Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: ''.. Go fuck yourself Anthony Kennedy.

Posted 2 years ago on March 28, 2012, 2:10 a.m. EST by lancealotlink (147)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

There I said it somebody had too.Now I know I've been taught to respect my elders. And I know your the cool old fart that got to see Babe Ruth shoot the bird. Way back when and all but why don't you take your country club golf clubs and shove them up your country club ass. You certainly got your "affordable healthcare"and dont mind living off the goverment dole ,I mean you got yours right..Now I know the Democrats made this quite it easy for you to go with the other three partisan bozos on the court..

It looked like Obama got one of those court appointed to attorneys that also comes along with the bail bondsman. I mean my God you think this guy could least afford F U Bailey.

I mean why would you argue the commerce clause when you can our argue article 10 section 5" the good of the welfare clause".

Anyway Anthony Kennedy is the same nit wit that struck down McCain-Feingold that now let's corporations run free buy and control our politicians outwardly and openly. Another one for the people right A K..

I guess now we can expect corporations to control our emergency rooms and kill us poor by defunding .please come visit my site sometime in employmentforthe99.com.

172 Comments

172 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

I may be in the neglected group in all this. I don't have insurance, but I do have a fairly good job. I wouldn't qualify for any kind of subsidy, I'd simply be forced to pay an inflated premium so that the government can covers others.

If I have to buy overpriced health insurance in order to pay for your coverage. Does that give me (or maybe the government) the right to have a say in your lifestyle? What you eat and drink, how much you exercise. This all relates to your health and it's going to effect the premium I have to pay.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

one pays the price or one goes lame and dies

it has nothing to do with what others pay

"I have to charge more because ... other people made me charge less"

seriously ?

bullshit

the doctor ain't starving

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

We also pay for the roads you drive on to get to work. I ride the subway so I don't benefit from that as much as you do. I am, effectively, subsidizing your commute. Does that give me some say in what route you take to get to work or what car you can drive?

[-] 4 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

Certainly, we pay tax into a general fund and it goes where it's needed. I'm in favor of that same approach to health care, single payer. Tax people and corporations sufficiently for the services we use as a nation.

Add in special use taxes for those that overuse the health care system, due to their unhealthy lifestyle. We tax gas and have tolls so that you, as a subway rider, can have access to the roads if and when you wish, but aren't charged as much as me, who drives a car all the time.

If you were forced to pay the gas tax, or chip in for tolls, buy car insurance before you used these things on the theory that sooner or later we are all going to be in a car. Then yes, you or government should have a say in how efficient my route to work is.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

But I am forced to pay a gas tax, it's just in the form of a subsidy that keeps your prices at the pump lower than they would be without taxpayer largess. The NYC subways runs on electricity derived from hydroelectric, nuclear, coal and oil. All of those industries are subsidized but to varying degrees, therefore, you derive a larger benefit from the oil subsidies driving than I do riding the subway. But I may derive a larger benefit from nuclear than you do. I think the whole point of "spreading the risk" is that everything "comes out in the wash."

That said, on this we completely agree:

"Certainly, we pay tax into a general fund and it goes where it's needed. I'm in favor of that same approach to health care, single payer. Tax people and corporations sufficiently for the services we use as a nation."

And I think we can lower the cost of everything if we ended the tyranny of debt-backed currency. But that's a fight for another time. ;-)

[-] 4 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

It's been well established that the government has the right to tax us. On the first day of arguments the Court determined that this was not a tax. Comparing it to taxes then is pointless.

Certainly the entire tax structure could stand revision, but that too is a different topic. I've chosen to go without health insurance. If the law is found constitutional, then I'll pay the fine until it becomes more then the premium I'm forced to pay.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The Court doesn't decide anything on the first day of arguments, the laywers might have tried to make some points but that is all that happened

[-] 4 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

It was my understanding that if this were a tax then under the Anti-Injunction Act they couldn't hear the case until the tax were actually collected. By not applying it they have in effect telegraphed very clearly that they do not consider the mandate and penalty a tax.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

don't get me wrong I have always been opposed to the mandate, since the Heritage Foundation first came up with it as a way to kill single payer, I feel that forcing me to pay for car elevators is wrong the state does it already when they require me to buy car insurance, without providing a nonprofit option, and now they plan to do it with healthcare, if I had a public option, so I would not be forced to pay for trinkets from tiffany’s with my scarce healthcare dollar, it would not be so bad

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

not at all this is up, as part of the decision, the Justices always ask leading and directed questions aimed at each other as much as the witness, do you follow the court much?

