Toledo Talk

Universal Health Care anyone?!?!!?!?!.....I can barely take care of myself, let alone the whole country!!

So I have a lot of hope. I have hope that everyone will decide that health care is something that they should have. I have hope that, like me and the many other salaried, exempt status employees of the world who are paying for their health care, mightily may I add, those who do not have health care will get it. But I also hope that it does not come in the form of additional tax dollars to me, my friends, family, etc. I think that there is a solution. And I do believe that there is one that is bipartisan in nature. But there are many aspects to the Obama plan that I am not a fan of, nor will I support. I believe that if you take the control of the health care system out of the hands of the private sector and leave it to be controlled by the government, you are setting yourself up for a lose-lose situation. Just as this article lays out:

"What's wrong with Obama's health care plan

In his speech today before the American Medical Association conference in Chicago, President Obama said any health care reform plan should include a "public option"--a government-run program for anyone unhappy with the options from private insurers. He claimed critics who warn that this will lead to a "single-payer" system run by the government "are not telling the truth." But it's the president who is not being fully honest about this proposal.

The argument for the public option is that the government is more efficient than the private sector, which will come as news to anyone who has ever dealt with the bureaucracy. Supposedly government health programs have lower administrative overhead. But there's plenty of evidence to suggest those efficiencies are mythical or exaggerated. Such savings will be even harder to attain if the public provider has to compete for customers, as Medicare and Medicaid don't.

If the public option isn't cheaper, it will face serious problems. Take high-risk patients. If it accepts them on more generous terms than private insurers, while getting the same premiums as other patients pay, it will lose money. So the government would have to choose between letting the public provider fail and bailing it it out.

The latter would tilt the playing field and thus defeat the purpose of promoting fair competition. But if the public provider avoids high-risk patients-- as private insurers do--what is the point of a public option?

In the end, there's good reason to fear that a public option will get special subsidies, allowing it to outcompete private companies that lack a key to the Treasury. Obama said that's a false fear. But he did nothing to dispel it."

The idea that the government will be able to run a more efficient system than the experts is absurd. Do there need to be more regulations as far as cost control, yes. But a full scale takeover of services is not necessary. Just ask anyone from Canada who is able to get services for there pets in 2-3 days, while they wait 2-3 weeks for their doctors appt. book to open. Not to mention the offset of increased tax payments to throw even more salt in that open wound they are waiting to get looked at.

created by got2bfit on Jul 25, 2009 at 05:19:55 pm
updated by got2bfit on Jul 25, 2009 at 05:20:47 pm
    Politics     Comments: 105

source      versions


Comments ... #

I can't think of a single thing that the government does that is efficient or cost effective. Something as straight forward as the Postal System even looses money every year. They even try to compete with UPS & Fedex. Every program the Postal Service gets involved with is a loser. Of course the simple fix is to just keep raising the cost of postage.
Health Care will be no different. It will be slower and cost you more money.

posted by AmericanPie on Jul 25, 2009 at 05:43:24 pm     #  

I'm fine with it. I have great health insurance but if a job was lost and subsequently the health insurance, it would throw me into a world of stress to quickly find insurance (much more than the loss of a salary). Knowing that there would be an affordable public option would be a weight off not just my shoulders but the shoulders of millions of Americans. It is not government provided health care... it's health insurance.

But god, I know this is a hot button topic and I don't want to get into any online arguments about it.

posted by toledolen on Jul 25, 2009 at 06:47:45 pm     #  

This was a pretty good listing on NPR this morning on the way to the airport... in re: those Canadian stories (excuse the 30 second ad at first):

posted by toledolen on Jul 25, 2009 at 07:03:45 pm     #  

From what I have been told - by real live Canadians, they're cool with their nationalized system...really. I guess it was a mess at first, but once the knuckleheads with a sniffle or a minor cut stopped rushing the clinics, things settled into a plausible system. I'm no Obama fan, but I absolutely believe that we are all entitled to health care. I find it disturbing that we choose our employer based on the availability and quality of health insurance offered. WTF does that have to do with my skill set for doing a job?

posted by justareviewer on Jul 25, 2009 at 08:59:48 pm     #  

As a small business owner who has insured all full time employees for as long as group insurance has been available I very much want to see Obama succeed. I would be richer, no doubt, if I hadn't offerd health care benefits, but I always thought it was the right thing to do. The last 7 or 8 years have been dreadful with the rise in the cost of health care premiums. But I still paid it. I know none of my employees could buy private insurance, either because of the economics or because they had a pre-existing condition that kept them out of the market. I am proud to have offered it to my employees. But, it will very likely come to and end in the next year or two as the premiums have gotton so bad. I want Obama to succeed with single payer. It's the only way. Each of us has a responsibility to be insured and not be a burden if disaster strikes and you can't afford to pay your health care bills. The system is bloated partially with the bills of the uninsured getting built into the premiums of those who are.

I get incensed when I hear people complain, falsely, that if Obama succeeds the government will pick your doctor. Oh please. If you have insurance through your employer you have to choose a doctor in the plan your employer picks. If your employer changes plans you may have to change doctors. Anybody with insurance knows that the insurance company tells your doctor what medicine he can prescribe and what tests he can order. Bean counters are already making choices for you. What's the big deal?

In Obama's plan you are more likely to keep your doctor. Your insurance will be "portable". If you change jobs you can take your health care plan with you if you want. Cut the crap talk and get behind universal health care because if we don't get it the current system will cause even greater hardships to individuals and families and be the reason that our economy never recovers.

posted by holland on Jul 25, 2009 at 10:58:25 pm     #  

Holland, I think the problem will be, if we have a national health care plan, employers who are now offering their employees health care will stop doing so.
If that happens people will be forced into the government system.
So when 0bama claims people can keep their current plan if they like it, he's technically telling the truth, but it might as well be a straight up lie.

posted by JeepMaker on Jul 25, 2009 at 11:18:03 pm     #  

As someone here said.."Knowing that there would be an affordable public option"

We do not yet know how much the premium will cost us, nor what buisness will pay into the system (oh yeah, in time they will be paying)
I do know that the yearly out of pocket will be $5,000 for single and $10,000 for family, far more than my current plan.

And your employer plan will have to meet government standards. How much of the rules that apply to the plans in the exchange will be force apply to the employer plan? Thats another thing they're not telling us.

posted by Grumpy on Jul 26, 2009 at 12:01:14 am     #  

got2bfit said: <b><i>But I also hope that it does not come in the form of additional tax dollars to me, my friends, family, etc.</i></b>

Well, what about the tax dollars you already pay for all this emergency care and other uninsured care for the indigent, the unemployed, and the young? Google up "ohio carenet".

posted by GuestZero on Jul 26, 2009 at 01:56:57 am     #  

Worth a listen.

http://tiny.cc/pCeBc

posted by JeepMaker on Jul 26, 2009 at 02:55:05 am     #  

This link, http://www.das.state.ne.us/personnel/benefits/2009/cobra/enrollment_guide_costs_for_coverage.pdf, gives info on the cost of keeping health insurance (with some government involvement). Perhaps the best thing we can do for the economy (and families in general) is to remove all such things from the marketplace. This country might have 100 million extra bodies that it doesn't really need. Eliminate Medicare first, and let those who can afford the above premiums pay them to live. The remainder can pay higher premiums, or cut back on services we now take for granted. In the end we could be a leaner, meaner nation. Those who are really necessary to businesses would be allowed to continue to receive health care, and enough consumers would survive to keep businesses going. Under such a scenario we might find we would lose our standing as a nation to those countries that provide universal health care. Those of us unfortunate enough to be without healthcare could help fertilize the countryside.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Jul 26, 2009 at 10:11:39 am     #  

Here is an interesting link talking about costs under the current system, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/business/economy/22leonhardt.html . Add to that the insurance companies ability to "weasel out" of coverage for "preexisting conditions", and it seems that medical coverage for costly cases might only be "advertising" to get members. Anyone out there know of people denied coverage or services because of condition or costs to the insurance companies?

posted by oldsendbrdy on Jul 26, 2009 at 10:30:43 am     #  

I heard on the radio the other day that Universal Health Care would cover the cost of abortions. I am strongly against abortion and would not want 1 cent of my tax dollars funding it.

posted by KraZyKat on Jul 26, 2009 at 11:16:12 am     #  

JeepMaker - Employers are about to dump health care benefits anyway. At the current rate of increases it is unsustainable. More and more employers, large and small will just throw in the towel. Those that do offer benefits will offer much reduced coverage and the employee will be shouldering higher and higher co-pays. For those of you who get health care insurance from your employer you just don't realize the full extent of what the employer's financial burden has become and that the price increases are relentless.

oldsendbrdy - My daughter had a serious medical event two years ago. Her insurance company - Assurant Health - denied coverage and demanded all doctors' and pharmacy records for the previous two years looking for any treatment or diagnosis that she might have omitted from her application when she first got the plan. Anything at all. It didn't matter if it was related to her current problem or not. Eventually they were forced to pay, but not after many of the bills had been turned over to collection agencies. She still has problems with bill collectors and had to hire an attorney. This is the status quoe. This is what the Republicans want to preserve.

