How many of you think socialism simply rewards the lazy?

[Care4all]

the public option or nonprofit private coop option are a necessity to keeping private for profit insurers honest....we make private companies compete against our government for key duties or jobs or contracts so why shouldn't the private insurers compete against the gvt in order to keep costs down....? our gvt already pays most health care costs....

this will limit the mega million dollar contracts with ceo's because they will HAVE TO provide more benefits with the money or reduce policy prices with this money instead.

IF this bill passes without a public or coop option, we are DOOMED in to bankruptcy as a country imo!

 

[Zoom-boing]

the tools to keep illegal aliens from qualifying are ALREADY in this huge bill, why add this separate amendment other than to say the guy's right and it is needed?

and even if the alien were covered, which they are not....but if they were, and their employer did not offer a group insurance plan to buy, then their EMPLOYER WOULD BE SANCTIONED and have to pay a few thousand dollars an employee for not offering it....

THEY CAN NOT QUALIFY for a health plan paid for by our government, that is for CERTAIN in the bill....illegals, if paying taxes and on the books, might be able to BUY a group plan their company offers....but they are paying their share.

Is a verification of citizenship tool in the bill?

 

[cunclusion]

That is the funny thing I know people who are on welfare and all of them are working just dont make enough to support the families they have. They were working at factories etc then the factories left, they worked in service or retail the pay is alot less and they use welfare(food stamps) to fill the gaps. In fact I know one family the mom and dad are working , going to school and still need food stamps to fill the gaps. When people say things like that it pisses me off because you see a few do it then does that mean everyone does it hell no. It like going overseas and people calling you something because some Americans act ignorant when they go overseas. In the end if someone really believes that they need to go and actually see there are alot who are trying even some going back to school to learn new skills.

These are not the people being referred to, and in fact, are exactly the type of people the system should be for. Education is ALWAYS acceptable - it shows you're taking initiative to try and change your circumstances. So if you're getting pissed off, you're getting pissed off for the wrong reason.

The reason for getting pissed off is the grouping of people. I know what you say is true but when people are grouped that is what pisses me off.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The bill does have a provision to prevent identified illegal aliens from getting service.

However it also has another provision where service must be provided regardless of citizenship status (IE for tourists). The loophole is an illegal immigrant can be viewed as a tourist and get service anyway.

 

[Care4all]

The bill does have a provision to prevent identified illegal aliens from getting service.

However it also has another provision where service must be provided regardless of citizenship status (IE for tourists). The loophole is an illegal immigrant can be viewed as a tourist and get service anyway.

no, he wouldn't have a valid visa, as a tourist would....but where does it say we would pay for a tourist's injury? no where that i am aware of...? a person here on a visa, working for 6 months or a year, on a LEGAL visa, can BUY in to any plan on the exchange....but a tourist, a vacationer??? i have honestly not seen such???

care

 

[toomuchtime_]

the public option or nonprofit private coop option are a necessity to keeping private for profit insurers honest....we make private companies compete against our government for key duties or jobs or contracts so why shouldn't the private insurers compete against the gvt in order to keep costs down....? our gvt already pays most health care costs....

this will limit the mega million dollar contracts with ceo's because they will HAVE TO provide more benefits with the money or reduce policy prices with this money instead.

IF this bill passes without a public or coop option, we are DOOMED in to bankruptcy as a country imo!

There is no basis in fact or logic for your belief. We already have health co-ops and other non profit insurance companies, so there is no reason to believe adding more will make much if any difference in the cost of health insurance. The only logical reason to support a public plan now is because you hope it will lead to a single payer system in the future.

While increasing the number of non profits, private or government, may force for profit insurance companies to achieve greater internal efficiencies to compete, the reforms Obama and HR 3200 want, such as standard rate coverage for people with pre existing conditions and continuing insurance coverage for people who stop paying their health insurance premiums because of loss of income due to illness, will drive up the cost of health insurance so that nearly all of us will end up paying more than we do now, giving subsidies to low income families, including incomes up to $72,000 a year for a family of four, will either increase deficits or cause additional tax increases, and increasing Medicaid eligibility to 150% of the poverty level may well drive some states into bankruptcy.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The bill does have a provision to prevent identified illegal aliens from getting service.