[-] 4 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

I know they release all their decisions once the session has ended. I've looked into some of the more controversial decisions, then looked at past cases that led up to things. Trying to determine for myself how good or bad I felt the decision was.

In this case it doesn't make sense to hear all the arguments if the decision was to call it a tax and put off any decision until the 2015 session. That's why I agreed with the analysis that they have pretty much telegraphed their decision in that regard.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I don't believe this would be the first time they heard arguments then decided the case mute.

[-] 5 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

I suppose it could be, but it seems an awful waste of time to go through three days of argument, hear a moot case, then re-hear it in two years.

I guess though to be honest I'll have to alter my statement and make it an opinion, I believe it's likely that the mandate will not be found to be a tax.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

spin is like that sometimes

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I wouldn't trust the courts to define the color red, let alone say what is or is not a tax. Labels don't define the thing, the thing defines the thing. But I don't think we're in disagreement over the outcome we'd prefer.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

The thing defines the thing. I love that. Very smart. I don't see any difference what so ever between mandated healthcare purchase that results in enriching insurance companies and the military. We don't have a choice about having a military or not. We all need the military. We all hope not to be involved in armed conflict, but it happens. And the military is there when we need it. It's just like insurance really. The military enriches defense contractors through our taxes. The money is just funneled through differently. But it all ends up in the same place. Whether it's through tax collection or mandated purchase. Am I missing something?

That said, I prefer single payer as well. But in the short run the mandate concept would help alot of people. I'm not sure what that would mean though for the possibility of moving to single payer in the long run. ie: if the mandate gets overturned, likely that Medicare would get expanded to cover more people. But it would mean more long range incremental change/congressional battles. I hate to say it, but I wonder if overturning the mandate wouldn't be the most horrible thing. I know it would hurt short term. But it might help to get to single payer more quickly?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

If we had even gotten a public option then we would have gotten to single payer in time, that's why the right drew the line in the sand there, we could have made a much better argument if we had been willing to point out how the right always says the government is ineffective but then were afraid of private competing fairly we should of said of course the government plan will be very expensive but available for those who needed it.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

yeah, but I don't think the public option was a possibility. The mandate concept is a right wing idea. The Republicans only opposed it because they're insane.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I thought the public option was the most likely, Obama did too when he was running, just open the federal program up to everyone, let them pay full cost and people would save like crazy, because the pool is so big already, like a lot of stuff this got close to home for the federal workers, and they vote

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I've been thinking the same thing. I think we can take it to the bank that SCOTUS is overturning the law. And now may be the time to start issuing the talking point: when, not if, WHEN the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare, the only Constitutionally reliable route to universal healthcare will be to expand medicare for all. Not only is it a good selling point, but I think it has the added benefit of being true.

Thanks! Perhaps I should try that "thing defines the thing" thing in the anarchism discussion? ;-)

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I hate this whole insurance thing. It's going to be an awful thing for the country if it gets overturned. I could almost cry for all the people that have been counting on those benefits. And yet, single payer would be so much better. Either way, it just really sucks.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

How do you know it's going to be worse for us uninsured. I'm uninsured and truthfully, I don't think this insurance reform was anything designed to help people. All it's intended to do is to drive even more business/customers to big insurance AND big insurance will not only have millions more customers but they will also be getting gov't subsidies. Have you heard how much we will be paying monthly? I really don't think it's going to be all that affordable and many like myself may not be able to afford it at all which means we will get fined.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6569) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I think that maybe the failure of the state ran coops could lead to public option being offered, then things could get better, I hope

