Values Voters: In Wellpoint We Trust
Earlier this weekend I asked this question on Twitter:
Are we really that cold, that there is an acceptable percentage of people we're willing to allow to be sick, destitute, hopeless?
I posed it in response to Media Research Center VP Dan Gainor's comment to me about my revulsion at the standing ovation in the video above when Mike Pence practically spat the words "repeal Obamacare, lock, stock and barrel". The crowd went absolutely wild over that. Wild. This is a crowd, by the way, of self-proclaimed "values voters." What Gainor said was this:
We had a relatively small number of people w/o insurance. Crazy and power mad to get govt involved in health care for all
I realize that we all have different perspectives on health care, but frankly, his remark sounded so Dickensian that it was like a double slap after seeing the craven hordes in that video. Here is someone saying with complete clarity that it was perfectly all right for a certain percentage of our populace to live without dignity, to be denied access to health care. In the system we have, no insurance means no access unless one has a lot of money. 51 million people (at last count) do not have a lot of money. Only a very few have the means to go without health insurance and survive financially.
Dan Gainor aside, Mike Huckabee's comments at this same conference were equally mind-boggling. Here's what he said about the uninsured:
"It sounds so good, and it's such a warm message to say we're not gonna deny anyone from a preexisting condition," Huckabee explained at the Value Voters Summit today. "Look, I think that sounds terrific, but I want to ask you something from a common sense perspective. Suppose we applied that principle [to] our property insurance. And you can call your insurance agent and say, "I'd like to buy some insurance for my house." He'd say, "Tell me about your house." "Well sir, it burned down yesterday, but I'd like to insure it today." And he'll say "I'm sorry, but we can't insure it after it's already burned." Well, no preexisting conditions."
Permit me a short rant here from my own Christian perspective. Huckabee's remarks here are bald, naked hypocrisy couched in folksy non-logic. They also prove the utter lack of human values these 'values voters' hold and make a strong argument for why the health insurance paradigm is so flawed, even if it is what we've got.
A house is not a life. A house is a collection of wood and drywall and pipes and wires that's put together in a way that shelters the humans who live in it. A house is a thing, an inanimate object. It serves a purpose, a purpose which serves those who live in it. Insuring a house is insuring a thing.
Health is something entirely different. If one were to apply Huckabee's pure argument, there would be no life insurance market, because death is inevitable. No one is immortal. Everyone dies. Therefore, loss is an expected component of a life insurance policy and so there just shouldn't be such a thing. If loss is inevitable, then why bother to insure anyone?
Health "insurance" is really not insurance at all in the sense that Huckabee presents. It is a risk pool, one that benefits everyone who participates by allowing them to pay before the need arises to benefit from it. It isn't a hedge against fire or earthquakes or tornadoes or hurricanes, because each and every participant will need to use it at some point.
If Huckabee and the Values folks were true to their "values", they would heed the words of Jesus, who called his followers to share what they had with others, to feed the poor, care for widows and orphans, to look out for their neighbors as if they were their own. But instead, they rise in a frenzy of hate and bitterness and some other selfish driving force and call for their fellow citizens to be deprived of one of the most basic needs of mankind.
"Save the babies!", they cry. Bloated with righteous indignation over aborted babies, they agitate and cry for the children, the 'precious children', the future of our land, but nowhere do they acknowledge that saving the babies goes farther than shutting down Planned Parenthood. It means giving the babies access to health, and a home, and an education, and a start in life, or at least a toehold.
Here's a fact: Christians are no more likely to reach out and help those in need than non-Christians, despite the call of their God to do so. No. more. likely. Christians are as morally bankrupt as anyone else. Equally. Christians do not have any right to claim moral superiority or higher-minded values because it is not what anyone says, it is how we choose to live.
Right now, this minute, while millions of Christians across this country are sitting in church crying "Amen" to the preacher's diatribe, people are hungry, living in poverty, doing without. More people than ever are in need. Food banks across this nation have empty shelves. Children are living with their parents in the back seat of the family car, which may be the next thing they lose. Right now. This minute.
Right now, this minute, while millions of Christians across this country are sitting in church silently applauding their pastor's subtle condemnation of gays or the President or the stimulus or health care reform, someone is not receiving a cancer, diabetes or heart disease diagnosis because they have no money to go to the doctor and find out what it is that's causing their fatigue, breathing difficulties, or dizziness. Right now. This minute.
Right now, this minute, while millions of Christians across this country are sitting in church silently thanking God that there's a Mike Pence coming to save this nation from the black guy in the Oval Office with the weird name and the Kenyan father, other people are doing whatever they can to help the family living in their car, the undiagnosed sick patient, the hungry and the homeless. They don't call themselves "values voters." They call themselves human beings. Right now. This minute.
So to the Mike Pences, Mike Huckabees, Dan Gainors, and the rest of you who think it's perfectly righteous to stand in united opposition to "Obamacare" and deny your fellow citizens the right to access and pay for health care they need, I ask you which of these statements is more representative of your "values"?
"In God We Trust"
"In Wellpoint We Trust"
Finally, consider this: Mike Pence, that wild-eyed Obamacare-spitting dude in the video won the 2012 Presidential straw poll among these so-called values voters. That's the same Mike Pence whose highest contributors include Blue Cross/Blue Shield, banks and investment companies.
In oligarchs they trust. In Wellpoint they trust. In war they trust. In money they trust. In compassion and love, not so much.
Dear god, please protect me from those who believe in you.
Mike Huckabee can't see any difference between a house and a human being. He has by definition lost his sense of humanity and so have those who applaud his words. Enough said.
Thankfully, they're not the same as mine.
Actually, I'd rather they were the same as mine. I'd rather we deal with this than continue to ignore it, but I don't expect that to happen.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Things like this and it reinforces my opinion that your country is truly corrupt. Especially when politicians can sucker ppl in believing the crap that spews out of their mouths.Canada has it's own fair share of problems as well but at least I didn't go bankrupt from a near fatal illness last year.
Memo to Huckleberry: Yeah, it's true, if your house burns down, the insurance company won't sell you insurance to cover it, but at least you'd be able to get a new policy when you get another house. Not so with the health insurance industry wherein the existence of any pre-existing condition(no matter how minor) generally means NO company will issue you health insurance coverage.
If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders.
George Carlin
Huckabee is either sadly ignorant on insurance practices and terminology, or he's comfortably lying to defend his own point of view. My bet is on the latter.
Agreed - if your house burns down today, you can't buy a policy tomorrow. But as you point out, that's not what health insurance companies are doing with their 'pre-existing conditions.' They're saying not only can you not buy a fire policy on that house, but you can't buy fire insurance on any house. Or if you are allowed to buy a home policy, they just might decide later that yeah, you have fire insurance, but they're not going to pay for the roof that got blown off in the tornado, because of that pre-existing condition.
