Thanks Obamacare!

[jillian]

I don't care if it is my post it's worth repeating

It is worth repeating to show you are completely clueless regarding the economic conditions in this country.

Replaying the "poor people drive Cadilacs and eat Filet Mignon" rightwing myth proves it

No you're clueless. When you don't have the money for the basics of life you do not go out and buy things like wireless phone service, new tv go to the hair dresser, designer clothes, new car. You are totaly out of the reim of reality. When money is short you cut the non needed items and use your money on things you need.

OH and by the way, it's not a myth, I see it with my own eyes everytime I go pay a bill, such as water electric. Or I over hear at the bank about someone asking help for bounced checks.

basic cell service is a necessity.

do you know if they have landlines as well?

you know, since you know who *they* are.

personally, i've never bounced a check. but i know that lots of people with money

who are these people and how do you know *they* have no money for basics? other than the color of their skin, of course.

 

[Oddball]

Here's a revolutionary idea....Pay for your own damned insurance.

spoken like someone who never had to pay $2,100 a month for coverage for a family.

Awwww....Full coverage (read: pre-paid medical) is expensive.

To someone who bothers with an objective thought, it would seem that it's awful expensive to schlep your bills off onto someone else.

 

[finebead]

The problem is that after WWII, the US decided business would provide workers with their health insurance benefits, but business began to more and more, welch on the agreement. They quit providing health insurance to their workers in larger numbers, so that in 2007 only 61% of small businesses provided health ins. benefit to their workers. That is NOT a national health insurance system that is effective.

Updated 12/13/2007

By Julie Appleby, USA TODAY
Fewer small employers offered health insurance this year, despite the widespread availability of new, lower-cost high-deductible insurance plans, a survey released today by benefit firm Mercer shows.

Advocates of the high-deductible plans touted them as one solution to the growing number of uninsured, expecting the plans to appeal to small employers, who would continue to offer health insurance as a result.

BAD TREND: Employers pull back on health coverage

"That's not happening," says Blaine Bos, a Mercer partner and one of the study authors. "In fact, the reverse is happening."

The study of nearly 3,000 employers found that the percentage of employers with 200 workers or fewer offering any kind of health insurance fell to 61% this year from 63% in 2006.

That drop came even as the cost of high-deductible plans with tax-free savings accounts averaged $5,970 per worker per year. That was $700 less than a comparable plan without a savings account and far lower than the $7,120 for the average HMO, the study says.

Fewer small firms offer health insurance - USATODAY.com

Offering medical benefits was how employers got around FDR's stupid wage controls. Little wonder that when said controls are eliminated, that things returned to the way they were in many cases.

Here's a revolutionary idea....Pay for your own damned insurance.

I can pay for my insurance if I am guaranteed coverage. Many cannot, and that's the problem. The difference between health and auto or homeowners insurance is that accessibility is a moral issue. If you wreck your car, you can ride a bike or take a bus. If you lose your house to a fire you can sleep in your car, or in a shelter. Those are not life and death. If you get seriously ill and are denied access to the health insurance system, most individuals will not have access to the life saving treatments available today (but at high cost usually). So, the society provides access in some other ways, but not necessarily to everyone. But, the society recognizes it as a moral issue and makes an attempt to provide access, because many can't afford the monthly premium and the society does not want to see them die if they can be saved, within reason (like car wreck victims).

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It is worth repeating to show you are completely clueless regarding the economic conditions in this country.

Replaying the "poor people drive Cadilacs and eat Filet Mignon" rightwing myth proves it

No you're clueless. When you don't have the money for the basics of life you do not go out and buy things like wireless phone service, new tv go to the hair dresser, designer clothes, new car. You are totaly out of the reim of reality. When money is short you cut the non needed items and use your money on things you need.

OH and by the way, it's not a myth, I see it with my own eyes everytime I go pay a bill, such as water electric. Or I over hear at the bank about someone asking help for bounced checks.

basic cell service is a necessity.

do you know if they have landlines as well?

you know, since you know who *they* are.

personally, i've never bounced a check. but i know that lots of people with money

who are these people and how do you know *they* have no money for basics? other than the color of their skin, of course.

