Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
The Post Office delivers mail directly to my house every single day. I send my bills out from my house for the price of 44 cents and they always get there on time. The Post Office works great.
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are not going bankrupt.
The cash for clunkers program has proven to be a very successful program. It is not out of funds. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said today that all dealers will be reimbursed. "They're gong to get their money," LaHood said during a press conference. "We have the money to provide to them. We have put an enormous number of people on the task of processing the paperwork. There will be no car dealer that won't be reimbursed."
please explain to me then why it is that the post office is considering operating on a mon-fri scedule. it is because they cant afford to pay the overhead on a 6th day. where did i mention that dealers would not get paid for the cash-for-clunkers? the point was, "yes we can" said the funds would be there until the fall, and we already had to have a bailout for the program. i never said that it didnt work. yes, people got out of horrible gas-guzzlers, and into more efficient vehicles, but the funds did not last what was promised. that is my whole point. they say x amount will be added to the deficet, but in reality, its probably 2-4 times, if not more, what they are forecasting.
Here's a link to the actual bill, no left or right about it. I realize it's difficult to read all of the 1000+ pages, but at least we can debate something real, not the left-wing or right-wing rhetoric. There are also many provisions, that are amendments to other pieces of legislation, so in some cases, it may be necessary to go back and read those to fully make sense of everything.
The bottom line is: public option leads to single-payer, leads to government control. You may not like corporations, but they aren't the ones limiting your liberties.
In fact corporations are precisely the ones limiting our liberties.
People with preexisting conditions who can't get individual policies are chained to jobs that offer insurance benefits.
They can't quit and look elsewhere if they are unhappy, or they will lose access to health care.
They can't start small businesses without losing access to health care.
They can't go back to school full time without losing access to health care.
If their spouses are offered a job in another city, they often must turn it down, because they can't leave their jobs without losing access to health care.
If healthcare nationalized, they would be free to do all of these life changing things. Corporations are currently restricting these freedoms.
Really? When did corporations become legislators? How do they limit our freedom?
They can't look elsewhere? Well maybe if they were offered the same tax benefits as they are with employer health care, it wouldn't be such a hard pill to swallow.
If they have the funds and brains to start a business, then they ought to be able to afford insurance (my dad is a small business owner...but I grew up when my parents were still young....no help from the government, just hard work, to pay their own way)
A full time student looking to make him or herself a productive, responsible, member of society would be an instance where I don't mind paying, since it is temporary, and they are working toward becoming self-reliant. Also, most schools have health clinics where the services are part of your tuition.
Leaving town and losing access?? That doesn't even make sense. If their spouse is being asked to relocate, then the company probably offers insurance, and spouses are eligible. I'm a hostess in a restaurant, and I have great insurance that could support my spouse and children (if I had them )
They can't look elsewhere? Well maybe if they were offered the same tax benefits as they are with employer health care, it wouldn't be such a hard pill to swallow.
If they have the funds and brains to start a business, then they ought to be able to afford insurance
Many people with preexisting conditions cannot get insurance policies. It's not about being able to afford it, it's about access. Others could get individual policies if they were already very wealthy. Do you know how much an individual insurance policy costs, for example, a cancer survivor when they can even find one that will accept them? Any idea?
Leaving town and losing access?? That doesn't even make sense. If their spouse is being asked to relocate, then the company probably offers insurance, and spouses are eligible. I'm a hostess in a restaurant, and I have great insurance that could support my spouse and children (if I had them )
One is not required to be "very wealthy" to pay for insurance. No, I haven't researched the exact costs for cancer survivors, although if you are a survivor, and not currently afflicted, then you should be capable of working. But, if you can't work for a true, sound, legitimate medical reason, then I would imagine that that type of situation would qualify as someone who is truly in need. Thus, I don't mind paying. As long as you do everything you are able to, if you still can't benefit, then yes, I am willing to help.
No, I'm not lucky, I chose to work for a company that offers insurance. Hard work, not luck.
One is not required to be "very wealthy" to pay for insurance.
You are if you have a preexisting condition and need to get an individual policy.
No, I haven't researched the exact costs for cancer survivors, although if you are a survivor, and not currently afflicted, then you should be capable of working. But, if you can't work for a true, sound, legitimate medical reason, then I would imagine that that type of situation would qualify as someone who is truly in need.
Yes, you can work, but you can never change jobs unless you can find one with insurance benefits. That's the point I was making. If you have one of many preexisting conditions, you do not have the freedom to change jobs or strike out on your own to start a business, or you will lose your access to health care. That is not freedom. And if you chose to anyway, and tried to get an individual policy, you would be denied or you would have to be very wealthy to afford the premiums.
No, I'm not lucky, I chose to work for a company that offers insurance. Hard work, not luck.