Worried about rationed care? It already is. Many expensive cancer treatments are not covered by insurance. You pay out of pocket or you die sooner. My neighbor had breast cancer, Seven years after the inital treatment and diagnosis it came back and had spread. Treatments to save or at least prolong her life, were $7,000 each - weekly - for a course of 10 treatments. Her insurance would cover the first $300 of each treatment. They did not have the means to pay for the drug themselves so she went home with Hospice to die. She lasted just three months. She was 68 yrs old. Her coverage was Medicare and Paramount Advantage. She said she would not burden her family with huge bills. Care is rationed and some folks have to make some hard choices.

Fact - 62% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills and 80% of the them had insurance.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/06/new_study_shows_medical_bills.html

Even if you have coverage today - it's not likley to pay your bills. Is the system you want to preserve? Get real and face the facts. Or do you need to have the crisis touch you personally before you wake up?

posted by holland on Jul 26, 2009 at 11:33:19 am     #  

got2bfit - Most of what you wrote is utter garbage.

posted by holland on Jul 26, 2009 at 11:35:53 am     #  

If we (the federal government royal 'we') want to provide health care for everyone, including the illegal immigrants who are already getting free health care from the United States, here is how such a system could operate.

A person receives health care, including dental, optical or mental. The provider sends the bill to the United States government, and after some amount of time that provider receives payment. The provider is responsible for submitting all the forms necessary and navigating the monolithic bureaucracy that will be the federal medical billing system.

Insurance companies will go bankrupt, which will be nice for everyone (think about the last time you had to deal with an insurance company about a claim).

In the case of the working class poor, short term and long term disability will be covered by the government.

Note that because a system like this will help the uninsured and under-insured the most, it will never be put into production. Instead, health care costs will rise, taxes misused to pay for the new free health care system endorsed by The Anointed One and rammed down our throats by the moonbats will rise, US congressional salaries will rise, and unemployment will rise.

Next year I'm going to see just how much food I can grow in the back forty. I think I'll need it.

posted by madjack on Jul 26, 2009 at 01:37:28 pm     #  

Thank you once again, holland, a sane voice in an insane world.

got2befit, do you have a link to the article you quoted? Interested to see who wrote it.

posted by nana on Jul 26, 2009 at 02:36:11 pm     #  

@HOLLAND.....

I agree with you on many things. I agree with you that it is not right for those who need the care to go without it. I agree that it is reprehensible to standby and watch those close to you perish while there is an amazing network of healthcare options virtually at our beckon call. But what I do not agree with you on is the way that the government is taking it upon themselves to be the next line of defense in a capitalistic endeavor. It is not up to the government to be the service providers. It is up to the government to be the protectors, regulators, arbitrators, and legislators. Once the systems are in place or being put in place, our elected officials are supposed to provide oversight and knowledge on topics and issues that we do not freely have, bc of lack of experience in those overwhelming fields. I put my trust, as do many people, in the government to have faith in me that I will take care of myself, and do what is necessary to seek the services in the market that I need. I do not expect, which some do, the government to provide for me. I work 2-3 jobs when I can, I pay for all of my own services, and I invest properly to prepare for my future. Like I had said, I was at the point where I was making very little money, being in college and all, but I had to prioritize and choose what was more important, certain luxuries, even sometimes food, or knowing that I am prone to getting sick, health care. Are there people in the world who, by no fault of their own, are unable to provide for themselves, YES! But there are also those who under any circumstance, beside sheer laziness and lack of prioritization, should be able to provide for themselves the same care that we all seek and deserve.

Do we all deserve medical care for a fair price; totally. I absolutely agree. I do no think that a fair world would exist where one person decidedly has the option to stay healthy over another because the cost ratios exceed their means. That is why I said that I believe in regulatory procedures that will provide strict, and punishment backed, oversight to enforce the rules and expansions of insurance coverage.

I myself have had many personal encounters with the health care system that were, like yours, not enjoyable. I have watched my parents painstakingly fight for the right for my grandparents to stay in the assisted homes they were in even when the bills were paid through social security, and then the insurance companies constantly fighting to pay their end of the bargains. I have experienced it myself after shoulder surgery and then being stuck in a sling for 6 weeks without moving my arm bc the insurance company said I was not covered for the therapy. Wait, I can have surgery for an orthopedic injury, but I can't get therapy to repair the injury!?!?!....makes no sense. I am currently watching my niece and nephew live without their mother, my sister, bc she is so wrought with post partum depression and bipolar disorder that she has now left her kids with their father and she has moved. She has no insurance and because she does not work, she can not receive the assistance that she previously was getting to get the medications and counseling she needs. I could go on with many more stories, even ones as sad as the one that you have posted.

I think that we all see the point of the detriment that is accomplished when there is a breakdown of service because the monetary goals of a few corporations have come to outweigh the needs of the very many. But I also think, that there needs to be accountability on those who seek the services who are able to provide for themselves. @HOLLAND.....we are not that so very far apart in our thinking. I like you do not want to have to pay anymore for services. I do not want to see small businesses, like yours, who are doing the right thing, have to take another hit in the pocket because our current leadership needs to charge the new bill to someone. I do not want to see the numbers of unemployed jump because employers are losing capital for investment in having to pay higher taxes, surcharges, and fees for a new plan that mandates all individuals must carry insurance, even those who are unemployed.

Yes the addition of competition in the form of another option of health care choices will be welcome. But I will not wait by with open arms to hug the government medical bill. I will wait, though to see if there is enough people out there to tell the government enough is enough, and we do not need you to do all of our bidding for us, as we are a strong capable people, and we will fend for ourselves. I hope that we are all able to do that, even when we are faced with situations, like the onset of devastation such as cancers & health abnormalities, that seem to test every ounce of our fortitude.

posted by got2bfit on Jul 26, 2009 at 03:03:19 pm     #  

I will find the link Nana......

posted by got2bfit on Jul 26, 2009 at 03:04:27 pm     #  

Fending for yourself!? That's where we are today (under my breath you numbskull). Will a government plan be absolutely perfect? Of course not. But Federal employees, the military and medicare/medicade muddle through. Other countrys muddle through. I believe we can muddle through with a single payer plan with a government option. How cruel you are to want to subject an ever growing population to more of the same, especially in light of what your family has endured.

You can nitpick a government run plan to death before it's in place. You can nitpick single payor to death before it's in place. The real truth is most of you who don't want health care reform don't really give a crap about any of the details or mechanics. You just want the status quo for yourselves either because it's working for you now and you don't see the drain on the economy, or you can't understand the hardships other people face, or you don't realize that you're one diagnosis away from losing everything you have. I call that selfish and stupid.

posted by holland on Jul 26, 2009 at 06:15:33 pm     #  

GOT2BFIT SAID--->"I have experienced it myself after shoulder surgery and then being stuck in a sling for 6 weeks without moving my arm bc the insurance company said I was not covered for the therapy."

um, sorry to tell you but everyone is stuck in a sling for 6 weeks after shoulder surgery, except bathing and doing gentle pendulum exercises for 5 mins a couple times a day. I code medical records for a living and I see it all the time, 6 weeks is the minimum time needed for healing before you move it. Your doctor could have written a letter to the ins co, they do that all the time, too. If they denied you for PT after joint surgery, you could have appealed, asked for a human review, screamed and yelled until they saw the error of their ways. That's some shitty insurance you have there, why are you defending it? Even Medicare allows PT after joint surgery, so that example is one for the other side. You would have gotten PT under socialized medicine.