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I know it's not perfect. I would prefer single payer. But there are lots of things in the bill that will help people. It fixes the donut whole for senior citizens prescription drugs, provides for more preventative care, allows children to stay on their parents plans longer if necessary, protects consumers with pre-existing conditions, protects consumers against cancellations of coverage, increases annual and lifetime spending limits. There are lots of good things in the bill.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

The bill does not cover any preventive care. It only covers things like mammograms and colonoscopy which are not preventive in nature, they are just tools to find an existing problem and mammograms are actually linked to higher incidence of breast cancer. :( No surprise there. Obama Care is truly just another corrupt ruse designed to trick us into believing that we going to get something good for us as a lower price. This is America and we all know that most things in this country are already cheap and shoddy enough but when you put a cheaper price on it, it's only going to get worse. I use a doctor right now that specializes in preventive care/functional medicine ( do a google on those) and my insurance would not pay for anything he did. For example, did you know that thyroid tests are totally unreliable if you use health insurance but if you go to a ' real' doctor who uses a real laboratory that specializes in that test, then you get the real , honest results. This is why I gave up my health insurance to begin with. I could not afford to pay for something that provided no benefit to me and in fact, was harming me by forcing me to use certain products and services that I did not need or want. If I am forced to pay for this same quality of healthcare, I will not be able to afford the healthy food that I eat, the preventive care doctor that I visit once a year now and my dental. I will end up as sick as most Americans are today. I mean that too because I've already been there and done that. I may just have to move to Canada or the UK because I have lived in the UK and their NHS is so much better than here. Even in Australia I was able to see a Naturopath Doctor and it was covered under NHS. The only thing good about obama care is that it MAY cover those with pre-existing conditions but even then, I can almost guarantee there will be or is a stipulation on that too...like limited care. I think that before anyone can decide whether obamacare is doable for the average American, we need to know what each of us will have to pay. I've heard absolutely nothing about that and it makes no sense to me how we can vote on such issues if we don't have the facts.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Agreed.

[-] -1 points by Quark3 (54) 2 years ago

The Military is MORE there when we don't need it!

You don't need to write that said. It is pretentious. We know it was said. We don't need a reminder on how great you think you are.

We all don't need a military. Speak for yourself.

[-] 2 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

"You don't need to write that said. It is pretentious."

Not half as pretentious as telling people what they do and don't "need" to write.

[-] -1 points by Quark3 (54) 2 years ago

Wake up call! What about those who tell people not to tell people not to write it? Meaning YOU! You hang yourself with your own logic. You must be more pretentious than me by your own logic. Sucks to be YOU! Go belabor your BS point to someone else. Get a life. You are fooling no one.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Getting hoisted on your own petard makes you a vicious little rat, eh? Well, imagine my surprise, Aristotle. Go fuck yourself.

[-] -1 points by Quark3 (54) 2 years ago

Thanks for the compliment. Wish I could return it but...

Here is a big kiss and hug with lots of love because your mommy didn't know how.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I think it's great that you can't resist the urge to get the last word, and therefore, keep bumping this post back up the list. Keep talkin', preacher!

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Fine. Don't have temper tantrum. We all don't need the military. Happy now?

[-] 0 points by Quark3 (54) 2 years ago

Happier but not happy. Thanks. World Solidarity!

[-] 1 points by lancealotlink (147) 2 years ago

sniff...sniff No stinky trolls around here boys and girls.

[-] 1 points by lancealotlink (147) 2 years ago

This article was fully cencered at the Daily Paul man an I used to think those guys were cool.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Yes it does, that's the point.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

One more time, in case you missed it.

It's an attempt to lessen the social impact of a failed business model.

http://wendellpotter.com/2012/03/the-end-of-health-insurance-as-we-know-it/

They know the game is over, yet their lack of effective leadership lacks a paradigm to continue on as they have.

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

The only reason the business model is flawed is because the individual does not pay for coverage - employers do. So when indviduals don't know what they are paying for and how much, they over spend.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Spoken like someone who didn't understand what he read.

If you actually read it at all.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Spoke by someone who never has managed a P&L. don't worry you will get it some day.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Still spoken like someone who didn't read the article.

You really should and while you are on the site, you should look around some. There's a lot inside info about how it works up at the top.