However it also has another provision where service must be provided regardless of citizenship status (IE for tourists). The loophole is an illegal immigrant can be viewed as a tourist and get service anyway.

Thanks. The provision to prevent identified illegals from getting service -- is it a citizen verification tool (like e-verify)? I'm thinking not because if it worked the way e-verify works, it would go far in preventing illegals getting the services. The fact that they shot down the amendment says to me that the wording of the bill is such that loopholes exist, as you pointed out.

 

[Navy1960]

A couple of things from this thread - first off, there's a provision in the bill that excludes illegal aliens from the program explicitly, so people to get off that horse.

Second, this plan really does the opposite. When you're talking "for the lazy" - well, that really applies more to the public health care we already have, as it's income-based. And that debate is over; Medicaid isn't going anywhere.

The language of the health care bill, in regard to coverage of illegal immigrants, is obscure and can be understood to cover illegal immigrants but also to exclude them. President Obama assures the American people that illegal immigrants will not be covered; however, recently the House Ways and Means Committee rejected an amendment that would have required the government to verify that those enrolling in the "public plan" are not illegal immigrants.

Without a system in place to verify an individual’s immigration status, how will we identify those here illegally? We can’t, that may just be the point.
Health care reform to cover illegal immigrants?

Might be a reason people are asking that question because the bill makes it very unclear as to specifically how one verify's if they are a citizen. In fact the provision you are talking about is about credits to actually purchase Govt. run healthcare.

As for the thread title, I will only say this, the thread topic asks about laziness as it applies to socialism and I would point out that many healthcare innovations have come from those societies and that does not make them lazy. If someone is on a social program perhaps they find themselves there through a number of different ways. but to automatically assume it makes them lazy is a bit of a stretch IMO. While there is always going to be people who scam the system be it public or private, I do think it a bit unfair to simply paint those that are involved in a social healthcare program or society as being lazy.

 

[Care4all]

A couple of things from this thread - first off, there's a provision in the bill that excludes illegal aliens from the program explicitly, so people to get off that horse.

Second, this plan really does the opposite. When you're talking "for the lazy" - well, that really applies more to the public health care we already have, as it's income-based. And that debate is over; Medicaid isn't going anywhere.

The language of the health care bill, in regard to coverage of illegal immigrants, is obscure and can be understood to cover illegal immigrants but also to exclude them. President Obama assures the American people that illegal immigrants will not be covered; however, recently the House Ways and Means Committee rejected an amendment that would have required the government to verify that those enrolling in the "public plan" are not illegal immigrants.

Without a system in place to verify an individual’s immigration status, how will we identify those here illegally? We can’t, that may just be the point.
Health care reform to cover illegal immigrants?

Might be a reason people are asking that question because the bill makes it very unclear as to specifically how one verify's if they are a citizen. In fact the provision you are talking about is about credits to actually purchase Govt. run healthcare.

As for the thread title, I will only say this, the thread topic asks about laziness as it applies to socialism and I would point out that many healthcare innovations have come from those societies and that does not make them lazy. If someone is on a social program perhaps they find themselves there through a number of different ways. but to automatically assume it makes them lazy is a bit of a stretch IMO. While there is always going to be people who scam the system be it public or private, I do think it a bit unfair to simply paint those that are involved in a social healthcare program or society as being lazy.

How do you envision them qualifying for a free plan? What would they have to do?

 

[Immanuel]

Interesting that you say portability...a lot of people are screaming over this information card that has your insurance and medical information on it. I can see how that might be Orwellian to some, but it addresses the issue of portability of healthcare information quite well I think.

And when you say you want "everyone" to get healthcare...watch out...that's socialism, if the everyone you're talking about includes people who can't pay for it themselves.

Tort reform is a crock and I've addressed that in the other thread.