Ya know, I heard an article on NPR last winter, an interview with people in the UK, who have socmed, and the one guy had lived 15 years more after he was diagnosed with lung cancer and treated under the guidelines they have for treating his particular cancer. He said something I never forgot: "You take the treatment they prescribe and you live till you die, however long that gives you. Only Americans want to live forever." Some of us need to spend more time living now. Tomorrow is not promised.

posted by nana on Jul 26, 2009 at 08:26:23 pm     #  

I mentioned this discussion to my sister-in-law today. She does not favor universal health care until the government outlaws suits against doctors. It is her opinion that the cost of medical insurance to doctors is a large factor in the cost of medical care. Such suits for pain and negligence are not allowed under universal health care in other countries. She believes since most of our legislators are from the legal profession such a reform is very unlikely to happen. So we will end up with a system that continues to try to protect itself against lawsuits rather than providing the best care for the patient.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Jul 26, 2009 at 09:49:11 pm     #  

I take an older woman to MUO every couple of weeks for a "fingerstick" that indicates if the coumadin she is taking is "thinning" her blood is too much or too little. She has a pacemaker that required this be monitored carefully. She also has been going to the doctor for other issues related to her heart. Rather than do a "universal" test that would look at all the factors in an elderly person's blood the doctors may order only certain things be looked at. So she may often have to go to the hospital twice a week for different workups. Now this is the quality of care I see in a "teaching" hospital. She thinks they are wonderful, while I wonder if it's just a money machine soaking Medicare for all they can get.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Jul 26, 2009 at 09:56:46 pm     #  

It has nothing to do with being a 'teaching' hospital and everything to do with going to more than one doctor. Is she seeing more than one doctor out there?

posted by nana on Jul 26, 2009 at 10:39:50 pm     #  

Brdy ,

Many states including Ohio has tort reform that places extreme limits on malpractice damages.

This has been in place for better part of 5 years in Ohio. I know I haven't seen the cost of medical insurance go down.

I haven't seen a huge influx of doctors coming to Ohio providing more competition and lower prices. It was just another big gift to big business that screws Ohioans.

So basically Brdy, you’re sister-in-laws argument doesn’t hold water…

posted by SensorG on Jul 27, 2009 at 08:33:49 am     #  

I mentioned this discussion to my sister-in-law today. She does not favor universal health care until the government outlaws suits against doctors.

Oh, well, we'll get right on that. I'll call The Anointed One this afternoon and He'll fix everything.

Meantime, why don't you find a nice highway and play dodge 'em for a while?

posted by madjack on Jul 27, 2009 at 09:17:41 am     #  

Thanks SensorG for that info -- I'm glad to know there are limits on malpractice damages.

Having said that, I can't believe we'd want to totally "outlaw" suits against doctors and/or their places of practice. I mean, really? What if some surgeon screws up and leaves you permanently disabled? How are you going to support your family? What if some nurse fills your IV incorrectly and it kills you, and your children don't have any other means of support?

There must always be some recourse available for catastrophic mistakes.

posted by jmleong on Jul 27, 2009 at 09:21:40 am     #  

From SensorG: I know I haven't seen the cost of medical insurance go down.

That might be because the cost hasn't fallen. Ever.

The biggest scam in the entire world today is perpetrated by the insurance companies. This is something that makes Bernie Madoff look like a piker. Consider that insurance is mandatory or effectively mandatory for everyone who can't afford it, and that insurance companies make money by collecting money from victims, not by paying claims. In fact, insurance companies save so much money by failing to pay claims and by paying slowly that the company has entire departments dedicated to denial of benefits, and those departments include the highest priced lawyers in the nation.

The vast majority of malpractice suites never see trial because of the cost of the trial. The real award for a successful suite might be 5 - 10 thousand, but the cost of trying the case will run over $100,000 very easily.

posted by madjack on Jul 27, 2009 at 09:25:41 am     #  

"Supposedly government health programs have lower administrative overhead."

Uh, yeah, got2. They do.

Ever been to Fifth Third Field? Next time you're there, count the number of signs you see advertising health care services. There's the Promedica pavilion, and countless other signs around the place for other services. You don't think that advertising is free, do you?

Hell, no, it's not! That's 30% of the money you pay to your insurance company at work right there.

Another inefficiency: administrative salaries. You think some government wonk working in a health care bureaucracy is going to be pulling down a cool half-million? A local CEO of an insurance company does. And that's just salary, not total compensation.

Finally, next time you're at the doc's check out all the office personnel. What do they do? Quite a few people are employed simply to do insurance paperwork.

Frankly, I'd rather see all that money go directly to health care. But with the present system, it just ain't gonna happen.

posted by Anniecski on Jul 27, 2009 at 09:41:20 am     #  

Small Business and Health Care Benefits:

Fact: 61% offered benefits in 1993
Fact: 38% offer benefits today
Fact: 19% considering stopping benefits in 3-5 yrs.

Are your benefits next?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329442612051953.html

posted by holland on Jul 27, 2009 at 10:02:19 am     #  

I would much rather see my current health care -- with all it's inefficiencies, administrative waste, premiums paid by my employer, premiums passed on to me, copays, denials, labrynthine referral systems, and all the rest -- go away. Instead of worrying about all this crap, let's just pay one tax, cover everybody from womb to tomb, and be done with it.

Fer chrissakes, let's catch up with the rest of the world.

posted by Anniecski on Jul 27, 2009 at 10:32:25 am     #  

Some general facts or propaganda about malpractice and costs:

http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/RisingCostOfMedicalMalpracticeInsurance.htm

Specifically:

The effect of malpractice "paid losses" upon the entire costs of our health-care system: http://www.insurance-reform.org/pr/AIRhealthcosts.pdf

Malpractice "paid losses" have remained about 0.4% ... $1 of every $250 spent. At least, according to the Center for Justice and Democracy.

posted by GuestZero on Jul 27, 2009 at 11:58:07 am     #  

Contest for a Slogan for Obama's Socialized Healthcare =

"From Birth To The Grave, You're in Greedy hands with ALLSTATE"

"All StateCare - FROM THE STATE FOR THE STATE AND BY THE STATE (obey the State or you will wait)

posted by Ahuvia on Jul 27, 2009 at 12:17:16 pm     #  

Ahuvia - It would be nice if you had some real facts to add to the debate. Only people whose arguments are devoid of real subtance resort to slogans and mischaracterizations. Do you have a fact or a researchable question? If not crawl back in your hole.

posted by holland on Jul 27, 2009 at 12:32:40 pm     #  

Lighten up and get a sense of humor. Sheesh

posted by Ahuvia on Jul 27, 2009 at 12:55:12 pm     #  

Der!

posted by Ahuvia on Jul 27, 2009 at 01:36:20 pm     #  

Amazing, so Conyers thinks lawmakers shouldn't bother reading what they are supposed to vote into law?
If that's the case, why pray tell, do we need them? Just rubber stamp everything.

////(walks away shaking head).

posted by JeepMaker on Jul 27, 2009 at 03:18:16 pm     #  

2 things:

Nana - I realize that some people may have to wait 6 weeks for therapy to start, but in this instance it was a lathroscopic surgery that wasn't major, and my therapy was supposed to start 4 days after the surgery, not the six weeks I had to wait. Because of waiting I was entrenched with frozen shoulder and was unable to move my arm properly for 2 weeks after the sling came off. (Just to clarify).

And #2 - Holland. I am not here to sling mud with anyone, including you. I am here to debate the topics and points of the world that make up our daily lives. Do I agree with everything you say, of course not. Do you agree with everything that I say, obviously not. I spew my truths from my experiences and facts. I am not just saying things of the top of my head, as is the same with you. But I will never agree with the government offering me services such as health care. I will take the accountability onto myself and make sure that I am properly provided for. When I have a family, I will do the same as well, just as my family did for me when I was growing up. I am just of the opinion that we all need to take a little responsibility for ourselves and make sure that we have the priorities in life we need before we make sure we have the luxuries. do some people in the world need assistance, YES!. But are there those who abuse the system who I will ALWAYS refuse to support, YES!. I guess when it comes down to it, we will agree to disagree. You may want to pay for all the services in the world for everyone else, and that is very selfless and righteous, but I prefer to donate my time, services, and goods to others rather than my taxes.

posted by got2bfit on Jul 28, 2009 at 09:54:22 am     #  

But Got2, the title of your post says you can barely take care of yourself. How does that jibe with everything else you've been saying?

