View Full Version : Supreme court hears health care law challenge
flowerseverywhere
3-20-12, 8:56am
next week should be interesting as the health care law is heard in the Supreme Court.
http://news.yahoo.com/expect-supreme-court-hear-health-care-law-challenge-110106251--abc-news.html
this is an interesting synopsis of what is going to happen. Of course, the nightly political spin should be quite interesting as well.
On the third afternoon will be Medicaid expansion, and from what I have read this could also mean the demise of medicaid as we know it as now states have federal requirements but not total federal funding.
I am anxious to hear the arguments and outcome, no matter which way anyone feels about it.
I always like watching the court's process -- and reading the decisions.
There's nothing better than a Scalia dissent. :)
There's nothing better than a Scalia dissent. :)
.....for giving me heartburn :)
flowerseverywhere
3-20-12, 7:10pm
maybe it will settle the argument and we will all have to live with it, for now at least.
I don't think arguments are ever settled. :) But it certainly does form an opinion.
I really like reading Scalia's writings (dissent or majority ruling). I think he writes very well, and I love how he forms his arguments. :)
gimmethesimplelife
3-21-12, 11:42am
I for one am a little unsettled by next week as I don't have any idea how the court will decide this, and if ObamaCare does not stand in some form, I really have to question if remaining in the US is a viable long term option for me? It seems so risky to be here when life is not worth some form of guaranteed access to health care without living in fear of being wiped out financially. On the other hand, there is a silver lining in this for me - being able to question my citizenship makes it very easy for me to question many other things in my life, too.....Rob
One thing I've been trying to research (and haven't had much luck) is if there has been a real effort in the past to challenge the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act. If Obamacare gets tossed and the number of uninsured continue to rise I expect that will hit the courts as well.
ApatheticNoMore
3-21-12, 1:17pm
being able to question my citizenship makes it very easy for me to question many other things in my life, too
true that
One thing I've been trying to research (and haven't had much luck) is if there has been a real effort in the past to challenge the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act. If Obamacare gets tossed and the number of uninsured continue to rise I expect that will hit the courts as well.
Wouldn't that be lovely. Emergency rooms turning heart attack or auto accident victims away at the door. People literally dying in the hospital parking lot because they simply had no where to go. Do you think conservatives who are trying to do away with the affordable care act would be outraged then? Naw, probably not, unless....is that auto accident victim by any chance pregnant? Then they will mobilize. But only to save the zygote. Screw the mom.
I thought this was the best argument (especially for frugals) of the day. From NYTimes transcript of Mr. Carvin:
"It would be perfectly fine if they allowed -- you do actuarial risk for young people on the basis of their risk for disease, just like you judge flood insurance on the homeowner's risk of flood. One of the issues here is not only that they're compelling us to enter into the marketplace, they're not -- they're prohibiting us from buying the only economically sensible product that we would want. Catastrophic insurance. Everyone agrees the only potential problem that a 30-year-old, is he goes from the healthy 70 percent of the population to the unhealthy 5 percent. And yet Congress prohibits anyone over 30 from buying any kind of catastrophic health insurance. And the reason they do that is because they needed this massive subsidy. Justice Alito, it's not our numbers... CBO said that injecting my clients into the risk pool lowers premiums by 15 to 20 percent. So, Justice Kennedy, even if we were going to create exceptions for people that are outside of commerce and inside of commerce, surely we'd make Congress do a closer nexus and say look, we're really addressing this problem: We want these 30-year-olds to get catastrophic health insurance. And not only did they (not mandate that) -- they deprived them of that option. And I think that illustrates the dangers of giving Congress these plenary powers, because they can always leverage them. They can always come up with some public policy rationale that converts the power to regulate commerce into the power to promote commerce, which, as I was saying before, is the one that I think is plenary."
I must say, Breyer sounds like an idiot -- this guy is a lawyer? In fact, many of the questions were hyperbolic-ly stupid, if not downright incoherent (old guys!?) But here was a good one:
Verrilli: "But for more than 40million Americans who do not have access to health insurance either through their employer or through government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid, the system does not work. Those individuals must resort to the individual market, and that market does not provide affordable health insurance. It does not do so because, because the multibillion dollar subsidies that are available for the, the employer market are not available in the individual market. It does not do so because ERISA and HIPAA regulations that preclude, that preclude discrimination against people based on their medical history do not apply in the individual market. That is an economic problem. And it begets another economic problem."
Scalia: Why aren't those problems that the Federal Government can address directly?
and this one:
Roberts: Well, the same, it seems to me, would be true say for the market in emergency services: police, fire, ambulance, roadside assistance, whatever. You don't know when you're going to need it; you're not sure that you will. But the same is true for health care. You don't know if you're going to need a heart transplant or if you ever will. So there is a market there. To -- in some extent, we all participate in it. So can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services? You can just dial 911 no matter where you are?
Verilli: No, Mr. Chief Justice. think that's different. It's -- We -- I don't think we think of that as a market. This is a market. This is market regulation. And in addition, you have a situation in this market not only where people enter involuntarily as to when they enter and won't be able to control what they need when they enter but when they -*"
Roberts: It seems to me that's the same as in my hypothetical. You don't know when you're going to need police assistance. You can't predict the extent to emergency response that you'll need. But when you do, and the government provides it. I thought that was an important part of your argument, that when you need health care, the government will make sure you get it. Well, when you need police assistance or fire assistance or ambulance assistance, the government is going to make sure to the best extent it can that you get it -- get it.
Verrilli: I think the fundamental difference, Mr. Chief Justice, is that that's not an issue of market regulation. This is an issue of market regulation, and that's how Congress, that's how Congress looked at this problem."
And that's the crux of it: its artificial to draw a line between health care given by paramedics, and by nurses & doctors. Another great argument NYT didn't include, but NPR did, was the argument that Health insurance is NOT the same as health care. Health insurance is a mechanism for the consumer to spread risk rather than take it 100% themselves. This (the mandate) isn't regulating health care -- it's regulating risk management. Big difference, because it's pitting the private companies risk management interests against the individuals, and siding with the private companies.
Nina Totenberg (NPR correspondent) said over the weekend that she thought the Justices had already made up their mind before they even hear the arguments. I found that shocking.
If it all really IS a matter of "I want Obamacare to succeed" or not, then we might as well all pack it in and give up, the constitution of the U.S. means nada.
But in listening in on discussions here and there today, I am relieved to see that arguments of law are being made. They are interesting. They are complex. I have no idea which side will prevail.
i'm going to have to read those circles again. LOL *lawyers!*
Well, that isn't entirely unusual for the supreme court. Prior to the open hearing of a case, they have a ton of case material in front of them. They have to read that case material, and they often discuss it before the trial, where they go through and determine what their perspective is (as an individual justice) on a given case.
Hearing the argument will rarely change the mind of the justice -- but sometimes can, which is why it is continued. Hearing the argument has value in and of itself -- where the paper doesn't.
It's also how the court decides which cases to hear and which not to hear -- and sometimes they respond to cases that are never heard, but that require a 'stamp of approval' from the court. Interesting stuff, really.
Will we still live in a democracy if the government can force us into private contracts under penalty of law? Also, what will become of a thousand years of established contract law once they no longer require voluntary participation?
flowerseverywhere
3-27-12, 11:04pm
Will we still live in a democracy if the government can force us into private contracts under penalty of law? Also, what will become of a thousand years of established contract law once they no longer require voluntary participation?
but we already have a contract we are forced into. If someone goes to an emergency room without insurance they are treated and the rest of us pay one way of another.
The US was not founded a thousand years ago so I am not sure where you get that time span applicable to this conversation.
The number of uninsured Americans continues to climb
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insurance/index.htm
"The number of people who lacked health insurance last year climbed to 49.9 million, up from 49 million in 2009, the Census Bureau said Tuesday.Nationwide, 16.3% of the population was uninsured last year, statistically unchanged from 2009."
I am one of the lucky ones. I can participate in a group health contract but I pay a lot of money for it, in fact two years ago my premium was raised 68%. I assume you are one of the people in my bracket who are lucky enough to have health insurance. There are those who are covered by medicaid. Some people have only Medicare and if that is your only coverage it is very expensive.
So what solution do you have to those that cannot get insurance? Those that work enough to be above Medicaid levels but their employer does not offer health insurance?
Tonight, if someone hits an emergency room with no insurance, they smoke 3 packs of cigarettes a day, and choose to live on the streets the workers there will be obligated by current law to do everything to save their lives. If a drug addicted unmarried girl goes to the ER with no insurance and gives birth to a 2 lb. 9 oz. baby that baby might consume over a million dollars in care. If tomorrow some young man is going to pick up groceries and has a heart attack with no insurance (maybe he is between jobs) 911 will be called and he will be cared for, with possible ICU, surgery and medications.
What solutions do you have for these scenarios? Allow ER's to turn them away?
I for one am anxiously awaiting their decision, however the current system is very broken and needs fixing and I don't see anyone coming up with a better solution.
Please tell us what is the better solution. Let them die?
flowerseverywhere
3-27-12, 11:13pm
wanted to add I don't think the Health Care act is perfect by any means. But someone has to do something as if you love or hate Obama at least he did something besides provide lip service.
The US was not founded a thousand years ago so I am not sure where you get that time span applicable to this conversation.