And Huckabee is also ignoring the little detail that when it comes right down to it, no matter how bad your claims record, you *can* get auto or home insurance. Even theoretically uninsurable properties and drivers can get coverage through what is know as a shared risk pool. Insurance companies are required by law to accept a certain number of these policies as a condition of doing business in the state; the state helps pick up the tab.
but home insurance policy doesn't cover pre-existing problems in your new home either. A better way for Huckabee to have put it would of been maybe like this. If your home has a problem with the roof when you get insurance for it, the insurance will not cover the roof or any damages caused by the problems ie damages to drywall due to the leaking roof.
But if your roof was okay when you purchased the insurance and a tree branch came down on it or a hail storm damaged it and the drywall was damaged from leaking, insurance would cover it.
burned down yesterday, then you don't have a home to insure today. Seems to sound good to people who cannot reason. Trying to insure something that doesn't exist is called "fraud."
To compare property with life is despicable, dishonest, and immoral. You know, Republikan.
if I only had a small fire, with lots of smoke damage? I still have a home, it's just damaged. Should I be able to purchase insurance today for the fire that happened yesterday? Or if I hit a tree in my car and only had liability. Should I be able to go out after and get full coverage? And expect them to cover the damage?
1) There is no question that every human being will, at one point or another in their lifetime, require access to health care. This is as much a given as death. It will happen. It isn't a possibility, it is a reality.
2) On the other hand, there is no absolute that one's home will burn down. This is the difference between insurance and risk pools. Risk pools are built to save in advance for inevitable need; insurance is built to cover the risk that something might, but also might not, happen.
3) Risk pools only work when they are built in advance of need. This is why it would be required -- whether via a single payer method or the hybrid method that hcr is -- for people to participate before the need arises. However, there is also an element of cost/risk built in for the possibility of people born with conditions requiring medical attention where there would be no way to advance-fund them.
Comparing health risks to the risk of one's home burning down is ridiculous. As I said in the post, a home is a thing. People are not things. People are complex, living beings who will need the services of a health professional at some point in their lives. There are preventive measures they can take to mitigate the need and the risk, but nothing will mitigate the fact that they will need health services. Therefore, building a pool to hedge that need is the most fiscally responsible way to go. Excluding those who might need it sooner rather than later makes absolutely no sense and in no way equates to the loss of a "thing".
is a risk pool also. I will agree with you that everyone will need health care at one point or another. But what varies will be the amount someone will need. That is where the risk pool comes in. To make it simple population size 100, 99 of those may need $10 in health care 1 will need $1000. Those 100 people don't know which one is going to be the 1. So they form a pool. Instead of running the chance of being that 1 and being financially ruined, they all chip in to cover. So instead of 99 people paying $10 and and 1 person paying $1000 they all pay $19.90.
Home insurance works the same way, but instead of being guaranteed you are going to need it, you just might. Same 100 people only 1 is going to have a fire, again who knows which. Instead of possibly being out $1000 they know they will only be out $10
I don't think so.
Health "insurance" is a misnomer. it is not "insurance". it is a risk pool.
for homes or autos, why health?
And Karoli, as I shown above. House insurance or health insurance are both risk pools.
You thinking about defrauding someone and want our opinion whether you can get away with it?
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
Just asking if people here thought it was okay to do so.
And if so in some cases why not others.
There is a song by Justin Timberlake, "Losing My Way" that is very appropriate for this discussion. In it he sings about a young man who gets addicted to crack and turns invisible to everyone, especially those who claim to be Christian. That is exactly what we have here: So called Christians who not only turn a blind eye to those less fortunate than they, they are truly blind to the plight of others. There is nothing Christ like about these social conservatives. In fact, they are the epitome of evil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHuq-a3lKOQ
Election 2012: Be Educated! Be Active! Vote!
www.phoenixjustice.com
I largely agree with this article, in particular Christians are no more moral than people of any other faith or non-believers. I'd argue non-believers think about incentives, disincentives, and the ethical concepts whereas the suspension of rationality that religion requires actually allows and encourages more suspension of rationality and ethics. I point to Catholic corporal works of mercy, which commands them to help people.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10198d.htm
Where is the moral leadership on taking care of people? Oh yes, busy apologizing profusely, but actually doing nothing, about child rape. There is no responsibility here. Just a bunch of platitudes.
Not having insurance is bad enough but there are also thousands of people that can't afford to use the insurance they have. God help you if you have a chronic or truly debilitating illness. Many people have a typical 80/20 plan where the insurance company pays 80% of treatment. The remaining 20% can add up quickly to staggering debt.
Roosevelt insisted that a form of social insurance that did not look like charity. He wanted it to look like a private insurance plan that was tied to a person's working contribution and he wanted it simple.
''We can never insure 100 percent of the population against 100 percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life,'' said Roosevelt.
I think a lot of the criticisms of this health care program are related to how different it is from the ideology of social security. We have made health care profitable. We let the issue go too long because Americans got too lazy, especially the American liberal who should have come up with a simple, fair, not all encompassing and grandiose program.
No one should go bankrupt, or lose even a majority of their savings, let alone their house, or life, because of either inherited or unpredictable illness that their behavior did not cause.
But when it comes to behavior induced illnesses? There are many costs to health when people simply do not take care of themselves. I hear constantly, "why should I change my lifestyle when I can just take a pill."
There is something that triggers that old American individualism in a very harsh, rude way, and it says "OK, you don't give a crap about yourself? Then neither do I. You are on your own." And I don't think that this is unethical or immoral. It's ethically neutral, and consistent with a person's own view of themselves and acts as an incentive to take care of one's self.
Roosevelt wanted a program that didn't look like a handout. This one looks like a handout to people who don't take care of themselves, and especially looks like a handout to a very profitable health care insurance industry.
It really is not a great program, and it really is not "better than nothing" which is such a cop out retort for something that isn't great or simple.
The present health care law does nothing to encourage people to take care of themselves. It encourages more of the same concept of health care we had before, which is rather polluted. More pill popping madness. No improvement for mental care. No preventative incentives.
It's really kindof a sham. And it's probably just a matter of time before Republicans gut it, make it suck worse, and use it as a framed portrait of how government can't work right, because they like sabotaging stuff like this. It wasn't designed to be sabotage proof. It was designed mostly to not piss off the profitable health care industry, not actually do anything different.
Time and again, I read people ranting against the injustice of high premiums and inability to get coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
Health insurance is a BUSINESS. The companies aren't there to subsidise everyone healthcare. They are there to reduce the chances of catastrophic financial hardship in the case that a serious illness occurs for its subscribers. It's called "INSURANCE" for a reason.
And the house analogy is a admittedly a slightly flawed one.
A better analogy would be car warranty. You buy a new car, you can purchase extended warranty, in monthly installments, and the manufacturer will guarantee all repairs on the car during its lifetime (assuming appropriate usage).
Now you've had a car for 13 years, not paid for extended warranty, and things look like they're about to fall apart. Why should the manufacturer offer you the same monthly payment plan for extended warranty starting now, when you've not been paying like a regular customer, and the manufacturer knows you'll probably need extensive repairs in the near future?
