Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: [DELETED]

Posted 8 years ago on Dec. 1, 2011, 12:47 p.m. EST by anonymous ()
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

[DELETED]

116 Comments

116 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by MsStacy (1035) 8 years ago

You point out to me, in an indirect way, why your method is likely to fail in it's present form. The AARP has goals and an agenda, you don't. You're working it backwards. You set up goals and attract like minded individuals to maybe fine tune those goals. If you gather several million people together with no agenda in mind at all you'll never get 65% agreeing to anything. If you attract only liberals or only conservatives you'll get some progress, but if you get a cross section of the population you'll be grid locked and wasting your time.

[-] 1 points by MichaelB (128) 8 years ago

I'm afraid you're right, just looking at getting a random group of 10 guys from the dorm we can't get agreement on things.

[-] 3 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 8 years ago

Sounds like a terrible idea.

I don't trust ows with money as it is.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

What is AARP?

AARP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARP

AARP, formerly the American Association of Retired Persons, is the United States-based non-governmental organization and interest group, founded in 1958 by ...

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

This post just shows the ignorance of the 99% that have led to the crimes by the 1%

[-] 1 points by tomcat68 (298) 8 years ago

woot! yes lets raise millions then become the 1% we are protesting!

that IS what this is all about right? getting our hands on some easy money

[-] 1 points by mrmccarrin (18) 8 years ago

No, that is not the point at all. The point is to develop a community to fight for what we believe in.

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 8 years ago

But you don't know yet what you believe in, you're doing it backwards. Have a goal and work toward it, not collect people then ask what should we do? You're asking for the same gridlock that freezes congress now.

[-] 1 points by mrmccarrin (18) 8 years ago

On our site, we have started to put our beliefs. On the home page, there is a link to the president's perspectives on a few topics and I'm working on writing up mine.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 8 years ago

do it right and you will replace OWS as they have no platform for people to get behind or get against.

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 8 years ago

Those AARP the same people who vote FOR Repuplican

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

AARP membership is largely Democrat. Seniors overwhelmingly support programs like Medicare and Social Security, and fight like hell to make sure the right wing doesn't privatize them or reduce benefits.

Don't be so quick to demonize them.

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 8 years ago

I do not agree with you because most vetren are Republican

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

Most seniors are not veterans. Most are women.

And veterans were the largest supports of the civil rights movement in the 60s. Not all veterans are Republican. Hell, there are veterans in OWS who are progressive!

You can agree or not: the voting record shows that you are wrong. Do you really think seniors are willing to give up their benefits because a percentage of them are veterans?

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 8 years ago

I think they realize now that Repuplican was the wrong party to suport and that is good thing

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

Hey, kid, listen. They NEVER supported the Republican party. The majority of seniors are registered Democrats! LOOK IT UP. Use GOOGLE, for God's sake. DO some damned research before farting non-facts out of your ass in public. If you believe otherwise, put up some god-damn numbers, results of surveys, SOMETHING, to back up what you say. Your are posting pure conjecture and passing it off as fact.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 8 years ago

We could learn to be equally effective, but going in a quite different direction.

Their methods are worth considering.

[-] 1 points by mrmccarrin (18) 8 years ago

Thank you for your support. If you have any questions, let us know.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

basic flaw..... nobody will donate to or lobby for anything vague and unpointed. Not with money anyhow.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 8 years ago

people get behind ideas they understand, and want to promote, not some vague notion that may or may not change. Business did not know what to expect from Oboma so they did nothing as they either did not like his ideas or did not know what exactly they were. I donate say $100,000.00 but do not know what you will do with it? will you promote my agendas or promote agendas against mine? someone is dreaming. Get a platform, QUICK, stop with the no platform SILLINESS.

[-] 1 points by mrmccarrin (18) 8 years ago

Thanks for your feedback. We have taken a lot of that criticism and started to put our perspectives on the site: http://lobbydemocracy.com/content.php?page=message

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

http://foavc.org/

http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-national/occupy-wall-street-and-tea-party-should-dust-off-an-old-constitutional-remedy

For all the objectors to our Organic Constitution.... the brilliant minds who crafted it were very well aware of the likelihood of possible rampant corruption and the need for people to change it.

Having an AVC does not mean reinstating slavery and denying women the right to be considered natural persons with god given rights.