Most of the colonies that formed the United States adopted legal systems based on English law. See Glanville's Tractatus de Legibus et Consuetudinibus Regni Angliae, 1188AD, and Bracton's De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae , ~1235AD, or heck, Justinian's Institutiones, ~533AD.
flowerseverywhere
3-27-12, 11:29pm
Most of the colonies that formed the United States adopted legal systems based on English law. See Glanville's Tractatus de Legibus et Consuetudinibus Regni Angliae, 1188AD, and Bracton's De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae , ~1235AD, or heck, Justinian's Institutiones, ~533AD.
that is so but if it was perfect no one would have left England to travel across the Atlantic with a good chance not to survive either by sea or by land. So the law upon which this land is based is the law of the renegades,the oppressed, the outcasts, those that wanted change and the adventurous and sometimes crazy.
why do so many people want to come here? Not because we are based on ancient laws but because we stood up against the English (among others) and said we wanted to be free to make our own laws.
there is much to be ashamed of in the US, including our history of slaves as well as going to war in Vietnam, but we are still the land of opportunity and change and we need to constantly change to meet the needs of our citizens.
Well, spin whatever tale you want, I pointed you at the facts.
flowerseverywhere
3-27-12, 11:50pm
Well, spin whatever tale you want, I pointed you at the facts.
can you explain more? Specifically in relation to what is currently being heard at the Supreme court? I always am interested in broadening my horizons.
Alan and Flowerseverwhere: we're not forced into a contract merely as a function of a hospital charging paying customers to make up for unpaying customers. EVERY business does that! It's the Free Market way -- ensuring profitability, not equality. Most business adjust their pricing for different customer types too (I am NOT saying that it's right.)
But Alan, what is far more frightening is one of the rulings that keeps being relied on these arguments as precedent: Wickard v Filburn. This says the Commerce Clause allows the federal government to fine farmers for raising food on their own property for their own consumption! Merely because NOT BUYING THINGS causes prices to drop, thereby hurting commerce. So it would seem that since 1941, the government can force us to buy things we don't need, and force us to destroy things we create out of self-sufficiency, all in the name of forcing our private behavior to subsidize Wall Street profits. How's that for Free Market Democracy?
eta: this was not a movement of Farmers for Self-Reliance or anything. It was ONE farmer who grew his own wheat for his own livestock, over and above what the government said his allowed limit was. He wasn't selling it, he was just stockpiling it so he wouldn't have to buy high-priced wheat. Irony is that wheat was only high priced because of government policies. Honestly, you can't understand current US economic policies without understanding wheat yields of the 1920-1930s - fascinating stuff.
!Splat!
When a person goes into an emergency room and are uncovered by care, there are several things that happen.
First, the patient has rights -- and according to those rights, their medical bills are to be interest free until they pay them off. And, they have a right to ask for a payment plan, too. So, they may go in and just make their own payments over time.
Second, the hospital might subsidize their care -- this does often happen, particularly in hardship cases where medical costs are very high and normal state insurance wouldn't provide total cover.
Third, the government might step in and pay the money as well -- this is usually a form of medical grant (several of my friends have had this for pretty major, but pretty surprising things that happened to them such as a random collapsed lung one day. 32 years old, perfectly healthy, lung collapsed -- several days in the hospital with lots of procedures, and no medical coverage at the time.).
So, in that way (or in those ways) we do end up paying for it.
But, more often than not, a person gets care and then walks away with their bills, and then the hospital passes it on to a credit company, who then charges interest because usually the contract that they sign for payments isn't read in detail, and it says that the contract can be assigned by the hospital, and once it's assigned out of the hospital, then interest can be charged. Which is when people end up drowning from the payments.
When DH was in the hospital last (panic attack), the insurance company paid, then we paid our portion, and the hospital attempted to bill us for the same treatments 4 times, asserting that we'd not paid the bill. I kept faxing them the relevant information, and finally told them that if they didn't stop I'd file a claim of fraud. Wouldn't you know it stopped?
Same thing happened with the doctor before my favorite doctor. He was in network, and so we were to get a free physical. I got a physical, and didn't pay a co-pay. Then they billed me for $250.
Here's where it got confusing.
I called the insurance company to figure out why they hadn't paid, since the doctor was in-network. They informed me that "nursing care" and "midwifery services" of that doctor were not in network, just the general family practice of the doctor. And, that the physical would be 100% covered under that.
I then got really confused and said "but I didn't receive nursing care or midwifery services. I had a physical." And she said that the doctor had billed them for these two elements, and since it was refused, it would be covered by me.
The bill asserted that I had 30 days to pay or it would go to collections. So, I called the doctor's office, who insisted that I did, in fact, see the midwife that day. I had not seen the midwife. I asked for a copy of my medical record from that day.
They never sent the record. I told them I wanted it in 5 days or I would file a fraudulent claim with my insurance company's fraud department (which the lady i'd spoken to from the company had suggested.
Wouldn't you know that 24 hrs later, I get a letter saying "oh, our mistake, you just had a physical" -- and then the lady from the insurance company called me and asked if I'd received notice of their "erroneous" bill. And I said that I had.
Slippery. Very slippery a lot of folks in these systems.
I suppose they just expected to get more from the insurance company by going that route, but I knew then it was a good idea to see a different doctor.
flowerseverywhere
3-28-12, 7:48am
Zoebird, I don't get the point of your last story in relation to the current health care debate. I do understand that some people are billed however but all of my family and friends pay for health insurance so I have no personal experience. And yes, we all have fights with the insurance companies because they are out to make money. thank you Gwendolyn for your explanation- I don't understand much of this legal stuff which is why there are lawyers I guess. Especially why some laws are constitutional yet others are questioned.
The funny thing to me is that we keep hearing "those Republicans" and "those Democrats" and yet when people attempt to explain things using historical examples it really isn't one party or the other. It is a gigantic mixed up ball of all parties who keep passing laws that may help some people but have a detrimental effect on others.
Alan and Flowerseverwhere: we're not forced into a contract merely as a function of a hospital charging paying customers to make up for unpaying customers. EVERY business does that! It's the Free Market way -- ensuring profitability, not equality. Most business adjust their pricing for different customer types too (I am NOT saying that it's right.)
You're right, but the government has never forced us to enter into a contract with an insurance company, or any other company for that matter, in order to broaden the pool of paying customers. Up to now, those of us who make up the cash pool have entered into it voluntarily, without governmental coersion.
But Alan, what is far more frightening is one of the rulings that keeps being relied on these arguments as precedent: Wickard v Filburn. This says the Commerce Clause allows the federal government to fine farmers for raising food on their own property for their own consumption! Merely because NOT BUYING THINGS causes prices to drop, thereby hurting commerce. So it would seem that since 1941, the government can force us to buy things we don't need, and force us to destroy things we create out of self-sufficiency, all in the name of forcing our private behavior to subsidize Wall Street profits. How's that for Free Market Democracy?
That's a very good example of governmental abuse of the Commerce Clause. The Affordable Health Care Act's individual mandate is another good example which, if allowed to stand, can only serve as a basis for further abuses down the road.
Let me preface my question by saying I am trying to teach myself about what's at play here - I am not pushing any agenda other than, I think current health care system is a nightmare to deal with and if 'Obamacare' isn't the answer then please, please, please let's come up with something that is.......
When I drive a car and get pulled over I have to provide proof of insurance.
What makes that different?
- is it b/c it's state mandated vs. federal?
- is it more of a property rights thing vs. the human body/health is not a piece of property
????
I realize that this question may be Civics 101, but if a few people could give a stab at it from different sides, I want to learn more
When I drive a car and get pulled over I have to provide proof of insurance.
What makes that different?
One of the differences is that it is a state mandate rather than a federal one. The federal government has only specific and enumerated powers, which is why the Commerce Clause is continually re-interpeted in order to infer power.
The second difference is that no one is forced to drive on public roads. If you choose not to, you are not required to provide automobile insurance. Under the Affordable Healthcare Act, you have no choice in the matter. Using the automobile insurance example, it's as if you do not own a car, you do not have a drivers license and you do not know how to drive, and yet you are still forced to enter into a private contract with an auto insurer under penalty of law for the sole purpose of expanding the liability pool.
flowerseverywhere
3-28-12, 9:27am
One of the differences is that it is a state mandate rather than a federal one. The federal government has only specific and enumerated powers, which is why the Commerce Clause is continually re-interpeted in order to infer power.
The second difference is that no one is forced to drive on public roads. If you choose not to, you are not required to provide automobile insurance. Under the Affordable Healthcare Act, you have no choice in the matter. Using the automobile insurance example, it's as if you do not own a car, you do not have a drivers license and you do not know how to drive, and yet you are still forced to enter into a private contract with an auto insurer under penalty of law for the sole purpose of expanding the liability pool.
your examples are interesting ones and I guess a lot of people like me don't really understand this.
I still haven't heard through this whole conversation what to do about the uninsured who cannot afford to pay yet cannot qualify for Medicaid. Let them die? Or continue to have the insured absorb the loss one way or another through premiums and taxes.
Wickard v Filburn. This says the Commerce Clause allows the federal government to fine farmers for raising food on their own property for their own consumption! Merely because NOT BUYING THINGS causes prices to drop, thereby hurting commerce.