Why would a BUSINESS accept liability for great financial costs that it knows it will have to pay out nearly immediately for a relatively small "premium"?
And for those saying "but this is someone's life, not just some thing": Well, to the profit driven companies, it is just some "thing". A company that gives in to and pays out for every sob story or valid personal crisis isn't a company, it's a charity.
If you want comprehensive healthcare for all, then it needs to be run as a non-profit entity that everyone pays for. This would mean a government-run, single-payer system.
Forcing companies to pick up the tab is never going to work. Either the premiums become prohibitively expensive, the coverage becomes minimal, or the insurance companies go bankrupt and no-one is covered.
If you're going to fight for healthcare reform, the only system that is "compasionate" is single-payer. Anything else is flawed beyond hope. Including the disregard of pre-existing conditions.
But therein lies the problem with the present system. It's become so business and profit centric, that the expected return is simply unreasonable because that's what they're used to. So healthy people are dropping out of the system, not paying in anymore, leaving more sick/unhealthy people and thus the insurance companies have "no choice" but to start chopping procedures and illnesses previously covered. It's a downward spiral and simply not sustainable, but would take years for the rot to get so bad that it would collapse, in the meantime everyone really suffers. Even the generally healthy person who pays in for years can get screwed at this point.
The only way out of the pre-existing condition issue is to compel everyone to join into the system now. You can't just wait until you have a problem, or people will not pay into the system, and free load. But Democrats and Republicans really didn't have a problem with this solution to the pre-existing condition problem. Huckabee is being revisionist and a political opportunist. There really isn't a point on pre-existing conditions, because politically that one was already swept under the carpet - you have to pay in now, or you're going to get penalized.
Is there ethically a problem with forcing people, against their will, to enrich a rather specific private corporation? Possibly. But if you say it's optional, you arrive right at the same problem we're having now, which is healthy people backing out of their insurance coverage, which quickly dilutes the pool.
If someone like me, who can't afford ten grand a year for insurance that won't pay my medical bills until I pay another ten grand out of pocket, gets throat cancer, I'm freeloading if I seek treatment? What should I do? DIE? You are saying that freeloaders should just DIE... just suffer horribly, and hopefully DIE QUICKLY.
This is sick. Money trumping human misery and death is just sick. This country is beyond redemption. It's perverted beyond all hope.
something gives you the right to force others to pay for it? To me that idea is perverted beyond all hope.
is a fairly perverted proposition.
Something tells me you don't grasp the magnitude of the irony in your reply.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
money over life? But since you replied, perhaps you can answer the question. Why should you be able to force someone else to pay for what you want or need?
At it's base it is slavery. You are forcing someone else to work for your gain.
Your idea is to force people to die because they get sick. Which is the moral choice? Do you care?
Morally letting someone die is different than killing them. Your argument "force people to die" is invalid and merely an emotional statement. People are going to die anyway. Saying that intervention is morally good, and non-intervention is morally wrong is not sustainable or compelling.
Doctors take an oath, they're in a different category. Regular people? It is a choice and if they do not choose to help and intervene doesn't make them morally wrong. It might make them a waste of space. And it might mean that they are acting against their own interest. And you can make all kinds of efficiency arguments. But stating this is a moral choice to become involved in a complete stranger's health situation is an endless, unanswerable position.
Your line of rational (irrational) necessarily leads one to conclude that hunger is a health problem, because if you do not feed every starving person on the planet, YOU are forcing them to die. Therefore you are not allowed to save money for your vacation, car, house, gift for a friend, or retirement, until you solve world hunger.
is morally wrong is not sustainable or compelling."
Intervention into the suffering of another being is moral. For you to argue that it isn't is immoral. How can you justify letting any creature suffer when you are capable of stopping the suffering?
You are a baiter and troll or you're illiterate. I did not argue that ending someone's suffering is immoral. Apparently you are unable to read without making assumptions about the worst possible position in your opponent because you are REGULARLY putting words into people's mouths, things they did not write, things they did not say, things they are not arguing.
Ending suffering might be moral. This moral absolutism rarely works, and there are all kinds of examples where it fails and the result is a worse result. You cannot say ending suffering is always moral. It might be moral. But you certainly cannot (correctly) say that refusing to end someone's suffering is immoral. It's not a sustainable position.
And for all of the believers out there, this is exactly how your deity behaves 100% of the time. He watches suffering and willfully does not intervene at all.
Here we are with the obligatory ad hominem attack from someone who can't validate his mean spirited selfishness with anything other than more mean spirited selfishness. I asked you to explain your points, and when you don't do that, you leave them open to my interpretation. What you say and what I think you say are obviously not always the same thing. You're not used to having anyone talk back to you, are you?
It is in the context you are referring to, a group of people who pay into something in case something happens, to mitigate risk. And if someone wants to join a pool be it auto,home,health,life insurance. That is fine, it is a mutually agreed upon contract.
Forcing someone into that pool is not quite the same. For instance you could refer to a plantation owners paid workers his labor pool. You could refer to his slaves the same.
Your idea is slavery.
Just like taxes! Slavery!
Just like mandatory auto insurance! Slavery!
Just like laws against burglary (because I could make a lot of money breaking into houses and selling what I take, and in shorter order than it takes me to earn money now, in the traditional manner, but THE MAN makes me work a straight job)! Slavery!
Get it yet? There are compelling interests of society as a whole involved here- getting health care costs under control, allowing people to live healthier, longer lives. And you're already in the pool, paying the costs of those who can't afford to pay their medical bills with higher premiums if you're already covered and covering the tax write-offs that health care providers take when those bills go unpaid.
Timjoebillybob just made me write this! Slavery!
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
can be considered a form of slavery. Forced auto insurance also might be able to be considered it, except your not required to own a car.
Not being allowed to break into others homes is not, actually stealing can be considered a form of slavery, you take what they earned against their will, what is the difference if I make you toil in my fields for my benefit without your consent, or just take what you earned elsewhere?
great oppression, TJBB.
Paul Robeson - Nobody Knows the Trouble I've Seen
me-oww!
sorry, but slavery is being shut out of a pathway to wellness. that's slavery.
explain how that is slavery?
By you not being able to afford something is not slavery imo, you are free to try to convince me otherwise.
Why should you be able to force someone else to pay for what you want or need?
That's how I feel about the military. I don't want or need it so why am I paying?
I also don't have any children so why do my taxes go to education?
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
being used by the right wing to get their way. "It's Slavery!" is whitey, co-opting yet another part of the Black Experience, in a way that it will denigrate the experience, and get others to hop on the downtrodden white guy wagon. And make other impossibly wealthy white guys with superiority complexes, EVEN WEALTHIER. So it's a handy phrase that kills 3 birds with one stone.
But the "It's Slavery!" has to appear to have started in the grass roots. So TJBB is fulfilling his true masters' wish--by spreading the word that helping others = slavery.
And he's helping them for no pay (since I assume he's unaware of the true nature of his meme). What could be more ironic?
me-oww!
