a national health care exchange has been tried and that the idea has already failed are so blatantly absurd that they fail on their own. You find links where six states out of fifty have dabbled with the idea at various times and present that as proof that the idea has been tried and it failed already. I really just didn’t feel I needed to respond to you in order for other people to understand that you are being ridiculous.
…and you find links that show…oh wait, you’ve provided nothing.
Yes – your response clearly shows you read the paper, and completely understand it. The effort you go through to support the things you post – it is truly outstanding.
You should be a model for all people who want to present a logical argument.
:-)
“And I don’t see how you can accuse me of health care rationing just cause I tell you that surgery costs money. It is just a fact Jack. And it is a fact to everybody including those who are against having to pay for their own health care.”
Few people are “against” paying for their own healthcare, just a lot of poor people recognize that healthcare is literally out of their financial reach if something isn’t done about it. I think most people would like to be able to afford their own healthcare.
And anyway you do support rationing, I don’t know if you are failing to understand because I can’t explain it correctly or if you’re just being obstinate, but the fact remains that you think certain services should be available only if you have the means to pay for them (whether that be charity or your own wealth/ability to purchase insurance).
Jack, if you want to look at from your criteria, which I do not really consider rationing, then every Ex-RINO and everybody who supported Obamacare is more guilty of rationing then I am. I may be ok with the concept of people paying for health care but unlike the DemocRATs I would never force everybody to pay for health care whether they want it or not.
“and you find links that show…oh wait, you’ve provided nothing.”
Ex-RINO, by your logic, which is really not logic at all, if you won’t provide some links that show you don’t still abuse your spouse as much as you used to then that must mean that you abuse your spouse and the neighbor kids. Really… your logic is childish.
truth -
That logic is absurdly idiotic. I only pray that the ‘like’ was from yourself again.
You said selling across state lines would be a good solution. I said it wouldn’t.
I presented a logical argument against, backed it up with a scholarly paper, and posted information on multiple states in which it didn’t work.
You stated “na-na-na-boo-boo”,and nothing else.
And then you said I have to provide links that what, further disprove what you said?
Again – lots of rhetoric from you – no substance.
Ex-RINO, it is absurd that you are trying to insinuate that there has been any kind of comprehensive attempt at national exchanges. Six states does not equal fifty and certainly does not qualify as a national exchange. So na-na-na-an-boo-boo
truth – you need to explain better than how you see these exchanges working. Conservatives have typically argued that these exchanges are promoting insurers to compete across state lines. What do you mean by nationwide exchange? I live in Western Wisconsin – are you saying I’d see plans from Blue Cross Blue Shield North Carolina on some national site, and could buy that?
Ex-RINO, which one is the greater failure. The rollout of the national exchanges by the six states or the rollout of the Obamacare exchanges?
I would have answered that question about 30 minutes ago, but it’s horribly irrelevant if you mean some other kind of exchange – if those state exchanges are NOT a reflection of what you are advocating for.
What kind of exchange are you advocating for? Second time I”m asking this.
While it is true that Obamacare made it legal for states to offer plans across state lines; the mandates that they placed on the insurance market make it much harder for states to expand and grow in other states. We need to start by repealing Obamacare cause I would envision an exchange that did not have all the regulations and mandates that Obamacare has placed on the insurance markets and allowing custom policies tailored to a persons or even to a regions needs. One that would allow a national company like Hobby Lobby to purchase insurance policy without free abortificients that would be effective for all their companies nationwide
What are you talking about truth – health care reform didn’t change this ability – it’s been around for years.
Now, I posted an article – a study, that specifically addressed these type of deregulated plans and selling across state lines. Did you have thoughts as to the flawed logic in what the researchers concluded? Might you be offering up somewhere that this has worked? Are you offering up anything at all?
Furthermore, I’ve always seen these exchanges regarding non-employer based healthcare – are you now advocating for some sort of market for employer insurance? You mentioned Hobby Lobby – how would that work? Again – I live in Western Wisconsin – what good would a plan from Wyoming do me?
Please present me with some information – again, i’ve posted some good info for you to read.
I’m also interested truth – earlier you seemed to advocate for more regulated plans – complaining that the lowest priced plans on the exchanges didn’t offer great coverage. The criticism of a deregulated market that you are now proposing is you’ll have more bare bones plans.
How do you reconcile your earlier criticism with the now support of the vary thing you were against?
You seem to either be clueless on what you support, or talking out of both sides of your mouth?
Or do you just want to say you were wrong about the nationwide exchanges and the deregulated plans, I’ll drop the whole thing, and we can move on with our lives?