Wouldn't someone have a land line phone if they were paying the phone bill?

But let's just go on the opsumtion they don't have a landline, why the need for the new phone? They are close to 300.00 just for the phone.

Why would someone who has money go and ask for an extention to prevent their utliites from being shut off?

 

[AquaAthena]

And how bout that name for this monstrosity. OBAMACARE.

ain't that Obama just grand, he gonna take CARE of us all.

You understand that's the right's branding of it, don't you? It has a real name that has nothing to do with Obama, you just don't use it.

Yes they did leave out a couple of other millionaire monsters when they named that bill. It should in reality be called, "Pelosi, Reid , Obama Health Care BIll", the emergency---of 2010, not the economy and jobs! Jihad, socialist style, on what is left of the American taxpayer...

 

[Greenbeard]

Yes they did leave out a couple of other millionaire monsters when they named that bill. It should in reality be called, "Pelosi, Reid , Obama Health Care BIll", the emergency---of 2010, not the economy and jobs! Jihad, socialist style, on what is left of the American taxpayer...

If you want to associate a name with it, the one that makes the most sense is Baucus, since the shell of the ACA was provided by the Senate Finance Committee's bill.

 

[Oddball]

The problem is that after WWII, the US decided business would provide workers with their health insurance benefits, but business began to more and more, welch on the agreement. They quit providing health insurance to their workers in larger numbers, so that in 2007 only 61% of small businesses provided health ins. benefit to their workers. That is NOT a national health insurance system that is effective.


Fewer small firms offer health insurance - USATODAY.com

Offering medical benefits was how employers got around FDR's stupid wage controls. Little wonder that when said controls are eliminated, that things returned to the way they were in many cases.

Here's a revolutionary idea....Pay for your own damned insurance.

I can pay for my insurance if I am guaranteed coverage. Many cannot, and that's the problem. The difference between health and auto or homeowners insurance is that accessibility is a moral issue. If you wreck your car, you can ride a bike or take a bus. If you lose your house to a fire you can sleep in your car, or in a shelter. Those are not life and death. If you get seriously ill and are denied access to the health insurance system, most individuals will not have access to the life saving treatments available today (but at high cost usually). So, the society provides access in some other ways, but not necessarily to everyone. But, the society recognizes it as a moral issue and makes an attempt to provide access, because many can't afford the monthly premium and the society does not want to see them die if they can be saved, within reason (like car wreck victims).

If only if I had such "guaranteed coverage", I could live in a 10,000ft² house and drive a Ferrari.

Since when do you have a right to make someone else pay your bills?

 

[AquaAthena]

Yes they did leave out a couple of other millionaire monsters when they named that bill. It should in reality be called, "Pelosi, Reid , Obama Health Care BIll", the emergency---of 2010, not the economy and jobs! Jihad, socialist style, on what is left of the American taxpayer...

If you want to associate a name with it, the one that makes the most sense is Baucus, since the shell of the ACA was provided by the Senate Finance Committee's bill.

Since the bill was never read until it was signed into law, we can assume that it was corruption at it's finest and most experienced, when all involved pushed it on legislators throats with intimidation and coercion.

 

[Cuyo]

Here's a revolutionary idea....Pay for your own damned insurance.

spoken like someone who never had to pay $2,100 a month for coverage for a family.

Awwww....Full coverage (read: pre-paid medical) is expensive.

To someone who bothers with an objective thought, it would seem that it's awful expensive to schlep your bills off onto someone else.

Yeah, that's why we're attempting to figure out where that $2100 a month is going. Rather than find a way to broadcast an exorbitant cost, why not try to get the cost down?

Question, odddude, would you object to a public option that was 100% premium funded?

 

[Oddball]

Yes they did leave out a couple of other millionaire monsters when they named that bill. It should in reality be called, "Pelosi, Reid , Obama Health Care BIll", the emergency---of 2010, not the economy and jobs! Jihad, socialist style, on what is left of the American taxpayer...