I'm co opting the black experience? Ever hear of white slavery? Or indentured servitude how it used to work where you could never earn enough to pay it off? There have been probably more whites who were made slaves than blacks.
I've argued for a long time that voting for politicians is complete b.s. We should just get rid of them.
We now have the ability, technologically, to vote for policies directly based on funding and defunding projects. Everyone could subscribe to a service of their choice, that will give them the individual percentages for each pet project in the budget. Or individuals could spend the time to figure their own percentages. They could choose 100% healthcare and 0% military, or 100% military and no social services at all. Or 1% for each of 100 projects, or really whatever breakdown they want. And what we end up with is what people are willing to pay for. Everyone freeloads on something anyway, so yeah we wouldn't get rid of free loaders, but I think getting corporations and lobbyists out of the income tax orgy pie and making public policy (which only happens when there's money) is a good thing.
Those f'n lobbyists can lobby the tax payers directly.
When huge chunks of the population can't name all of the POTUSes or find Brazil on a globe, there's no fucking way in the world to trust them to figure out why a proposed deduction in the tax code may be a great thing or may be a horrible thing.
And if you haven't noticed, it's really easy to sway the opinions of the masses through lies.
There's a good reason that Socrates was no fan of Athens' direct democracy.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
By the way. I have no problems with my tax money going to education because I want the people that live in society to be literate and have some basic knowledge of the world.
I seriously do object to paying for the military, but I have no choice. It's not only for financial reasons, but moral also. The military does not advance the common weal, education and heath care do. .
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
yes being taxed to fund the military is a form of slavery but at least in the US it is one that is allowed by the Constitution.
You wont get any argument from me on education though.
if we were on Huff Post, I would fan and fave you!
“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”
All would pay into it, like SS. It would be a common fund paid for by its participants, to benefit everyone. Like SS would work if the GOP thieves would pay back what they embezzled from it.
What you get back from social security is directly related to what you put into it. You're talking about a fund that everyone puts in, based on a tax, which means some people put in more than others, but everyone takes out what they need. Totally different than social security, and very likely the core of why there's so much disagreement on it. It's a dole, unlike social security.
Look, some of this is just bad luck and there's no affordable way to cover every possibility 100%. Even Roosevelt understood this with social security and unemployment. The idea was for it to be a buffer, to prevent the deplorable conditions of the 1920's and 30's. It wasn't a way for old people to earn a living wage from the government. And then, just like now, if you pay more into the system, you get more from the system. It's based on your contribution.
If you believe that they do, you are just wrong.
Pay attention, please. I specifically said it wasn't a way to earn a living wage. And it wasn't designed to do that either.
.
an individual worker pays into it.Overly simplifying this issue leads to misinformation which will not solve the problems.
The survivor is entitled to the benefits of the parent or spouse, because that person paid into the system. If they didn't pay *any* social security tax, there is no survivor benefit.
it's not what you said. What is the "dole" you are referring to? It seems related to single-payer.
I do not understand why some people begrudge others SS. Do you understand why this is done?
The "dole" is the health care plan that has been turned into law. The idea that people pay in relative to their income (i.e. some people pay more than others) and yet those who pay more do not necessarily get more. That is not how social security works.
I do understand why some people begrudge others social security. There are two types: assholes and idiots. They either do not understand how the system works or why it was created or both. Or they understand it clearly (rare) and still oppose it in which case they're kinda assholes because the kinder thing to do when old people run out of savings and can no longer afford their apartment or house, is to shoot them in the head, rather than what these anti-SS nut cases want, which is to kick them out of their house and turn them into an aged population of pan handlers living under bridges until they die.
If I thought there were really a way for taxpayers/goverment to wash their hands of responsibility for people who don't want to pay into and thus not get anything out of social security. I'd support it. Again, if they don't give a rat's ass about themselves, why should I? But the reality is, if these people opted out, didn't pay into the system, outlived their savings, absolutely we'd have government bailing them out anyway when they get old and homeless because no one really wants to see visions of their grandparents cooking rat stew then sleeping under a bridge and getting mugged by some other old mean fucker with a bat.
The social security argument is old and stupid and it's annoying Democrats don't give Republicans talking of privatization and unconstitutionality of social security some STFUsauce. It has been before SCOTUS three times, it is not unconstitutional by definition. It would be a moral and judicial travesty 80 some years later to get rid of it, besides not making sense. And privatization would result in a government induced bubble. It's moral hazard. You can't have government telling us what stocks or funds we can buy and all plans do that because you can't have people putting all their stock in Enron and then losing it. Because if they lose it all, there'd still necessarily be a stop gap that the government would be responsible for, otherwise there'd be no point in having social security.
So yes I understand them...they're assholes or idiots.
a self-supporting fund. SS wasn't intended to be a dole, and if the Republikans hadn't embezzled so much money from it, which they are now trying to avoid paying back, it would be self-supporting as it was intended to be, forever. Leave a nickel on a sidewalk in DC, and a Republikan will sniff it out, pick it up, and keep it for himself.
So what do you think about corporate welfare? Take subsidies from the US government (taxpayers), and keep your profits offshore so you don't have to pay taxes. Outsource your jobs to third world nations where people will work for peanuts and you will not be bothered by environmental laws or unions. Relatively speaking, which costs more? Taking care of old and sick people in this country, even some slackers, or giant corporations that have corrupted every branch of the US government? Rhetorical questions, as I don't want to further ruffle your feathers.
I don't begrudge anyone their social security, ssi maybe a different story. I do dislike social security for a few reasons, one being that it is a ponzi scheme for the most part. It was originally set up when the average life expectancy was about 60 for males and 64 for females. And it didn't originally include spousal or survivor benefits, that started in 1940.
I can't find it at the moment but from what I've read and understand it takes somewhere between 3-5 workers to pay one persons ss.
And yes it is linked to what a person pays in, but up until the highest brackets their contribution is indexed iow inflated.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/retirebenefi...
If the Feds are going to do it(which in my opinion it is unconstitutional) they should peg it directly to what you put in and cap the payout at what you put in, with interest such as what would be earned by t-bills during that time. If you die before collecting it gets distributed to whoever you designate in your will or as would be determined for intestate succession.
...is if the worker was a government employee and opted out of Social Security in favor of their own retirement system, which also has survivor benefits.
employers match that amount paid. Who gets a choice if they work? No one. It goes into a pool, like I said. I know of people who have worked at low paying jobs for their entire working lives, and when they retire, they will be lucky to receive $800 a month from SS. Few of them have any other retirement funds. One I know quite well lost her parents when she was a young teenager, leaving her and five other siblings a small house and nothing else. Her older sister (in her late teens) supported them all. They drank a lot of tea. Not much food. Her oldest brother, a gymnast, hit his head on a springboard, and had to be institutionalized with the resultant brain damage. The tragedy in her life just never stopped. She will get a whole $800 a month after working for 40 plus years. Big fucking deal. For the first time in her life, she'll have health insurance through Medicare, which she has contributed to for 40 plus years. Begrudge her that, why don't you.