All language needed to cover the bases can be added. We are not uncivilized cave persons incapable of critical free thinking.

I also believe that publicly owned corporations, The Federal Reserve with their fake money as well as insidious means of controlling the entire world, and the stock market as well as all forms of wealth extraction, should be abolished.

I also believe, there should be standards to determine a person's "reasonableness", such as literacy and ability to process other necessary concepts and ideas as necessary to qualify for rights to have a say in The People's government.

Painfully inept or mentally unfortunate, as well as those lacking reasonable levels of education shall be governed by those capable of doing so. Reasonable persons, and the great nation of which they can bring to being, shall not be brought down to the level of the weakest links.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/interesting-read-about-the-constitution-and-corpor/#comment-404410

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 8 years ago

I also believe that publicly owned corporations, The Federal Reserve with their fake money as well as insidious means of controlling the entire world, and the stock market as well as all forms of wealth extraction, should be abolished.

publicly traded/owned companies are created from bits of money from many people as investments. Should this investment go away? if it does how will these companies be formed then? you can only open a corp if you are already rich? that is not right. the fake money and such, gotta go. The article I linked covered this in detail. http://www.youtube.comwatch?v=iKRKZqdgBXg&feature=related

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 8 years ago

some would say then that we should not let women vote then, as they might not be up to the standards and ability to process other necessary concepts and ideas as necessary to qualify for rights to have a say in The People's government. what you say about that? law adjusting writing for only for those who are based in logical thought?

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

I know many women far more logical and rational, not to mention educated than men. I'm only suggesting some standards to prove to be at a reasonable level of mental operational capacity.

For instance, children... no, but, if you are old enough to be drafted, you shall have all rights as an adult... still however, you must prove reasonable to have a voice, or hold any position in, the people's government.

Literacy and comprehension, along with proof of some fair cutoff point when it comes to the hard line of intelligence level.

The votes of inepts, under-educated and mentally deficient would only present themselves for exploitation, and not necessarily for the greater good of 'reasonable persons' who actively have a voice and control in the governance of the people's government.

I also believe strongly, attorneys and lawyers have no place holding any positions in The People's government.

This was originally intended to be, but, that got ditched early on and the result has been, in direct conflict with the original intent, that thousands of codes, statutes, acts, treaties etc.... have been cleverly crafted of which reasonable, non-legal experts, were never intended to understand.

Heck, even legal experts still argue, to this day, over many of them!

The government shall not overstep the bounds of reasonable people's ability to comprehend, nor subject persons to laws of which reasonable persons should not be expected to understand.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 8 years ago

I agree with what you just wrote, I needed to be the devils advocate before to make a point so I did so.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

I certainly appreciate that.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 8 years ago

OWS is too vague to donate a penny to. If they can not fix the vagueness they will surely fail.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

I agree. I see many very average and below, mediocre minded people, whose ideas make my gut wrench when considering being bootstrapped to them by a true democracy.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 8 years ago

I would love to step in and steer this group but will it be worth it? Or will it just be constant infighting? I will not stay for that.

[-] 1 points by mrmccarrin (18) 8 years ago

It would not be a constant fight if proletariat jumped on board.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 8 years ago

what jumped on board?

[-] 1 points by mrmccarrin (18) 8 years ago

I apologize, I meant if everybody jumped on board.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 8 years ago

so what we need is a path to a point where everyone can work together for the common good. What will you do about free-loaders who will not work and pay taxes so those who do not work can have all they want?.

[-] 1 points by mrmccarrin (18) 8 years ago

This is not a topic that has been addressed on our site. Our site is intended to be shaped by the community. If you would like to write a guest blog about this, please send it to me and I'd be happy to post it. Meganmccarrin@lobbydemocracy.com.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

http://foavc.org/

http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-national/occupy-wall-street-and-tea-party-should-dust-off-an-old-constitutional-remedy

For all the objectors to our Organic Constitution.... the brilliant minds who crafted it were very well aware of the likelihood of possible rampant corruption and the need for people to change it.

Having an AVC does not mean reinstating slavery and denying women the right to be considered natural persons with god given rights.

All language needed to cover the bases can be added. We are not uncivilized cave persons incapable of critical free thinking.

