# The Health Care Law is Going Down



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 27, 2012)

Wow. This is pretty huge, no? What a mess. Is this the impact of electing W in 2000, and having a conservative majority supreme court? How much money was spent on preparing this? 10s or 100s of millions? Sad, methinks.


----------



## MacQ (Mar 27, 2012)

Ned, just be happy we live in Canada. Honestly, I can't understand why people are so vehemently opposed to Canadian-style socialized medicine. Canada isn't a welfare state by any stretch. I see the doctor I want, and billing is handled transparently with no co-pay. For critical services I've never had to wait. Is it perfect? Probably not, but for the tax rate I'm paying it's pretty damn good. I've got a friend in Texas paying $300/month plus $50 co-pay per doctor visit. That's insane.

It's probably the number one reason I'll stay in Canada. That and our relatively sane election process. Perpetual-campaign-mode isn't helping anyone.

~Stu


----------



## José Herring (Mar 27, 2012)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Tue Mar 27 said:


> Wow. This is pretty huge, no? What a mess. Is this the impact of electing W in 2000, and having a conservative majority supreme court? How much money was spent on preparing this? 10s or 100s of millions? Sad, methinks.



Huge yes. Surprising, no. The individual mandate is unconstitutional. Always has been. It was clear to me two years ago that it was going down.

I think people should be required to have health insurance by law. Uninsured people are running hospitals in America bankrupt because hospitals are required by law to treat everybody, and if they can't pay, then the hospital gets screwed. So it makes sense to me. But, in all honesty, legally, the feds don't have the authority to impose that kind of law on all the citizens. The States can, but not the fed.

So the way the constitution is setup at its foundation, things like single payer, or forced mandates, will never be a reality here in America.

Its a stretch though. But, you could argue that since health care is a business it falls under the heading of interstate commerce so you could regulate it at the fed level. But that's a argument that nobody seems to be making. The liberals on the court are making feeble arguments and the conservatives are on solid ground. Too bad really. But such is the way this country was built.

Its sad really. I feel for the kids mostly. I know this libertarian, banging out babies like there's a population shortage, totally hates everything Obama. Doesn't appear to have health care judging by the state of her kids rotting teeth. And, I just look at that and can't help to be feel a deep sense of pitty. Truly sorry. I'd gladly pay more taxes or whatever so that everybody could have health insurance. Gladly.

How this country has evolved into a everybody fend for themselves is beyond me. It use to not be that way. But right now we're just a country of individuals scratching each others eyes out for survival. Sad :( 

I will add. That I hate the supreme court. I think they're a bunch of partisan idiots who's "arguments" make absolutely no sense. When any of them open there mouths all I hear is "I'm a conservative" or "I'm a liberal". I never hear any judgement these days. Just partisan opinion. Our entire government right now is just a mockery.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 27, 2012)

It's not over yet, Ned. We'll see.

Stu, I think the answer to why more Americans are opposed to the ACA than in favor of it is that they don't understand it. How can you be in favor of something you don't understand?

A small part of why they don't understand is that it's hard to explain all three legs of the tripod in half a bumper sticker: 1. insurers must cover everyone, regardless of health; 2. everyone, including healthy people, must buy insurance to spread the cost of 1.; 3. subsidy for people who can't afford 2.

The larger part of why people don't understand that: the incessant shrieking lies from the American right, who should be ashamed of themselves for putting their lust for power ahead of peoples' health. After all, this whole compromise scheme was invented by the Heritage Foundation, a far right "think tank!"


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 27, 2012)

> Our entire government right now is just a mockery



You got that right.

But while what Stu is saying about perpetual campaign mode is the biggest problem facing our republic, it's exclusively the radical right that is paralyzing our government. Warts and all, the Democrats haven't let the radical fringe take over the party.

Have I mentioned this before?


----------



## José Herring (Mar 27, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Mar 27 said:


> > Our entire government right now is just a mockery
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The radical right is ruining any chance that this country has to come together. They're completely insane and any victory that these m'fers get is another nail in the coffin for the US.


----------



## midphase (Mar 27, 2012)

I don't think all is lost, the court hasn't made a ruling yet. Also, if they strike this down, it could give Obama more momentum and not less, particularly if another term would afford him the opportunity to appoint another judge to the SC.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 27, 2012)

midphase @ Tue Mar 27 said:


> I don't think all is lost, the court hasn't made a ruling yet. Also, if they strike this down, it could give Obama more momentum and not less, particularly if another term would afford him the opportunity to appoint another judge to the SC.



+1


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 27, 2012)

This is meant to go on for a long time, but it still allows pre existing conditions, and companies cannot drop insured members, however, they do not have to authorize certain treatments.

AIG stockholder payments have been suspended ever since ClubFed/Treasury owned 79.8% of AIG.
They were just paid back 6 Billion by selling 2/3'rd's of AIA so the Feds own 75% now.

But they are such lucky fellows. The longer this litigation goes on the more money the Treausry makes, since the only law the CLubFed must abide by, is that it's profits form Bond sales and AIG go directly to the Treasury. 

So the question is, does the Treasury really want to give up this Giant Insurance cash making machine just so Americans can have free health care.....

I really don't think so.
Notice how they bailed out certain amounts over time, and followed their CEOs around and embarrassed them at lavish hunting trips and resorts, etc. This dropped their value on the NYSE so low that pennies on the Dollar for Lehmen were bought, then the evil CEOs caved in and took the rest of the bail out money.

There's your real power gentlemen, and be glad they can print money and make a profit from the Global Insurance Giants.
They should be able to pay off the debt in 8 more years, and this is probably why the Senate has no desire to cut spending or even have a budget after 3 1/2 years.............

So I feel pretty good about things. I think the helpless being covered was the most important thing, and the rest of us, unless your exempted by one of the Kings or Queens, will be covered within a few more years..

God Bless The USA........... 0oD


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 27, 2012)

I actually think Kennedy could go either way and will be the deciding factor, but we'll see who really runs the show as somehow even if it passes more thorough committees wil extend the status quo while the money printers count their profits and wonder why they never used other crisises to take over such lucrative streams of revenue...

We promise you rivers of honey but just let us use these profits to ensure a smooth transtition to corporatism/fascism, I swear, even though I will be long gone and using the best Health service provided.

Yours Truly,
Every Member of the Congress...........


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 28, 2012)

Lower income members of the Tea Party will celebrate their victory (if it turns out that way) as a victory for their vision of America, while they will be the most affected by the loss of any chance for health care. It defies any attempt at logic.

Q-"Why are you hitting yourself in the head with that hammer?"
A-"Because it feels so good when I stop".