That's the point. If you can't afford to pay the premiums or the costs when you do fall ill, who should pay?
The insurance company won't, you've not been paying your premiums.
The hospital and doctors won't give it away for free.
And, according to the Republicans, the government can't, because it's "unconstitutional".
But realistically, the government can't because it's not an efficient use of taxpayers' money if it's only able to negotiate and pay for those most seriously ill and unable to pay. And it hasn't given itself the right to do so either.
In which case the current system is saying yes, please, die quickly and preferably quietly.
You emphasise "DIE" like it's a horror, a mis-carriage of justice. You're trying to evoke emotions from your readers. But at the end of the day, we're talking here about how businesses are run; for-profit, emotionless businesses. It makes no difference how we feel they should be run, what matters is how the are, and how they must be run to survive as a functioning entity.
Which is why the only healthcare reform that can be done is by government, for the people.
Single-payer.
to "thin the herd". Eventually, all the poor people will have died off because they couldn't afford insurance, and all that will be left will be the rich ones--Rethuglicans--who are obviously God's chosen people to run the country, since, dontchaknow, all us libruls are commie ba*tards and hate Amurika, and, after all, only Rethuglicans are supposed to make enough money to live comfortably.
“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”
For nomoreclintonorbush
That is why single payer is the answer. either that or force people to buy insurance form a for profit company. Or let people die who cannot afford well over $10,000 a year.
"just take a pill" mentality? Big Pharma. While I appreciate your opinions, and agree with some of them, they are a simplification of the major, overriding, overwhelming problem: Corporate control and their legal obligation to make money no matter who or what they harm.
They just didn't know what they were asking for. They cared only about the ends: cheaper healthcare. So the industry gave them cheaper healthcare, but did so by micromanaging procedures and services. That was the means. So now people are seeing that the means are relevant, not just the ends and they want a new end which is cheap, good healthcare. And the means for that is to steal from those who have resources, from those who do not. And while single payer does make that much less expensive by ending the profit motive, it is not going to change the fact that it's involuntary redistribution.
So the valid dialog that needs to occur is to what degree are we going to involuntarily redistribute. It cannot be absolute because life isn't fair. There simply aren't enough resources for everyone to have the same kind of health care at a fixed cost. Even if it's single payer, that creates moral hazard - it's the same thing as the government bailing out banks for bad behavior. Moral hazard.
the industry gave it to them. What cheaper health care? I don't follow your reasoning, so please add some details. I never saw ANY decrease in price with respect to health care.
People wanted fixed cost for small benefits like drugs and doctor visits. So we got copays. Instead of paying the actual cost of the doctor's visit, you pay a fixed price. People wanted fixed costs for these things and they got them.
Before the system we have today, we had only major medical. People were getting pissy about the money they spent on health insurance and not getting anything out of it unless they broke an arm or got into an accident or got cancer. They wanted something for their money.
So the industry gave everyone all of these little benefits like doctor visits, eye care, teeth cleaning, drugs...with low dollar copays for this. Stuff that you didn't get at all with major medical.
Now, you can't even get major medical if you're a generally healthy person and all you want to do is protect again major doo doo.
Makes sense to me!
against allowing insurance companies to be the chief providers of health care. Bravo! The sooner they fail to meet the profit expectations of investors the sooner a public option open to everyone will become inevitable. That little bit in the HCR bill is the key to making a universal health care system possible and likely.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
like police and firemen are not businesses. The police protect everyone not just the wealthy.
But at least I'm not being forced to believe in God.
(The healthcare bill does force me to purchase heath insurance from Wellpoint though)
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
I have a kind of high deductible. 10 stitches to a chin -$2100. Really. I'll pay some of it. Only as much as I think is fair though. $29.95? $39.95? $42.50? I'll think about it.
You are saying you will steal if you don't think something is worth what they want. How is that different than going to an apple orchard and let's say they $5 for a bag of apples, you take the apples and just because you don't think you should pay $5 you flip a quarter on the counter and run off.
Would you expect to be arrested and charged for theft? Would they be right in pressing charges?
Your analogy doesn't exactly fit, however. Because, see, your apple orchard probably isn't allowed to change prices according to the customer. Medical care, not so much.
I have two friends who had C-sections. Same hospital, within a month of each other. Same amount of time in the hospital. One of those friends is still paying off a bill of almost $30,000 - she'll be lucky if she can pay it off before her son is in 3rd grade. My other friend's surgery cost $7,000. That's not the amount she paid out of pocket, mind you. That's what her insurance company was actually billed.
Maybe it's just me, but there's something wrong with this picture.
can charge different prices, they charge $5 for a bag of apples to anyone who walks in off the street or they can charge $1 to someone who contracts for a different price.
Car dealers do the same. One person can pay sticker price, another can haggle them down a bit, and someone who runs a fleet of vehicles can negotiate for an even better price.
The insurance company has a contract with them for a different price. Heck I'm sure you've seen countless places that offer senior discounts haven't you? They offer different prices for different people all the time.
Part of the reason insurance co. get a better price is because the hospital knows they will get paid for covered procedures (most likely). They have no idea if a private person will or not.
My local Dr. has a discount for people without insurance who pay up front. His office will work out a payment arrangement if you can't, but you don't get the discount. Partially because of people not paying.
I'm sure god gave you a heart. Try thinking with it, instead of just using your brain.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
Yes he did, and most people consider me a pretty nice guy. I'll give you the shirt off my back or the fruits of my labor. Unless you try to take them. I've given people gas and money for gas when they needed it, I've bought people groceries and other thing. I've helped people with my labor. I never expected nor asked for any of it back. I have no problem with that, I did it willingly. Now if I caught them stealing my wallet or the gas can out of my garage well......
Same with my garden, I share a lot of produce every year, and do so willingly. But if I caught someone in my garden without my permission.... And if the govt. tried to force me to share with others, I would burn my garden to the ground and salt the earth so nothing would ever grow there again.
I'm willing to help, I'm not willing to be a slave.
I like the way you write out those thoughts. Really the only justification of the existence of the nation state is to nurture the welfare of its citizens. What can be more fundamental to that welfare than the provision of health care. Maybe education is as important but damn little else as critical as health care.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
If someone burns down Huckabee's house or douses him with gasoline and set him personally on fire, those are roughly equivalent actions? Really? Dear god, what is WRONG with these imbeciles?
...congress rams through a bill forcing everyone to purchase something from a private entity, it should be houses.
I think if everyone were forced to purchase a house, healthcare costs would go way down.
Being homeless is not conducive to good health!
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
The more I think about it the more I think of Mike Huckabee as a person I would never want to know. The more I think of him as a real bad ugly person. "Your finger got cut off? Show me the money. $5.00? That is all you have? Go over there and die you little shit." I can imagine him saying that. I really can.
I don't know if I could actually do it but it sure would be nice to be able to spit on some of these Tea Bagging jokers while they are losing their house because of a lost job or a health induced bankruptcy. Like I said, I don't think I could do it but it sure would be nice.