I think the Obamacare case is even more broad in it's scope. As absurd as Wickard sounds it still simply regulates commerce. The healthcare law attempts to CREATE commerce prior to regulating it. The opposition is saying, among other things, that the Commerce Clause is attempting to regulate inactivity, basically a LACK of commerce (people failing to purchase health insurance). My guess is that it will get shot down for that reason. I could be wrong. Either way this is a fascinating case. One of the Justices, memory fails as to which, basically said this could redefine how Americans interact with the government. I don't think that is entirely hyperbole. Think about this, 1/2 of us are ready to pack our bags if the law is upheld, the other 1/2 are ready to go if its not. Fascinating.
iris lily
3-28-12, 10:34am
...I still haven't heard through this whole conversation what to do about the uninsured who cannot afford to pay yet cannot qualify for Medicaid. Let them die? ...
I do not expect the Supremes to address the nuts and bolts of how to fix health care. They need to rule on matters of constitutional law.
When you ask for a "what to do " answer, there have been many responses over time on these boards. To go outside the innate wisdom represented by the conservatives who post here :) you could Goggle conservative thought, there is a lot of it out there on the web. But the sobering answer is that there is no good fix, and people will have to give up their already unrealistic expectations.
If you turn this discussion, which centers on Court activity and arguments before the Justices, into another one of those rambling threads of Let Them Die!!! and But You Have No Compassion, well, ok. I'm a rambler myself and often contribute to thread drift. But I think, if you are honest, you've seen suggestions for tackling the health care problem in the U.S. and yours is merely a rhetorical question.
And yes, some version of "let them die" is out there in the equation. Or rather, "fail to give everyone and his brother a heart transplant" is another way to express it at the opposite end of the hyperbolic spectrum.
Alan's example of me being forced to buy auto insurance when I don't drive is a good analogy. What don't you understand about that?
flowerseverywhere
3-28-12, 10:48am
good points Iris. I actually do understand what alan pointed out about auto insurance but honestly before this I did not. I think I need to find a "Constitution for dummies"
As long as some laws exist (ie. mandate to treat anyone who shows up in the ER, whether they are insured, a legal citizen etc.) I don't see how it cannot be addressed one way or another. I can honestly understand why some feel it is OK to turn people away from medical care, or deny heart transplants or expensive drugs for cancer. There is an unlimited amount of money that can be spent on some diagnoses that still have a poor or fatal outcome.
back to the original thread I think the decision should be very interesting and could have very long reaching effects.
The constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. That's just the way it is. For example, you can think that you have the right to make death threats against the president under the first amendment and that the law prohibiting such threats is unconstitutional, but if the SCOTUS says otherwise, you go to jail. Just reading the provisions of the constitution literally is not sufficient.
Scalia unabashedly used a very common right wing talking point: Well, if we force people to buy insurance can we force them to buy broccoli? It was funny to hear Rachel Maddow refer to the "broccoli argument" as a right wing talking point on Monday night and then read an overview of the oral arguments and find out that Scalia actually asked that question the very next day.
The point is we already are forced to buy insurance, although the benefit is deferred. That is called "Medicare." If the mandate is determined to be unconstitutional, then it will have to be a very narrow and technical decision otherwise every other Federal program is in jeopardy. The decision itself would be a small, quibbling type of decision with narrow application, although the joining opinions of Scalia & friends might be sharp and radical.
The bottom line is this: The U.S. government either has the right to do all the stuff it does to improve areas where the states don't have the will to help their citizens, or it doesn't. The distinction between a "mandate," which is actually more of a tax deduction in operation and being forced to pay for social security and medicare is pretty shaky. If they strike down Obamacare in broad terms that upend broad precedents, it would be one of the most radical decisions in the Court's history.
I doubt Justice Kennedy intends to go down in history as a radical.
The constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. That's just the way it is. For example, you can think that you have the right to make death threats against the president under the first amendment and that the law prohibiting such threats is unconstitutional, but if the SCOTUS says otherwise, you go to jail. Just reading the provisions of the constitution literally is not sufficient.
Scalia unabashedly used a very common right wing talking point: Well, if we force people to buy insurance can we force them to buy broccoli? It was funny to hear Rachel Maddow refer to the "broccoli argument" as a right wing talking point on Monday night and then read an overview of the oral arguments and find out that Scalia actually asked that question the very next day.
The point is we already are forced to buy insurance, although the benefit is deferred. That is called "Medicare." If the mandate is determined to be unconstitutional, then it will have to be a very narrow and technical decision otherwise every other Federal program is in jeopardy. The decision itself would be a small, quibbling type of decision with narrow application, although the joining opinions of Scalia & friends might be sharp and radical.
The bottom line is this: The U.S. government either has the right to do all the stuff it does to improve areas where the states don't have the will to help their citizens, or it doesn't. The distinction between a "mandate," which is actually more of a tax deduction in operation and being forced to pay for social security and medicare is pretty shaky. If they strike down Obamacare in broad terms that upend broad precedents, it would be one of the most radical decisions in the Court's history.
I doubt Justice Kennedy intends to go down in history as a radical.
I think you're missing the distinction between taxation and engaging in commerce. Medicare and Social Security are funded by taxation, while the health insurance mandate depends upon forcing citizens to engage in commerce. I would think that forcing private citizens to engage in commerce would be the most radical thing, but my tolerence for radicalization is pretty low.
flowerseverywhere
3-28-12, 12:14pm
so I have another question involving this afternoons arguments.
From what I can determine every state participates in Medicaid, even though the funding comes partly from the Federal level and partly at the State. The federal government mandates what has to be covered.
Realistically can states not participate in Medicaid? If Medicaid expands to include more people what does that mean to funding at the state and federal level?
so I have another question involving this afternoons arguments.
From what I can determine every state participates in Medicaid, even though the funding comes partly from the Federal level and partly at the State. The federal government mandates what has to be covered.
Realistically can states not participate in Medicaid? If Medicaid expands to include more people what does that mean to funding at the state and federal level?
States can opt out. I think it was one of the Southwestern states that was the last to join in the early eighties. I would think if the federal government were to press too hard on unfunded mandates, they might start losing participants.
I do not expect the Supremes to address the nuts and bolts of how to fix health care. They need to rule on matters of constitutional law.
When you ask for a "what to do " answer, there have been many responses over time on these boards. To go outside the innate wisdom represented by the conservatives who post here :) you could Goggle conservative thought, there is a lot of it out there on the web. But the sobering answer is that there is no good fix, and people will have to give up their already unrealistic expectations.
If you turn this discussion, which centers on Court activity and arguments before the Justices, into another one of those rambling threads of Let Them Die!!! and But You Have No Compassion, well, ok. I'm a rambler myself and often contribute to thread drift. But I think, if you are honest, you've seen suggestions for tackling the health care problem in the U.S. and yours is merely a rhetorical question.
And yes, some version of "let them die" is out there in the equation. Or rather, "fail to give everyone and his brother a heart transplant" is another way to express it at the opposite end of the hyperbolic spectrum.
Alan's example of me being forced to buy auto insurance when I don't drive is a good analogy. What don't you understand about that?
Actually there is a fix. It's called the Affordable care act, or Obamacare. Glad you asked, cause here is a solution to this countries health care needs. See, this is a program where everyone contributes because EVERYONE benefits. Cause, you know, you don't know in advance if you are going to have a heart attack, or a collapsed lung, as in Zoe's post, and you can be actually quite young. This isn't a heart transplant for everyone, but even everyday stuff like heart attacks, appendicitis, collapse lungs costs outrageous, and happens to young people too.
I wonder if conservatives who are against this are either glad to pay for the slackers who don't have insurance, but still show up in the emergency room, or maybe they ARE the slackers who want a free ride. Either way, I'm surprised at how easily and readily they give up the whole 'personal responsibility' meme they have so carefully cultivated over the years. So much for that, huh!
No, Alan's comparison of auto insurance to health care insurance is not a good one. It's false equivalency. You don't have to drive, true, so you won't be in an accident and need insurance to cover that accident. However, you do breath, right? And exist, right? And statistics show you WILL need health care at some point, maybe even a lot of health care. So you WILL need that insurance. You will be driving that 'car' (your body) and it will break down.
Now, if you take your broken car to an auto mechanic, he isn't forced to fix it. Tell him you don't have the money cause you didn't think you would need it and you will be laughed out of the auto shop. However, if you take that broken body to an emergency room, GOVERNMENT MANDATES forces them to fix it, whether you have money, insurance, or just a lint covered sour ball in your pocket. You aren't forced to cover someone else's car accident, but we (responsible ones who have health care coverage) are forced to cover broken bodies.
Obamacare simply says this isn't fair to the responsible ones, so, because we have to fix broken bodies, we must all pay into the pool that fixes them. See, it's that whole personal responsibility thing again.
The most ridiculous and really asinine thing about this whole thing is, REPUBLICANS WERE THE ONES WHO FIRST CAME UP WITH THE IDEA OF GOVERNMENT MANDATES! Yep, it was a republican idea. Their idea, which Romney then used to model his states health care, with it's government mandate, which the citizens of Mass like very much, and is successful. (how often do we get to test out an idea like this) And the only single solitary reason they are against it now is...wait for it...it's a democratic President who is implementing it. That's it. That's the only reason. Screw the people, they aren't about to let this democratic president implement a successful health care act.