A bill being 1000 pages is nothing new and it doesn't make it unable to be read. In law school I often had to read over 200 pages a night, in addition to clerking, and other work, and doing my chores for my wife, and going over to my dad's to help him out (he had a stroke and needs help)...etc etc. you get the picture. It's a lot to read in one sitting...but it's not a lot to read over the span of a week.

But my wife really shocked me when she pulled out the old "urban welfare types are just going to take advantage" argument. I'm betting there are more people who believe that way out there.

As with any social program, there will be abuse. Although, I would like to prevent the abuses, it is not my main concern.

the public option or nonprofit private coop option are a necessity to keeping private for profit insurers honest....we make private companies compete against our government for key duties or jobs or contracts so why shouldn't the private insurers compete against the gvt in order to keep costs down....? our gvt already pays most health care costs....

this will limit the mega million dollar contracts with ceo's because they will HAVE TO provide more benefits with the money or reduce policy prices with this money instead.

IF this bill passes without a public or coop option, we are DOOMED in to bankruptcy as a country imo!

In my opinion, this bill will bankrupt us as a country.

So what is the solution?

Immie

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The bill does have a provision to prevent identified illegal aliens from getting service.

However it also has another provision where service must be provided regardless of citizenship status (IE for tourists). The loophole is an illegal immigrant can be viewed as a tourist and get service anyway.

no, he wouldn't have a valid visa, as a tourist would....but where does it say we would pay for a tourist's injury? no where that i am aware of...? a person here on a visa, working for 6 months or a year, on a LEGAL visa, can BUY in to any plan on the exchange....but a tourist, a vacationer??? i have honestly not seen such???

care

Thats just it...in the emergency situation they check for the visa AFTER the service is complete .

I was reading in the "for tourist" bit. It doesn't actually say the word "tourist" it just says that services for sick/injured must be provided regardless of citizenship status. Then later in the bill its thrown in that those who are illegally in the country may be denied service.

See the loophole? Its big and easy to exploit, not unlike many tax loopholes.

 

[Vanquish]

Interesting that you say portability...a lot of people are screaming over...

You asked if we were dolts as you seem to assume your wife is. It's not the ability or inability to read 1000 pages, I've no problem reading long texts. The problem if you bothered to read it, is the 'additions' thrown throughout, sections and subsections that are related to other titles within. Even lawyers are having trouble reading the bill, imagine what implementation would be like, if it were to pass.

Back up a minute...I never said ANYONE was a dolt, especially my wife.

Let's pause for the cause a moment and focus on ME for a minute. I go out of my way not to use the words "liberal" "conservative" "republican" and "democrat" because 9 times out of 10 they are about as surgically precise as a rusty spork. I'm sure you could find somewhere where I lapse, but for the most part that's my guiding philosophy.

I dont mind spirited talk...heck I've come to your house and started posting...but just be careful, will you?

Now...

I have "bothered to read it" ALL of it. More than once. And yes, I understand that there are sections full of definitions used in other sections. That's nothing new. Lawyers having problems reading the bill is nothing new. (Sorry, brothers and sisters) But there are clear standards for "overbreadth" and "vaguery" regarding the law. I haven't seen anyone apply them to this bill yet, including you.

I completely agree with your wife. I think she is right on the money with her thoughts. If I understand it correctly, passing this health care reform will cause us to be paying for the health care of about a third of the population. My guess is that third will be all lower income individuals, illegal aliens, and most specifically people who generally live off of the public dole anyway. I don't think the Constitution makes a provision for the government handing out this kind of freebies. Health care/insurance is not a "right" that is to be provided by the government. The government has no business in this pot of stew and neither do they in the auto industry, banking and mortgage industry either. It would be nice if they paid more attention to the Consititution and the actual real will of the working people of this country. Simply put, why would I want to pay more taxes just so a "no load freeloader" could get free health care?