Don't worry, you'll never get there.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Oh thanks, I am really worried about somebody with the name Shooz throwing a barb my way. You are that cowardly that you hide behind a pseudonym?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

First day on the net?

Instead of reading a little truth, you turn to invectives.

Am I then to believe your first name is J?

You really should read it. Talk about cowardly.

If your belief system is so fragile that it can be shattered by an once of truth, you should reconsider it.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

J for John. I don't hide. And Shooz stands for...?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Mike

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Mike Shooz? Are you in the footware business?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Another meaningless response from an alleged (R)epelican't?

Another distraction from the truth? Yes of course, that's always the (R)epelican't MO.

To help you out, I'll repost the link.

http://wendellpotter.com/2012/03/the-end-of-health-insurance-as-we-know-it/

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

You are the one avoiding the conversation. The only problem with healthcare is that there the costs of healthcare are buried and subsidized hence their is more demand. Make people pay for healthcare and all would be solved.

Fire away about how I don't know anything and didn't read the article. Maybe you ought to back to the shoe business.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You still won't read it?

Plus a lame insult? Are you're beliefs that fragile?

Here's some more food for thought you can ignore, at it appears thought is not relevant to your process.

http://wendellpotter.com/2012/02/health-care-myths-and-realties/

http://wendellpotter.com/2012/03/ripple-effect-of-cost-shifting-uncompensated-medical-care/

http://wendellpotter.com/2012/03/lack-of-leadership-at-the-top-of-corporate-ladder/

http://wendellpotter.com/2012/03/slogans-versus-substance-in-the-battle-over-obamacares-future/

Have fun with your myths. Just don't expect anyone that's informed to believe them.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Actually, that pretty good job of yours will be covering it by the end of next year. Looks like you get it at a discount :)

[-] 4 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

Not really, too few employees. I'll stay uninsured, and pay for my own needs, at least for the fist year with the fine so low.

[-] 0 points by aflockofdoofi (-18) 2 years ago

This is a really incisive post. A single payer public option would seem to suggest that all people covered maintain healthy lifestyles. I could see excluding morbidly obese people, cigarette smokers, recreational drug users.

[-] 7 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

A single payer system is the best way to go. What we have instead is a mess. I don't know what plans companies have to charge higher premiums to the obese or alcoholics or smokers. If they qualify for subsidized insurance what difference would it make?

[-] 1 points by lancealotlink (147) 2 years ago

Ding , Ding ,Ding best post in the article.

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

when addictive behavior affects the wallet, change is more likely to occur.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by badreadnaught (55) 2 years ago

I suppose there would have to be a way to limit how far they could go into screening someone. But isn't that what insurance companies have always done - even with something like homeowners insurance? If you have certain things like a burgler alarm and smoke detectors tou get a discount? If you house is less than x number of years old you get a discounted rate. If you're a driver between this age and this - you get the point I think, right?

[Removed]

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

For all we know the justices are just poking the discussion one way while they feel the other to keep observers guessing. I think there is a bigger issue here then getting free stuff from the government. This law sets a president for the government to exercise an extreme amount of power.

Insurance is based on the idea that most won't use it, that's where the profit comes from for an insurance company. Saying we all will need health care may be technically true, but we will never all get our premium dollars back in services. So the government is forcing most of the population to buy something it will never need.

It may be doing it for good cause in this case, but giving them the power to force you into a contract or tell you what you can buy is a dangerous thing to do. This is the same government that believes NDAA, PIPA, and SOPA are good for you too.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

everyone will need insurance when they get old.

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

Medicare is there and it's not mandated that you join. While everyone may need some level of medical care, health care and insurance are not the same thing.

Insurance only works when more is paid in then paid out, so most people never need the level of service equal to their premiums. I don't believe the government is looking out for me, but using me to pay for others. Considering my medical history and family history, I wish to play the percentages and take care of my own medical needs at this point in my life.

Another consideration is just because the government's intensions seem to be good in this case, doesn't make it a good idea to give them the power to make decisions for us.