All the money in the healthcare insurance system right now would cover single payer. Nobody would have to pay more. Pre-existing and poor people would be covered and people like Huckleberry would not have to pay more. Think about it.
... but one of the strongest points of single-payer or universal health care systems is that those systems happen to be CHEAPER than our current for-profit approach to manage health care.
There is not only plenty of money to implement either system, we would actually end up saving money even.
What there was not enough of was political will, that however is a far more uncomfortable thought which not that many people are willing to tackle.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
Just imagine the applause if the various Mikes had had also said,'...and we're gonna shutdown social security, and distribute the Trust Fund to those who most deserve it--those good Americans making more than $250K a year. Being rich is God's own way of showing He thinks they're good and righteous folks!'
Amen This was in response to debaser71.
the workers become inured to the blood and the guts, plus they get to use that nifty gadget Anton Chigurh packed in No Country for Old Men, pretty cool, huh?
sycophants come in all colors and sizes, from the left as well as the right. what i see is a bunch of people on the left who are afraid to own up to the values behind what they preach. the right has their adam smith with his hidden hand, the left seems to have an indeterminate 'because it's right", and the public senses they are hiding something. for myself, i hide nothing, i wholeheartedly embrace the marxist critique, what you see is what you get, it is class struggle from the gitgo; always has been, always will be, world without end, no amen.
no wonder the right can sell shit sandwiches to the public, there is only nader, acting as the voice crying in the wilderness; just remember that it was the democrats who sold the piece of crap called health care reform to the public. when aunt sally goes broke paying for her hip replacement the "left" will have no one to blame but themselves.
point is, class struggle is a fact, and we need a party who will state this fact, and then do something about it. you can hardly blame the morons on the right for drinking the kool aid, when the democrats are serving up the same thing, different flavor.
Karoli and others,
Good arguments. Wrong frame.
No point basing your argument on your own illness, others' illnesses, or any of many "values" embraced by religions, That just sucks us into a conversation about "what's-good-for-you-and-me" or "what's-truest-to-the-Faith." And then we are talking about self-interest and religion, which are not the point, and neither one is well addressed by public policy.
The only coherent argument for a national health insurance policy has to be one that addresses national health as the core argument, and not as a collateral benefit of helping the poor or sick. Media mavens, with their PR sophistication and focus groups, are likely to disagree. That's because they are stuck in the same individualistic mindset as everyone else. They argue for self-interest, and then are disappointed when folks say, "I'm not interested."
In sum, the national health is in decline and causes other declines in security and economy. Argue for policy to fix you sick nation, not your sick neighbor.
Sure, you can't get insurance to pay for a burned down house post event. But home insurance is extremely affordable. Anyone that can't afford that obviously can't afford to purchase a house. Find me a good insurance policy, Mike, for $500 per year with a reasonable deductable.
I've seen some stuff, man. And some thangs...
Sarah Palin's son, Trig, has preexisting medical conditions.
Would Huckabee stand up and say that Trig Palin does not get health care because he has preexisting medical problems?
Palin should be standing up and screaming about this. She does represent all the parents of kids with disabilities doesn't she?
Or like most republicans, who will fight for every fetus to be born, but once your born your on your own??
I want republicans to answer me this.
If this is the greatest country on earth, why can't we give our citizens what most other countries do, health care for all?
If you don't like the health plan, figure out one that does that protects us all!
Diane
that does that protects us all!"
Boy, are YOU misinformed. Don't you know the Rethugs do not care about solutions to America's problems?...all they care about is tax cuts and social spending cuts....everybody else can just go die.
Yes, and their campaign motto should be once you're born-- YOYO....you're on your own.
“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”
We're dealing with limited resources. Some people will die due to their ailments regardless of how they contracted them. There's no way around it.
The law of the jungle is not fair, but ultimately it has been a very successful model for human survival with limited resources. And that's part of what's at play here, along with coddling people's greed (on both sides of the equation).
If health care is a right, how is it that it's not a right for non-citizens? How is it that it's not a right for the world? Is starvation a health care issue? Considering health care a right rather than "appropriate to manage as best as we can within limits" is a huge rabbit hole that doesn't really improve anyone's quality of life.
"I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization." Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Americans are not responsible for the entire world. We are not even responsible for other Americans. Is this your premise? I'm trying to understand.
That is the point. If it were, it would be conferred on everyone.
And you know, it's irritating asking questions and not getting answers from you so I'm going to stop playing. You make assumptions from my questions instead of answering them.
You are trying to make this into some kind of universal human right, which is completely different from what the US government can and should do. I happen to believe it is a universal human right, but I don't expect the US government to do more than the scope of their mission, which is to serve the citizens of the US.
JESUS F*(*CKING CHRIST.....WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HUMAN BEINGS HERE!!!!
NO OTHER F(*CKING COUNTRY ALLOWS THEIR CITIZENS TO BE RAPED BY CORPORATE ASSHOLES IN CORNER OFFICES.....
WHAT IS SO F*CKING DIFFICULT ABOUT THIS
Phrasing answers into questions is a form of argument. You have a very low tolerance for this form. I merely wanted to understand where you are coming from--the premises for your points. Oh, and don't worry about starvation. Monsanto has that problem under control.
If God is repsonsible for all life, why on earth would an infant be stricken with leukemia or a brain tumor (the two most common cancers in children)? It ain't like they were smoking Pall Malls and woofing down cheeseburgers and Keystone Light. But as adults, should they be fortunate enough to survive, according to you, it should be fine for insurance companies to deny them coverage. Even though the pre-existing condition was no fault of their own, but obviously their creator. So, God/Jesus is down with that, Reverend?
I've seen some stuff, man. And some thangs...
... after all as the "creator of everything" he did create viruses or things like hereditary diseases and cancer also.
Maybe the followers are nothing but a reflection of the god they worship? Although I am more of the opinion that their god is nothing but a projection of themselves. Which is probably what religion/superstition is at a basic level: man projecting into a fictitious perfect being in order to overcome some of their shortcomings?
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
get an answer to this question for years: When God said, "I will make man in our image," who was he talking to? I once asked a priest and he changed the subject. No one else wants to discuss it, so far. As I like to point out, if their God is so powerful, why does he need puny humans to do his work for him? Why does he need money? C Streets "Businessman Jesus" is the most ridiculous scam I have ever heard of. I could go on, but I think we're on the same page here. You made me belly laugh.
But honestly, it's one of the questions I've got on my list of ones to ask if I ever get a press conference with God. In the meantime, I figure the real issue here is that we've got these things and we should deal with them in a compassionate, honest way.
It's because god doesn't exist, religion is made up, and theology is worthless.
which you are entitled to, and which I will not try to disabuse you of.
There is a life force in the universe that cannot be denied.You are powered by it. Some call it God. Some call it Nature. Some just know it's there.
And some like to play "Pretend" with their Invisible Friends because they are so deathly afraid of Death.