You're making a blanket unconstitutionality claim without backing it up. The constitutionality of Medicare is iron-clad. So iron-clad that the entire act has NEVER BEEN LITIGATED. Parts have, but not the constitutionality of the entire act. When you can explain to me in specifics how Medicare (and therefore this proposed bill) are unconstitutional, I'll listen. Really I will. Honest.

There's no element of our economic structure that's "part socialist"; socialism necessitates public ownership of the means of production. Reference to the mixed economy as a "combination of capitalism and socialism" is based on corruption of the textbook economic spectrum, which ranges from "pure" laissez-faire economic structure to "pure" command economic structure without acknowledgment that neither has ever enjoyed historical implementation. The capitalist economy has always been mixed in nature.

As for the answer to your question, legitimate socialism is typically based on measurement of personal contribution, while capitalism is based on flawed measurement of personal contribution in addition to the contribution of one's property, which of course is related to the ever-present issue of the sluggardly millionaires reaping more than the hard-working indigent.

Hate to say it, but you're a bit off. Yes, "each according to his contribution" is part of the basis for socialism, to be sure. This is a move towards meritocracy. You get what you deserve based on community standards, enforced by a centralized planing system. (Of course the ideas of "who makes the standards" is a HUGE discussion)

Captialism, on the other hand, is the use of one's own private assets to buy labor and sell assets, allowing market forces to dictate prices and profit, as well as where and how resources are used and allocated.

The problem is that an unregulated market leads to excessive injustice by the market winners. It's a prevalent myth that some form of eternal competition is in itself is a natural state. Competition without regulation will not result in there being competition for very long - someone is going to win the competition.

The rational objective of any company in a competitive market is to increase their market share as much as possible at the expense of their rivals. If there is no regulation in place then the end-game of any economy is for there to be monopoly - the most efficient company will always end up totally dominating the market. Once they do that then they do not need to be efficient and do not need to provide a particularly good service.

The government needs to regulate to protect against monopoly and preserve competition. It is unbelievable that so many people still haven't grasped that.

So to say that there's no mixed system when we obviously have centrally-planned, equality based regulation for progressive re-distribution while at the same time we have private, for profit market competition is flat wrong. It's not just a shade of captialism, its both.

 

[Navy1960]

A couple of things from this thread - first off, there's a provision in the bill that excludes illegal aliens from the program explicitly, so people to get off that horse.

Second, this plan really does the opposite. When you're talking "for the lazy" - well, that really applies more to the public health care we already have, as it's income-based. And that debate is over; Medicaid isn't going anywhere.

The language of the health care bill, in regard to coverage of illegal immigrants, is obscure and can be understood to cover illegal immigrants but also to exclude them. President Obama assures the American people that illegal immigrants will not be covered; however, recently the House Ways and Means Committee rejected an amendment that would have required the government to verify that those enrolling in the "public plan" are not illegal immigrants.

Without a system in place to verify an individual’s immigration status, how will we identify those here illegally? We can’t, that may just be the point.
Health care reform to cover illegal immigrants?

Might be a reason people are asking that question because the bill makes it very unclear as to specifically how one verify's if they are a citizen. In fact the provision you are talking about is about credits to actually purchase Govt. run healthcare.

As for the thread title, I will only say this, the thread topic asks about laziness as it applies to socialism and I would point out that many healthcare innovations have come from those societies and that does not make them lazy. If someone is on a social program perhaps they find themselves there through a number of different ways. but to automatically assume it makes them lazy is a bit of a stretch IMO. While there is always going to be people who scam the system be it public or private, I do think it a bit unfair to simply paint those that are involved in a social healthcare program or society as being lazy.

How do you envision them qualifying for a free plan? What would they have to do?