I also believe that publicly owned corporations, The Federal Reserve with their fake money as well as insidious means of controlling the entire world, and the stock market as well as all forms of wealth extraction, should be abolished.

I also believe, there should be standards to determine a person's "reasonableness", such as literacy and ability to process other necessary concepts and ideas as necessary to qualify for rights to have a say in The People's government.

Painfully inept or mentally unfortunate, as well as those lacking reasonable levels of education shall be governed by those capable of doing so. Reasonable persons, and the great nation of which they can bring to being, shall not be brought down to the level of the weakest links.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/interesting-read-about-the-constitution-and-corpor/#comment-404410

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 8 years ago

to our Organic Constitution.. I am thinking that OWS is better positioned to design a totally new form of citizen centered "by the people" type government than to change this one. It could be a huge opportunity for a group to work out every law required for a new form of government, and to find a transition path and time table to non-violently transition from one form of government to a more fair form of government. By having all the details worked out before the revolution begins. The last 3 months should show how much such a change is needed.

[-] 1 points by mrmccarrin (18) 8 years ago

It is kept vague for the sake of our members. We are allowing our members to lead the direction of the organization.

[-] 2 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

stand for something or fall for nothing

[-] 0 points by BofL (434) 8 years ago

Stand for something or fall for anything. Until the revolutionaries begin to understand what the organic constitution is, who has buried it in legislation, and how they fool us into declaring ourselves as part of the Federal Zone Jurisdiction, there is no hope of building something that works. The sovereign law of sovereign people comes from the people declaring it so. Already done. Until folks realize what these words mean, they remain enslaved by ignorance (the federal government's plan).
I recommend people brush up on the relevant topics here-avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/interesting-read-about-the-constitution-and-corpor/

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 8 years ago

its too vague to join. no plank no join. I suggest a plank. Nationalize the banking just like Canada did. Let the citizens of the US benefit from any interest paid. How about that for a plank? anyone behind it? this link explains http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKRKZqdgBXg&feature=related stand for something or fall for anything

[-] 1 points by mrmccarrin (18) 8 years ago

Thanks for your suggestion. We are keeping it vague to allow our organization to take the shape of our members. We are open to any platforms our members want to discuss.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 8 years ago

how to make those suggestion? I didn't find the place yet.

[-] 1 points by mrmccarrin (18) 8 years ago

You can post on our blog at www.lobbydemocracy.net/blog or go to the contact us on www.lobbydemocracy.com. Here is the direct link: http://lobbydemocracy.com/contact.php

Look forward to hearing from you.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 8 years ago

is that part of OWS? or is it a different group?

[-] 1 points by mrmccarrin (18) 8 years ago

We are not part of Ows.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 8 years ago

then you might be worth joining see ya there....

[-] 1 points by mrmccarrin (18) 8 years ago

Thank you. We appreciate your support. If you have any questions let us know.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 8 years ago

I like your attitude. have a great day!.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

True democracy entails dragging down the intelligent minority by the unintelligent majority, I'm oppose to it.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 8 years ago

AARP..these are the old conservative boomers that Occupy hates though. Why would Occupy model a membership plan on the steadfast plodding of a politically conservative organization made up of old republicans who don't know the world is falling apart?

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 8 years ago

Because they are an absolute force on Capitol Hill not because of money but because of voting power. The parallel is not one of issues but one of structure. There are many things that I do not like about the AARP and would not want to replicate. They have spun off many business interests that often contradict the interests of their members.

As opposed to the AARP our agenda will be democratically determined. The issues we represent will be determined by our members. I do not think that the organization should run like the AARP. I do believe, however, that the AARP is an important reminder of the fact that votes still matter. For all of the money donated by the pharmaceutical industry, they still fear the power of an organization that does not try to buy members of the legislature. It just bullies them with the power of a voting bloc.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 8 years ago

So you hate part of the 99%?

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 8 years ago

We embrace all off the 99%. Although I support the OWS, I think that they leave our a lot of that 99%. We are trying to pull together the broad based majority to find common ground.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 8 years ago

So myself,a conservative,would be welcomed? Not from my experiences on this forum. I would be yelled at,called names,and possibly physically attacked. That's the message I get most of the time here. I have had several good discussions with some rational people but most don't want to hear anything I have to say.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 8 years ago

You are participating in a movement. Movements aren't tidy. They have all sorts of side issues and disagreements. They have arguments over every dumb thing. But they can shift the course of history.