[-] 2 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

in switzerland where i live we have a similar plan and it works very well. if you have an accident you'll be really glad you're covered. if you're healthy choose a plan with high deductibles and you pay much less. the government already makes decisions for us or did you vote to go to war?

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

Does the government provide the care through the taxes you pay or are you required to buy private insurance? I'm in favor of a government run program, but there is a lot of resistance to it here.

Yes governments make many decisions for us already. I feel it's too many as it is and don't see any reason to give them more power. I see mandating citizens to buy a product as going too far.

I certainly may regret my decision if I suffer an accident, but feel it is my right to make that decision. I would simply have to pay for what I need.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

we have to buy private insurance but it's regulated, for what it's worth. : ) at first i didn't like it but now i'm used to it and it works. there's always that little thing called fate that can mess you up at anytime. so now at least my medical costs are taken care of. many states already have mandatory auto insurance, what's your take on that?

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

Driving is seen as a privilege not a right and if anyone wishes they can avoid the insurance by not driving.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

you won't get very far in the u.s. without a car! :)

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

True, with the exception of those that live in big cities. It isn't the Federal Government that imposes this fee though and you can avoid it.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

well thanks for clearing that up for me, i really didn't have a clue!

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Driving a car is very risky and can inflict harm or death on others. That's why we have to have insurance. What if I crashed into someone and killed them or just demolished their car? I would not be able to pay the amount necessary if I was sued or if I had to pay for their damages and mine. I am a contractor and I have to carry a LOT of insurance by law because if I were to cause damage to someone or their property, I need to be able to cover those damages and a lawsuit if that happens. People don't go around suing their neighbors for having the flu or chickenpox. And even those with health insurance, still get sick so they are still a liability in terms of community health.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

the issue under discussion was the right of the government to force us to purchase insurance, not the practicalities of the purchase. your argument doesn't address this point at all.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Yes it does. Why should the gov't force , state or federal force anyone to buy health insurance when it's not necessary. On the other hand, the states do force us to carry some type of liability insurance because anytime we get into a car, we are putting others welfare at risk.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

no, the government either has the right or it doesn't, no excuses. when a precedence is set it is set.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

You asked " many states already have mandatory auto insurance, what's your take on that?" and I gave you my opinion. The state governments are not federal but even so, car insurance cannot be compared to health insurance since there is no liability involved.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

what's your take on the gov requiring you to buy car insurance as opposed to health insurance? is what i should have said

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Let me also say that I am glad that others are required to carry auto insurance because if I'm driving down the road with uninsured folks, that means that if they crash into me, then I have to suffer and pay for all my losses and they have no responsibility. Now, I could argue that people who eat junk and fast food and don't exercise cause me to have to pay higher premiums in a health insurance plan which I don't like either but they aren't going to kill me or injure me with their bad habits.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

right and I gave you my take on that. They can't be compared because they are not the same animal unless you want to say that sick people can be sued for making others ill. Liability is the issue with auto insurance and that's why it's required.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

the same animal is the government requiring you to purchase insurance, be it auto or health. you agree with one because it protects you and you disagree with the other because it also protects you. i'm getting mixed signals here gillian.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Animal as in auto and health. You can't compare the two. One is regulated by state law, the other will be reg by Fed. law. One relates to liability, one does not.
We cannot hold anyone liable for making someone else sick because we cannot prove that the pathogen that caused the infection came from a specific host..ie, you or I

I do agree that we need auto insurance. Would you want to drive down the road with uninsured drivers? The state mandates this because too many citizens complained and forced it into law.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (26307) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Liability - I like that.

How liable is it that people will get sick?

What is the liable % of people who will get sick?

Of the % of people who are liable to get sick, what % is liable to have to see a Dr. or get other medical services from a care center such as a clinic or hospital?

What is liable to happen to expenses not covered due to no insurance?

Liability - something to consider.

YES?

[-] 0 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

I don't understand your questions. If you carry liability insurance it's because you pose a significant risk to others under certain circumstances...driving, working or whatever. It's state mandated, not federal. We can't hold someone liable for making someone else sick because we can't prove where a pathogen came from- especially if it requires an incubation period.

How liable is it that people will get sick? I don't understand that question. You mean how probable?