In this economy, you're lucky you found one that offers insurance and would hire you. Not all employers offer insurance.
Corporation ARE legislators. Corporate lobbyists actually write much of the legislation that is brought before Congress. The Republican Congress passed the Clear Skies Initiative that was written by the utilities lobby.
Reconstruction companies wrote the legislation for rebuilding Iraq.
The Pharmaceuticals lobby wrote entire sections of the prescription druq plan.
Time Warner wrote the bill banning municipal competeion of broadband,
I could go on all night. How do you think these things get written and passed without anyone reading them? Hand key legislators a bill and a check.
I am well aware that corporations are lobbyists. Hello pharmaceutical companies and illegal corn? This is why the "key legislators" need term limits. If you stay stuck in congress for much of your career, then I believe you begin to lose touch with the real world. And our current key legislators are democrats, so it's true on both sides, not just one. But that doesn't negate the fact that the legislators are the ones passing legislation. We can vote who we believe is the best candidate into office, but we can't change lobbyists. As constituents, we rely on our congressmen to represent us, not the lobbyists. Also, it's not like it's only conservatives who don't read the legislation before the vote.
I can't change jobs? Actually, I was considering personal insurance before my current job. I had a job that didn't offer benefits, and I had several affordable options. I chose to leave that job due to non insurance related reasons, and I didn't take my new job because of the insurance, but it is a nice perk. It's not my problem if you can't get a job that offers insurance. Myself and many of my friends grew up with "the short end of the stick", yet we are doing just fine. Not luck, not connections, not the economy....personal responsibility and work.
I already addressed the idea of paying for those who are truly in need, and despite their best efforts, still cannot be provided with adequate insurance, so I'm not going there again, you can just read my previous post to understand my point of view there.
To add some comments of Jigawig's stimulus comments;
As far as the stimulus not working, I have to disagree. The bill was only signed 6 months ago and already thousand of workers have been hired to repair crumbling infrastructure in state and national parks. Even Rep. governors who opposed the plan, like Gov. Jindal, are taking money for state infrastructure projects. Government funded projects take a little time as they have to be approved and bids let.
Unemployment benefits have been extended and food stamp funds to states extended ( no small things to the dozens of friends I have who live in rural counties with 20%+ unemployment rates) In fact the recovery money is rebuilding a bridge right down the street from me that is in sad shape but no one could find funds to fix. Somebody has a job there that they otherwise wouldn't.
Also the cash for clunkers money running out is a good thing. That means we're selling lots of cars. Ford is making a profit. Car companies have even re-hired some laid off employees. And we're getting rid of gas guzzlers so we can be more energy independent.
Even former Rep. Senate Majority leader Bill Frist traded in a truck for a Prius under this program.
And if you're a stats guy there's the consensus of macroeconomic forecasters is that ARRA contributed roughly 3% to annualized growth rates in the second quarter. And real (inflation-adjusted) disposable personal income rose by 3.2% in the quarter, after rising by only 1% in the previous quarter. (this comes from the standard formula of increase in govt. spending times percentage of gov't share of economy is contribution to growth. A formula often cited by conservative think tanks)
This recession was expected to be much worse than the Reagan recession and a comparison of unemployment figures (still too early for GDP comparisons) shows that Reagan's tax cuts (the typical Rep solution) resulted in a 22 month increase in the unemployment number before the effect was felt. We' should give Obama more than 6 months.
(
Last Edit: Aug 19, 2009 23:03:54 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
Yes, the people who are TRULY in need, and whom I have no problem supporting temporarily, until they get back on their feet and can get it themselves; or permanently if they are declared and mentally unsound, or physically unable to work.
I'd like to say, non health related, that I really appreciate inforoo. Yes, I have been smited once...but only once. And so far, nobody on either side has done any name-calling or bashing. This is what healthy debate (not argument) is all about, imo. Thanks inforoo, for the open-minded forum, where people will listen and debate constructively, even if there is a major disagreement or conflict. I wish town hall meetings could be filled with groups like us instead of the angry people on BOTH sides; it's not only the right who has a problem. Much love to my fellow roosters
I'd like to say, non health related, that I really appreciate inforoo. Yes, I have been smited once...but only once. And so far, nobody on either side has done any name-calling or bashing. This is what healthy debate (not argument) is all about, imo. Thanks inforoo, for the open-minded forum, where people will listen and debate constructively, even if there is a major disagreement or conflict. I wish town hall meetings could be filled with groups like us instead of the angry people on BOTH sides; it's not only the right who has a problem. Much love to my fellow roosters
I've gotta echo this sentiment here! As someone who is admittedly far too uninformed on the issue at hand, I've thoroughly enjoyed reading this healthy debate and it's enlightened me on a great deal and it's always great to see multiple opinions on the issue so I can in turn develop my own.