The movements of abolition and of women's rights were a mess, too, but they changed the world. They were filled with argumentative people.

Welcome to Occupy!

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 8 years ago

I understand this but it still doesn't change the fact of what would happen to me were I to show up at and Occupy site and state my views and opinions.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 8 years ago

You may be right. Or not. It might depend on two factors:

Whether you ran into pea-shooter-brains or into people with a larger perspective.

How you presented your views and opinions.

[-] 0 points by Perspective (-243) 8 years ago

Good first point and I've always tried to present my positions in a rational coherent manner.Have a good weekend my friend.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 8 years ago

Occupy hates conservatives. Just browse through these forums and see how hateful their official position is toward conservatives. I don't.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

thy fetish over the past and cringe at the future. that is about the worst thing I can say about them, but I don't hate them. I love myself too much.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 8 years ago

Then I applaud you for not buying into the mass hate. Its hard, I know, I get pressured all the time. (as people press me to believe Conservatives are nazis and fascists and racists and rich..etc..Im sure you've heard it.) and they are not. They are pretty much what their title says; they make conservative changes; small ones. You can get a conservative to agree to change in small increments, but never in one big revolt.

[-] 1 points by lochlan (2) 8 years ago

I've been pushing somebody, anybody to start the 99ers lobby. The only way we are going to get our government back is to buy it back. Money pays for it all, and a lobby for Americans is the best way to make sure we the people are represented. How many Americans do you think will donate to a lobby that represents the freedoms of the majority over special interests?

[-] 2 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 8 years ago

Money does pay for it all, but money is just the middle man. Votes are the true currency on Capitol Hill. We do not need to pay off our representatives. What we need to do is mobilize the majority so that their voice is once again heard. Check out the organization when you get a chance and let us know what you think.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 8 years ago

good luck without a leader, you will fail epic

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

If it can be bought, it's no different than a 20 buck crack ho, I don't want either.

[-] 1 points by mrmccarrin (18) 8 years ago

These are all great ideas. Why don't you come to our site and discuss? and then maybe we can make a difference.

[-] 1 points by fightforyourrights (4) 8 years ago

Enough of this stupid and boring conversation. We need to focus in the primary issue that caused this recession. We need the US Govt to prosecute the Wall Street yahoos, especially the RATING AGENCIES who LIED about the AAA rating of Mortgage backed securities. If the ratings were correct (D-), the money to fund these stupid loans would not exist, and corruption would not have ensued. Wall Street LIED to the WORLD about the ratings of these mortgage backed securities...and continued to loosen the underwriting standards. It turned into a FREE-FOR-ALL to write LIAR LOANS, and rake in MILLIONS! Focus on the issue, get petitions to force the House and Senate to enact regulation, or we RECALL them ALL!

[-] 2 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

We actually need something from a corrupt and criminal government? You think they are going to prosecute themselves and their own? Amusing concept.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 8 years ago

How about we do both?

We make demands, we list grievances, we do the marches and occupy, and we use a voting block to back all this up?

Some have called this a class war, and so for this 'war' has been fought with only one tactic and without generals.

It's time to add a tactic or two into the arsenal and learn how to use them.

[-] 2 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 8 years ago

We are trying to do just that. The AARP has had a great deal of influence simply by gathering an enormous voting block. There is no reason we cannot do the same. We are working on getting our word out there and building up membership so that we can use the benefits of technology to help us mobilize around a cause.

[-] 2 points by mrmccarrin (18) 8 years ago

I am very excited about this project and believe it can make an enourmous impact on the hill if we all pull together.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 8 years ago

I have espoused a 'two front' assault system for a while now, I just keep changing the phrases to try to appeal to another segment each time.

Oh and by the way I am a member of the AARP. Wish we had something that would address the aches and pains of being eligible for membership (just a tiny bit of (hopefully) self depreciating humor)

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 8 years ago

We have put a great deal of time into creating a structure that will help make sure the majority's voice is heard. The framework is in place and we have several additions that we are ready to add on to that framework. Now all we need is people to get involved and help us change the way that the government interacts with its constituents.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 8 years ago

This I understand, yet to attract others to an idea, the idea has to be presented in many forms with different arguments for each group yet all arguments leading to the same conclusion.