I'm not sure what you mean but I think you might be asking how much it costs the American people to pay for the uninsured?
Not as much as it costs to pay for the insured via group health plans. For example, much of your insurance premium is over inflated simply because of the higher risk people in your group...people on high blood pressure meds, HIV, kids, antidepressants, etc... Most uninsured people rarely visit the doctor, most insured people visit the doctor frequently which also drives up the cost of healthcare. Take myself..I haven't been to a doctor or been sick since 05. I don't have insurance by choice. I take care of myself, eat well, exercise and see my primary doctor once a year out of pocket for about 200 dollars a year. Let's say I have a heart attack and need surgery and that surgery costs 250k. They will reduce the fees and I'll pay them on a sliding scale monthly...let's say 500 per month. I've got 50k right now in savings for medical expenses ( I put my premium into a money market savings years ago). But, even if I needed assistance, I don't think that even 200k would break any one person or the system because I haven't cost them anything in many years. The real liability lies with those who rely on insurance as a safety net to fix all their screw ups, lazy lifestyles, burger guzzling meals, alcohol intake, cigarette smoking, medications for every ache and pain, etc.. there's a lot of waste in medicine and a heck of lot of gouging that is just so unnecessary.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

you don't have to buy private insurance,............if you dont want to have insurance you dont have to have it. you don't have to have any. under obama care you are forced to buy if from the govt, or you are taxed/fined for not doing so. so much for free choice in you life.

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

well, technically you could choose to work for a company that pays minimum wage then you would be under the federal poverty limit and be exempted from purchasing the health care requirement. In other words, put your money where your mouth is, or just eat the bitter medicine that comes with being wealthy in America.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Healthy people with healthy families can definitely save a lot of money in the long wrong and still have coverage in case of a major expense by just having a policy with a very high deductible. They definitely should not have to subsidize all the people that are obese, smoke, do drugs, drink too much, don't exercise, etc..

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

That is more or less what I've done over the past 10 years without insurance. I've actually put the money I would have spent on premiums away for the day when I may need the health care. At this point I'm self insured to some extent.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Have you ever carried any kind of cheap high deductible coverage just in case of something big like a car accident or something?

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

It never seemed to make any sense to me to do it that way. Cheapest I found was about $4,000 a year for the right to pay the first $10,000 in expenses myself. There is no policy that covers catastrophic things only. That was 10 years ago. A major accident would wipe out what I've saved, but that's the risk I've decided to take.

Cancer is another possibility for all of us. Depending on the cancer I've decided to allow nature to take it's course. I've had a melanoma treated, it was several hundred dollars. A cancer with a low survival rate, I would enjoy what time I had left and not put myself through chemo and radiation, I've seen how the cure can often be worse then the disease.

It just goes back to what insurance actually is. Companies make money because most of us never use the premium dollars we pay in. People seem to think insurance is free medical care, it isn't. It's simply spreading out the risk. Most of us pay so that a few can use those dollars.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

I forgot to mention, I had ovarian cancer in 05 and I chose not to be treated with chemo and radiation and I chose an entirely different path. So far so good. I would not advise anyone else to make that same choice though because the most effective therapies are the ones that the patient believes in. I did spend money on other treatments though but it only amounted to around 4k.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Even if you got cancer, you would still receive healthcare and you would have to pay on a sliding scale. I do the same as you do, I'm uninsured by choice for various reasons and I've saved about 50k by not paying into health insurance. I also believe that those who are insured are less healthy than those who choose to take care of themselves and not rely on that ' safety' net of fixing what they screw up. The majority of illness that drive up the cost of insurance are not catastrophic in nature...mostly just minor flu, colds, allergies, drug side effects, vaccines, etc... but the real culprit that drives up the cost of services and medications is marketing.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

I agree Mooks. However, if the monthly premium on a single payer were around 50 dollars, I would not mind paying that. But, when we have insurance, we ARE paying for those who do not take care of themselves. Take for example, me. I take good care of myself, eat really well, exercise and I don't have kids. Yet, if I were to be on a group policy, I have to pay a premium based that is based on those who are high risk in my group ( and in the insurance company as a whole). So, that seems unfair to me. I haven't been sick since '05. That's 7 whole years that I would have been paying into a plan that pays for everyone else, including those who abuse their bodies. America is the most unhealthy nation in the industrialized world, why should I have to pay into a system that focuses on treatment, not prevention? Speaking of prevention...dental cleanings are preventive in nature and those who get those every six months or a year should be rewarded, not punished.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I agree with you there. The fairest way to do it would be to group people with similar lifestyles/risk factors together so the risk is shared by similar people. It would never happen though because people would, ironically, claim it is unfair to do that.