I wish they would stop already.


----------



## Nostradamus (Mar 28, 2012)

MacQ @ Tue Mar 27 said:


> Ned, just be happy we live in Canada. Honestly, I can't understand why people are so vehemently opposed to Canadian-style socialized medicine.



This is pure SOCIALISM and this is EVIL! It's nearly communism. No, just kidding, but I think that a lot of Americans think this way. I mean, I'm from Germany and our health care system and health insurance is pure luxury, compared to the crappy system in the States. As far as I know Obama tried to establish a health insurance in form of an obligatory insurance which would be more affordable for a broader population . But he failed because lots of Americans (at least the conservatives) declined this kind of enforcement. The result is that millions of Americans still have no real health care and can't afford to visit a doc.


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 28, 2012)

Look we can stab at it all we want, the fact is the Unions wrote this law and shoved it down the peoples throat, the Onion was peeled and it stunk from corruption, you know the usual American disease.

Americans would love to see the cost get controlled and have the Feds do their job, not take over an entire industry.
In case you haven't noticed they can't run a lemonade stand,
Obama was brave enough to break the Ice, this will be repealed, eventually it will be the system it has always been capable of being, but having careless politicians in control of our insurance, is like having Colonel Sanders watch your chickens for the week........

The American view is that our kids have been sent to wars we shouldn't be in around the globe, they barely take of the wounded warrioirs when they return, yet we are to believe these same protectors of the working man have our interests at hand.........????
If they would just manage our tax dollars as good as they manage their own money...it's distrust, and corruption and lies that Americans despise.

We all need a massive health care overhaul, but not an insurance takeover.
No more lawyers driving up costs with frivalous lawsuits, etc.

Im am optimist, and until then the Treasury keeps the profits.
Its a done deal, just a question of implementation.

THis cannot be like Welfare or the Mail or unemplyment where no oversight and fraud are encouraged......

This should be viewed as good news really. Regardless of the outcome which isn't even close yet.
My own greed hopes I get to stay exempted, but that isn't fair really.
I mean my Unions lawyers and unelected officials wrote this law, yet Congress pretends they wrote this.
Maybe now they'll do what they're paid to do and reign in the insurance companies, which has already started, and have affordable care for everyone, and have Medical professionals and legislators hammer this out, not a bunch of Lawyers from the AFL-CIO or SEIU.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 28, 2012)

Nostradamus @ Wed Mar 28 said:


> MacQ @ Tue Mar 27 said:
> 
> 
> > Ned, just be happy we live in Canada. Honestly, I can't understand why people are so vehemently opposed to Canadian-style socialized medicine.
> ...



Yes it is true that a lot of Americans rejected the health care mandate. But, in all honesty, we are bound by the constitution of the US which actually almost expressly forbids this kind of enforcement at the federal level. That's why the more liberal judges are having a hard time defending the law and the conservative judges are having a field day. That's why the individual mandate was always in trouble, was hard to pass, and not because we Americans all hate each other. It's just unconstitutional, Obama always new that. It was the reason why he wanted it dropped. But, the progressives rammed it through, and it never was the lynch pin that holds all reform together. What really holds the health reform together is having insurance companies compete across state lines to drive down insurance prices.

Though I'm all for it. I'd actually be all for a system like they have in Switzerland, it's really a state to state type law rather than a national law.


----------



## Udo (Mar 28, 2012)

Arguments seem very similar to when the Social Security retirement system was introduced by a distant relative of mine (originally named van Rosenvelt).  That was passed circa 1935.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Mar 28, 2012)

Problem: Ensure that Americans with preexisting conditions can get health coverage.

Solutions:
1) Individual mandate
2) Tax funded health care

Choose #1 or #2 if you do not want to see yourself as a murderer.

Anybody got Solution #3?


----------



## José Herring (Mar 28, 2012)

JonFairhurst @ Wed Mar 28 said:


> Problem: Ensure that Americans with preexisting conditions can get health coverage.
> 
> Solutions:
> 1) Individual mandate
> ...



ummmm..... argument doesn't make sense. You can have one without the other. It would make more sense if you had added, people that can't afford health care with preexisting conditions. But, as long as the law stands that insurance companies can't deny you if you have a preexsting condition, then you don't need the individual mandate or tax funded health care.

Me though I'm all for no.2 having come from military health care as a kid. I always thought that the military system could be extended for the entire country. Nobody seems to be thinking this way. We wouldn't need an individual mandate if we had more publicly funded hospitals open to those who don't have insurance. Just more proof that the big insurance corporations are running the health care show. Hell, just shave off a third of the military budget and we could afford it. Not like the military is doing us much good.


----------



## midphase (Mar 28, 2012)

I think the absurd effect of what is going on is that Americans are choosing the most expensive and least efficient solution and don't even know it. They are choosing to have a "don't ask don't tell" solution where everyone gets charged money anyway to cover those who need medical assistance but can't afford it, but yet nobody wants to acknowledge that this is indeed the reality.

It's so stupid...people are stupid, seriously, we have a lot of fucking stupid people who are allowed to vote!


----------



## MacQ (Mar 28, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Inter ... 25_GDP.png

This always amused me. And by amused, I mean disgusted. People are getting rich off of sick people. The insurance industry is a sham. But then again, LOTS of people are employed by said industry (and the health care industry in general), so it's impossible to make sweeping generalizations about what's in the best interest of the people of the United States.

I blame the 24-hour news networks. It's not like the daily dose of succinctly delivered, dispassionate and unbiased Walter Cronkite -- it's the "Hey, there's really nothing happening right now, so why don't we make some shit up?" musings of CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. Wolf Blitzer sounds like a cool name, and he delivers his news with a bold steely-eyed baritone (with that gruff beard that lets people give him a pass on his "sounds like he made it up" name). But have you seen some of the stuff he's being forced to report on? I mean, come on. This shit isn't news. And all of that multi-touch holograhic "Situation Room" bullshit is just theatre. If I really want to be entertained, I'm not even THINKING about the "news". (Which is invariably bad or scandalous. Stupid.)

But that's capitalism, right? Technology gives us more channels. And suddenly holy shit there's so much more room to sell advertising! We go FULL TIME NEWS. Simultaneously, a thing called the Internet is born, which offers its users unlimited access to a global community, without pre-baked bias. (I think it's well understood that the Internet is an active, rather than passive medium. You can't just turn on the computer and plop your kids in front of the Internet). So technology starts to buzz, and suddenly people aren't in local communities anymore. We VI-Control-ers are anything BUT local. I mean, how cool is that that I can reach out to people around the world to collaborate with? Pretty fucking cool.

But it's not cool for those where the Government censors the Internet.