Hopefully you are using other venues along with this one, I know I am.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 8 years ago

We are indeed. We are reaching out in every manner possible. Hopefully, the idea will catch and we can achieve the goals of the organization.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 8 years ago

Hopefully...

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 8 years ago

Check it out when you get a minute and let us know what you think. We need people who support the organization to take the plunge and help get us off the ground. If you have problems with the structure, let us know. We are always looking for feedback. If you like what you see join us and help build momentum for change.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 8 years ago

I think maybe you should open the page up a bit more, at least for viewing...having to join without being able to 'see inside' is sort of like buying a pig in a poke. People like to do a bit of reading to see where they might fit in with a particular group or organization. Often someone will join just because they see something they wish to contribute a thought to, someone who might not otherwise consider becoming a member.

Just a few thoughts.

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 8 years ago

I have considered opening it up for a while. The blog is also available to everyone, although it has not yet gotten much feedback. Thanks for checking it out and keep in touch.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 8 years ago

Welcome and I will at least try the 'keep in touch'...I am notorious for thinking about it and not getting it done...I must get side tracked too easily.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

AARP is Insurance Cartel

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

there are just the most organized union in the union. don't be a hater.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

They are insurance shills, that all. Im not a hater, I realize how these things work.

Theres a reason why they endorsed Obamacare and health insurance stocks skyrocketed as soon as it passed.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

but that just means we, as being not them, should learn from their acquisitions, or be disenfranchised by their pull.

[-] 0 points by jaimes (86) 8 years ago

Millions of people quit aarp when they learned that aarp sold them out for 0bamacare.

[-] 1 points by perspicacious (17) 8 years ago

Millions? Not true. The facts are always best when stating statistical info:

"Somewhere between 45,000 and 49,000 members have resigned their membership essentially in anger over our support for the Medicare legislation," AARP president William Novelli said at a meeting with reporters at AARP headquarters.

Some of those who quit later rejoined, but AARP doesn't know how many, Novelli said.

Despite the resignations, though, AARP's membership rolls grew last year from 35.2 million to 35.7 million, he said.

Obama told a town meeting in Portsmouth, NH, "We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors."

However, the AARP called Obama's statements "inaccurate," saying it hasn't endorsed any plan or bill.

"AARP has not endorsed any plan at this point," said Cheryl Matheis, AARP VP for Social Impact.

Source links:

http://www.yuricareport.com/Medicare/AARPloses45000members.html

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/08/president-obamas-senior-moment/

[-] 2 points by JenLynn (692) 8 years ago

Te AARP example gets back to the problem with this new lobby. People sign on to support an idea. If they don't like it they quit. This new lobby is all backwards. It has no idea or ideal at all to support. After the first couple votes you'll either have 35% of the group dropping out or you won't get any action at all because you can't get a 65% majority on most important things.

[-] -2 points by jaimes (86) 8 years ago

aarp sold out its membership. if novelli thinks he knows how many quit why would he not know how many re joined? aarp is nothing more than an insurance co. they only thing they care about concerning seniors is getting their money.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 8 years ago

Should children with pre-existing conditions be able to get health care, even if the family is middle class?

Should adults who've had cancer be able to get health coverage?

Should people with health care be relieved of paying for those who don't have it?

Should health insurance companies have to pay at least 80% of their income on providing health care?

That's Obamacare. See what terrible things it includes?

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 8 years ago

I'm healthy, I want to take my chances and not get insurance. I've seen what cancer treatments do, for the more aggressive cancers you can get a few more months of life, but you spend that time feeling the effects of chemo. Insurance only works because most of us don't need it, you pay in but never take it all out.

[-] 2 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 8 years ago

Having survived cancer three times, been through chemo and radiation, and now enjoying life, my perspective is different from yours. I've also watched people die of cancer. It's a nasty death.

You might have a different point of view if your life were on the line. If you had insurance, you'd still have the choice to take the chance.