You know, I was thinking about this, this very a.m. I don't go to the zoo all that much. I take my kids probably once a year, if that. On the other hand, I'm very glad we have a world-class zoo here in Toledo, and I'm happy (yes, happy) that my tax dollars support this public institution. I know that it is something our community can be proud of, and it draws visitors from other communities, bringing money into Toledo from elsewhere.

It is an example of all of us coming together to support something that we may not use every day, but it is there for us when we need and want it, and makes our community stronger.

Got2, most of us have our health insurance through our employers, and it is putting many businesses at great risk. Most cannot afford to offer a cadillac-style health plan anymore, which means that more employees are shouldering higher co-pays, premiums, or are having to go without health insurance altogether.

You say, "I will take the accountability onto myself and make sure I am properly provided for." If you are receiving benefits through your employer, how is that "taking accountability" for yourself? If your employer could not afford your benefits anymore, are you in a position to simply up and find another job? Do you think everyone is in that position?

You also say, "We all need to take a little responsibility for ourselves and make sure that we have the priorities in life we need before we make sure we have the luxuries."

Are you saying that the millions of people who have declared bankruptcy due to medical bills could have just avoided it if they'd brewed their own coffee instead of going to Starbucks?

I think it's pretty facile to suggest that people who are going through hard times are simply weak or not willing to take responsibility for themselves.

I also think it is downright sinful that, in the United States in 2009, we are reduced to holding spaghetti dinners to help parents pay for their healthcare.

And by your post, it looks like you feel this is quite all right.

posted by Anniecski on Jul 28, 2009 at 11:31:33 am     #  

Back in the day, people used to uproot themselves and move away to greener pastures (they followed the good jobs) and they took their entire family with them (including grandma & grandpa if necessary).

Back in the day, when our elders got old or sick, we moved them into our homes with us when they needed us to care for them in their old age. We didn't EXPECT someone else to do it. We managed somehow.

Back in the day, people used to put their money in a jar or in the bank and used it for hard times, sick parents, sick kids, grandparents. They did this instead of buying unnecessary crap like High Def TVs, iPods, gizmos, boats, wave-runners, cottages, toys, toys and more toys.

The problem today (IMHO) doesn't necessarily fall completely on our healthcare insurance industry - it falls on us as a selfish society. We just want more and more 'stuff' to fill our houses/garages/lives and we've lost touch with what's important and decided somehow that there are better things to do (or have) than planning ahead or putting our families' futures first.

I don't want the government involved in my healthcare one bit. It unconstitutional! They are too big already! WAY too big!

I have one question for the folks that may have been a protestor back in the 60's (you know...the ones that said to never trust "The Establishment/The Man/The Government"), - What happened to you? Where are you now? I thought you were a liberal if you were one those protestors? Now that you've become "The Man", how does it sit with you knowing that the current President wants to control your life to the point of how and where and when you get healthcare or treatment?

I'm freaked out enough by the presence of frickin cctv cameras on top of just about every stop light and intersections. I mean GEEZ! What the H is that all about!? When did we turn over our tax money to spy on us in our cars? Oh yeah, BUSH and the frickin Patriot Act. Let's get that one repealed before we go handing over more power! Ok?

posted by Ahuvia on Jul 28, 2009 at 04:49:15 pm     #  

Back in the day, you died in your 60s...

Back in the day you didn't have drugs that cost $500 per month.

Back in the day, a single day in the hospital didn't cost thousands of dollars...

Back in the day...I could go on forever...

posted by SensorG on Jul 28, 2009 at 04:57:34 pm     #  

Back in the day there was no interweb to bitch on

posted by justareviewer on Jul 28, 2009 at 06:48:37 pm     #  

I'll pay taxes for schools, infrastructure, and military protection. Little Susie can fend for herself when she needs a kidney. Not my problem.

Whether or not you have health insurance is your own problem. Insurance is a priveledge, not a right. Just like car and life insurance. You want it, you pay for it. You don't want it, you don't pay. Simple enough.

posted by muddyriverduck on Jul 28, 2009 at 09:28:59 pm     #  

Madjack, I concur with your vilification of insurance company scams. They are taking advantage of all of us because as long as there is no nationalized health care, they will be reaping gravy.

Do any of you get frequent junk mail from Mutual of Omaha? We never had a policy with M of O and still receive monthly offers. How they got our name and address is a mystery.

Finally, how grandiose it is for our elected legislators on Capitol Hill to get free medical care for any health problem that may develop- including alcoholism. Your tax dollars at work.

posted by flinty on Jul 28, 2009 at 10:05:56 pm     #  

muddyriverduck - What about those folks who can't buy insurance because of pre-existing condition not their fault - like diabetes for instance and they make $12 an hr? How are they supposed to get medical care? I guess they should just die huh.

posted by holland on Jul 28, 2009 at 10:20:13 pm     #  

Nana, her family doctor is at MUO, and her cardiac doctor is in Perrysburg, but has privileges at MUO. She also has a podiatrist at MUO from whom she gets her toenails cut.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Jul 28, 2009 at 11:15:49 pm     #  

i do my own pedicures... so (assuming) she's handicapped, then?

posted by toledolen on Jul 28, 2009 at 11:37:57 pm     #  

Must be considered so by Medicare. Has arthritis but can still work in her small garden.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Jul 28, 2009 at 11:41:45 pm     #  

From Holland: I guess they should just die huh.

Don't be so flippant with this kind of thing. Some people will come right out and say it but many more think it than you might imagine. I've heard otherwise perfectly reasonable people advocate an incredibly cold system for health care; If you can afford it, it's yours. Otherwise it's just your hard luck.

I think that part of the problem is that we're overtaxed right now, and with the national debt as large as it is we'll continue to be overtaxed for the rest of our lives. People with a larger income tend to be bright enough to realize this, so they aren't too thrilled about having to pay even more in taxes to cover medical care for a mentally ill, drug addicted indigent who is afflicted with a difficult pregnancy. Want more? If the fetus is carried to term, the child is guaranteed to be mentally challenged and will require special schooling, which the taxpayer will have to pony up for.

Combine this with commercial news media, who are guaranteed to find the one case like this out of the several hundred boring cases. 60 minutes will run it as some kind of human interest feel-good story, Lew Rockwell will hammer it harder than a Baptist preacher can pound a pulpit, and the real beneficiaries will be ignored. The taxpayer will quietly switch voting alliance to someone who opposes the new health care fiasco, and we can go back where we started from. Only we'll be broker than before.

Another part of the problem is that the US is a nation of individuals. My welfare is my own responsibility. If I starve, then let me find a job and go to work. If I'm sick and can't afford medical treatment, that's my hard luck. The individual wants to be left to his or her own efforts and rewards for their efforts. Your plan changes all that, which the individual does not like.

posted by madjack on Jul 29, 2009 at 09:11:30 am     #  

So Madjack, you plan on turning down Medicare when you older? Are your parents on Medicare? You and your patents (if still around) will take more out of Medicare than you ever put in, particularly if you spend any time in a nursing home.

If you look at nursing home care, it costs on average $70,000 per year, I guess all the old people should get off the public dime and take some responsibility.

The funny thing is, I keep hearing the radio right wing nuts talking about how Obama is going to kill old people.

When you go to the blogs the only one telling kids that need kidneys, pregnant woman and old people that they are too expensive and should be on there own, are other conservative wing nuts. No progressive is advocating this…

posted by SensorG on Jul 29, 2009 at 09:47:25 am     #  

Of course not, Sensor G. That's because the right wing has FAMILY VALUES.

They value their own families. Nobody else's.

posted by Anniecski on Jul 29, 2009 at 10:24:23 am     #  

Sorry the death narrative made you uncomfortable madjack. It should. The truth of the conservative narrative is that people suffer. Many suffer not from anthing they did or didn't do to take care of themselves but from the current configuration of the health care system. Some die.

posted by holland on Jul 29, 2009 at 10:27:19 am     #  

SensorG, I think you're way under for nursing home care (at least in this area). Medicare paid 80% of the two months my father's care at the beginning of the last year of his life. If I had to pay for this nursing home, it would have been $15,000 a month, $180,000 a year. We could not afford such a place, I retired, and we brought him home to live with us until he fell, went back in for a month, died after he aspirated food at breakfast (the one time I overslept, and was not there to make sure he did not do such a thing). We talk about medical care, but neglect to mention the huge expense of that last year of life in a nursing home. It is a very profitable business model. Perhaps we should employ the "Eskimo model", and put them on the breaking ice of the Maumee River in the spring of each year. Certainly, if we got rid of Medicare we would have a different economy. The shortage of workers in the medical area might magically disappear. We are a country where freedom is valued above all else; the ideas of health and longevity run counter to that. If what we need to succeed as a nation is an intelligent, industrious people then we may need to rethink where our taxes go.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Jul 29, 2009 at 10:35:50 am     #  

Brdy,

I just googled the number, but many nursing homes do take medicare payments in full.