Corporate Asshole 1: "Hey, let's have our upper class sell out our lower class. But let's do it by sending it to DESPERATE communist countries where people will crank out our iPads for pennies on the dollar, because they -- also being human -- need to eat, right? And Chinese food is way cheaper in China! I mean, am I right guys?"

Corporate Asshole 2: "Wait, aren't they commies? Didn't we spend a trillion dollars trying to STOP the commies?" 

Corporate Asshole 1: "13.1 trillion, actually, but it's totally cool now. They NEED our money, so we've got 'em by the balls. And dude ... have you SEEN the yacht I'm gonna buy? I'm gonna be KNEE-DEEP in pussy!"

So, with the help of some poor tax decisions and ill-conceived military ambitions, compounded by the recent "Citizens United" absurdity, you end up with the political corruption (like, to the core, completely on the payroll of AnyCorp USA) that is usually reserved for places where your President might be someone who seized power via military coup.

What's funny is this continuing national delusion that is the so-called "American Dream". Something that post-WW2 and on through the Cold War was still a theoretical possibility. You guys still had a manufacturing sector, after all. But the whole flaw in my mind with the "American Dream" is in the emphasis on personal aspiration. Which is fine if there's a sense of national identity, but when the nation gets fed this kind of plainly divisive and/or vapid news media content ad nauseum, while huge swathes are simply tuning out to ignorantly let the world happen around them (the Jersey Shore watcher, for example), the "American Dream" becomes "how can I fuck my neighbour out of his money so I can claw my way into prosperity".

The recent meme about "Israel Loves Iran", and even the Kony attention, both in support of and in criticism, says to me that the people can call out and be heard. Everyone just wants to feed their family and live in peace. The only war mongers are shareholders of DoD contractors. As a complete aside (as if I haven't meandered enough) ... this is the funniest thing I've seen in recent memory: http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-w ... oseph-kony

As long as people are tranquilized by pop culture and isolated by media (http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/12/02/american-vs-international-news-time-and-newsweek/ (http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/20 ... -newsweek/)) and their daily experience is a relatively predictable thing, the richest among us will consolidate political power. When I say that I sound like a conspiracy nut, but it is actually happening. I don't think the corporate heads want RULING power, they just want to be able to make it as EASY as possible to make money. To "be responsible to the shareholders". Haha. That's as funny as the "we're not rich people, we're uh ... JOB creators". I'm sorry I burned down that hospital full of sick children, I was just being responsible to my shareholders, you know? How much does one guy need? A million? A billion? $50 billion? Greed makes me sick.

I think (hope) that the people of the U.S. will put a stop to it before it gets beyond repair, but it seems like that time is perpetually a year away. I'd love to see us (everywhere in the world) abandon our current Government systems in favour of more efficient, more relevant ones that reflect our current ideals and the advances in our technology. That constitution is almost 225 years old. I'd say there's been a fair amount of advancement in our understanding of the world since that time. And don't even get me started on our religious texts! Haha.

Anyway, that was more of an essay about what turns my stomach. Thanks for reading!

~Stu


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 28, 2012)

1 in 14 doctors are sued every year, and 80% of them are not required to pay as there's no wrong doing.
The taxpayers are responsible for paying these parasitic lawyers who have driven up the malpractice costs, that drive up the cost of health care, so there's something I want to see eliminated, but the Liberal based Trail Lawyers give the liars................sorry.............I meant politicians in DC so much money, that they can't afford to represent the taxpayers, but rather themselves retianing their seat is the priority.
A simple law called Loser pays would save us Billions in litigations, and what lawyer would go to court risking his own money....?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20063688-503544.html (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html)

The above link is all of the proof you need to know that this Bill was written to fail.
I didn't need the Queen for my exemption, we paid the President out of our Union Dues.

The Unions get this due to the sheer numbers across the nation in a group buy. Imagine 300 million people in various group buys, the competition for such groups would drive down the costs, and remove the parasites and corrupted officials. 

This is where politicians could come in handy. They could use the tax funded plans and decide which company has the best prices for their home districts.
If it happens to be a company from Utah and you are in New York, so be it.
Competition drives down the prices.

Can't expect someone who never held a job in the private sector to understand this, but why not teach them something while they're in DC..?
Then they are responsible for the people they represent, and held accountable if they fail.

What is so difficult about that....?


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 28, 2012)

Interesting exchange on the NYTimes, between David Brooks and Gail Collins:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... uments/?hp


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 28, 2012)

Stu, good post with a lot of interesting points.

But I've always thought the percentage of GDP statistic is way too coarse to indicate who is spending how much on what healthcare services.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Mar 28, 2012)

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/28/romney-uninsured-with-preexisting-conditions-should-be-denied-coverage/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/28/r ... -coverage/)

Well, we know one Republican presidential hopeful has a solution for the uninsured with pre-existing conditions: do nothing!

By the way, here's a story for everyone. I have a rare genetic condition that makes my blood prone to clotting. Well, in theory anyway. I got my own insurance in 2009. Then, after my sister developed clots, I got my own testing to see if I had the same thing. I did, but was told it might not cause any problems for me. In 2011 I developed a life-threatening blood clot that was thankfully diagnosed in time. After 1 week in the hospital and several weeks recovery I was back on my feet and prescribed blood thinners for life. If I take the blood thinners, I'm mostly fine, provided I watch my diet and avoid head injuries.

Now, my insurance company covered all this hospital stuff, which came out to about $30,000. Great! But then I had to move to a new state, and as you all might know, insurance plans don't carry over. Being self-employed, I had to sign up for new insurance on my own. However, all the insurance companies I applied for said my condition is technically ongoing (even though it is managed at a cost of a few cents a day with generic pills) so I was rejected across the board. My only option was to go back on my parents' plan for 6 months, and then switch to the Maryland High Risk Pool, which essentially guarantees people like me coverage. I have to pay, of course, but I can't be rejected from it.

Now, what if:

1. I didn't have the money to pay for the high risk pool plans, which are not cheap ($300+/mo)?

and/or

2. I was too old to go back on my parents' plan for a few months?

I'd have no options except be uninsured. In this case, the problem is that you can't transfer a plan from one state to the other. Even though I DID sign up for insurance before I had any problems, it didn't do me any good. The same can happen to any young professional who is moving around the country and happens to develop a health problem.


----------



## MacQ (Mar 28, 2012)

Wow Andrew, that's a seriously big hole to fall into so easily! Hopefully the "across-state-lines" stuff will stay in the bill, rather than having the whole thing torpedoed by a short-sighted Supreme Court.

But who am I kidding? It's gonna get torpedoed.