There may be something besides this sometimes gray and sometimes brilliant Technicolor existence... But saying "some just know it's there..." sounds a little pretentious.
I have a real problem with people who claim to "just know." It sounds too much like a Tea Bagging so-called Christian... or a failed buddhist.
~albabe (The Writer/Artist Formally Known As Al Gordon)
http://www.comicon.com/gordon/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gordon
Happy now? Some just believe--just know--it's there, "it" being a life force. You are, of course, absolutely free to not believe in anything at all. You need to look up the definition of "pretentious."
than your own?
Well... at least that one time... and it was in College... and I had just finished praying to the porcelain altar after a weekend bender with a really cute blonde gal who was majoring in Economics.
And gawd (she said she preferred the lower case "g..." She said it was dignifying yet humble) told me very succinctly that she wasn't involved with humanity too much. In fact, she said she would normally just ignore me, but that I had made a real mess of the tile.
She said the whole "Human" thing just really frustrated her. She said she preferred simpler things... like a nice Super Novae. She reminded me that it was the only place where gold was "created." "Not a really big deal... but shiny," she said.
She said she thought that "even though the occasional human created beautiful and heartful, really neato Art and Literature and Music and stuff... that the majority of humans were kinda stupid and selfish... like Objectivists" (her words, not mine).
She was hoping us Humans would evolve to something a bit more humane... but she didn't have all that much faith in Evolution.
~albabe (The Writer/Artist Formally Known As Al Gordon)
http://www.comicon.com/gordon/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gordon
Really...
~albabe (The Writer/Artist Formally Known As Al Gordon)
http://www.comicon.com/gordon/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gordon
Prejudice, judgment, punishment. It is what you get anytime a group of Authoritarians get together.
The degree which one agrees with these folk is the degree one submits to Authoritarian aggression.
Its is in the study, read it and you will no longer be suprised at who, and what else, they could agree on.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
there are diseases that spread. A panademic can start and spread among the uninsured without being visible until it is too late to stop it like what happen in Mexico with the bird flu. Most of the uninsured work in food preparation services where there is a increase likely chance that if they have a communicable disease that it will spread. The un-insured are a reservoir of communicable diseases that can infects and sicken anyone at anytime. If they were insured then they could go to the doctor and get treatment. Treating the uninsured not only improves their health but also reduces the number of insured people who get sick.
There are a few reasons why the "free-market" capitalist approach does not work for healthcare. One - your purchase decisions affect other people (your example regarding communicable diseases). Two - Hospitals are bound (either by law or oath) to treat people regardless of their insurance status; so they have to pass that cost on. Three - it's an inelastic demand. The question of "what the market will bear" is only limited by the money that the "customer" has (and his/her mental health - but that's a healthcare issue).
Either way, we'll pay for it. Why pay for it the most expensive way possible? (i.e. treat people with no preventative care and using the ER as a primary care doc.)
These people are Fundamentalists, with a dose of goofy libertarianism to guide their views on economics.
They're also flat out EVIL.
And not only would Christ disown them, so would the Founding Fathers.
That's quite a feat, too.
Not to be outdone, at the same conference you had Michele Bachamn state an outright lie (and one that had already been proven so) about Pelosi and alcohol on the military flights she takes from DC to SF.
The same lie that a GOP candidate for Congress had used earlier and got called on it big time.
But anything negative about Pelosi is just fine with this crowd, true or not.
GOP Christian Values Voters = smears and lies in the name of God.
of "good Christians" they are! Disgusting bunch of cretins.
Morons don't realize that healthcare for all actually SAVES money!
resolute adults waiting backstage -- undistracted by phantoms related to Darwin's theories or birth control or religious doctrine of one kind or another -- they better enter the scene soon, or the fate of this country will be left in the hands of malicious, dogmatic, nincompoops beating their drums for Jesus, war, and the death of the planet.
...in November." It's the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Man, I hate these people.
destitution in this world have been initiated by religions or as a result of religious beliefs....Sometimes atheism doesn't look so bad these days.
“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”
Huckabee also leaves out the other side of the health care equation: mandatory coverage. That way you can't 'wait until the house burns down' - you are already in the pool. Of course, they hate the coverage requirement as well ( infringes on their freedom, doncha know). They are totally incoherent about anything except their hatred of having a Black president and their conviction that only they represent legitimate government.And since they can't quite say it (altho, they are coming closer every day) they come up with these distractions.
but my point wasn't so much to argue for whether Obamacare or Single Payer is the correct path as to say as clearly as I could how utterly selfish these so-called values voters are.
I had hoped that we would get to single payer (and I think we still can) via the Medicare reforms in the ACA. Medicare is not a system that's prepared to handle an influx of 51 million more and be coordinated with employer supplied healthcare right now. But it can be if the Medicare reforms in that law are implemented and mainstreamed; e.g. EHRs, outcomes-based practice, focus on primary care, wellness, prevention, and streamlined provider payments.
There's absolutely zero chance of that if we have these drooling nutbags in charge. Zero. The insurers are already making a strong case for opening Medicare, but without a Congress who will do it, we're screwed. So rather than hammering on Obamacare from the left, I'd rather hammer on the hypocrisy of the 'values voters' on the right and come in to single payer as a phased-in Medicare buy-in effort.
On this and many other issues (e.g. war). But there is more than a little, um, inconsistency, in the Democratic stance that they supposedly support a single payer solution while instead delivering a for-profit plan written by and for the insurance monopoly.
Medicare was implemented from scratch in one year. The AHIP/Heritage Foundation/Wellpoint/Democrat plan does little to nothing for four years. Moreover, it was Obama himself that removed single payer from the discussion in a back room deal with PhRMA..
Democrats with their present leadership gave single payer zero chance. And Obama makes jokes about it in a $30,000.00 a plate fundraiser held at the home of - wait for it - Rich Richman. No snark. Rich f'''''ing Richman.
So, value voters are hypocrites. True. And selfish. Also true. But letting the insurance companies write their own legislation then mocking supporters of the public option (let alone single payer) at a $30,000.00 a plate dinner. That's way beyond both.
That's priceless.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Go back and check that. It wasn't developed in a year, it had failed in two other votes (one under Kennedy), and was a revival of an effort that dated back as far as 1918.
Medicare was voted in as part of the Social Security Amendments of 1965 and implemented in 1966. That's one year. I did check that: 1966 - 1965 = 1
But apparently it's "not prepared" to be expanded for at least another four years. Oops, that's right. There isn't even a Democratic plan to expand it four years from now. Or to vote on it. Or to even to discuss it.
Maybe when we all buy a plate at $30,000.00 a pop to share jokes with Obama he might let someone mention it without the Democrats having us arrested.
Or maybe it's a secret plan. Maybe Wellpoint was covertly hypnotized so that when the Democrats gave them authority to draft their own legislation Wellpoint, without knowing they did so, included a poison pill that would magically produce single payer. Cause we all know that single payer is really a secret dream of the health insurance for profit monopoly.