If by them you mean Care, Illegal Immigrants, then the best way for anyone to qualify for healthcare benefits under a Govt. run program is to finally institute some much needed immigration reforms that addresses this issue. For example, it's my belief that if you work here, and pay taxes here then there is no reason why you should not be able to benefit from paying those taxes, however that being said if you work here and do not take the time to follow the laws to become a citizen then the govt. owes you nothing in return. Here in Arizona and in a few states in order to get a DL or state ID you must be able to provide a BC and a second form of ID that proves you are a citizen or legally allowed to be in this country. I see nothing at all wrong with a requirement such as this when it comes to applying for healthcare benefits under a "free plan". Secondly, "free benefits" should be attached with conditions such as helping people become self reliant and giving them the dignity they need to master their own lives. If you have such a system then it becomes less of a hand out and more of a hand up which these programs should be as it applies to "free" . I don't think many would argue that a nation should take care of it's Seniors, it's disabled, and those not able to take care of themselves. However, I do think this can be tempered with adding a little self respect and dignity to those that need it on a temporary basis.

 

[Vel]

While I agree that changes need to occur in the way that health care is delivered and paid for in this country, I look at the proposal coming from the Whitehouse and it makes me more than uncomfortable. I know that Obama and company are doing their best to villify the insurance companies ( and in some cases with cause ) but we seem to be forgetting exactly what insurance is and that the companies that Obama wants to mandate to started out as private companies. The below is from the letter that David Axelrod has been sending out.

"Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Emphasis mine.
Learn more and get details: Health Insurance Consumer Protections "

My first thought when I saw that list was "takeover". Some regulation is certainly needed, but .....

I don't know. I'm having a "duh" day but I just know that this seems to go against this country's basic ideals of freedom. Maybe someone needs to start a better type of insurance company that gives people what they need that will take customers from the old insurance industry. Sort of like cell phones now dominate the telephone industry. The government didn't have to "make" the AT&T be more responsive to customer needs, Verizon did that.

I think it's time to look outside the box for solutions.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Vel has one of the most useful healthcare posts i've seen.

You should make a thread opening with that post

 

[Oldandtired]

My poisiton on ALL initiatives that come out of the White House....this administration or ANY administration...

If a policy has public support and will cost me more tax dollars, you will not see me argue it. However, ANY policy that comes out of ANY white house that includes my losing ANY of my liberties, is a policy I will fight till the end.

Take my money....do NOT take my liberties.

 

[toomuchtime_]

While I agree that changes need to occur in the way that health care is delivered and paid for in this country, I look at the proposal coming from the Whitehouse and it makes me more than uncomfortable. I know that Obama and company are doing their best to villify the insurance companies ( and in some cases with cause ) but we seem to be forgetting exactly what insurance is and that the companies that Obama wants to mandate to started out as private companies. The below is from the letter that David Axelrod has been sending out.

"Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Emphasis mine.
Learn more and get details: Health Insurance Consumer Protections "

My first thought when I saw that list was "takeover". Some regulation is certainly needed, but .....

I don't know. I'm having a "duh" day but I just know that this seems to go against this country's basic ideals of freedom. Maybe someone needs to start a better type of insurance company that gives people what they need that will take customers from the old insurance industry. Sort of like cell phones now dominate the telephone industry. The government didn't have to "make" the AT&T be more responsive to customer needs, Verizon did that.

I think it's time to look outside the box for solutions.

What David Axelrod didn't say in his letter is that each of these reforms will increase the cost of health insurance so that everyone who has health insurance now will pay more for it if these reforms pass. He also doesn't say how much more you will have to pay. Who would order dinner from a menu that doesn't show the prices? Who would support a bill without having any idea how much it will take out of his/her pocket? Apparently, David Axelrod doesn't understand that most Americans thought transparency in government was a promise, not just another empty campaign slogan.

 

[Vanquish]

While I agree that changes need to occur in the way that health care is delivered and paid for in this country, I look at the proposal coming from the Whitehouse and it makes me more than uncomfortable. I know that Obama and company are doing their best to villify the insurance companies ( and in some cases with cause ) but we seem to be forgetting exactly what insurance is and that the companies that Obama wants to mandate to started out as private companies. The below is from the letter that David Axelrod has been sending out.

"Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Emphasis mine.
Learn more and get details: Health Insurance Consumer Protections "

My first thought when I saw that list was "takeover". Some regulation is certainly needed, but .....