~Stu


----------



## Simplesly (Mar 28, 2012)

The for-profit, serve-the-shareholders system perpetuated by US healthcare providers and insurers is immoral, period. One of the cornerstones of morality of much of our population is that puritanical bullshittery that poor people are lazy, unmotivated whiners who are unwilling to grab their piece of the action, and are thusly undeserving of basic human rights, like being healthy. Free-market utopianism is a cancer that will eat this country from the inside-out. We'll figure it out eventually. 

In the meantime, the healthcare law will be shot down, and bunch of people will be happy that the Federal gov didn't get to shove its proverbial dick down our throats this time.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Mar 28, 2012)

josejherring @ Wed Mar 28 said:


> JonFairhurst @ Wed Mar 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Problem: Ensure that Americans with preexisting conditions can get health coverage...
> ...



Unfortunately, a mandate is necessary to have private insurers cover preexisting conditions. Here's why...

I can go along without buying healthcare insurance along with millions of others. The minute I learn that I have an expensive-to-treat disease, I buy coverage at the nominal rate (maybe hundreds of $$$ per month) and get coverage (maybe tens of thousands of $$$$$ per month.)

And the minute I'm cured, I drop my health insurance policy.

It's similar to why suicide voids life insurance policies. Otherwise, I could buy a million dollar policy for a few hundred bucks, off myself, and make my family rich. I can't buy a big policy for my wife, off her, and walk away rich either. Besides being ethically wrong, those practices would destroy the life insurance industry.

Similarly, a mandate to cover preexisting conditions without mandatory coverage would destroy health insurance.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 28, 2012)

Makes sense.


----------



## George Caplan (Mar 28, 2012)

MacQ @ Wed Mar 28 said:


> People are getting rich off of sick people.



:lol: :lol: :lol: 

has to be quote of the week.


----------



## snowleopard (Mar 28, 2012)

josejherring @ Tue Mar 27 said:


> How this country has evolved into a everybody fend for themselves is beyond me. It use to not be that way. But right now we're just a country of individuals scratching each others eyes out for survival. Sad :(


I think you've all but summed it up. It's Ayn Rand's Virtue of Selfishness in action. And our politicians and leaders all support it by saying "competition" is good for society. Forcing everyone to stomp on each others' backs just to make ends meet. 



> I will add. That I hate the supreme court. I think they're a bunch of partisan idiots who's "arguments" make absolutely no sense. When any of them open there mouths all I hear is "I'm a conservative" or "I'm a liberal". I never hear any judgment these days. Just partisan opinion. Our entire government right now is just a mockery.



They are basically politicians in robes is how I see it. 

I also find it interesting that they have become the final arbiter of most all laws. While I'm not an attorney the Constitution seems to be written to where Congress negotiates and passes bills, and the President signs or vetoes them to enact them. If we don't like it, we vote them out, and a new bill is written, unless the law is a blatant violation of the Constitution. What happens now is that Congress and the President negotiate, a bill gets signed, and then regardless of the details, it gets kicked through courts until the SC has the final say, and they are just as split and partisan as Congress.

Thus, I expect the ACA to be thrown out, in entirety, with a 5-4 vote along ideological lines.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 28, 2012)

Competition IS good. Heartless, rapacious capitalism is not.

The Horatio Alger narrative of America is growing a little thin these days, and it seems the conservative wing of the Republican party feels the necessity to foist the most Scrooge-like Dickensian agenda onto the American public. The Supremes have been highly ideological since Sandra Day O'Connor left ( and her husband died a year later, sad story but I wonder if she regrets her decision).

Btw, O'Connor is a real American hero of the Court. I highly recommend "The Nine" by Jeffrey Toobin-, I had no idea how influential she was until I read it. It's quite entertaining as well as informative.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 28, 2012)

As I posted earlier, it's a tripod; remove one leg and the whole thing collapses.

What you guys are talking about is Social Darwinism: YOYO (you're on your own; also known as F you I'm okay, or euphemistically "small government"). It's the type of conservatism I find the most disgusting.


----------



## midphase (Mar 28, 2012)

Meanwhile other countries are scratching their heads and laughing at our stupidity. 

Germany now has a $5BIL surplus in their public health care budget. They have no idea why in the world US citizens would be fighting about this!


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 28, 2012)

Yeah the idea of having foreign investors in campaigns was a great piece of legislation, now we get to see these robed politicians who themselves never read the bill, nor did the President, nor the Senate, or Congress. make a decision based on a 2900 page document that nobody has read...
It was written by the Unions and in all honesty is a sound way to provide coverage.
But most Americans despise politicians who lie, and definately don't trust them with prices, estimates, etc.

In the AFL-CIO our health care is extracted at a rate of 5.00 per hour.
You are wise to use this as the coverage has preventive provisions, and even allow you to choose your doctor but pay a small co pay for this preference.

But even as an 18 year old kid I saw my money go towards this and knew I would eventually need it.
We were the guys who made sure our fellow brothers when they got old got easier jobs, and had plenty of health care and time to use it once retired.

Sadly in Concrete work when you get old and can't shovel Concrete you spread out the water jugs, but that's for guys who are 60+ and still working, and trust me carrying them 10 gallon jugs up and down stairs is no cakewalk either. But we always took care of our own.

Once that people realize they are in this together and helping others it should change their mind and give them a purpose and a little pride knowing they have helped extend the lives of their neighbbors, etc.

Health Care will never get passed until new blood gets into office and is wise enough to have Medical Prefessionals and Politicians together write a bill that people will at least trust.
Saying that we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.
That statement pretty much ruined its chances, and then the very same person who actually read off script then went on to exempt her friends and businesses in her district, she and others like her are to blame, as this bill might have squeezed through, but hearing how Campaign donors like the Unions who wrote the bill are exempted, is just another stupid mistake. Unbelievable that these " leaders " are so drunken with their own power they think they can just do such dishonest things and insult the intelligence of the people who actually work for a living.

Have an honest man like Bernie Sanders who will outright say I am a Socialist and want to see the middle class get better wages and affordable health care as a representative instead of the Corzines, Kerrys and Edwards of the world smile and kiss the cameras while lying their asses off. 
The elites who forced this legisaltion are to blame for it's failure, not some politician in a robe.... although their gig is ridiculous IMHO.
Who voted in Ginsberg.........?___ FDR.............she is older than Helen Thomas who also had a big mouth and was finally relieved after decades of her stupid ass kissing " reporting. "

Vote in new freshmen, DNC or GOP it doesn't matter, they are new and will want to fix this broken system. Having someone like Obama as a leader is fine by me, he has experience now after 4 years of on the job training. And was wise enough to follow orders from the real powers and military.
He knows the gig now, and I can't see having a CEO as a President, it ain't right.
Besides under Romneys Blue Jeans are a 1500 dollar bottom half of his Armani suit....