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182
poetry_writer
3-28-12, 1:53pm
Actually there is a fix. It's called the Affordable care act, or Obamacare. Glad you asked, cause here is a solution to this countries health care needs. See, this is a program where everyone contributes because EVERYONE benefits. Cause, you know, you don't know in advance if you are going to have a heart attack, or a collapsed lung, as in Zoe's post, and you can be actually quite young. This isn't a heart transplant for everyone, but even everyday stuff like heart attacks, appendicitis, collapse lungs costs outrageous, and happens to young people too.
I wonder if conservatives who are against this are either glad to pay for the slackers who don't have insurance, but still show up in the emergency room, or maybe they ARE the slackers who want a free ride. Either way, I'm surprised at how easily and readily they give up the whole 'personal responsibility' meme they have so carefully cultivated over the years. So much for that, huh!
No, Alan's comparison of auto insurance to health care insurance is not a good one. It's false equivalency. You don't have to drive, true, so you won't be in an accident and need insurance to cover that accident. However, you do breath, right? And exist, right? And statistics show you WILL need health care at some point, maybe even a lot of health care. So you WILL need that insurance. You will be driving that 'car' (your body) and it will break down.
Now, if you take your broken car to an auto mechanic, he isn't forced to fix it. Tell him you don't have the money cause you didn't think you would need it and you will be laughed out of the auto shop. However, if you take that broken body to an emergency room, GOVERNMENT MANDATES forces them to fix it, whether you have money, insurance, or just a lint covered sour ball in your pocket. You aren't forced to cover someone else's car accident, but we (responsible ones who have health care coverage) are forced to cover broken bodies.
Obamacare simply says this isn't fair to the responsible ones, so, because we have to fix broken bodies, we must all pay into the pool that fixes them. See, it's that whole personal responsibility thing again.
The most ridiculous and really asinine thing about this whole thing is, REPUBLICANS WERE THE ONES WHO FIRST CAME UP WITH THE IDEA OF GOVERNMENT MANDATES! Yep, it was a republican idea. Their idea, which Romney then used to model his states health care, with it's government mandate, which the citizens of Mass like very much, and is successful. (how often do we get to test out an idea like this) And the only single solitary reason they are against it now is...wait for it...it's a democratic President who is implementing it. That's it. That's the only reason. Screw the people, they aren't about to let this democratic president implement a successful health care act.
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182
Emergency rooms are required to stabilize you. They do not always treat you. I speak from experience, with family members and friends who have been given the quickest sorriest care in the ER (there due to lack of insurance) and tossed out the door. Its a horrible experience to be sent home still sick because you are not insured. But you are stable. You need more care. But it isnt going to happen because you are UNINSURED. it happens DAILY in hospitals in this country. The insurance companies are among the most unethical and dishonest in America. i dont think this healthcare reform will change that , whether it is a good thing or bad thing. They dont mind cheating the system and that will continue. Who the HELL cares about Republican/Democrat govt hooey. We all want decent care. i want it not only for me, but for everyone. Whatever happens..happens in this healthcare reform issue. I cant control it.
I wonder if conservatives who are against this are either glad to pay for the slackers who don't have insurance, but still show up in the emergency room, or maybe they ARE the slackers who want a free ride. Either way, I'm surprised at how easily and readily they give up the whole 'personal responsibility' meme they have so carefully cultivated over the years. So much for that, huh!
I think you may misunderstand the topic. This isn't about healthcare, it's about the methods used to achieve a desired result. Apply the methodology to any other law and we'd be having the same discussion.
What's at risk is the public's ability to remain free of undue governmental interference into personal lives. Someone else brought up Rachel Maddow's quip about the government forcing us to buy broccoli, which really does fit into the conversation. If the government is allowed to force us to purchase a product, under the guise of the greater good, what's to keep it from forcing us to buy broccoli, or Chevy Volts or whatever other product it's currently hawking?
flowerseverywhere
3-28-12, 2:37pm
has anyone been listening to the actual arguments? It is fascinating.
ApatheticNoMore
3-28-12, 2:43pm
Scalia unabashedly used a very common right wing talking point: Well, if we force people to buy insurance can we force them to buy broccoli? It was funny to hear Rachel Maddow refer to the "broccoli argument" as a right wing talking point on Monday night and then read an overview of the oral arguments and find out that Scalia actually asked that question the very next day
Republicans seem to have real issues with brocolli, remember George Bush and brocolli? So the question remains is or was brocolli ever a member of the communist party? It's pretty dark green, I'm beginning to suspect it of eco-terrorism as well ...
Um, go back to your serious discussion - needless diversion and sillyness here ... :)
Republicans seem to have real issues with brocolli, remember George Bush and brocolli? So the question remains is or was brocolli ever a member of the communist party? It's pretty dark green, I'm beginning to suspect it of eco-terrorism as well ...
Um, go back to your serious discussion - needless diversion and sillyness here ... :)
That is so funny -- when I was listening to Scalia snippets yesterday and heard Broccoli, my mind went immediately to W.
Don't forget Obama and Eating our Peas!
And how Michelle's grandmother would take her to McDonald's once a year and bring a can of peas to eat with the burger.
Finally good to see product placement happening for the Green Vegetable Lobby!
Even bad press is good press.
Zoebird, I don't get the point of your last story in relation to the current health care debate. I do understand that some people are billed however but all of my family and friends pay for health insurance so I have no personal experience. And yes, we all have fights with the insurance companies because they are out to make money. thank you Gwendolyn for your explanation- I don't understand much of this legal stuff which is why there are lawyers I guess. Especially why some laws are constitutional yet others are questioned.
any law can be questioned at the supreme court level -- the court decides what they will hear, though, based on the merits of the case. There's lots of paperwork involved -- and so if it's not heard, it's considered per-se constitutional until it is heard, and if it is heard, then constitutionality is determined via the hearing.
and, I was responding directly to someone's assertion as to what happens to not being insured, not having catastrophic insurance, etc. but then also a reflection on how those rights of patients are often undermined through both perfectly legal behavior (reassigning contracts to those who can charge interest) and through less savory behavior.
you see, in my stories, I wasn't fighting with the insurance company. The *hospital* attempted to bill us 4 times, and each time got more aggressive about us "not living up to your obligations!" and how "ashamed" we should feel and so on and so forth. Each time, I sent them records that the insurance company asserted that the bills had been paid as well as our receipt from the hospital that asserted that our portion had been paid. In the second story, I was asserting how the DOCTOR was attempting to either defraud the insurance company or get more money from me for services that I did not receive.
The point of these being that even though we do have patients rights in regards to treatments and payment plans (and I would have no problem just going in and paying on a payment plan if it were locked in and not-assignable, and therefore interest free) but when hospitals and doctors do hinky things, I see them as less reliable party to which I want to enter such a contract.
And it's relevant to the question of commerce.
Right now, here are our options:
1. if you qualify for state coverage, you have state coverage. anything beyond state coverage you have to pay for in some way (contract, paid for by tax payers);
2. if you have a job that includes health insurance, or you can afford to pay for health insurance, you have whatever your insurance will cover and anything beyond that you have to cover yourself (contracts that you cover yourself or are covered by you and your employer);
3. you do not have health insurance -- which means that medical care will be paid by you, in cash, in whatever payments the doctor/hospital agrees to.
The problem with 3 is that while there are patients rights, the hospital has a legal way around it. Likewise, based on my two stories (hospital wrongly billing us and trying to send us to collections, etc; doctor billing for services that I did not receive), they are not trustworthy groups with whom to get into contracts, as it seems to me that they are quite interested in defrauding people.
It leaves a person who wants medical care in a pickle.
The question of this process with obamacare is that question of commerce -- as Alan says. The real hang up is not in the various options -- but in the idea that each person has to be insured (that each person must take out a contract).
Here are some of my random, floaty thoughts about it:
1. i simply want more options. i think that obama care creates more options for people like myself to say "you know what, what my husband's company provides is stupid and needlessly expensive and well beyond what we want or need. I want to see what else is out there."
And so I can go out and get the insurance coverage that I want. I actually see this bill as extending my options.
2. the issue is that everyone "has to" be insured. I have a feeling that things will work out such that not everyone has to be -- simply because there are religious exemptions, etc (i.e., Amish choose not to be insured and don't participate in social security, medicare via taxation -- so I assume there would be a caveat for them).
3. while not in the bill, i'd like to see some changes around patients rights and entering these contracts and such. because of how i've been treated for having PAID the bill *cash in full* for my part PLUS what the insurance covered -- I'd be pretty darn loathe to enter contracts with these folks without having these sorts of negotiation rights.
What are people's takes on the "they might toss part of the law and keep the rest of it" scenario? Has the court done this in the past? I really don't like the idea of the courts having the right to what basically amounts to rewriting laws.
The SCOTUS usually tries its best to leave laws as in tact as possible so they can be revised by Congress later. In this case it seems like they are leaning closer to scuttling the whole thing because there would be so little left after the three main points are removed. Justice Ginsburg, as expected, looks to be the most in favor of trying to keep it in tact.
It was interesting to hear a commentator talking about how the court would really like to avoid a 5-4 decision (either way) predominantly split along party lines and especially in an election year. While they certainly aren't immune to such pressures I would hope this is just a small consideration for the Justices.
What are people's takes on the "they might toss part of the law and keep the rest of it" scenario? Has the court done this in the past? I really don't like the idea of the courts having the right to what basically amounts to rewriting laws.
One of the judges (was it Kennedy?) suggested that leaving the bits and pieces intact after removing the mandate to buy insurance would, in a way, be MORE of a heavy hand from the bench. Is this wha tyou mean? I found that interesting.