If you want to associate a name with it, the one that makes the most sense is Baucus, since the shell of the ACA was provided by the Senate Finance Committee's bill.

You want to associate it with someone truly apropos?

 

[Oddball]

spoken like someone who never had to pay $2,100 a month for coverage for a family.

Awwww....Full coverage (read: pre-paid medical) is expensive.

To someone who bothers with an objective thought, it would seem that it's awful expensive to schlep your bills off onto someone else.

Yeah, that's why we're attempting to figure out where that $2100 a month is going. Rather than find a way to broadcast an exorbitant cost, why not try to get the cost down?

Question, odddude, would you object to a public option that was 100% premium funded?

Here's a way to get that down...Buy catastrophic-only coverage with a high deductible, and take the expenses for things like routine doctor visits out of pocket.

It's amazing how inexpensive life can get when you actually pay your own way.

 

[Cuyo]

Awwww....Full coverage (read: pre-paid medical) is expensive.

To someone who bothers with an objective thought, it would seem that it's awful expensive to schlep your bills off onto someone else.

Yeah, that's why we're attempting to figure out where that $2100 a month is going. Rather than find a way to broadcast an exorbitant cost, why not try to get the cost down?

Question, odddude, would you object to a public option that was 100% premium funded?

Here's a way to get that down...Buy catastrophic-only coverage with a high deductible, and take the expenses for things like routine doctor visits out of pocket.

It's amazing how inexpensive life can get when you actually pay your own way.

So is that a yes, or no?

 

[rightwinger]

Offering medical benefits was how employers got around FDR's stupid wage controls. Little wonder that when said controls are eliminated, that things returned to the way they were in many cases.

Here's a revolutionary idea....Pay for your own damned insurance.

I can pay for my insurance if I am guaranteed coverage. Many cannot, and that's the problem. The difference between health and auto or homeowners insurance is that accessibility is a moral issue. If you wreck your car, you can ride a bike or take a bus. If you lose your house to a fire you can sleep in your car, or in a shelter. Those are not life and death. If you get seriously ill and are denied access to the health insurance system, most individuals will not have access to the life saving treatments available today (but at high cost usually). So, the society provides access in some other ways, but not necessarily to everyone. But, the society recognizes it as a moral issue and makes an attempt to provide access, because many can't afford the monthly premium and the society does not want to see them die if they can be saved, within reason (like car wreck victims).

If only if I had such "guaranteed coverage", I could live in a 10,000ft² house and drive a Ferrari.

Since when do you have a right to make someone else pay your bills?

You can die without affordable healthcare

You will not die without a 10,000 sq foot house

 

[Oddball]

I can pay for my insurance if I am guaranteed coverage. Many cannot, and that's the problem. The difference between health and auto or homeowners insurance is that accessibility is a moral issue. If you wreck your car, you can ride a bike or take a bus. If you lose your house to a fire you can sleep in your car, or in a shelter. Those are not life and death. If you get seriously ill and are denied access to the health insurance system, most individuals will not have access to the life saving treatments available today (but at high cost usually). So, the society provides access in some other ways, but not necessarily to everyone. But, the society recognizes it as a moral issue and makes an attempt to provide access, because many can't afford the monthly premium and the society does not want to see them die if they can be saved, within reason (like car wreck victims).

If only if I had such "guaranteed coverage", I could live in a 10,000ft² house and drive a Ferrari.

Since when do you have a right to make someone else pay your bills?

You can die without affordable healthcare

You will not die without a 10,000 sq foot house

So, socialized medical services are going to make you immortal now?

 

[Greenbeard]

Since the bill was never read until it was signed into law...

Never read by who? Baucus's Chairman's Mark of the Finance Committee bill was about 200 pages of plain English describing current health policy and the changes his bill was making to it. That bill then went through a markup live on C-Span 2, in which amendments from Finance Committee members were debated and voted on (notably, Olympia Snowe was able to get large enough changes that she ultimately voted the bill out of committee), for about a week and a half.