I don't know. I'm having a "duh" day but I just know that this seems to go against this country's basic ideals of freedom. Maybe someone needs to start a better type of insurance company that gives people what they need that will take customers from the old insurance industry. Sort of like cell phones now dominate the telephone industry. The government didn't have to "make" the AT&T be more responsive to customer needs, Verizon did that.

I think it's time to look outside the box for solutions.

While I can see that a lot of these provisions will have financial effects on the healthcare companies, I'm really wondering why you'd be against a lot of these reforms.

"Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

This is a mixed bag for me. Yes, any business should be able to make profitability decisions that keep them in business, including selection of clients, but it's not that simple here.



Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

Some regulation of this is surely ok. Insurance companies can't just take as much money as they want and label it "out-of-pocket". Reasonable regulation of this is FINE.

Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

Again, surely you aren't saying you're against preventative medicine??? Reasonable regulation of this is FINE. Yes some payment by the citizen is in order. So I guess I'm with you on this one...making it all the insurance company's duty is overboard.

Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

You've never heard of or experienced an insurance company cutting someone who deserves treatment for no other reason than it would cost them money and they have leverage in the situation? If you had, you'd see there's another side to this bullet point.

Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

This does seem a little weird to me. I get the Equal Protection problems, and surely there's been an insurance company who has probably discriminated against women, but there should be a good reason for doing this. (Intermediate scrutiny in con law terms)

Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

Uhm, you know what I'm going to say by now. There's a good an a bad reason for this. It's not automatically an evil reform.

Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

Families have changed over the years. Yes there are 26 year olds in situations where being on family member coverage should be allowed.

Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

You dont think that dropping someone for becoming sick happens? You dont think that it's morally reprehensible to negate your contract to provide care based on the fact that....you'll have to provide care for what you said you would?

To be fair, I can see the good and the bad side of both sides of each bullet point. I'd love to see where these bullet points come from in the actual bill (section number I mean).

 

[editec]

Like it or not we're already in a "mixed economy" - meaning part capitalism, part socialism. We have a government that redistributes wealth through taxes and entitlement programs. It's a fact.

Here's my question:

How many of you are against Obama's healthcare reform, at least in part, because you think you'll be paying for lazy, dont want to work, taking advantage, good for nothings?

Really think about it...and I'd like to hear your honest answer.

I ask this because my wife basically said as much when we were discussing healthcare today. She said she didn't want to pay for people who were (insert standard comment about welfare laze-abouts).

Is this part of the argument that Obama needs to address to get his message across?

Yes. I doubt you'll change many minds, though

Still, let me try. The poor will always be among us.

Here's what we know..(the givens)

1. 60% of the people on welfare are children.

If they're too lazy to get better parents, whose fault is that?

Now, as to the adults?

2. Most of the adults on welfare are the mothers of those welfare children.

I'm reasonable certain at least some of these mothers would be only too happy to get a job that gets them away from their kids for a while.

But, do they make enough money to justify the expense of going to work, paying daycare and so forth?

Not really.

Many of them have few skills, spotty work histories, not much charm, either. Let me be honest... pretty much what I'm saying is that they bring nothing to a perspective employer.

In a terrible economy these people are pretty much unemployable

So, if they aren't working because they're unemployable, does that mean they're lazy?

Not really.

As we ship jobs offshore, the number of unemployable people rises.

Those unemployable people will continue to cost this republic money at every turn.

How Obama makes that reality a palatable truth for people like Vanqish's wife I truly don't know.

I believe that when she calls victims lazy, it's basically her codespeak for:

I really just don't give a shit about those people​

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

So if they aren't working because they're unemployable, does that mean they're lazy?

.

Let me make the a-hole comment for you.

Yes that means they are lazy. If you're not employable then get yourself down to the local community college financial aid office and get some education. After all the welfare program provides funding for any job related training and education.

Get off your lazy ass and make yourself more employable or die a torturous starving filthy slow death.


There ya go ED.