But in the end, I think they will keep the bits and pieces even if they gut the law with turning over the mandate part. Sonja M and her group seemed to like that stuff.
It kind of sounds like they are trying to determine what Congress' intent was regarding some of those pieces parts. I hope I'm wrong about that.
I think you may misunderstand the topic. This isn't about healthcare, it's about the methods used to achieve a desired result. Apply the methodology to any other law and we'd be having the same discussion.
What's at risk is the public's ability to remain free of undue governmental interference into personal lives. Someone else brought up Rachel Maddow's quip about the government forcing us to buy broccoli, which really does fit into the conversation. If the government is allowed to force us to purchase a product, under the guise of the greater good, what's to keep it from forcing us to buy broccoli, or Chevy Volts or whatever other product it's currently hawking?
No, again, false equivalency. Health care isn't like a car or broccoli which you can choose to buy or not. You will need health care. Period. YOU WILL NEED HEALTH CARE! Can you go into the grocery store and simply eat the broccoli without paying? Do you expect the other shoppers to pay for your broccoli? Is the grocer required to give you broccoli without paying? Maybe you do. Maybe you want a free ride since your relatively young and healthy. Except...I remember you had a heart issue not too long ago. Did you plan for that? And a motorcycle accident resulting in I think broken ribs. Perhaps you planned for that one? See, stuff happens, TO EVERYONE eventually, even if they are young and relatively healthy. You don't have to eat broccoli, or drive a car. You do need health care.
See that's the thing that people keep glossing over. Everyone will need health care eventually. maybe even a lot of health care. Sure, we can use Iris L's example of a heart transplant for everyone, but you know, stuff happens to people under 70. And catastrophic stuff happens to everyone. Take appendicitis. If you don't have that ruptured organ removed, you will likely die. Do we just tell that 23 year old, oh well, you've lived a good life, that's the breaks?
Latching on to the "government mandate' issue is just the republicans way of screwing the works. They don't want this ORIGINALLY REPUBLICAN IDEA to be successful under a democratic president. Period.
Now, you want to talk government mandates. Republicans don't seem to have a problem with the government mandates for women to 'buy' an intrusive and unnecessary medical procedure in order to get a legal medical procedure (abortion). No problem at all.
Republicans don't seem to have a problem with government mandates that people purchase ID's in order to Carry out their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to vote. Again, mandates are no problem there.
The government is in our personal lives because we live here. all together, and laws and regulations are written every day to benefit the greater good. That's just the reality of living in a modern, progressive 21st century country. It isn't everyone for himself, yet, thank goodness, although it would seem some would like it to be that way.
If you don't believe me, look around. It isn't 1776, as it turns out, and the population is actually a bit over a few hundred thousand.
Economist actually like Obama care, and business likes Obama care as it frees them up to expand/spend more on research, expansion, or even just start up. See, Obama care is pro business, which I guess is another meme republicans are willing to toss aside in their myopic efforts to make this democratic president fail. All the other "big boy countries' have some form of health care plans and everyone has lower health care costs, with better results.
So what if the government requires everyone to put into this pool everyone will withdraw from to make it successful! So what! It's a solution that will ensure everyone gets covered and lowers the cost for everyone. We know it will work because it has been shown to work in just about every other industrialized country. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here. And these are all free, democratic countries. These aren't communist countries or fascist countries. These are free countries where the citizens are happy and healthy.
Have you ever actually asked yourself why this REPUBLICAN IDEA is suddenly not so much?
Well, I'm done with this. If stupid people want to vote against their own self interest, and the interest of the state because Rush Beck told them to, what can I do. (and it's the stupid people who pushed this to the supreme court) I'm covered. I have that (((shutter))) dreaded government run health care. Me and EVERY SINGLE CONGRESSPERSON. Yep. Every republican senator, every republican congressman. Everyone. We got ours. We can afford to play politics with the rest of you.
Do you expect the other shoppers to pay for your broccoli?
Whether it is legal to force other shoppers to pay for my broccoli is what the SCOTUS is deciding. They are not arguing whether or not everyone should be able to get broccoli.
What puzzles me here is the government's reliance on the power to regulate interstate commerce rather than it's power to impose taxes. If you aren't permitted, either before or after the Act, to purchase insurance across state lines, where is the "interstate commerce" they're regulating? It would seem they'd have been on much more solid constitutional ground simply creating a new tax on the uninsured.
Whether it is legal to force other shoppers to pay for my broccoli is what the SCOTUS is deciding. They are not arguing whether or not everyone should be able to get broccoli.
But we are being forced to pay for it. When someone who is uninsured goes to the emergency room, they are treated. It's the law. Who do you think pays for that? We do. In higher prices and higher premiums. We are already paying for it. That's the point. We DON'T want to pay for it. We want everyone to put into this pool because everyone will eventually withdraw from it. It's a very simple, sound economic principle. Why is anyone against this personal responsibility, everyone pays cause everyone plays principle.
If the grocer was forced to give everyone broccoli who asked, but maybe couldn't/wouldn't pay, don't you think he is going to raise his prices to the rest of us to cover that?
See, I don't understand why you are not for this. In the college finance thread, you are all for personal responsibility in paying back loans you took out for the product, education. Well, how about personal responsibility in paying for the product, health care. Everybody uses this product. Cradle to grave, everyone will use health care. And just because someone choose to get the loan and didn't choose to have an auto accident doesn't change the fact that it happened, and it's gonna cost a whole lot of money. Several college educations worth of money. And I'm not talking heart transplants for 70 year olds. I'm talking about catastrophic things that happen to young people with long, healthy lives ahead of them if they can just get through this.
It all comes down to personal responsibility really. Either you are for it, or not. You stated you didn't want to pay for other people's education. Why do you want to pay for other people's health care?
Actually, I was thinking about this this morning. Isn't it funny how things work out sometimes. Now it's the Democrats who are the party of personal responsibility, integrity, and pro business.
Actually, I was thinking about this this morning. Isn't it funny how things work out sometimes. Now it's the Democrats who are the party of personal responsibility, integrity, and pro business.
I suppose one could confuse totalitarianism with personal responsiblity & integrity. But if that's the way you interpret it, remember to be consistent with the subsequent mandates as well. :moon:
I suppose one could confuse totalitarianism with personal responsiblity & integrity. But if that's the way you interpret it, remember to be consistent with the subsequent mandates as well. :moon:
And i suppose one could confuse personal responsibility and integrity with totalitarianism. But if that's the way you want to interpret it, remind me to never enter into a contract with you, or rely on you to uphold your responsibility in any transaction. Or give you a loan, or sell you a house,....:moon:
And i suppose one could confuse personal responsibility and integrity with totalitarianism. But if that's the way you want to interpret it, remind me to never enter into a contract with you, or rely on you to uphold your responsibility in any transaction. Or give you a loan, or sell you a house,....:moon:
Are you under the impression that you have an option to either enter into a private contract or not? I guess we'll see..... :D
Are you under the impression that you have an option to either enter into a private contract or not? I guess we'll see..... :D
Are you under the impression that hospital emergency rooms have the option to turn you away at the doors or not? Do you want them to have that option?:(
I suppose one could confuse totalitarianism with personal responsiblity & integrity. But if that's the way you interpret it, remember to be consistent with the subsequent mandates as well. :moon:
That's the nature of the totalitarian temptation, isn't it? If you are untroubled by the means, any end seems possible. The petty objections of the "stupid people" who cling to the competing values of their preposterous religions or some scrap of parchment from the eighteenth century are of no consequence. If we can build Utopia with a web of regulation, they will in the end be re-educated to see their true interests lie in a place at the trough rather than some ill-conceived individualism. If we can eliminate any illusions of some transcendent purpose to human existence, then submission to the State becomes a species of integrity.
We want everyone to put into this pool because everyone will eventually withdraw from it.
I'm all in with that basic idea, peggy. But whether or not that makes sense is not what the Court is looking at. They are deciding whether the means selected to arrive at that end are legal and constitutional. The Court essentially has the job of helping the rest of us proceed cautiously, to make sure we don't JUST use the end to justify the means. If their answer is "no" to all or part of this plan then we will have to try again. The destination does not have to change; it is a good and sensible goal (universal healthcare). If the Court rules the current plan is unconstitutional all that would have to change is the route we take to get to that goal.
I promise you the route proposed by Mr. Obama and company is NOT the only way this can be done. There are literally dozens of options resulting in hundreds of combinations. Please don't tell me that its either Obamacare or Rush non-care, that just isn't how it works. It's more like finding your way through a maze. There will be lots of ways to get to the end, but the challenge is to find the most direct way there. The President's plan may be the way the country implements universal healthcare, it may not, we should know by late June. If nothing else its a good starting point and its been good to get all this on the table so we can all think about it.
Here's my take.
I don't think Obamacare is great. I think it's ok, under the circumstances. I think most of it is constitutional -- as it is based on what went down in MA, and that hs been deemed constitutional. I like that it's actually a two-party document, though it's mostly a republican document from back in the 90s. But anyway, that's neither here nor there, as pretty much everyone is stating that this is Obama's doing from soup to nuts for some reason.
What I would prefer is a system where tax dollars pay for catastrophic and preventative coverage for all americans -- using/expanding the medicaid/care/CHIP system. From there, americans would then have free choice of the insurance that they want -- which might be an option for employers to give, or just something they take on privately.