If you are injured and taken to the ER, my health insurance and others pay for you. It is one thing for you to take the chance concerning the costs, but it is ends up being paid by others. That is a concern.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 8 years ago

Very true, a bad event may change everything, but it's much more likely I'll never need insurance. That is why the companies make money at it. You're argument about a possible illness or injury costing society says you want me to buy in to make it better for the group, not interest in me. If the country wants everyone to have care then tax us. I don't like to be forced to buy something I'll probably never need.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

Make no mistake you WILL need health care. Nobody stays young and healthy forever. You can't stop the hands of time.

What's more, your position is selfish, and just as importantly, short-sighted. The only way (in the current system of private insurance) to make health care affordable is the distribution of risk. That's how insurance of every kind works. Without that risk distribution, no one anywhere could get insurance. You are a part of society. You enjoy the rights, privileges and opportunities a civil society provides you with. It is in your interest to help make that society work for everyone else, just as everyone else has made sure it works for you.

Do you believe your house will never burn down? If so, should your town not have a fire department just because you don't see a likely benefit to yourself?

You are ALREADY paying for other people's healthcare, but it is hidden from you. Every time someone has to go the ER and is uninsured, someone must pick up the tab. It is usually the state or municipality. To cover that, your taxes increase, and municipal services decrease. It is a far, far more expensive way to go than being able to see a doctor preventatively.

What's more, untreated illnesses put a strain on the economy as a whole, and suppress employment for everyone, including you. Again, because of sparse distribution of risk, premiums employers pay for health insurance for workers is higher than it needs to be. That makes your paycheck smaller.

The total cost of health care is the main driver of the nation's increasing debt. If you don't think that will come back to bite you, I've got a bridge to sell....

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 8 years ago

The needs of a society are provided for by its government by majority agreement, if health care is necessary we should be taxed for it and have it provided. Health care is not that same as insurance. Fire protection, police, school systems, these are things we agree are important, we're taxed and it's set up for us. Make it clear what we get and be honest about the taxing.

You're right insurance only works because it shares the risk and most of us don't need it to any large extent. The health care needs of the average person have to be small enough to be covered by the premium charged to the average person. I've decided to save a personal premium each year (and I've been compulsive enough to have done it) and take my chances. makes me bad or selfish? Maybe, but certainly no worse then the people that smoke, drink too much, over eat, never exercise and want me to help pay for their medical problems.

It seems like most people are selfish, they want free health care, not insurance. They have no clue what things cost, health care spending was about $2.3 trillion in 2009, about $8000 per person. The main driver of any national or personal debt is demanding and taking more then you are willing to pay for.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

"It seems like most people are selfish"

Apparently you include your self in that number. And You seem to projecting that on the majority, without evidence, to justify yourself.

What anyone is willing to pay has no bearing on the ability of of what can pay.

I do agree that a single payer system would be best, but until that happens, this is the next best thing.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 8 years ago

Sure i would include myself in that number, if I was completely altruistic I'd give everything i have away to anyone poorer then me. Anyone that keeps what they earn, or owns something has some sense of this is mine not yours. There may be a few saints around but most of us are selfish to some extent.

I see Obama care as a poor law, it will probably cause more problems then solutions. Maybe the idea was to get a foot in the door toward single payer, but it could also prove to be an example of government messing things up so much that national health care actually loses ground. Either way I dislike the government doing this poorly just to be able to say we did it. I really believe there are times when nothing is better then something. Government obviously feels it's the other way round.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

Considering about 45,000 people die a year due to lack of health insurance per year, And the tens of millions of people will be getting health insurance without being barred due to part-time employment, pre-existing conditions, or be subject to lifetime limitations, subject to cancellation because of actually getting ill, I'd say the legislation, though far from perfect, is a step in the right direction.

You want perfection? Talk to God. Otherwise, this world is one of compromises, and positive change in increments. Obama could never, ever have passed a single payer plan, considering the makeup of congress. This is the best - for the moment - that could be hoped for.

No one is demanding sainthood form anyone else, only a participation is the social contract that benefits everyone. You WILL need health insurance one day. You are NOT superman. And at that point you will look back on your assertions today and shake your head in disbelief of your hubris.

Perhaps you are right: most people are indeed selfish. That's precisely why the mandate is required, and os the only thing that will make this work. Once it is established, the rough edges can be smoothed, and more efficiencies found, and care expanded even further. But it's a start. And once people get over the right-wing nonsense about fictitious death panels and stop screaming "socialism", they might even be ready for the next step: single payer..