Sadly I know more about this then I plan on getting into.

posted by SensorG on Jul 29, 2009 at 10:54:28 am     #  

Soylent Green is PEOPLE!!!!!!

;p

sorry, had to do it.

posted by nana on Jul 29, 2009 at 10:56:22 am     #  

Someone had to. This thread has turned into depression-town.

posted by toledolen on Jul 29, 2009 at 11:03:12 am     #  

Toledolen's right. Can't make this a "happy" topic, no matter what.

posted by holland on Jul 29, 2009 at 11:07:38 am     #  

I work in a place where people tended to stay for 20, 30, or 40 years before they retired. Right now, our health care costs are way up because we're not hiring, so therefore, our employee population's average age is in the mid-40s.

We have had people who have a great pension coming to them, and would take early retirement, but buying health insurance on the open market is cost prohibitive, and they can't afford what they have here without the employer contribution. (That's if they could get it on the open market -- a history of any serious illness pretty much makes them ineligible.)

How many jobs would open up if we had health care for all? Quite a few, I'm thinking.

posted by Anniecski on Jul 29, 2009 at 11:58:22 am     #  

I agree Annieski I work at a very similar place. If they even lowered Medicare to cover everyone over 50, we'd have a bunch of people retiring. Also, there are a lot of 50+ people who are currently unemployed who are seeking employment as much for benefits as for a pay check.

posted by SensorG on Jul 29, 2009 at 01:20:17 pm     #  

Anniecski, there is no "open market" for health insurance. Every medical association known has already bribed your state legislature to make sure that any freely-made health-insurance policy written in Ohio covers their particular specialty. Don't want a policy what covers mental health? TOO BAD! It must be there. And that just drives up premiums.

The only way around that is to be a BIG COMPANY and then self-insure. That gets around the public mandates. Totally fair to the individual, eh? THAT'S WHY I KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT OUR GOVERNMENT IS WAAAAAAY TOO BIG.

posted by GuestZero on Jul 29, 2009 at 08:05:05 pm     #  

GuestZero - Wasn't it the Bush administration that signed into law Federally mandated mental health care coverage?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-10-03-domenici-mental-health_N.htm

Also, companies that self insure can't dodge Federal mandates.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba237

posted by holland on Jul 29, 2009 at 08:57:34 pm     #  

Replacing current health care instead of fixing whats broken is like throwing he baby out with the bathwater. Why are they in such a hurry to pass it? why has no one read it? Maybe they are afraid of what people will think if they read all the crap attached to it. I say throw it out and make them write something shorter that ONLY deals with reforming health care. Wonder how many of the Americans they are counting are transitionally uninsured or illegal aliens?

posted by Linecrosser on Jul 29, 2009 at 09:11:37 pm     #  

continuing nana's notion...

posted by toledolen on Jul 30, 2009 at 12:17:16 am     #  

Holland, I was talking about state mandates, which is where my knowledge is.

posted by GuestZero on Jul 30, 2009 at 02:54:22 pm     #  

You did mention "mental health" guestzero, which is a Bush Administration Federal mandate.

posted by holland on Jul 30, 2009 at 03:18:17 pm     #  

So, Guest, are you complaining that insurance is supposed to cover something? Isn't that what it's for?

posted by Anniecski on Jul 30, 2009 at 03:33:46 pm     #  

Annie, I'm complaining that you cannot choose to right-size your insurance policy for YOUR needs. You must accept a policy that suits LOBBYIST needs, which invariably involves you paying more.

posted by GuestZero on Jul 31, 2009 at 12:21:13 am     #  

I posted this also at Glass City Jungle, but I would like to open up the inquiry to a wider audience, since I'm having trouble understanding a certain section of the "health care bill".

All ~1000 pages of the House version of the "health care bill" are located here:

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/AAHCA-BillText-071409_2.pdf

After some determined reading of the House version, I found this on pages 167-8 (with line numbers removed for clarity):

TITLE IV—AMENDMENTS TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986
Subtitle A—Shared Responsibility
PART 1—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new part:
‘‘PART VIII—HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES
‘‘SUBPART A. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
‘‘Subpart A—Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage
‘‘Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
‘‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

So now I have to look up the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, subsection (d), to find out what these "requirements" are that if people fail to meet them, they have to pay an additional 2.5% income tax.

If Toledo has a median household income $32546 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Ohio#Demographics), and the AGI ends up around about the same, then the average person falling into this category would be hit with a yearly tax hike of $813.65.

Note well that is just a tax; you don't actually get any health care for it, since after all, you don't have "ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE" to begin with.

Of course, I don't understand what those last two lines of gobbledygook are. Is it using AGI? Is it using the difference in AGI compared to some other number? How does "modified" AGI compare to normal AGI?

posted by GuestZero on Jul 31, 2009 at 11:04:34 am     #  

David Brooks, in his column today in the NYT, pointed out some interesting facts that I knew about but had kind of forgotten because they have been in place so long that I took them for granted. A lot of folks who have health care through their empolyer, and who had a prexisting condition when hired, owe their insurability to government intervention. The Federal government will not allow insurers to exclude a prexisting condition from coverage of a hew hire. So, if your a diabetic or have high blood pressure for example, the insurance company can't exclude those conditions from coverage. The Federal governmet will also not allow executives to have better coverage than the hourly folks. Everyboody gets the same insurance coverage,

What I also know from bitter personal experience is how insurance companies respond to the addition of an employee with a serious health condition to the company group policy. The next group policy anniversary date they raise the group premium rates for everybody and they raise them a lot. One year I found our business grappling with a 22% increase in premiums because we added one employee with a pre-cancerous condition and another with diabetes. These employees stayed with us a long, long time in part because they had coverage. We shopped other insurance companies and couldn't get a better deal any where because of the employee health issues.

If you look at some businesses and see a preponderance of young male employees it might be due in part because they are the very cheapest to insure. Women are always a higher premium. And of course age is huge. Before my husband went on Medicare, when he hit age 64, his monthly premium rose to $1,200. Now remember that's a small group business rate - not in the individual market. Even though he is one of the luckiest seniors I know in that he has no health conditions and takes no medications, his age precluded him from purchasing any health coverage in the private insurance market. There was just none out there.

The health insurance industry, in its current configuration, is punatitive and irretrieveably disfunctional.

posted by holland on Jul 31, 2009 at 11:18:42 am     #  

My understanding is that the tax will be about equal to the cost of the public-option health insurance.

In other words, if you're going to try to bet that nothing will ever happen to you -- no car accidents, no slipping on ice in winter, no anaphylactic shock from a bee sting, no diagnosis of cancer -- and go without insurance, the government will tax you.

That way, when something does happen (as it inevitably will), and your sorry ass ends up in the ER, the taxpayers won't be on the hook for your health care.

posted by Anniecski on Jul 31, 2009 at 11:20:55 am     #  

Well said Anniescki:

In effect - what those "individual responsibility" folks that don't want to buy health care coverage do is gamble with someone eles money. If they lose the bet someone else pays.

posted by holland on Jul 31, 2009 at 02:28:36 pm     #  

Just started browsing through this 4 year old post about Health Care. An interesting re-read in light of present circumstances.

posted by Danneskjold on Oct 29, 2013 at 11:34:31 pm     #  

Depending on what station you listen to or watch, it's the best possible thing to happen or the absolute worst.

There is so much misinformation out there.

Here's what I'd like to see. It's my post and I can imagine if I want.
1-design a huge program like this to go into effect a little at a time. Let's say 10,000 are without coverage. Why not start the program with openings for 1000? This would give time to work out the bugs, review the program in actual operation, and look at costs directly.
2-with the horrible reputation of government run or even "associated" programs, hire or reassign people within those organizations to turn the programs around. For instance, the Post Office. We can all come up with a list of why it's going broke, why hasn't anyone come up with a way to fix it? At least to get it back on track. Welfare-a necessary program in essence. But, it needs examined and overhauled. Stop the loopholes that allow generations to be on welfare. Heck, even hire some investigators to start reviewing individual cases. Look for fraud. There's more jobs right there. Government helping people isn't a bad thing. People taking advantage of government programs is.

posted by hockeyfan on Oct 30, 2013 at 03:24:26 am     #   1 person liked this

Your premiums will NOT GO UP... wait sorry we lied.