Living in this sort of system is effective.
So, essentially, I agree with Gregg. This isn't "all or nothing." There are lots of options that will get us to the ends that we desire in a means that is both constitutional and just as well.
Personally, I don't think this version is great. it's a step in the right direction, maybe, but. . . not great.
Fine, then why don't we just tax everyone a percentage of their income. All income, including capitol gains. Would that work for you? It works for me. And expand medicaid to include everyone. Constitutional? Sure. That's what progressives wanted in the first place. Single player, universal health care.
But I'm pretty sure republicans would have a problem with that too cause, it's a total farce that they WANT health care for everyone. I don't believe it for a minute, and I think the population is pretty much coming to the same conclusion.
So Gregg, if there are hundreds of way s to do it, give me a few. How about 3? Just 3. And lets make it really tough. Let's not start each with 'tax breaks for the wealthy".
[QUOTE=LDAHL;75079]That's the nature of the totalitarian temptation, isn't it? If you are untroubled by the means, any end seems possible. The petty objections of the "stupid people" who cling to the competing values of their preposterous religions or some scrap of parchment from the eighteenth century are of no consequence. If we can build Utopia with a web of regulation, they will in the end be re-educated to see their true interests lie in a place at the trough rather than some ill-conceived individualism. If we can eliminate any illusions of some transcendent purpose to human existence, then submission to the State becomes a species of integrity.[
How astute you are! Israel...totalitarian. The UK...totalitarian. Australia...totalitarian. Norway. Most def totalitarian. Canada. Horribly totalitarian. Japan...totalitarian. It's awful that so many of our allies are suffering under totalitarian rule. We should do something about that and encourage them to embrace freedom and democracy by imposing sanctions against them unless they free their citizens from the terrible burden of government intrusion in their health care.
It's horrible... All those people being forced to submit to the state! A worldwide tragedy! When will the nightmare of being forced to have government provided health care for these poor downtrodden enslaved oppressed people end! I know, let's start another war, but this time instead of for oil companies, we' ll do it for the insurance companies.
Shorter version of the above...srsly, what planet do you live on?
ApatheticNoMore
3-31-12, 11:38am
Don't those countries actually have single payer? Yea that's not what this healthcare plan is.
Don't those countries actually have single payer? Yea that's not what this healthcare plan is.
Actually no, they don't all. Thailand and I believe Sweden (or is it Norway) has a private insurance health care system where everyone pays cause everyone plays. Oh, and both were in kind of the same situation we were in, outrageous health care costs with many not able to afford insurance so they implemented a similar system that Obama wanted in and both have found their overall health care costs drop. For everyone. Sooo, there are examples of this out there that are very successful and the people like it. See, it can be done, to the BENIFIT of everyone. People, business, everyone. So I'm not buying the BS that republicans really really want everyone to be covered, but oh dear how will we do it?! All this hand wringing crap about a 250 year old piece of paper is just that, crap. Republicans have no problem what so ever with that 'piece of paper' being violated when it's their agenda being forced (forced ultrasounds, voter ID, religious rule)
ApatheticNoMore
3-31-12, 4:51pm
Well I do find it hard to imagine how a partnership with an entity as rotten to the core as the for profit oligopolistic health insurance companies in a country whose government is entirely corporatist can work. But the exact same plan somehow works with similar companies elsewhere? And they continue to be traded and post increasing profits on their stock markets as per investor expectations of a certain rate of profitability? Where are the cost savings comeing from there (not profitability because that can't be touched)?
Well I do find it hard to imagine how a partnership with an entity as rotten to the core as the for profit oligopolistic health insurance companies in a country whose government is entirely corporatist can work. But the exact same plan somehow works with similar companies elsewhere? And they continue to be traded and post increasing profits on their stock markets as per investor expectations of a certain rate of profitability? Where are the cost savings comeing from there (not profitability because that can't be touched)?
Well, first and foremost, when everyone shares in the costs, every one's premiums go down because it isn't just the sick and old who are buying insurance. No, the young mostly won't use the insurance they are obligated to buy, while they are young, although bad s--t happens to everyone, they will use it eventually, so they know it will be there because when they are old, the young will be compelled to buy insurance, etc... Kind of how SS and medicare works. Everyone pays because everyone will eventually play. This is how the savings work. Of course, single payer is still the ultimate goal I would think because then you have the bargaining power of a single payer. This is why Canada enjoys such low cost drugs because they simply tell the drug companies no, we won't pay $15 dollars a pill, so don't even try. So the drug companies stick it to us and Canada has low drug costs. That's why so many Americans who live near the border get their drugs in Canada. Remember a short while back the insurance companies tried to tell Americans getting their drugs in Canada that they were somehow inferior to 'our' drugs? I remember the silliness of the argument and how Canadians pretty much called BS on them on that.
It's really a co-op if you want to think about it. A co-op that buys, instead of vegetables, health care. The bigger the pool of investors, the more bargaining power and better product.
But it's not just that. It's more. The affordable care act told the insurance companies that because it would increase the insurance 'pool', in return the insurance companies could not toss someone off when they got sick, or deny coverage to anyone because of pre-existing conditions. (and believe me, the pre-existing conditions were often 'discovered' after someone had payed for a long time, then needed coverage for care. Pre-existing conditions like acne, or a single asthma attack when the person was 12, or something like that) So, the affordable care act was basically a list of insurance regulations designed to protect the consumer. And in exchange, the insurance companies got a bigger pool of payers so they could abide by these regulations without going bust. It really is/was a win win for everyone.
But, without the individual mandate that everyone will pay into this pool, which everyone will withdraw from, the whole thing will collapse. Conservatives know this, and they want it to collapse, because they don't care a whit if you have insurance. They really don't care if you get treated or not. All they care about is not letting this Democratic President get a successful program of the ground. Period.
That's it, in a nut shell. If you don't believe me, just google the history of the individual mandate in health care. You just might be surprised who actually came up with the idea, who championed it, and who actually enacted, successfully, it in his home state while governor. I'll give you a hint, it's the guy running for republican president.
Then ask yourself why, all of a sudden, it isn't such a good idea?
Don't those countries actually have single payer? Yea that's not what this healthcare plan is.
That is correct. The point is thate critics of the AFA have targeted the mandate because it's the heart of the system and they want to pull down the whole system of government health care coverage for anyone. They can use technical quibbles with the mandate, but if the law imposed a single payer system they'd be howling about how that is unconstitutional and totalitarian too. They think any government involvement in the health care system is intolerable. So, yeah, you can pull apart what I said and quibble that some of those countries have single payer, but the main idea I am trying to convey is that the notion that government involvement in providing health care coverage is somehow totalitarian is a tough argument to sustain in the reality based universe.
There really is not much difference between a tax and a mandate in this situation.
Life_is_Simple
4-1-12, 6:25pm
I for one am a little unsettled by next week as I don't have any idea how the court will decide this, and if ObamaCare does not stand in some form, I really have to question if remaining in the US is a viable long term option for me? It seems so risky to be here when life is not worth some form of guaranteed access to health care without living in fear of being wiped out financially. On the other hand, there is a silver lining in this for me - being able to question my citizenship makes it very easy for me to question many other things in my life, too.....Rob
Well, Rob, you can always move here to Massachusetts. It's such a relief to be able to buy health insurance with no worries, and having it not tied to working for a particular company. You can start you own business, like I did. It's easier to be an entrepreneur when you don't have to worry about where you are getting health insurance. It's actually good for one's health NOT to have these worries.
Of course, you've have to start signing your posts: "Rob in Massachusetts" ;)
Saw this flipping around on the web this weekend:
Let me get this straight . . . .
We’re going to be “gifted” with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don’t, Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we’ll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke!!!
‘What could possibly go wrong?’
Saw this flipping around on the web this weekend:
Let me get this straight . . . .
We’re going to be “gifted” with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don’t, Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we’ll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke!!!
‘What could possibly go wrong?’
Yea, and that's not a partisan bit of clap trap is it? !Splat! It's not even worth discrediting just about everything in that paragraph.
Well, there's more than just a little shot of truth in it as well, but I just thought it was kind of funny.
flowerseverywhere
4-2-12, 9:10am
Saw this flipping around on the web this weekend:
Let me get this straight . . . .
We’re going to be “gifted” with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don’t, Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we’ll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke!!!
‘What could possibly go wrong?’
a lot of this info is repeated passed around in e-mails urging you to forward to 20 people so all the american people can rise up against a congress who get a full pension and free healthcare for life after the first day in office. Sometimes it talks about the 28th amendment, sometimes quotes huge pensions that some congressmen collect (after a lifetime of public service of course, not one day). I have replied to all several times when someone has sent this info to me with the correct information from Snopes. Sometimes the last line includes "this has been checked out and is for real with the snopes link, which if followed goes to an article that discredits most of the information.
Interesting times we live in that people blindly post things or say things and spread them around that have not a grain of truth. It has lead to a lot of false assumptions about the health care act, including death panels.
Look, I got this piece that Gregg posted in an email some time ago too, but I'm not looking at it for truth nor did he post it as a factual commentary. It's just a hyperbolic humor piece. If you don't find it funny, move on.
From my stand point I just thought it was funny, but then a little tongue in cheek humor isn't very PC these days, is it?
If I really wanted to debunk it here is how it would work out...