For a true single payer system to work AND be fair AND not cost a fortune, the government would have to take more control over people's lives to make good decisions for the people who are incapable or choose not to themselves. A personal pet peeve is seeing someone at Stop and Shop buying Doritos and Pepsi with their food stamps. I don't have a problem chipping in to help poor people buy food, but food shouldn't be Doritos and Pepsi, it should be actual food. The sad part is once we pay for their junk food for 25 years we will then pay for their diabetes and blood pressure medicine for the next 25 years.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

That's right. No one thinks about the long term consequences of their personal choices...not even our government thinks long term because it's always looking for a quick fix to appease the voter for an upcoming election. We probably shouldn't have elections every 4 years because the first two are spent fixing the previous admin mistakes and the last two are spent campaigning. Totally unproductive. Unfortunately Mook, the government subsidizes junk , making it the most affordable and this has contributed to the mindset that ' more ( not nutrition)for your money is better' when it comes to food as well as other cheap goods. I always think of Sams Club and how some people will go there and buy a year's supply of graham crackers thinking it's a good deal. Our gov't subsidizes chips, sugary cereals but not fruits and vegetables? It subsidizes processed, not whole foods and therefore is subsidizing the onset of disease. For this reason, obamacare is a farce and will do nothing to save us any money, make us healthier and reduce the cost of national healthcare. The insurance gurus are thrilled to know that they will be gaining millions more customers AND gov't subsidies which as we know are not good for our health. What blows my mind though is that no one is demanding the specifics regarding this care in terms of personal out of pocket expense, types of coverage, limits on doctor's visits, etc... How can we know if this a good thing or not or if it's even affordable? As far as the gov't taking control over what people eat and such. There are ways to encourage people to eat better and lead healthier lifestyles and to reward them based on their good health with lower premiums but that really needs to begin in early education- lunch programs at school for starters- and with medical school education. Also industry needs to be encouraged to invest in better quality products. If the gov't can subsidize junk then it can subsidize quality health education, medical school programs and scholarships and healthy foods with food chains. What's stopping them? Is it that the cheap food industry has too many lobbyists? Probably. Look at the uproar that resulted from the pink slime scandal. Pink slime has been around for years and all of a sudden Americans wake up and are demanding better hamburger. It's a start even though I don't think anyone should be eating hamburger period. Take for example, Diet Soda. Why should anyone need diet soda? The truth is no one should be drinking so much natural soda that they would require diet. Soda is not good for us, ever- but especially diet which is even more toxic. It's empty calories that have absolutely no benefit and yet, diet this and diet that is promoted like crazy. Jelly beans are labeled, ' fat free' as if that's good for us. We need more education prior to entering the grocery store. We have got to quit relying on industry to educate us about their products. Drs like Oz, Weil, Mercola and others are really making progress in educating Americans about the less expensive natural alternatives to medications, healthy foods to eat and how to cook despite a hectic lifestyle. Those are the types of Drs that we need in every medical school teaching classes and working for the gov't to develop health science teaching plans and lunch menus in our public schools. It's completely criminal what is fed to children at school. Chocolate milk, diet soda, sugary concentrated fruit juice, fake meat patties, pizza, greasy corn, fruit cocktail marinated in fructose corn syrup, etc... it's all just sugar and fat and fillers- loads of calories and no nutritional benefit. Once the kids are hooked on these foods, it's SO difficult to retrain their metabolism, their taste buds and their lifestyle habits. I guess it's good that I don't have kids because I wouldn't send them to public school, they would never eat junk and I would not allow them to eat at anyone else's home. hahahahha And with that said, parents need to start being proactive about helping their children develop healthy lifestyles. It's not just the lower class that are guilty of this. The family unit in this country really doesn't exist anymore. Families need to plan and prepare meals together and sit down at a table together and eat. I am shocked by the number of college age ' kids' that don't even know how to cook or what some of the most common vegetables are. This is truly abnormal.
Oh, I heard yesterday on NPR that the new ' disorder' du jour is called, Nature Deficit Disorder........I wonder what drug they will try to sell to cure that?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Hopefully those people with Nature Deficit Disorder just go out and get a carrot or something and be cured. I swear my dog eats better quality food than a lot of Americans.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