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 28, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Mar 28 said:


> As I posted earlier, it's a tripod; remove one leg and the whole thing collapses.
> 
> What you guys are talking about is Social Darwinism: YOYO (you're on your own; also known as F you I'm okay, or euphemistically "small government"). It's the type of conservatism I find the most disgusting.



Also known as "I got mine, go get yours".


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 29, 2012)

I think I know why the real rulers are lining uo behind Romney now.
He started the State run Health Care, where actually it makes more sense,
We know these guys will lie and cheat their way into office so we really select the best liar. Obama was really good at that too, as I believed him and that's like the last 4 guys that have conned me.
I can see Romney and some new guys making a new health care bill as it seems the citizens want this, but not the way it was back roomed in the last session, where the more we learned, the more lies we found, the higher the cost, the less choices, etc.
What an Ironic tragedy to have Romney bring America Health Care.
I betcha the Liberal left will hate having to agree, but what are they going to do ...? Vote it down because a moderate posing as a Conservative wroted the Bill....?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 29, 2012)

I still haven't found an answer to my question: if those five criminals vote this down, will it break the MA system as well?


----------



## snowleopard (Mar 29, 2012)

MA? Medical Association? You mean the health care system we have will crumble? I read through your posts and couldn't put the pieces together to get your question unless that's it? 

The answer to what will happen if this all fails is that health care costs will continue to grow, more and more people will continue to not be covered and will thus use ER care, continuing to drive up the costs, etc. Basically we'll continue along the path we currently are going, which is what I can only surmise the conservatives want, aside from those who want to eliminate Medicare/Medicaid entirely, etc. 

Even Keynes agreed that markets correct themselves _eventually_ but who wants to live in a society where this takes 30, 40, 50 years for this to happen? That's basically what's happening now. 



NYC Composer @ Wed Mar 28 said:


> Also known as "I got mine, go get yours".



Or, what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine if i can somehow get it from you.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 29, 2012)

Massachusetts. Romneycare is the same thing on a smaller scale: insurance companies must cover everyone, everyone must buy insurance, and the government subsidizes people who can't afford it. If it's unConstitutional for people to have to buy insurance - because the next thing is that the government will force people to buy broccoli - then that should throw a bunch of people in MA to the wolves.

Of course, for Central Massachusetts that's okay - they voted for Scott Brown. But not Boston. 

And I'm down wit the rest of what you're saying. Keynes' line was "In the long run we're all dead."


----------



## JonFairhurst (Mar 30, 2012)

I heard an interesting prediction the other day: The Court will uphold the law, 6-3.

First, the deliberation gives few clues to the final vote. They ask tough questions of both sides. Second, if they strike down the mandate, how do they handle it? If there's no consensus on how to handle the mess of removing the mandate, they might let it slide. 

So... if Kennedy upholds the law, Roberts might think about his legacy. Voting with the majority wouldn't change the verdict, but it would infer that the court isn't as political as people think and he would be in a position to write the majority opinion, shaping the ruling to his liking.

...

Regarding the "I got mine" attitude of conservatives today, it's a 180 degree turn from the conservative values of the 1950s. I recently watched the movie "Suddenly" with Sinatra. The film had a strong, conservative view. The anti-gun widow had to shoot the antagonist at the climax. Commies were mentioned. The cop/suitor/hero thought the widow should buy her eight-year-old son a gun.

Yet, what separated the good guys from the bad guys? The good guys cared about their community and the welfare of those around them. The villain only looked out for number one. That was the basis for his lack of morals and led him to his death.

IMO, people who advocate selfishness as the high moral ground are sociopaths.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Mar 30, 2012)

Here's a legal argument I've yet to hear a response to. Every taxpayer in the United States is already compelled (mandated) to pay for the health care of seniors (via Medicare), the poor (Medicaid), and all government employees, including those on the Supreme Court. So how does it make any legal sense that we can be compelled to pay for OTHER PEOPLE'S health care, but not our own?


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 30, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Mar 29 said:


> Massachusetts. Romneycare is the same thing on a smaller scale: insurance companies must cover everyone, everyone must buy insurance, and the government subsidizes people who can't afford it. If it's unConstitutional for people to have to buy insurance - because the next thing is that the government will force people to buy broccoli - then that should throw a bunch of people in MA to the wolves.
> 
> Of course, for Central Massachusetts that's okay - they voted for Scott Brown. But not Boston.
> 
> And I'm down wit the rest of what you're saying. Keynes' line was "In the long run we're all dead."



interesting arguments. 

but if we step back... alot back from this argument and we see a bigger picture..

we wouldnt have this argument at all if half of military spending was moved to health care. 
then everyone wold be covered w/o a law that tells u to buy/get health insurance. 

but since thats a whole other ball game. 

imo- if it was a mandate that everyone as to have health insurance and those who cant afford it will get subsidies , and its all about paperwork, then if they made it easy to do all this then i dont think a law for it would be that bad. 
a law that tells you u have to submit a paper every year is not a big deal. 
its already done with taxes (W2 witholding payment) 



from what i got from NPR was that its a bit more complex and young healthy folks rather pay the penalty than health insurance. itll be cheaper for them. 
so im guessing its not all subsidies as you mentioned... unless u are only reffering to the MA system.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 30, 2012)

It's not all subsidies, but the subsidies are one of the three legs of the law; it falls apart without them.

There's a lot more to it than that, however. The provision that allows kids to stay on their parents' policies until age 26 is intended to discourage people from paying the penalty instead of the insurance.

Andrew, I don't have a link but I think that argument has been made. And I agree with it.


----------



## snowleopard (Mar 30, 2012)

First, the United States spends more on defense than I believe the next 24 nations combined; even though all of those countries are considered our allies. Think about that madness next time someone says we need to balance the budget. 

There are actual incidences in the past where the government has forced people to buy something, but they are usually in the form of a tax (or like Medicare/Medicaid) or related to farming. So this is going to be an interesting ruling. 

If one wants to know where our health care system is going if we don't change, here's a real-life example: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... ropriately

What I also find fascinating is that not a single other country in the world is trying to emulate our health care system, or move towards it. Nearly every other country spends less money on health care than we do. Germany even has a rather large surplus right now in health care funding. 