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 8 years ago

Right now it looks like it's up to the court, the mandate may stand it may not. If it goes down this law will have pushed single payer further back, so it's a gamble. States are dragging their feet on the exchanges, the CLASS act part of this has dumped because it not only won't provide any real savings it's can't be sustainable on it's own once you get past the initial CBO 10 year period. Premiums are going up, through greed or fear or added requirements, doesn't matter they are going up. We may get to single payer but it's going to be a rough road there.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

Agreed, sadly.

[-] 1 points by sinead (474) 8 years ago

Curious to know if you feel the same about car insurance. I have never made a claim in the 44 years I have been driving, but would sure hate to be without it if something did happen.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 8 years ago

Driving is different, it's a privilege and I can live in a city without a car if I want. I'd think about self insuring if I could with a car though, I've already started a separate bank account for my own medical needs, not a special health saving account, just something that I pay into only for medical emergencies. I make it a game, deposit and try not to use it and see how much extra i get each year. The plan is to provide for a disaster if it occurs.

[-] 1 points by sinead (474) 8 years ago

Well, I hope that you are able to save a lot of money in the event of that "disaster". Last year my fall down the steps resulted in 2 badly broken ribs..... Cost of the trip to the emergency room and subsequent testing and treatment cost well over $5,000.00. No ambulance, no casting, no injections, no overnight stay, etc..... just x-rays, diagnosis and pain prescriptions..... Can you imagine what the cost would be for an illness or surgery that required a lengthy stay? I feel safe in saying you better hope you stay healthy or do not have an accident.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 8 years ago

I know, I do have a bit more then that saved now, anything major could wipe me out. I still go back to the same thing, insurance only works because most people don't need it. I refuse to live my life being afraid of what could happen.

[-] 1 points by sinead (474) 8 years ago

I don't consider it living in fear of what could happen, I look at it as being prepared for what might happen. Just as the possibility of my apartment burning to the ground with all my possessions in it is next to zero the premium I pay for my renters insurance is a whole lot less than what it would cost me to replace everything should it happen.

Being young is no guarantee that illness or injury will not happen to you, and as you age getting new health insurance will be even more expensive.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 8 years ago

Anyone that needs treatment for an emergency gets it. Hospitals can not turn you away. I'd end up in debt, the payments I'm making to myself now will instead go to the hospital. Nothing is ever guaranteed, but I've looked at things and made a decision. I've felt that's my right.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

The problem, however is twofold. The first issue is that serious illness can bankrupt a family. They may get care, but lose everything

The second is chronic illness. I, for example, have Psoriatic Arthritis. It put me in a wheelchair fro a while and very nearly killed me. (It was attacking the lining of my heart, and the inflammation was so great throughout my body - the doctors said it was enough to kill a large horse - that a heart attack or stroke was imminent by the time it was diagnosed .)

Now I am up and about, but in order for me to stay that way, I have to take certain medications. Those meds are dangerous, so i have to have regular blood work done. And here's the kicker, one of the meds alone costs between $15,000 and $20,000 per year. (That doesn't include test, doctor visits, and other meds.) My doctor wants to double my dosage, because of persistent symptoms. Insurance won't cover it so my body is slowily getting irreversible damage. I CAN'T get this med in the emergency room. And the meds have certain side effects that are life-threatening, and have already landing me in the ER.

I lost my job because of this illness. I have just taken, after a year of searching, a job that pays HALF of what I earned before, and I was just getting by then. It's mandated health care has a $3000 cap on medication for the year, and a severe limit on doctor's visits. It also has requirements for huge co-pays and thousand in deductibles and co-insurance. After medical expenses, I will be working for less than 45 cents an hour, net. That's right, 45 cents an hour.

And you know what? I'm grateful for the job! Thank God for it, because my COBRA was running out. Even though it will impoverish me, and I'll be forced to sleep on friends couches for a very long time, it is something. And I will work as hard as I can to keep it. Millions of others hang on to similarly low paying jobs for the sake of their insurance. It is stealer of freedom and a dampener on the economy.