We’re going to be “gifted” with a health care plan we are forced to purchase (True - that is primarily what the SCOTUS is debating) and fined if we don’t (True - at least there is language in the bill allowing for that), Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people (True - if not more), without adding a single new doctor (Neutral - no language that I know of requires the addition of doctors, but also none that discourages it), but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents (I have no clue), written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it (True - Mr. Waxman did say that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOOfQOwcdBY)), passed by a Congress that didn’t read it but exempted themselves from it (True - on both counts: see Mr. Baucus' comments (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/115749-sen-baucus-suggests-he-did-not-read-entire-health-bill)), and signed by a President who smokes (True), with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes (True (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123187503629378119.html)), for which we’ll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect (Neutral - it would be true from a 2010 signing of the bill until a 2014 implementation, but now down to two years), by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare (False - they aren't bankrupt...yet), all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese (Neutral - Ms. Benjamin is certainly "plus size", but I don't know if she falls into the obese category), and financed by a country that’s broke (False - the US suffers under crippling debt, but is not bankrupt...yet) !!!
6 - True
3 - Neutral
3 - False (one because I'm too lazy to look it up, could be true)
Life_is_Simple
4-2-12, 10:46am
...
It leaves a person who wants medical care in a pickle.
The question of this process with obamacare is that question of commerce -- as Alan says. The real hang up is not in the various options -- but in the idea that each person has to be insured (that each person must take out a contract).
Here are some of my random, floaty thoughts about it:
1. i simply want more options. i think that obama care creates more options for people like myself to say "you know what, what my husband's company provides is stupid and needlessly expensive and well beyond what we want or need. I want to see what else is out there."
And so I can go out and get the insurance coverage that I want. I actually see this bill as extending my options.
2. the issue is that everyone "has to" be insured. I have a feeling that things will work out such that not everyone has to be -- simply because there are religious exemptions, etc (i.e., Amish choose not to be insured and don't participate in social security, medicare via taxation -- so I assume there would be a caveat for them).
3. while not in the bill, i'd like to see some changes around patients rights and entering these contracts and such. because of how i've been treated for having PAID the bill *cash in full* for my part PLUS what the insurance covered -- I'd be pretty darn loathe to enter contracts with these folks without having these sorts of negotiation rights.
Zoebird,
I will tell you how Massachusetts does it, and Obamacare may not do it in exactly the same way.
On your #1: There is a thing called Minimum Creditable Coverage (MCC), which means "does a particular insurance plan meet the standards of the HealthCare law?" If you have access to employer coverage which meets MCC, then you can buy insurance through your employer, OR the Mass Connector, but you have to wait for the once-a-year open enrollment to buy it through Mass Connector. If the employer sponsored health coverage does not meet MCC, you can buy the Mass Connector Insurance at any time. There are 3 tiers: Bronze , Silver, GOld from about 5-6 Insurance Company each, with varying prices, deductibles, and co-pays. If you don't need the high-priced insurance from your husband's company, you can buy the lower-priced Bronze, which has a deductible.
Your question #2. There are religious exemptions, other exemptions like hardship. However, if you have low income, you can get part/all of the insurance premium subsidized.
From my stand point I just thought it was funny, but then a little tongue in cheek humor isn't very PC these days, is it?
If I really wanted to debunk it here is how it would work out...
We’re going to be “gifted” with a health care plan we are forced to purchase (True - that is primarily what the SCOTUS is debating) and fined if we don’t (True - at least there is language in the bill allowing for that), Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people (True - if not more), without adding a single new doctor (Neutral - no language that I know of requires the addition of doctors, but also none that discourages it), but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents (I have no clue), written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it (True - Mr. Waxman did say that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOOfQOwcdBY)), passed by a Congress that didn’t read it but exempted themselves from it (True - on both counts: see Mr. Baucus' comments (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/115749-sen-baucus-suggests-he-did-not-read-entire-health-bill)), and signed by a President who smokes (True), with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes (True (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123187503629378119.html)), for which we’ll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect (Neutral - it would be true from a 2010 signing of the bill until a 2014 implementation, but now down to two years), by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare (False - they aren't bankrupt...yet), all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese (Neutral - Ms. Benjamin is certainly "plus size", but I don't know if she falls into the obese category), and financed by a country that’s broke (False - the US suffers under crippling debt, but is not bankrupt...yet) !!!
6 - True
3 - Neutral
3 - False (one because I'm too lazy to look it up, could be true)
We are also being 'gifted' with health care which the hospitals are forced to provide, right now, without the benefit of the coverage. The coverage just makes it fair. And the 'fine' is just a tax, like so many other taxes we pay as the price for living in this country. It will cover more than 10 million more, but this negative e-mail doesn't get credit for saying that. it could also say the sky is blue but that doesn't give credibility to the e-mail. Not adding a new doctor, don't get a neutral on that as it's conjecture designed to be negative, so it's false. Remember, this e-mail is purely to give a negative impression of the health care bill and President Obama, so no credit simply for dotting the I's and crossing theT's. I doubt the new IRS agents, cause it doesn't take lots and lots of IRS agents to add a line in the tax return. That's just sensationalism, so false.
Did you look at that link you gave of Waxman supposedly saying he doesn't understand it? I did. That's totally not what he says. All he says is, this one passage that someone (republican I'm sure) read differently than him should be rewritten to be clearer. This happens all the time in legislation. Doesn't mean he doesn't understand it. he just wants to be sure everyone is on the same page. So, that's a false.
If congress didn't read it it's because they didn't want to read it. The republicans dismissed it out of hand refusing to read it. They had plenty of time. They have an army of aids whose nob it is to read bills and give the congressperson the 'cliffs notes'. Again, this is how congress works, but the average Joe (the plumber, getting this e-mail) will read this and think each and every congressperson reads each and every line of each and every bill. sorry, another false.
I believe the President has quit smoking, but this is irrelevant to the e-mail except to give a negative view of the President.
And saying the surgeon general is obese is just nasty and mean, again showing the hateful, derisive, divisive nature of the e-mail and the author of the e-mail.
The country is not broke, you acknowledge that, but we will be if we don't fix this health care crisis, which this President has started doing.
...but this negative e-mail doesn't get credit for saying that. it could also say the sky is blue but that doesn't give credibility to the e-mail.
Peggy, take a deep breath. The email isn't trying to be credible. I'm not trying to make it credible, just pointed out a few things to show that it isn't totally off the wall. Most funny things have some link to truth (it really is stranger than fiction). But like Iris said, its just a little hyperbolic humor.
Well, there's more than just a little shot of truth in it as well, but I just thought it was kind of funny.
I find it strange that you'd think something that mean-spirited and empty-headed would be funny -- but that's just me. I guess I just had a higher opinion of you, Gregg. Do you find the liberal versions of this email -- describing the right as monsters willing to throw the poor under the bus and all that -- funny too? I don't. Just another sick symptom of how this kind of divisiveness has become entertainment. Disappointing.
I find it strange that you'd think something that mean-spirited and empty-headed would be funny -- but that's just me. I guess I just had a higher opinion of you, Gregg. Do you find the liberal versions of this email -- describing the right as monsters willing to throw the poor under the bus and all that -- funny too? I don't. Just another sick symptom of how this kind of divisiveness has become entertainment. Disappointing.
Seriously? I mean seriously? You call Gregg on the carpet, but just a couple of weeks ago you indicated mirth when I relayed the hyperbolic political antics going on in my statehouse where a faux bill had been introduced to protect semen from being wasted, directed at the male legislators. (For the record, I thought it was funny, too.) So, you don't think this was interpreted by anyone as "mean spirited and empty headed?"
You made this personal by chastising Gregg. I think that's uncalled for.
Thanks Iris, but its ok. Puglogic calling me out is allowed in this sandbox. Puglogic, do I bust up laughing at things that are ridiculous and blatantly and obviously over the top? Sometimes. Do I appreciate someone pointing out the absurdities in our culture? Yup. I miss George Carlin, he was good at that. If you get the impression I'm so tired of political correctness that I'm actually disgusted by it, then you would be correct. I also love sarcasm and can usually tell it apart from slander.
And saying the surgeon general is obese is just nasty and mean, again showing the hateful, derisive, divisive nature of the e-mail and the author of the e-mail.
Can't tell you if Dr. Benjamin is obese or just overweight, don't really care. I can tell you it would not be accurate to call her dainty. I can also tell you that calling her obese doesn't hold a candle to some of the cerebral zingers lobbed at Chris Christy while he was a possible (Republican) candidate. Regina Benjamin is THE top dog when it comes to our nation's health. She obviously struggles with her weight (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/the-surgeon-generals-weight-struggle/) in a nation where 2/3 are overweight and 1/2 of those are clinically obese. In her very public position I do think her weight is more than a private matter, it makes us question her credibility. No amount of good deeds directed at the rural poor will change that perception if her personal demons are not in control.
This country has lost, among other things, its sense of humor. We take ourselves WAY too seriously at exactly the point in history when we are the most absurd. If you can't appreciate the post for what it is there's no shortage of material with a slant in the exact opposite direction. I try to laugh at both sides, but maybe neither appeals to you. That's ok. The Three Stooges didn't appeal to everyone (or so I'm told). The others can watch Woody Allen instead. If I were king no one would be able to post in PP until they had read the Onion for that day, but I suppose that isn't for everyone either (or so I'm also told). Apparently everything has to be life and death and we all need to walk on the egg shells of PC. Blaa, blaa, blaa.