Finally, Jon touched on something. All the moderates are gone from the GOP, and many of the old conservatives from a half century, even 20 years ago are gone as well. His former Senator Slade Gorton was in that realm. Pretty conservative, but mostly budget and judicial minded. And he did favor things like alternative energy, and transportation (big bicycling advocate), and was somewhat green. He would get nowhere in today's GOP, at least not without sliding far to the right.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 30, 2012)

One reason conservatives can't accept the obvious fact that our health care system is horribly inefficient is that old saw-"American exceptionalism". When challenged, it's always back to the same old thing-"yeah, but when they need really GOOD health care, when they need an operation, where do they come? HERE!" There is a segment of the population that can never look at things through any lens than our world superiority, which is frustrating and sad. It's the same reasoning that says we must never apologize for our actions. We're the best, after all.

As to the country losing its moderate conservatives, as a liberal I and many others always saw the conservatives of the time as evil. We thought the world of politics that surrounded Reagan and Nixon was ultra-conservative. In comparison, those now look like the halcyon days.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Mar 30, 2012)

There is a misnomer here about being "forced" to buy healthcare insurance. That's untrue. You won't get put to death or imprisoned if you don't buy it. You won't be handcuffed. There is no physical force applied to the shirkers.

There is, however, a fine. The US fines mine operators who don't install safety gear - even before accidents happen. Safety gear is essentially insurance. Mines are at risk of mining accidents. All people are at risk of needing medical care.

Sure, there are people who will refuse case, but what if they are in an accident and unconscious. The paramedics will arrive and care will be given. We fight for Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Suicide is illegal. Christian Scientists who deny healthcare for their kids are overridden by the state.

Remember how the Republicans didn't want Terri Schiavo's husband to have the right to end her care? And how about Virginia wanting to force women to have vaginal ultrasounds even if they and their doctors do not want it?

The bottom line is that nobody is immune from receiving health care. The government has the power to assess fines for violating safety requirements even before accidents occur. It's pretty clear to me that the government has the right to assess fines for those who do not take financial precautions for their health care.

And, once again, nobody is "forced" to buy anything.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Mar 30, 2012)

And yet, we are indeed forced to pay for the health care of seniors, the poor, and all government employees. If we don't, we go to jail. This fact does not seem to bother any Republican arguing against the mandate.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 30, 2012)

zircon_st @ Fri Mar 30 said:


> And yet, we are indeed forced to pay for the health care of seniors, the poor, and all government employees. If we don't, we go to jail. This fact does not seem to bother any Republican arguing against the mandate.



(Shhhh! Those programs are next....)


----------



## JonFairhurst (Mar 30, 2012)

zircon_st @ Fri Mar 30 said:


> And yet, we are indeed forced to pay for the health care of seniors, the poor, and all government employees. If we don't, we go to jail. This fact does not seem to bother any Republican arguing against the mandate.



Of course, that applies to all taxes, whether they go for healthcare, roads, grasshopper studies, or war, waterboarding, and the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

And yes, I have some libertarian friends who are upset with forced taxation no matter what it pays for.


----------



## snowleopard (Mar 30, 2012)

Technically, Medicare and Social Security are not funded by taxation. They are supposed to be funded and treated like annuity programs, to help people after they retire.

Good point Jon in that you aren't actually being forced to buy health care, you can refuse, and simply pay a fine.


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 30, 2012)

ankyu


----------



## midphase (Mar 30, 2012)

This article explains why Americans are already being forced to pay for a health care mandate even if they don't realize that they are:

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/ ... _new_.html


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 31, 2012)

ankyu


----------



## snowleopard (Mar 31, 2012)

chimuelo @ Fri Mar 30 said:


> But you know he will definately pardon Jon Corzine on his way out. That's the least he could do for the working man and the little people....


While Leonard Peltier will still remain rotting in a prison cell. 

Remember, no one is forcing you to seek a union job, let alone take one. Right? 

Thought provoking article Kays. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 31, 2012)

snowleopard @ Sat Mar 31 said:


> chimuelo @ Fri Mar 30 said:
> 
> 
> > But you know he will definately pardon Jon Corzine on his way out. That's the least he could do for the working man and the little people....
> ...



No one's offering you one either, these days.

My combined AFM, SAG and AFTRA pensions, small as they add up to be, are about 4 times as large as anyone gets if they start today, which makes me sad for the new blood.


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 31, 2012)

ankyu


----------



## George Caplan (Apr 1, 2012)

snowleopard @ Fri Mar 30 said:


> Technically, Medicare and Social Security are not funded by taxation. They are supposed to be funded and treated like annuity programs, to help people after they retire.



i love words like supposed. when i was working until quite recently in the uk i was staggered over time watching for instance what qe did to their annuity rates. unbelievable really. their annuity rates have crumbled and wnt come back anytime soon. maybe never. this puts their pension rules and planning into serious question.
also over there their road taxation is SUPPOSED to fund crumbling roads. it doesnt and the money just went into and maybe still does paying welfare.

you said earlier it may take 20 30 40 years. it probably will and that will cause a lot of social mayhem as time moves forward. already has in the uk. they had riots just before we left for home and you wouldnt believe the inactivity by their law enforcement.


----------



## Dan Selby (Apr 2, 2012)

George Caplan @ Sun Apr 01 said:


> their road taxation is SUPPOSED to fund crumbling roads. it doesnt and the money just went into and maybe still does paying welfare.



This is just factually wrong, George. UK road tax is not a hypothecated tax and there is no pretense that it is or should be ring fenced for roads - it's just a tax on motoring, like stamp duty is a tax on property transactions, VAT is a tax on goods and services etc - it all just goes in the pot. And to say it goes on paying "welfare" is just tabloid silliness. Spending on Social Security, as a percentage of national income, was 13.4% in 2010-2011 (it was 13.1% in 1996-97).

Also, when a lot of people (and I'm not assuming this is you) bang on about "welfare" spending they're really using that as code for work-shy scroungers. I don't know if that's you. In fact, over half the social security budget goes on the state pension and benefits to pensioners and of the remainder "out of work" benefits make up a very small proportion.


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 2, 2012)

ankyu


----------



## Simplesly (Apr 2, 2012)

> Perhaps only in the highest tax areas is where this occurs.
> San Franciso is the very worst city I have seen for such staggering numbers of mooches at the Wharf. My family stopped visiting ther back in the '90's as it wasn't fun anymore dodging them to see the Seals or eat as Scoma's as there were literally hundreds.
> But then again it's the largest debter state in the Union so at least they have a reason I suppose.
> We did learn that you visit the 1st through the 5th at the Wharf, as that's when the "homeless" are all pooled together in hotels spending their monthly checks. After the 5th or 6th they're back at the Wharf and Ghiradellis and Cable Car turn arounds harrassing tourists.
> ...



You have got to be fucking kidding right? 