You will be able to keep your doctor... hold up we might not have been correct.

It will only cost 800 billion and be deficit neutral... ahhh we aint so great with these things called calculators.

If you like your insurance you can keep it... wait I lied but didn't know I was lying because I was being lied too.

Obamacare was designed to fail from the start, it's going to be an abject failure as it was intended to be. To force as much pain on the American people as it can so they fall on bended knee and beg government for an "answer" and they will smile and gift us with single payer.

As a country we arm mexican drug lords with AR-15's yet want to punish Americans who wish to have them. We bomb, murder, or haul off anyone who doesn't agree with us off to secret courts to be held without trial for as long as they wish. They strip us of our civil rights on a whim and care nothing about the Bill of Rights... all the things unicorns (progressives) stomp their feet about YET THEY WANT TO GIVE THEM CONTROL OF YOUR BODY.

Typical Progressive: Government and corporations are trashing our freedoms and killing people all over the world... PLEASE TAKE CONTROL OF MY MONEY AND BODY DADDY!

WTF is wrong with people who want to hand more control over to the pure evil we have in DC. It's not a right vs left thing, what we have now going on in DC is pure greed and blood lust. I just don't understand.

some_text

posted by dbw8906 on Oct 30, 2013 at 08:28:42 am     #  

hockeyfan posted at 03:24:26 AM on Oct 30, 2013:

Depending on what station you listen to or watch, it's the best possible thing to happen or the absolute worst.

There is so much misinformation out there.

Here's what I'd like to see. It's my post and I can imagine if I want.
1-design a huge program like this to go into effect a little at a time. Let's say 10,000 are without coverage. Why not start the program with openings for 1000? This would give time to work out the bugs, review the program in actual operation, and look at costs directly.

2-with the horrible reputation of government run or even "associated" programs, hire or reassign people within those organizations to turn the programs around. For instance, the Post Office. We can all come up with a list of why it's going broke, why hasn't anyone come up with a way to fix it? At least to get it back on track. Welfare-a necessary program in essence. But, it needs examined and overhauled. Stop the loopholes that allow generations to be on welfare. Heck, even hire some investigators to start reviewing individual cases. Look for fraud. There's more jobs right there. Government helping people isn't a bad thing. People taking advantage of government programs is.

The way to fix the Post Office is for Congress to kill the requirement Congress made for them to pre-fund their pension, which NOBODY ELSE is required to do. That's why they're so far in the red.

posted by anonymouscoward on Oct 30, 2013 at 09:50:37 pm     #   1 person liked this

dbw8906 posted at 08:28:42 AM on Oct 30, 2013:

Your premiums will NOT GO UP... wait sorry we lied.

You will be able to keep your doctor... hold up we might not have been correct.

It will only cost 800 billion and be deficit neutral... ahhh we aint so great with these things called calculators.

If you like your insurance you can keep it... wait I lied but didn't know I was lying because I was being lied too.

Obamacare was designed to fail from the start, it's going to be an abject failure as it was intended to be. To force as much pain on the American people as it can so they fall on bended knee and beg government for an "answer" and they will smile and gift us with single payer.

As a country we arm mexican drug lords with AR-15's yet want to punish Americans who wish to have them. We bomb, murder, or haul off anyone who doesn't agree with us off to secret courts to be held without trial for as long as they wish. They strip us of our civil rights on a whim and care nothing about the Bill of Rights... all the things unicorns (progressives) stomp their feet about YET THEY WANT TO GIVE THEM CONTROL OF YOUR BODY.

Typical Progressive: Government and corporations are trashing our freedoms and killing people all over the world... PLEASE TAKE CONTROL OF MY MONEY AND BODY DADDY!

WTF is wrong with people who want to hand more control over to the pure evil we have in DC. It's not a right vs left thing, what we have now going on in DC is pure greed and blood lust. I just don't understand.

some_text

Premiums are going up/plans are being cancelled for a lot of people DUE TO THEIR "INSURANCE" BEING COMPLETE AND UTTER SHIT.

Obamacare requires certain minimums and a lot of plans were the kind of shady-ass smoke-and-mirrors, sell-snake-oil-to-confused-idiots "insurance" where you'd be paying $400/mo for something that would cover $500-$1000 a day for a hospital stay (which averages $1700/day). Others were "catastrophic" plans that might cost $100/month that you can't get under Obamacare unless you're 30 and under. So instead of doing the right thing and sending out a letter that "here's your new plan with a complete comparison of how coverage has changed from your old plan to be compliant with Obamacare and this is why your premium is changing", the insurers are sending out the sort of notices they are to piss off everyone to get Obamacare repealed so they can keep milking their precious cash cow.

Also, deeb, would you mind explaining to me how your great and mighty friends in the Republican Party, the Republican Party that's supposedly for states' rights and state control of programs and claim (like you are right now) that the Big Bad Federal Government is Satan incarnate, decided in many states and here in Ohio in particular, to NOT RUN THEIR OWN STATE EXCHANGES AND LEAVE EVERYTHING UP TO THE FEDS THEY HATE?

Every one of you fucking Republicans, since a big plank of your party platform is "states' rights/Federal government is evil", who live in a state controlled by Republicans, that took every step to hand control which you had the option of retaining at the state level to the Feds while doing your level best to delay or last-minute or even after-the-last-minute decide what to do about Obamacare, are the biggest fucking hypocrites ever, and that INCLUDES JOHN KASICH and his end-run around the Legislature with the Medicaid expansion (which is another piece of the puzzle that has to be modified in the Healthcare.gov Federal exchange).

posted by anonymouscoward on Oct 30, 2013 at 10:10:28 pm     #   1 person liked this

If you like your insurance you can keep it... wait I lied but didn't know I was lying because I was being lied too.

https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-i-have-a-grandfathered-health-plan/

If I understand this correctly, if you "like" your health insurance plan, you CAN keep it; unless the company selling it to you changes it. As long as it stays the same, it is grandfathered. If it changes, it becomes non-compliant (unless it changes into something that IS compliant, I guess).

So, if you can't keep it, it's not really Obama saying so, it's the people selling you insurance. They're saying it by changing a plan you already bought, were presumably paying for, and presumably satisfied with.

Am I missing something?

posted by Sohio on Oct 31, 2013 at 05:41:26 pm     #  

Perhaps the part about them dropping you due to the ACA mandates?

posted by justread on Oct 31, 2013 at 08:04:00 pm     #  

(the proverbial you, of course.)

posted by justread on Oct 31, 2013 at 08:14:16 pm     #  

"So, if you can't keep it, it's not really Obama saying so, it's the people selling you insurance."

Gosh, when you say it like that it almost sounds true!

posted by Danneskjold on Oct 31, 2013 at 08:28:31 pm     #  

Is it not true? I mean, that's the way I read the law. Do you have a substantive correction to my reading, or just snarky horseshit?

posted by Sohio on Oct 31, 2013 at 11:25:59 pm     #   2 people liked this

Ok… let me try to put this in a different format to illustrate the position.

Let’s say the Government is sticking their nose in the automobile Industry. People are concerned because many have cars that suit them fine. The President, in attempting to drum up support says “if you like your car you have now you can keep it.” However, in those regulations and laws it details that the Government has decreed that all cars must have GPS, Satellite Radio, Air Bags, Anti-Lock Brakes, Child Safety restraints, tow packages and Collision deterrent systems. Your car doesn't have most of these items (in fact you have no children and no intention of towing anything!) and the manufacture is not allowed to let you drive that car. Because of the Governments decree you have to give your car back and buy a new one from the manufacture.

I’ll go back to what Willie said “If you like your present Insurance the way it is – you can keep it.”

Now does it make sense?

posted by Danneskjold on Nov 01, 2013 at 01:14:40 am     #  

Perfect sense. If you completely ignore the "grandfathered plan" provisions:

https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-i-have-a-grandfathered-health-plan/

Which you are.

In fact, your analogy has already happened, in a sense. There are a lot of safety and environmental regulations imposed on automobiles (CAFE, for one) since the 70s that new cars have to comply with. However, if you still want to drive a 1975 Matador, you can...it's grandfathered. The rules only apply to NEW Matadors.