ETA: And, I thought the shtick about wasted semen was funny, too. And Monty Python. Even God laughs at Monty Python. If the Dems were to put Hilary with John Cleese as veep on a ticket, who knows? They've already figured out how to get around the foreign born thing. :moon:
Life_is_Simple
4-3-12, 11:05am
Gregg
Probably the thing about that email you posted is that, while YOU can pick it apart and know which parts to take with a grain of salt, there is a segment of people who can't, as if they believe everything they hear.
I wish I could have a conversation with that type of person. But how do you converse with people who can't separate fact from fiction?
Well, you still can't fool all of the people all of the time. I just hope to spend more time talking to the ones who aren't fooled. They're a lot more interesting; original though and all that. The popular media (CNBC, CBS, Fox, et al) has a monopoly on those who can't tell fact from fiction. Partisan newspeak gets old pretty fast.
In situations like this, I try to consider the words of (I believe) Brigham Young: “He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when it is intended is a greater fool”. I think this mode of thinking is especially applicable when chronic vituperators seek to apply censure.
flowerseverywhere
4-3-12, 1:30pm
nice word "vituperators". I had to look it up but it might come in handy for scrabble or crosswords.
The internet has brought out so much nastiness in people. Ever read the comments on the bottom of news articles? Try reading one about the recent Trevor Martin death. Or "Octomom" getting $2000 in food stamps a month (she has had death threats.)
So it doesn't surprise me that really rude and nasty comments are made here. It could have something to do with how few people post- and often I see posts with things like "I know a lot of people will criticize me but..."
Unfortunately most people believe what they want to hear, not what is the truth. Unfortunately it will probably lead to the demise of discussion boards like this.
Unfortunately most people believe what they want to hear, not what is the truth. Unfortunately it will probably lead to the demise of discussion boards like this.
From what I've observed the past several years, the nastiness and incivility has bled out into the real world. It is quite often now that I will hear things spoken at public meetings that simply would not have been said a few years ago. Often accompanied by poor behaviour. It's tearing my small community of several thousand people apart. It's as if people are somehow thinking there won't be any enduring consequences to their speech and actions, as if they don't realize they are talking to people in real life, not addressing anonymous words on a computer screen. People they need to live next to and cooperate with to participate in a functional healthy community.
It makes me ill.
So it doesn't surprise me that really rude and nasty comments are made here. It could have something to do with how few people post- and often I see posts with things like "I know a lot of people will criticize me but..."
Overall I think we, as a group, do a pretty good job of keeping things civil on these boards. Everyone has hot buttons that will get pushed once in a while. Any time you have a strong opinion one way and run into someone with equally firm beliefs from the opposing direction it can become a frustrating encounter. That's life. To make a good soup you gotta stir the pot once in a while.
I haven't seen the "bleed out" into real life that bae has, but I can see how that can happen.
I find that the people who are the worst offenders are the people who claim victimhood early and quickly when you point out their misbehaviors -- whether online or in real life.
I do believe that people think that there aren't consequences. I find that to be the case in a lot of circumstances. . . when people do things knowingly and unknowingly.
---
In regards to the email, yes, there are people who do not fact check, but I also considered the bit "funny" -- as in humor but not side-splitting, more of an irony -- and yes, i recognized what was fact and what was fiction about it. Are there people who wouldn't? Yes, of course. There are lots of people who lack all manner of functional literacy, the ability to communicate effectively about various materials, and the capacity to fact check across their biases.
Even so, giving Gregg the benefit of the doubt, he would expect us to be able to observe the humor in the statement, and trusts that we have the literacy (in ability to read, comprehension, and fact checking across biases) based on his experience on the forum.
Or at least, that's how I would see it.
Overall I think we, as a group, do a pretty good job of keeping things civil on these boards. Everyone has hot buttons that will get pushed once in a while. Any time you have a strong opinion one way and run into someone with equally firm beliefs from the opposing direction it can become a frustrating encounter. That's life. To make a good soup you gotta stir the pot once in a while.
Well put. Actually i don't think people here say really rude and nasty things about others or each other. And if someone does, they are pretty much called on it.
I do think the reason some of us maybe jumped a little too quick on you on the e-mail is that we recognize it not as humor but a divisive e-mail specifically targeted to those who can not filter between truth and not truth. It's not a humorously smart e-mail designed to tickle the funny bone of intellectuals, but a mean, false chain letter meant to divide. There is a difference. I enjoy smart, dry, or ironic humor/parody as much as the next person, but this type of junk shows up way too often in my e-mail from conservative friends and family.(and it is always from conservatives. Always. I have never ever received this kind of misleading, divisive chain letter from a democratic/liberal friend)
You left off the "send this to 20 friends or something bad will happen to you" which is a big clue as to which type this is.
I"m sorry for jumping on you Gregg. You are fair minded and probably really found this funny. I just hope you didn't send it on to 20 of your friends. If you had sent it to me I would have blasted away, and hit 'reply all' :0!
Even so, giving Gregg the benefit of the doubt, he would expect us to be able to observe the humor in the statement, and trusts that we have the literacy (in ability to read, comprehension, and fact checking across biases) based on his experience on the forum.
Thank you Zoebird. You're correct, I didn't feel the need to dumb it down in here.
Unfortunately I have witnessed the bleed out that bae mentioned. It seems like every aspect of public dealing is becoming more confrontational. Listening to the opposition looks to be a lost art. As I said before, these forums are still fairly civil, but even in here responses are sometimes a little more back-in-your-face than necessary. I'm not sure when asking thoughtful questions and actually listening to (or reading) the answers went out of vogue, but it now appears to be the exception, not the rule. Too bad because that approach will eventually destroy us. On the upside it will present tremendous opportunities for anyone who still has that skill.
I"m sorry for jumping on you Gregg. You are fair minded and probably really found this funny. I just hope you didn't send it on to 20 of your friends. If you had sent it to me I would have blasted away, and hit 'reply all'
Fair enough peggy. I didn't find it especially humorous, just kind of funny in an ironic sort of way. That's because there are elements of truth to it that reflect some of the absurdities in our culture. As in our combined culture, not just your liberal-left culture or my always-right culture. ;)
From what I've observed the past several years, the nastiness and incivility has bled out into the real world. It is quite often now that I will hear things spoken at public meetings that simply would not have been said a few years ago. Often accompanied by poor behaviour. It's tearing my small community of several thousand people apart. It's as if people are somehow thinking there won't be any enduring consequences to their speech and actions, as if they don't realize they are talking to people in real life, not addressing anonymous words on a computer screen. People they need to live next to and cooperate with to participate in a functional healthy community.
It makes me ill.
I think it's the mind set now days that 'not only must i win, but you must lose' that drives this. It's not enough to say we differ on issues, but accuse the other guy/gal of loving terrorist and hating America and if that person wins, we will all die!
The other day we were watching some show and a campaign commercial came on. Some guy running for counsel seat. It was one of those low menacing voice over dark pictures of gloom and doom where 'Mary Mary hates little children..and she kicks puppies too..!' For a counsel seat! We were totally taken aback by that. I won't vote for that guy simply because of this commercial.
I wish, just once, someone would come on and say 'You know, my opponent is a good man with a good family, and honest intentions. Loves America, hates corruption, and has a vision. But we differ on that vision and here is where.' Why can't they just do that. A commercial like that would get so much air time simply because people would be amazed.
flowerseverywhere
4-3-12, 5:20pm
From what I've observed the past several years, the nastiness and incivility has bled out into the real world. It is quite often now that I will hear things spoken at public meetings that simply would not have been said a few years ago. Often accompanied by poor behaviour. It's tearing my small community of several thousand people apart. It's as if people are somehow thinking there won't be any enduring consequences to their speech and actions, as if they don't realize they are talking to people in real life, not addressing anonymous words on a computer screen. People they need to live next to and cooperate with to participate in a functional healthy community.
It makes me ill.
this is where I see it too. At the town planning meetings which I attend really big decisions are made and awful things are said about people who are neighbors. At a meeting about a YMCA one woman stood up and said "we shouldn't allow this in our community, it will only draw riff-raff." My neighbor and I who both go to a y about 10 miles from here were shocked. All I ever see at the Y are triathletes, older people who are trying to stay mobile, kids playing basketball and learning to swim etc.
The school board meetings are perhaps the worst. Like most other schools state aid is being cut, and big decisions like closing schools, consolidating districts, laying off teachers and aides and a new pension tier have everyone really upset. We have a new property tax cap here in NY and people now have to live with that. So something has to give. Parents want their kids picked up by buses, even if they live close, they want athletics, music, art, special ed teachers, advanced courses etc. yet something has to give because the money won't be coming in. Old people are really scared that are watching the politicians chip away at social security and medicare and are frightened that it will filter down to them. Two years of no SS increases was really big, much bigger than people realize in the long run but the people who rely on SS for a good portion of their income certainly felt it as their investments also were hit hard.
Yes Gregg I think it is the in-your-face attitude I see mostly. Also reading along a thread and someone jumping in who has not read along. Kind of like trying to complete a sentence and being interrupted multiple times because they didn't let you finish the sentence! I know I have really learned a lot through these discussions when people take the time to explain their positions instead of pointing fingers or being snarky because you don't understand a lot of things.
We don't even know what will happen with the supreme court decision and it is very upsetting to a lot of people. Listening to the hearings was fascinating and very informative.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.