If you'd visited San Francisco half as many times as you're implying, you'd realize that a big chunk of those "homeless" people (why you put it in quotes is f'ing baffling to me) are de-institutionalized mentally ill. And that's not just Reagan's fault, though being the elitist ass that he was, he didn't help the situation much... Does SF have the best plan to deal with the problem? Probably not, but If you're seriously going to callously marginalize human beings that way, you should try being homeless yourself and see how you like it. 

But hey, maybe if we spit in their faces and tell them to "get a job" the problem will go away. Or better yet, let's complain about them with the syntax of a 1st grader and and maybe they'll all leave so we can have a nice vacation in the city again.

messed up, dude.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Apr 2, 2012)

Neil, please take it down a notch. No need to be so aggressive, especially with the swearing.


----------



## Simplesly (Apr 2, 2012)

Point taken on the language, Ned - I will certainly tone it down. I'm generally not that temperamental, but I found the statement to which I responded to be so patently insensitive that my natural reaction was an angry one...


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Apr 2, 2012)

Thanks, man! :wink:


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 2, 2012)

ankyu


----------



## Simplesly (Apr 2, 2012)

I have no doubt that there are certain parasites that have gotten extremely skilled at gaming the system, but that bit tacked on the end of your previous post came off as a really uninformed, gross generalization of a far more complex problem. Since you don't normally seem like an uninformed person, it hit me as really inhumane. To me that's no better than throwing a few expletives around. I'm gonna keep the language to myself from now on. 

Who knows, maybe Giuliani tough love is what SF needs; throwing money at the problem without enough guidelines clearly isn't - i'm no expert on this stuff, but I can tell you that of the chronically homeless, mental illness and drugs are the biggest problems. I would hazard a guess that of the SF homeless population who aren't con artists, those people are truly not getting the help they need because of a system in which bs politics aren't allowing it.


----------



## ed buller (Apr 2, 2012)

if it goes down, i wonder if Mr prez ,will have the cojones to campaign on " we need to fix the supreme court "

e


----------



## midphase (Apr 2, 2012)

I think homelessness is one of the most misunderstood issues of our society. I honestly believe that most people reason that the majority of the homeless are gaming the system and are a bunch of alcoholics and druggies as a self-defense mechanism because to acknowledge the possibility that one can be a well balanced individual and still be homeless is too difficult to admit.

It's the same reason why when we see a horrible accident on the side of the street we start thinking "they were probably texting or talking on their cel phone, or speeding, or drunk, etc"

The truth that nobody wants to really think about is that each and every one of us is dangerously close to homelessness. All it takes are a couple of bad turns in life, a couple of unexpected events in a row and most of us stand to lose the feeble security blanket that is the only layer of protection between us and homelessness.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Apr 2, 2012)

midphase @ 2/4/2012 said:


> The truth that nobody wants to really think about is that each and every one of us is dangerously close to homelessness. All it takes are a couple of bad turns in life, a couple of unexpected events in a row and most of us stand to lose the feeble security blanket that is the only layer of protection between us and homelessness.



So true, Kays.


----------



## George Caplan (Apr 2, 2012)

Dan Selby @ Mon Apr 02 said:


> George Caplan @ Sun Apr 01 said:
> 
> 
> > their road taxation is SUPPOSED to fund crumbling roads. it doesnt and the money just went into and maybe still does paying welfare.
> ...



no its not factually wrong. im not talking about politics here. i dont care about poilitics. im talking about economics. i dont have any interest in any emotional side of what happens to people and for whatever reason. if your governments over time call something road tax or whatever you call it over there then it should be pointed out to the public its not really for roads but for whatever gets in the way of that.
your country is in trouble economically and i dont think those guys youve gotten in there will be able to control it. lucky youre not in the euro or you would be dead in the water by now. 27 billion cut in spains budget is an example. the uk would be A minus if they had gotten into the euro and your interest rates would rise considerably.


----------



## Dan Selby (Apr 2, 2012)

The *single line* in your original line post that I quoted is factually wrong and I said clearly why. I didn't comment on the rest of your post, falling annuity rates, Britain's current economic state, what that state would likely be had we joined the Euro etc.

Anyway - not a big deal or worth getting into an extended debate. 



George Caplan @ Mon Apr 02 said:


> Dan Selby @ Mon Apr 02 said:
> 
> 
> > George Caplan @ Sun Apr 01 said:
> ...


----------



## George Caplan (Apr 2, 2012)

Dan Selby @ Mon Apr 02 said:


> I didn't comment on the rest of your post, falling annuity rates, Britain's current economic state, what that state would likely be had we joined the Euro etc.



then you should. it would indicate to me that you know what youre talking about. keep it objective and dont get into what happens to poor people. :D


----------



## Dan Selby (Apr 2, 2012)

George Caplan @ Mon Apr 02 said:


> Dan Selby @ Mon Apr 02 said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't comment on the rest of your post, falling annuity rates, Britain's current economic state, what that state would likely be had we joined the Euro etc.
> ...



The point was I did comment, objectively, with clarity on precisely only that which I did know that I was talking about. I chose not to comment on areas I am less well versed in. Seems a sensible approach to me but you are free to take a different approach, I guess. :D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 2, 2012)

> The truth that nobody wants to really think about is that each and every one of us is dangerously close to homelessness.



Exactly. Well put.

Chim, about Solyndra. Van Jones put it very clearly on Bill Maher this weekend: the US government had a $2.x billion loan program to invest in solar energy; the Chinese then countered with a $30 billion *grant* program to try and wipe out US solar! So instead of being up in arms over the loss of American jobs, the Republicans used this as an opportunity to take a cheap shot at the president.

Are you sure you don't want to reconsider your comments, Chim?


----------



## George Caplan (Apr 2, 2012)

Dan Selby @ Mon Apr 02 said:


> George Caplan @ Mon Apr 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Dan Selby @ Mon Apr 02 said:
> ...



naturally but what im trying to establish in a peer pressure sort of way but entirely friendly is to get you to get into those uncomfortable areas that are only that way because as you say you are not so well versed. when you can do that 2 sides of every coin appear and a new world begins. 8)


----------



## George Caplan (Apr 2, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Apr 02 said:


> the Chinese then countered with a $30 billion *grant* program to try and wipe out US solar! So instead of being up in arms over the loss of American jobs, the Republicans used this as an opportunity to take a cheap shot at the president.



thats right nick they did. but then again any shot against any president is usually a cheap shot. or sometimes even dangerous. >8o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 2, 2012)

I think every "shot" against of Bush was expensive. This is different - it's just crap.