That's still not the whole story, though. There are rules as written; and then there's application of those rules in the real world. Things don't always line up in a harmonious fashion. Politifact has a handy little list list of fact checks on both sides:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/oct/30/like-health-care-you-can-keep-obama/

posted by Sohio on Nov 01, 2013 at 08:42:42 am     #   1 person liked this

Typical A/C post "EVERYBODY SUCKS, I'M A FUCKING INDEPENDANT, ALL OF THEM ARE CORRUPT".. But please Democrats are always right and I would love to give more of my money and control of my life to them. BUT THEY ALL ARE CORPORATE GREED FUCKERS, well except the ones who I want to give more of my life too. BTW did I say I was an independant too but fuck those republicans.

posted by dbw8906 on Nov 01, 2013 at 08:58:10 am     #   3 people liked this

What the country needs now is real honesty and transparency and truth about what’s really going on.

Wait is that from a TeaBaggin' Ted Cruz lovin' republitard... nope Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. But let's continue...

”Unfortunately, in this kind of situation, execution trumps strategy. It might be a great strategy, but the execution is really flawed. It’s off the rails.” - Oh he must be one of those tea drinking racist as he couldn't find a white boogyman to blame the trainwreck and outright LIES the government told about the ACA.

Our government does NOTHING RIGHT! Outside of soaked in the wool Neo-Libs like A/C (who masquerades as an independent) NOBODY is happy with ANYTHING DC does. Schools, roads, taxes, military spending, and the absolute fact that NONE OF THEM listen to the will of the people, yet we wish to keep giving the baby a bigger and bigger machine gun.

Hey Uncle Sam your are a complete DB who doesn't listen a damn thing I have to say, trample my rights, and generally count me as worthless... but hey please be in charge of my liver. Signed progressives on both sides of the isle.

America a nation of battered wives.

posted by dbw8906 on Nov 01, 2013 at 12:45:39 pm     #   1 person liked this

Oh I'm not happy with the Obamacare rollout. But I happen to know quite a lot of the ins and out of IT, and when you are trying to make up something like healthcare.gov for 20-odd states, each with changing specifications ON TOP of the continual changes and delays to the ACA, it's going to be hard to make it work for Day 1. Of course we have to hand it over to contractors just to add more complexity into the implementation since, as you note deeb, "the government does nothing right" therefore the contractors are guaranteed to be perfect... OH WAIT.

posted by anonymouscoward on Nov 01, 2013 at 03:18:09 pm     #  

Wow...

Dbw posted. Then AC posted.

Between the two, AC comes off as the more rational. Dbw employs more caps-lock and profanity. AC calmly responds.

Two questions:

1. When did I cross over into Bizarro World?

&

2. Dbw, how does that make you feel? You out-AC'd AC. I think you might have some soul-searching to do...

posted by Sohio on Nov 01, 2013 at 04:16:25 pm     #   3 people liked this

Just stopped by for some ad hominem.

And there it is.

posted by justread on Nov 01, 2013 at 08:17:40 pm     #   3 people liked this

Sohio posted at 04:16:25 PM on Nov 01, 2013:

Wow...

Dbw posted. Then AC posted.

Between the two, AC comes off as the more rational. Dbw employs more caps-lock and profanity. AC calmly responds.

Two questions:

1. When did I cross over into Bizarro World?

&

2. Dbw, how does that make you feel? You out-AC'd AC. I think you might have some soul-searching to do...

I've passed through the lands of Rage and into the calm, placid waters of Seething Fury at this point.

All I can say is that I and all my fellow co-workers are pretty pissed off at the dicking we were just handed by our employer regarding our health care options for next year.

posted by anonymouscoward on Nov 01, 2013 at 08:52:45 pm     #  

justread posted at 08:17:40 PM on Nov 01, 2013:

Just stopped by for some ad hominem.

And there it is.

Glad I could help. There's only one problem...

Since I made no attempt to refute an argument using personal attacks, no ad hominem took place. Only an observation on differences of personality and presentation. The observation related to behavior, not substance of debate, so ad hominem really doesn't apply.

But you probably knew that already. That's what turns me on about ya. Your attention to detail.

Oh, and thank you for fixing me with my daily dose of Straw-man.

posted by Sohio on Nov 01, 2013 at 09:18:22 pm     #   3 people liked this

You're right. It wasn't ad hominem.

It was asshole.

posted by justread on Nov 02, 2013 at 08:03:16 am     #   1 person liked this

justread posted at 08:03:16 AM on Nov 02, 2013:

You're right. It wasn't ad hominem.

It was asshole.

I'm so sorry you made the mistake of looking in the mirror today.

posted by anonymouscoward on Nov 02, 2013 at 11:52:53 am     #  

justread posted at 08:03:16 AM on Nov 02, 2013:

You're right. It wasn't ad hominem.

It was asshole.

Something wrong?

posted by Sohio on Nov 02, 2013 at 02:55:36 pm     #  

Sohio posted at 01:55:36 PM on Nov 02, 2013:
justread posted at 08:03:16 AM on Nov 02, 2013:

You're right. It wasn't ad hominem.

It was asshole.

Something wrong?

He has to put his yacht away for the year cause it got cold and we didn't really have an Indian Summer this year, so he's annoyed.

posted by anonymouscoward on Nov 04, 2013 at 12:47:08 pm     #  

Sohio posted at 03:16:25 PM on Nov 01, 2013:

Wow...

Dbw posted. Then AC posted.

Between the two, AC comes off as the more rational. Dbw employs more caps-lock and profanity. AC calmly responds.

Two questions:

1. When did I cross over into Bizarro World?

&

2. Dbw, how does that make you feel? You out-AC'd AC. I think you might have some soul-searching to do...

Makes me feel great that the fact that our government can do NOTHING right can not be denied. But hey here is my liver uncle sam.

If you want to see government healthcare and how they handle "free" healthcare maybe we should ask a large group of people who have been on government healthcare for decades. I mean the Feds took over completely because the "smart" people in government ALWAYS knew better than the people who lived in the land.

some_text

posted by dbw8906 on Nov 13, 2013 at 03:47:00 pm     #  

SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA): “If you like the insurance that you have, you'll be able to keep it.” (MSNBC’s Hardball, 12/16/09)

SEN. KAY HAGAN (D-NC): “We need to support the private insurance industry so that people who have insurance they're happy with can keep it while also providing a backstop option for people without access to affordable coverage.” (“Republicans Vent As Other Compromise Plans Get Aired,” National Journal’s Congress Daily, 6/18/09)

SEN. MARK BEGICH (D-AK): “If you got a doctor now, you got a medical professional you want, you get to keep that. If you have an insurance program or a health care policy you want of ideas, make sure you keep it. That you can keep who you want.”

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-CO): “We should begin with a basic principle: if you have coverage and you like it, you can keep it. If you have your doctor, and you like him or her, you should be able to keep them as well. We will not take that choice away from you.”

SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D-WA): “Again, if you like what you have, you will be able to keep it. Let me say this again: If you like what you have, when our legislation is passed and signed by the President, you will be able to keep it.” (Sen. Murray, Congressional Record, S.6400, 6/10/09)

SEN. TOM HARKIN (D-IA): “One of the things we put in the health care bill when we designed it was the protection for consumers to keep the plan they have if they like it; thus, the term ‘grandfathered plans.’ If you have a plan you like --existing policies--you can keep them. …we said, if you like a plan, you get to keep it, and you can grandfather it in.” (Sen. Harkin, Congressional Record, S.7675-6, 9/29/10)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): “If you like your insurance, you keep it.” (U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Bill Mark-Up, 9/24/09)

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): “This bill before us on the Senate floor makes it clear that if you have an insurance policy that you like, you can keep it. If you like the doctor that you're currently doing business with, you can continue to use that doctor.” (Sen. Durbin, Teleconference, 12/4/09)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV):“In fact, one of our core principles is that if you like the health care you have, you can keep it.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.8642, 8/3/09)

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): “That is why one of the central promises of health care reform has been and is: If you like what you have, you can keep it. That is critically important. If a person has a plan, and he or she likes it, he or she can keep it.” (Sen. Baucus, Congressional Record, S.7676, 9/29/10)

9% Congressional approval, yet "unicorns" are tripping over themselves to let these power hungry goobers run your healthcare.