I still don't feel intelligent enough on the issue to fully participate in this debate, although I must say Troo (as usual) does a good job of speaking on behalf of my ideals for the most part
Whatever you think about nationalized health care, I think from a pure strategic standpoint it was incredibly stupid for Obama to try to get this one passed in the first half of his term. He made the exact same mistake that Clinton made. He needed to let some of the stimulus and economic recovery stuff work before he started up talks to expand government services into health care.
Troo, I realize that the bill was signed mere months ago, and that it will take time to fix a lot of things. My point is that the promises have not come to pass. He promised we would feel the impact of the stimulus right away. He promised shovel ready jobs for everyone, not just infrastructure and acorn. He promised that unemployment would not exceed 8 percent. That is not change that people voted for. Why is it that the majority of the stimulus money will not be used until after next year? We need those funds now. The secret is that it was all for power and control.
Anywho, dems have control of everything right now. Why must they blame the other side for something they can pass without help? I'll tell you why. It's because dems know when this plan fails people are going to look for someone to blame. Dems are looking for the two or three whore republicans who can be bought off for support. That way, when this whole shitbomb blows up, they can say it was bipartisan.
^^Dems can't pass anything alone because Dems are not as united and uniform as Republicans. My Dem Congressman is a so called Blue dog who votes with Republicans much of the time. He's scared to be a Dem as our district is very "red" and he won't piss off Republicans. Anything controversial and he sides with Reps because he knows he needs their votes and Dems have no where else to go. Most of TN is like that and I'd guess so is most of the South. The only Rep comparison that even comes close is Rep Senators in the northeast, like Maine, and the rarely stray.
Look at the Blue Dogs Dems (52 admitted conservative Dems fighting for "mainstream values" and promising bipartisanship. Where is the Rep equivalent?
It's like Will Roger's said "I'm not part of any organized political Party. I'm a Democrat."
Reps hold together. Like Isakson, who put the end of life section in the reform and now won't back himself so as to hold the Rep line. The same goes for several Reps who've been big supporters of end of life counseling but do an about face to stick with fellow Reps. You'd never see Dems do that.
I've always said that generally Reps are strong but wrong. Dems are right but weak. Strong usually wins in America.
So don't worry. If Healthcare Reform passes, it will not get a single Rep vote. Count on that.
Oh and let me echo the praise of Inforoo, where we can hold such discussions without anger, fear and name calling. It's a credit to this forum and to it's members. While we may disagree on some things, everyone here is "good people."
Post by nitetimeritetime on Aug 20, 2009 7:03:36 GMT -5
It is nice to be able to discuss things like this in a civil way. We may not all agree, but we can all learn something from threads like these. I know I've learned a lot from reading Troo's posts in here. Thanks to everyone here who is debating and discussing these issues in good faith.
Troo, I realize that the bill was signed mere months ago, and that it will take time to fix a lot of things. My point is that the promises have not come to pass. He promised we would feel the impact of the stimulus right away. He promised shovel ready jobs for everyone, not just infrastructure and acorn. He promised that unemployment would not exceed 8 percent. That is not change that people voted for. Why is it that the majority of the stimulus money will not be used until after next year? We need those funds now. The secret is that it was all for power and control.
This thread is about health care. It's an important topic, so let's stick to that topic here. That said, I'm going to address this post of yours, jigawig, on the Current Issues Under Obama Thread.
I'm really less worried about the actual health reform itself, and I'm more worried about the government expanding their power and control. The simple act of growth in the government gives them more power. They have the ability to change and modify anything we put in their hands which gives them more control (and the power to take it away). I don't want to go around throwing out the "commie" word, but my Czech friends that I mentioned earlier fear our current administration. They recognize what's going on, it smells all too familiar to them. I don't think we will wake up in communist Russia anytime soon, but I don't think that we are headed in the right direction either.
I mentioned before, but it's worth repeating, I really like John Mackey's idea. Here it is (please read it before disregarding it because its in a "conservative newspaper"):
also, why is it that the white house is constantly changing their position regarding healthcare. for example, "healthcare reform" to "healthcare insurance reform".
The reason it was changed from "Health Care Reform" to "Health Insurance Reform" is because the "care" part will stay the same, but the insurance aspect will change. People kept saying "America has the best care in the world!" So to quell the fear that their care may be diminished, the WH changed the term to Insurance reform. The same thing happened with Global Warming/Global Climate Change.
You may not like corporations, but they aren't the ones limiting your liberties.
WTF? After 8 years of warrantless wiretaps, suspension of Habeas Corpus, and other egregious acts by the gov't, you're going to call the act of making sure that everyone in the country has access to affordable healthcare "limiting your liberties?!" How does that limit anyone's liberties?