LOL, isn't that funny? Unless of course you happen to be an uninsured American that needs health care some time in the next half decade. Or has to continue to pay rising premiums for less coverage through 2019. Or is denied a claim for any reason that isn't labled "pre-existing condition."
But who cares? So long and Obama and his buddies get a good laugh while enjoying their $30,000.00 a plate dinner. And so long as the Democrats have loyal followers to convince us that it's all really in our best interests, and that we're just too uninformed/misinformed/stupid or "fucking r*******" to realize it.
Because the Republicans are so scary . . . . And Democrats doing the best they can . . . . And look! Over there! Something shiny . . . .
LOL (for whoever finds it a laughing matter).
Corruption favors the wealthy.
It was an idea in 1918, almost caught, too, were it not for the AMA. subsequent Presidents, including FDR, tried to extend it to everyone, were blocked by the insurance, pharma, medical lobbies. JFK very nearly got it passed in 1962, even paying an unprecedented visit to the Senate floor during the vote. It failed, by one vote.
It passed finally under LBJ because the country was still reeling over the JFK assassination and he pulled out all the stops to do it. He also didn't have anywhere near the crap economy this President had.
No way was Medicare a one-year effort. No way.
Nor did I say it was "developed" in one year. Those are your words. I said "implemented in one year". And Medicare did take one year to implement - as opposed to four years to implement the majority of Obamacare.
im·ple·ment
tr.v.
1. To put into practical effect; carry out: implement the new procedures.
Note how neither the "'development' of the new procedures" nor the "'effort' to establish the new procedures" has anything whatsoever to do with "implementing the new procedures." Of course, you know this; you used the exact same word - implemented - when referring to "EHRs, outcomes-based practice, focus on primary care, wellness, prevention, and streamlined provider payments."
But now you have the discussion focused on semantics and historical trivialities that only seem to be issues because my wording was changed to mean something different.
Of course, JFK's assassination and other trivia in the history of Medicare are far easier subjects than addressing why the AHIP/Democratic health care plan is somehow a magical path to Medicare-for-all (buy-in or otherwise). Or why Wellpoint would ever write it that way. Or why it's simply impossible to expand Medicare in four years (or less) when it only took one year, without computers, to implement Medicare in the first place.
But I must admit, JFK's assassination is a very, very shiny object.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
2 thoughts. First, Medicare has been patchworked for years. This is really the first time ever that it's been brought into the 21st century. While it may have been implemented in a year, it took many more years to actually bring benefits into line in a meaningful way.
Second, I agree with you on the effective dates. During the big public option debate, I kept trying to get some of that energy focused on effective dates, particularly the pre-existing conditions exclusions. But everyone seemed determined -- public option or bust.
Imagine what might have been done if we had put more focus and energy on those effective dates.
After the Democrats passed their health care plan, Sen. Max Baucus specifically thanked Liz Fowler, a Wellpoint VP, for her authorship of the plan. Said Sen. Baucus:
We may indeed all feel differently about this health care plan, but I fail to see anyone can both support a plan written by Wellpoint and still assert that Wellpoint is some sort of bad guy.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
it explains.
These Tea Bagging Idiots (TBIs) seem so confused. We have Sharron Angle, the Tea Bagging Queen of Las Vegas, saying that Medicare and Social Security and Unemployment are Socialist ideals... and yet her husband's been using them for years. Confusion, Irony, Hypocrisy or Bullshit?
Christine O'Donnell, the ex Satanist, Tea Bagging Idiot, thinks Abortion should be illegal in any situation... even if the girl was raped... even if her father was actually the baby's father. She also thinks that masturbation should be outlawed. I'm curious what the punishment might be. Flogged? I know some leather-boy Log Cabin Republicans that might like that. And her and Angle both say that if you are dying of Cancer or anything... then you should just "trust in god."
These mindless idiots are twisted little Dickensian freaks.
This Country was created as a way for all of Us to to take care of Us all. We The People pay Taxes to protect us from Criminals and the like by paying for Police... we pay our Taxes to fund Fire Departments to protect us from Fire Hazards.
Why is it that the Corporate Republicans don't want us to pay taxes to protect us from disease?
Theses Tea Bagging Idiots are a small but very loud Community, being financed by Dick Armey and his very well-organized phony "grassroots" organizations.
Look at it this way: This is a very well-organized Community that is against the Country as a well-organized Community.
Then there is the fella that Ms. karoli quotes here. Dan Gainor. He's the guy that offered to pay someone to beat up Alan Grayson.
The question to Gainor's bullshit, here, is "Why?" Why shouldn't we all help each other. After all it is a Christian Ideal, isn't it. Maybe not these days. Things change.
It may be a matter of semantics. I think of Government as We The People... or at least, I think it's supposed to be that. Dan thinks of it as something between him and his Imaginary Free Market God of Money. Mammon.
I've listened to smarmy Dan for years, "debating" Tom Hartmann and it's always been the same... Dan, rattling on his Objectivist selfish non-idealism. Then, this one time that I watched him and Thom on "Whatever" TV while I was hanging with a very dry family in AZ... I think Dan's body language said it all. He has this superior, pompous, condescending, smug, "holier than thou" attitude... but I think thats just Dan... I don't think he believes any of this.
And because of this, I don't believe Dan about anything. I think he's a shill... pure and simple. He gets paid for his Free Market limited opinion. Thom treats him with kid gloves, supposedly because they are friends.
As for Huckelberry... He's just an a disingenuous ass. His analogy, below, is not linear or logical or even remotely relative. It might be relative to talking about Life Insurance maybe... but not Heath Care.
What Ms. koaroli doesn't mention is that America's so-called Christians are "busy people." They don't have the time to help anyone besides themselves and their families. After a long hard day at work, it's hard to do anything compassionate when American Idol is calling from the family room.
So, these Tea Bagging Idiots file-in in lock-step behind the people they appoint as their surrogates. Mike Huckabee and Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh are not just their hate-spewing mouthpieces... they are these self-centered lazy hypocrite's loud and Corporate-Funded Avatars.
~albabe (The Writer/Artist Formally Known As Al Gordon)
http://www.comicon.com/gordon/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gordon
My wife has cancer. I am set to get a layoff early next spring. Thanks to "Obamacare" I have to worry much less about the insurance at my next employers, not paying for surgeries and treatments for my wife. If Republicans want those type assurances all to be pulled and people like my wife to suffer and die.........I say I hope they all contract Cancer and die, after their insurance company decides they are a risk that needs to be cancelled.
Thanks for sharing your story. Health care should not be about numbers and money. It's about people, our loved ones, our neighbours, our communities. The USA is the richest country in the world, yet some are happy to let citizens die to keep profits up.
We know the morality of the Empire.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
Remember, the Christian Right is neither.
"Respect for the rights of others is peace." --Benito Juarez
Didn't the government give property insurance to Hurricane Katrina victims, AFTER the disaster? Does Huckabee think that's a terrible thing? That it goes against common sense?
I'd like to know.
Comments are closed on this entry