Unicorns HATE government/business monopolies well except that when they come from Obama.

posted by dbw8906 on Nov 14, 2013 at 03:02:15 pm     #  

Someone pissed in deeb's Wheaties today, I see.

If you want to bitch about how government can do nothing right, then stop your partisan hackery and rail on the GOP too. They're the ones who let the banksters get out of control, they're the ones who love the handouts to Big Ag and Big Oil, they're the morons who bitch about deficits (which only matter when the White House has a Democrat in it) yet continuously cut taxes, as if deciding to not work as much is a wise thing to do when you have bills mounting up.

posted by anonymouscoward on Nov 14, 2013 at 07:47:21 pm     #  

dbw8906 posted at 02:02:15 PM on Nov 14, 2013:

SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA): “If you like the insurance that you have, you'll be able to keep it.” (MSNBC’s Hardball, 12/16/09)

SEN. KAY HAGAN (D-NC): “We need to support the private insurance industry so that people who have insurance they're happy with can keep it while also providing a backstop option for people without access to affordable coverage.” (“Republicans Vent As Other Compromise Plans Get Aired,” National Journal’s Congress Daily, 6/18/09)

SEN. MARK BEGICH (D-AK): “If you got a doctor now, you got a medical professional you want, you get to keep that. If you have an insurance program or a health care policy you want of ideas, make sure you keep it. That you can keep who you want.”

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-CO): “We should begin with a basic principle: if you have coverage and you like it, you can keep it. If you have your doctor, and you like him or her, you should be able to keep them as well. We will not take that choice away from you.”

SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D-WA): “Again, if you like what you have, you will be able to keep it. Let me say this again: If you like what you have, when our legislation is passed and signed by the President, you will be able to keep it.” (Sen. Murray, Congressional Record, S.6400, 6/10/09)

SEN. TOM HARKIN (D-IA): “One of the things we put in the health care bill when we designed it was the protection for consumers to keep the plan they have if they like it; thus, the term ‘grandfathered plans.’ If you have a plan you like --existing policies--you can keep them. …we said, if you like a plan, you get to keep it, and you can grandfather it in.” (Sen. Harkin, Congressional Record, S.7675-6, 9/29/10)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): “If you like your insurance, you keep it.” (U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Bill Mark-Up, 9/24/09)

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): “This bill before us on the Senate floor makes it clear that if you have an insurance policy that you like, you can keep it. If you like the doctor that you're currently doing business with, you can continue to use that doctor.” (Sen. Durbin, Teleconference, 12/4/09)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV):“In fact, one of our core principles is that if you like the health care you have, you can keep it.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.8642, 8/3/09)

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): “That is why one of the central promises of health care reform has been and is: If you like what you have, you can keep it. That is critically important. If a person has a plan, and he or she likes it, he or she can keep it.” (Sen. Baucus, Congressional Record, S.7676, 9/29/10)

9% Congressional approval, yet "unicorns" are tripping over themselves to let these power hungry goobers run your healthcare.

Unicorns HATE government/business monopolies well except that when they come from Obama.

1.

posted by Sohio on Nov 14, 2013 at 10:38:59 pm     #   3 people liked this

anonymouscoward posted at 06:47:21 PM on Nov 14, 2013:

Someone pissed in deeb's Wheaties today, I see.

If you want to bitch about how government can do nothing right, then stop your partisan hackery and rail on the GOP too. They're the ones who let the banksters get out of control, they're the ones who love the handouts to Big Ag and Big Oil, they're the morons who bitch about deficits (which only matter when the White House has a Democrat in it) yet continuously cut taxes, as if deciding to not work as much is a wise thing to do when you have bills mounting up.

I have railed on the GOP, I've actively wished for the GOP to implode into the death spiral that it is in. Guess you choose to ignore those post. I've donated to unseat Mitch McConnell and John McCain as they are the picture of term limits, greed, blood lust, and evil. What more do you need me to say, I guess if I don't kiss the DNC ass I guess I'm a "party hack".

You choose to support maybe the worst piece of garbage legislation ever gifted to us by the Feds, but since your messiah is at the top of the pile all of you "unicorns" have to "keep in party line" and play good ole Sergeant Schultz "I see nothing!". Unicorns supported a bill that they had to "pass before they could read it", you supported the only socially transformational bill in modern history to be passed on a straight party-line vote. Obamacare is wholly owned by the Democrats and it's done more to hurt American liberalism than the Tea Party could ever hope to do.

We look around and see how the US Federal Government handles cradle to grave care and we blind our eyes to the travesty that is the American Indian. We see how those trapped in our inner city are kept locked in the crime plantation with cradle to grave care. Yet we expect it to be different for "white america", what fools mortals be.

I'm not making the argument that their isn't a place for the State to help with your momma's liver. I can't look at someone with a straight face and "say yes we can afford to keep bases in Germany and Korea but I can't help your child who has cancer." I do have a heart somewhere buried in my grinch like chest cavity but I don't trust the FEDERAL government and their 9% approval rating, fat cat, good for nothing Congress people to maintain and run it.

Obamacare is garbage and you know it, the DNC will pay dearly.

posted by dbw8906 on Nov 15, 2013 at 09:04:42 am     #  

Worst piece of garbage legislation ever gifted to us by the feds?

Cheezus, dbw. That's too easy. Just...too easy.

posted by Sohio on Nov 15, 2013 at 05:25:18 pm     #  

Sohio posted at 04:25:18 PM on Nov 15, 2013:

Worst piece of garbage legislation ever gifted to us by the feds?

Cheezus, dbw. That's too easy. Just...too easy.

PATRIOT Act anyone?

How about the AUMF in Iraq?

posted by anonymouscoward on Nov 16, 2013 at 03:22:49 am     #  

BTW worse Presidential Approval numbers than Bush at this time in his Presidency.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/20/obama-support-poll_n_4309947.html

http://www.scribd.com/embeds/185695292/content?start_page=1

Cheezus that SOhio

But wait please tell me HuffPo and CBS News is the whole owned by derps and teabaggers right? Please tell me this poll was conducted in the Romney house.

Guess I'm not the only one who things it's the worst peice of garbage legislation ever.

posted by dbw8906 on Nov 20, 2013 at 04:22:22 pm     #  

... SOPA, PIPA, DMCA, DOMA, and the PATRIOT Act would like to challenge for "worst piece of garbage legislation ever" title.

Have you bothered looking at Congress's approval rating? It's lower than the snake's belly on that flag you wave.

posted by anonymouscoward on Nov 22, 2013 at 09:57:13 am     #  

dbw8906 posted at 03:22:22 PM on Nov 20, 2013:

BTW worse Presidential Approval numbers than Bush at this time in his Presidency.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/20/obama-support-poll_n_4309947.html

http://www.scribd.com/embeds/185695292/content?start_page=1

Cheezus that SOhio

But wait please tell me HuffPo and CBS News is the whole owned by derps and teabaggers right? Please tell me this poll was conducted in the Romney house.

Guess I'm not the only one who things it's the worst peice of garbage legislation ever.

Wow. So much obfuscation. Where to begin...

But wait please tell me HuffPo and CBS News is the whole owned by derps and teabaggers right?

Preemptive obfuscation. You're trying to throw me off by diffusing what you suspect will be my default argument; in fact in this case, the source of your data means nothing to me.

Please tell me this poll was conducted in the Romney house.

What does that even mean? Are polls regularly conducted exclusively among the members of the Romney family for publication? And furthermore, he's the wash-up who lost last year. He's history. Your byword for shady Republican propaganda brokerage is "Romney?" Still? What is your word for the Democratic equivalent..."Mondale?"

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

...which is why I say the source of your data is unimportant to me. Your argument is fallacious anyway. So, the only logic underlying your conclusion that the ACA is the worst piece of legislation ever is that a lot of people don't seem to approve of it at this point in time? Only a month ago, its approval rating was ten points higher than it was in 2010; so based on that, I suppose you spent the entire month of October lamenting that the ACA was on the road to quickly becoming the finest piece of legislation ever?

Incidentally, while we're talking popularity as a validation matrix; it is important to note that the huffingtonpost article you linked to shows the collective approval of the congressional Republicans who are trying to repeal the ACA at 21%. Exactly half of Obama's. So, again using popularity as the yard stick, what does that tell us?

I feel like you can do better.

posted by Sohio on Nov 22, 2013 at 01:57:27 pm     #   2 people liked this