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 2, 2012)

ankyu


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 2, 2012)

Chim-homeless shelters are so miserable and dangerous in NYC, many wander the streets in winter or try to dodge cops in Grand Central and Penn Station. I know some of them, because I make and pack sandwiches, water and fruit to bring to them in Penn Station during the winter. These people are not gaming the system. Most of them are mentally ill or borderline imbalanced, but they're not stupid, and they tell tales of rape, theft torture and abuse in the shelters that should make us all ashamed of how our society treats the mentally ill and the desperately poor. There are not many success stories coming out of these shelters.


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 2, 2012)

I couldn't agree more, and your'e a good dude for taking the time to do this.
My extent was helping people on their way down with scams on how to make a 120 a day taking the tourist bus to each Casino and standing in line for rolls of Quarters, and how to walk in the docking area straight to the the lush employees cafeteria and eat for free, since there's no security and so many people eat there nobody knows if you're an engineer assitant, audio reapir man visiting and belong to all properties, etc. 
So we share the same compassion but I depise the politicinas that use this as an advantage, and the x felons and con artists who give the really helpless a bad name and casue the system to oveload so there not enough money to treat the people who in most cases need some medication and dignity with some good old fashined care.
Once the newly elected officials get to DC Health Care will have to be adressed just becuse the cost of care at an emergency room are so high there would be savings innediatly and malpractice rates would drop add loser pays and fix a few overlooked loopholes and fraud and its a done deal , but the current fossilse must go, too many years and no accomplishments. The fraud and total lack of costs were what runined this bill, but to not provide care now would be wasted time, so maybe we can rid ourselves of fraud and lawyers pay if they lose and means testing with the penalities being applied to dirty doctors which are very few.
I am optimistic even though it a tragedy what has happened to so many who really need food stamps and welfare. It's not meant to be a supplement and is easily had but many who seem to have newer vehicles and iphones as I have been there with ny xwife and seem first had when child support ended for her 17 years ago.
We really would do ourselves good to become a State sponsored Capitaisitic socoety like Chinas, but only with Human rights and self sufficiency on energy reagrdless of what the Envormentalists say.
We are at war whether anyone wants to say, and nobody admires and understands FDR more than Obama. Other wise we will see this shell game of 2 exreme parties controlled by cash and Collusions. And the statgus quo which leads us to dependacy on other nations to the point the dollar becomes useless.
If Obama gets a new horde of Conseravatives and Liberlas who work together to get america back into a nation of Rosie the welders and Yankee Doodle dandys who are more tha happy to support him as they whistle and work, we will come out stronger than ever.
Like [email protected] tax rate for the wealthy can incrementally be lowered the deby can be reasonablem and everuyone will have ajob that wats to work., eben kif One must go the Mexico or the Midddles est as they are American owned.

I have a dream. I want my kid to enjoy what I did. TO wlak klut for one day and hae a new job. wherever I travel to.

Sorry ite moon here and I cant type on this worthless ohinem it take so long I just try and make it work.
I play amena paino but cant typoe and cant even rolla joint last timE i checked...


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 2, 2012)

I agree that plenty of politicians are gaming the system, and even the ones who didn't start out like that were forced to make deals with the devil to get elected. I know there are plenty of welfare, Medicare and food stamp frauds. There's no political/social system on earth that i know of of that's without corruption.

I agree with you-I'd like to see America get back to work. It's not going to be easy. Times have changed and we haven't changing fast enough, and a lot of the rest of the world is hungrier and more ambitious than we are. Fareed Zakaria calls it "the rise of the others.", which sounds about right.

I think it is IMPERATIVE that we stay out of a war with Iran, and I don't trust Romney to have enough backbone to go against the more hawkish elements.. As for Obama, I don't think it's his temperament to go in, and he's smart enough to realize what these two wars have cost us, not only in blood and treasure, but also in reputation in the world. If he tries to lead us down that path, though, I hope the base rises up this time and just says no. Heck, I hope the whole country does.

Back on topic-if the healthcare bill is shot down and Romney gets elected, it will probably be 8 more years before it gets addressed again. I'm truly hoping that's not the case. The present system is ridiculous, inhumane and it's bankrupting us.


----------



## dannthr (Apr 2, 2012)

I voted for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primaries of the 2008 Presidental Election because I want Universal Health Care.

I am a flaxen tax-paying American Citizen and I have been uninsured since March of 2010--tax me more, the whole splooging country should have health insurance, period.

I worked at a for profit Medical Center in the billing dept, A/R, Cashier, etc. (About 125 doctors, a huge center)

I can tell from personal experience that insurance companies are scum, I can also tell you that while there are many amazing and nice and even generous doctors, they get paid BANK!

As long as health care is managed by any organization whose primary concern is WEALTH, you will have a corrupt and broken system. Period.

Health care MUST be operated by an organization whose primary concern is the SOCIAL WELL BEING of the populace and not making money.

Besides, medicare is not the end of private health insurance, the business can still exist and thrive as muffin bags if they want. So many old people have supplimental or even secondary health insurance policies, and they're all just doing fine.

There's even some folks who get duped by Medicare Replacement Plans which buy-out their Medicare contract on their behalf and take over their insurance "needs," but those plans all blow chunks.

I've been on the inside of the business, and believe me when I tell you, it's a shmuppin' business.


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 3, 2012)

My youngest brother is a Nurse and hates the insurance industry more than you.
He also took me to a group home once, and I am not sure if you have ever seen one of these, but they should be outlawed, as they are also based on money as the elederly w/o family sign over their SocSec. checks for a bed in a converted Garage of a house, and every room has elderly people nobody knows about, and it made me so angry I wanted to strangle the owner and I rarely lose my cool.
We can only hope the Supreme Court doesn;t shoot down the entire bill, but what has people nervous is the idea that corruption wins, as this process was so back doored and misleading that shpowing COngress this is OK is not the message that should be send.
Whoever wins the election needs to adress this properly and expose on CSPAN as we were promised who is corrupted or not.
All politics should be done this way, I actually voted for the President based on this concept.
It would be hard to stay awake but I would love to TIVO it and then FF to the part where the up and down vote occurs.

Afterall our politicians are profit and self wealth based, why should we expect any top level CEOs or adminstrators to be different than these excellent role models...?

Hopefully new blood will change DC as these old wealthy fossils have had decades to get things done and still point fingers with buldging pockets of cash.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Apr 3, 2012)

Dan, please take it easy with the swearing. I know it's an emotional, very personal issue. But there's ways of getting a strong point across without so many effens. Seriously.


----------



## dannthr (Apr 3, 2012)

Nedited for your pleasure.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Apr 4, 2012)

8)


----------