About six weeks after that, the final bill resulting from the merger of the Finance bill and some provisions of the HELP committee's bill (including the provision this thread is dedicated to) was released. And about 5-6 weeks after that, the Senate voted on it. And then three months later, the House voted on that bill. Anyone who didn't read it simply didn't care. I'm sure that describes a great many elected officials but such is life.

 

[Mad Scientist]

My gawd, can you believe people actually crow about living off the backs of others via the Federal Guberment.

Isn't it great when government does things to help working people rather than just for the super wealthy?

When will that be? The Gubamint gave waivers to the "Super Wealthy" so guess who pays for your kids health care?

Middle Class.

Thanks asshole.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah, that's why we're attempting to figure out where that $2100 a month is going. Rather than find a way to broadcast an exorbitant cost, why not try to get the cost down?

Question, odddude, would you object to a public option that was 100% premium funded?

Here's a way to get that down...Buy catastrophic-only coverage with a high deductible, and take the expenses for things like routine doctor visits out of pocket.

It's amazing how inexpensive life can get when you actually pay your own way.

So is that a yes, or no?

That's a no....The cynically dubbed "public option" is a pure scam.

There simply is no right to a third-party payor for your bills, no matter how many disingenuous Orwellian words you want to wrap around it.

 

[finebead]

Offering medical benefits was how employers got around FDR's stupid wage controls. Little wonder that when said controls are eliminated, that things returned to the way they were in many cases.

Here's a revolutionary idea....Pay for your own damned insurance.

I can pay for my insurance if I am guaranteed coverage. Many cannot, and that's the problem. The difference between health and auto or homeowners insurance is that accessibility is a moral issue. If you wreck your car, you can ride a bike or take a bus. If you lose your house to a fire you can sleep in your car, or in a shelter. Those are not life and death. If you get seriously ill and are denied access to the health insurance system, most individuals will not have access to the life saving treatments available today (but at high cost usually). So, the society provides access in some other ways, but not necessarily to everyone. But, the society recognizes it as a moral issue and makes an attempt to provide access, because many can't afford the monthly premium and the society does not want to see them die if they can be saved, within reason (like car wreck victims).

If only if I had such "guaranteed coverage", I could live in a 10,000ft² house and drive a Ferrari.

Since when do you have a right to make someone else pay your bills?

The question is what type of heathcare system do we want in america? The society has decided we want a moral system, otherwise we would not attempt to save accident victims who are seriously injured and it is not known if they have insurance or an ability to pay, we just save them if possible. We do that because it is the moral thing to do. So, as a society we have decided to do the morally correct thing with healthcare.

Other societies have decided to cover everyone, and they do, and they spend a lot less per person than the US does, like England spends about 10% of GDP to cover everyone, while the US spends 17% of GDP to cover 84% of the people. But, the insurance companies make the rules up, and they are our first death panel, throwing people off their insurance if they get too sick, or denying them coverage is they lose their job and they or their family member has a pre-existing condition, even though they had coverage before for years. That's wrong. So many people see its wrong, they voted in enough dems and Obama to change it, and they did. I'm glad, it was needed.

Did we get the best reform package we could? Under the circumstances, probably. But, if the repubs had put some effort into getting a better system instead of just saying no, we might have gotten a better reform. But the changes we got were needed. We need "must insure", remove lifetime maximums, no dropping folks who get sick and need the insurance.

 

[jillian]

Awwww....Full coverage (read: pre-paid medical) is expensive.

To someone who bothers with an objective thought, it would seem that it's awful expensive to schlep your bills off onto someone else.

it's not 'schepping' (which means 'dragging', btw, i think you mean 'sloughing') your bills off onto someone else. collective bargaining brings down the price. fact of life. i have better coverage now and pay far less for it.

as for objective thought, let me know when you think about the real-life ramifications of the dickensian nightmare you think passes for an acceptable world.

 

[AquaAthena]

Not only was it not read, it was not even written, by Baucus. He has admitted that. I wll find it for you but for now, I am saying *Bygones* to this thread of nothing learned.

Happy New Year.