The new system will create an even larger tax burden. Just because someone has wealth doesn't mean that the government should force them to give it away to help people that don't have it (especially those who don't have it out of laziness). I don't believe in bringing down the top in some misguided effort to bring up the bottom. It may sound harsh, but the truth is many people at the bottom are there as a result of their actions, not because someone was "holding them down". I don't disagree, MrKC that the "patriot" act was a gross violation of liberties. "Any society that would give up a little liberty for a little security will deserve neither and lose both (Benjamin Franklin). I think this quotation is completely applicable the debate at hand. Those of us who do have great insurance are losing the freedom to keep it.
It may sound harsh, but the truth is many people at the bottom are there as a result of their actions, not because someone was "holding them down".
I find this prevalent attitude the most disturbing and disgusting idea in society today. Many (most) of my friends are "on the bottom." They are there because they live in rural, depressed areas where there are no jobs paying over $8-$9 an hour but feel they should stay near family. Most are very hard workers that have neither the cultural heritage nor resources to acheive college educations (thanks to ever decreasing state and federal university funding and education support.)
I myself came from a poor family, move out of the house at 16, and worked 2 jobs (never making over $4 an hour, thanks to Rep min wage freeze)until I was 30 so I could work through college. I never had a home phone never had a car, and could not afford heat many winters before my 30th birthday. And I obviously had no insurance. Most people do not have the desire or discipline for that, and they should not be expected to.
It used to be a person could expect to make a decent wage for a decent days work.. Since free market deregulation and anti-union ideas have taken hold, we work harder and longer for less pay and benefits. Two income families makes less than single family households in the 60's and we complain that kids are unsupervised. As long as corporation can make unlimited profits while screwing employees, we all move toward the bottom.
Those of us who do have great insurance are losing the freedom to keep it.
Those of us with great insurance have no assurance of keeping it even today. Insurance companies can cancel your policy at any minute. They can and do regularly deny coverage. and premiums are all but guaranteed to go up and drive many of us out of our "preferred" policy.
I use the term preferred policy almost jokingly as I have no choice of coverage (unless I get a prohibitively expensive private policy.) I have no choice of doctors or hospitals (and have been forced to switch doctors with every job move.) Our good policies are basically policies which we cannot choose and to which we are in no way guaranteed.
Last Edit: Aug 20, 2009 8:39:45 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
I'm really less worried about the actual health reform itself, and I'm more worried about the government expanding their power and control. The simple act of growth in the government gives them more power. They have the ability to change and modify anything we put in their hands which gives them more control (and the power to take it away). I don't want to go around throwing out the "commie" word, but my Czech friends that I mentioned earlier fear our current administration. They recognize what's going on, it smells all too familiar to them. I don't think we will wake up in communist Russia anytime soon, but I don't think that we are headed in the right direction either.
I mentioned before, but it's worth repeating, I really like John Mackey's idea. Here it is (please read it before disregarding it because its in a "conservative newspaper"):
Well giving all the power to the insurance companies is not going to solve much either. If you take the limits off what they have to cover, then let them move to all the states with the weakest laws, and typically the lowest jury awards if they are sued, how can you feel this will not just lead to greater abuse by them than we have now? I really am tired of the argument that goes I dont care about health care it is the expanding government that scares me. The abuses of private insurance are much scarier than anything the government has ever done.
As to your czech friends how old are they I have two good friends from Poland both 35-40, who barely remember the communist regime, and from what they do remember even saying Obama is going in that direction is a joke.
People talk about death panels, let me tell you they exist right now, except it is just one faceless bureaucrat sitting there making a decision on whether or not your your newly diagnosed heart murmur was caused by a congenital defect and therefore not covered. It's ok though in this free market system we have you can always just go earn the 475,000 dollars to pay for it yourself. Afterwards you will be able to get insurance again, as long as you let them put a rider on it so that will not cover anything to do with your heart ever again.
As for John Mackeys plan of mixing catastrophic insurance with HSA's. It is fine provided you never get sick or have a chronic illness that requires many doctor visits. I mean with that kind of plan if you had a child that needed allergy shots it would easily bankrupt you and your HSA, and you would find yourself out that 10,000 dollar deductible every year, which is an unacceptable amount for one person to have to spend. It is fine for people to follow the objectivist philosophy, but when you are dealing with them, you should realize who's best interest they have at heart.
I guess at this point it hardly matters what individuals think though. The right has decided this is Waterloo, and they have put all their efforts into stopping it without coming up with a plan of their own. They bet the democrats will not be able to pass a bill under fire so they provide plenty of rhetoric without much substance. They may have forgotten however that the democrats also know it is waterloo, and are going to get their act together and pass a bill regardless of what the right is doing.