The current health care bill, if not scuttled by the Supreme Court, will change that for me and millions of others. And no matter how much you save, it could very well save your life in the future. ONE SINGLE stay in the ER could easily cost you more than $5000 , even $10,000 dollars. A single open heart procedure could easily cost ten to twenty times that much. And a chronic illness could be devastating financially.

You won't ever need insurance? I hope you are right and you live a long and healthy life. But counting on that is foolish.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 8 years ago

Very few people could afford the costs you face. That is the point of the mandate, companies know most people won't face those costs. They require a few dozen like me to pay for your treatments. I don't think my dad's used his at all in the last 20 years, mom's used it when we were born. They pay for the group, and that's ok. they want the protection. For the next few years at any rate I'm going it on my own. I'll have to decide to either get it or pay the fine if Obama care gets by the supreme court.

You're an example of the good side of insurance, I worked at the health department one summer where they treat the indigent. Some need the help, but there are many too that create their own health problems. People with no job that somehow come up with money to smoke and drink. Overweight people with diabetes that yell at the doctor when he talks about them loosing weight or quitting smoking. They come for free treatment it's not free, just they don't pay. I'm not ready to be part of that yet.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 8 years ago

AS I said, you already are a part of that.

And although your parents have not had to use their insurance, if they live long enough, they will. Not maybe, possibly or probably, but definitely. There is not escaping that fact of life.

NOr can you say for sure taht you won;t need it. I certainly didn't think I ever would. My illness was sudden and unexpected, as most illnesses or accidents are. And today $45,000 people die in this country as a direct result of their not having health insurance. Most are not the indigent you talk about who believe the scare is for free, but ordinary folks, responsible and hard-working.

The mandate is for everyone. Them and you. and it is foolish (perhaps a result of the omnipotence of youth) that you believe you don't need it. You only don't until you do.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 8 years ago

People die all the time. About 56 million a year. How many of them because they lack basic care? In the US everyone gets care, they just show up at a hospital or clinic when they need help. There are people that die because they don't get the newest most expensive drugs. A mandate forces me to give to them.

This whole insurance thing isn't for the average person, it's for the few that have a catastrophe. That someone has their own self interest at heart, not mine. You get your drugs or whatever because someone else pays but doesn't need the insurance. They pay in you take out. Very fair because you and those others went into it of your own free will.

If they want the protection that is their business. If they want to preform charity work by giving money to the sick, that's their business too. You are forcing me to give to others when I'm forced to buy insurance and feel it's too expensive for me right now. I'm told I'm being selfish, the recipient is being selfish too by demanding me to cover him.

[-] 1 points by sinead (474) 8 years ago

Yes it is your right.... but you might to try talking to someone who lost everything because of a major illness or injury. I'm sure they would tell you if you can afford even the most basic coverage it would be worth you purchasing it.

At any rate... best wishes......:)

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 8 years ago

I have to guess that you are either exceptionally healthy, or quite young. Most people need more health care as they get older, and even tomorrow may bring unpleasant surprises.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 8 years ago

Young, grandparents on both sides in their 80's. I'll probably go with Medicare someday maybe buy insurance in my 30's or something. I know you're right too that anything could happen, but it all comes back to the numbers. Insurance companies make money because the odds are much better that I won't need it.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 8 years ago

Unfortunately, the insurance companies have also been able to make money by refusing care. That is addressed in the recent health care bill, and is long overdue. The insurance lobby is, of course, fighting to overturn that provision.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 8 years ago

The problem is we confuse health care with health insurance. They really aren't the same thing. The company point of view is right, no one would buy insurance, they'd wait until they needed it. It's bad business to accept someone into an insurance program that already has a condition. Insurance is supposed to share the risk, not pick up the pieces after a problem comes up.

If you want health care for everyone that is different and should be set up differently, not changing all the insurance rules. Government makes all kinds of regulations they often create more problems down the road though.

This new law is already falling apart in some ways. Premiums are going up, the savings are starting to be shown as bogus, companies are considering dropping the coverage. Right now it's the uninsured that pay higher fees to doctors and hospitals. If everyone is insured the rates will have to go up.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

If you think it works like that with private insurance companies, you are misguided.

He sold us out to the insuance companies. And the military and the banking cartel too. We have been played.

Hes a nice looking, well spoken man. The perfect puppet. Its still working, even 3 yrs into screwing us all.

[Removed]