I know my dogs do because I prepare a home made diet for them :D Real beef or chicken, blueberries, quinoa, EFAs, carrots, greenbeans, apples, sweet potato... Sometimes I think they eat better than I do!

Kids need to get outside more. My gosh, just the sunshine alone would be so beneficial as part of a preventive lifestyle

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

My wife and I have thought about going with a home made diet for the dog but we never find the time to put it all together. Do you just give them the scraps of whatever you made for yourself? Or is something separate that you put together?

My dog actually loves his fruits and veggies, and meat obviously, so sometimes we will just give him some of whatever we are having for dinner. He is still on dry dog food too for when we aren't cooking anything.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Honestly, at first it seemed like a lot of work but now it's easy. I have this down in minutes. I can tell you what I do and you can tweak it according to your dogs' size. I have a large beagle and a German Shepherd ( who eats less than the beagle) and I cook about every 3 days. I also feed them twice a day- about 1.5 Cups ( kibble included) per meal per dog. I do mix this wet with a little good quality kibble like Evangers.

I buy them chicken thighs, skinless breasts, canned salmon, beef stew or other good quality beef that you can cut up into small chunks.
I will feed them the beef raw ( blended up with the veggies and fruits, etc...) but I won't feed the chicken raw ( just my paranoia..as I have friends who do with no problem)

Ok, so I take a big pot of water and add a package of 6 thighs and 2 breasts and slowly cook those with some large carrot chunks, a little tiny bit of sea salt and maybe some rosemary ( very good for dogs with arthritis)

In another pan, make some quinoa ( 1/2 c. to one cup of water) and let that cook too. Sometimes I just throw it into the chicken/meat broth while it's cooking and then strain it out.

While that's cooking: In a separate large mixing bowl I add about a 1.5 cups of green beans, 3 tablespoons of flax seed oil or Udos brand oil, 2-3 tablespoons of Barley Greens brand powder, 1/2 c organic frozen blueberries. After the chicken is cooked, I add it and the carrots to the above mixture and I blend it well with one of those handheld immersible ' braun' mixers. That's it and then I keep it in the frig for up to 3 days.
It may sound like a lot of work but it really isn't.
I feed two icecream scoops per meal per dog with just a bit of kibble to make it chunky.
Also, as tempting as it is to feed your dog raw chunks of beef, it's really best to grind it up with that blender as it stretches further and is easier to digest. You can also add some digestive enzymes if you choose as they help with nutrient absorption.

Other things you can add are : Canned organic pumpkin Sweet potato ( canned is fine if its not loaded with sugar) plain greek yogurt and or probiotics

I've been using Vetri-Science supplements as treats as well. They make really good products and I prefer to use them as treats vs. those awfully fattening cookies/biscuits.

Sometimes for breakfast, I just feed kibble with some cottage cheese or I just add some canned salmon and kibble. The only reason I even use the kibble is to stretch the homemade. If you can make really large batches you can freeze the rest and just thaw as you go. I used to put the food in ice trays and just serve one or two cubes with each meal ( thawed).
Hope that helps.

Dr. Becker has a forum on Dr. Mercola's website and she's a real gem of a vet with tons of great info. Also there are some really educated members on that forum who can assist in diet too. But, many are raw food, species appropriate diet fundamentalists so beware.

Another nutritious thing that I've added in the past was organic baby food but make sure it doesn't have any onion powder. It's certainly healthier than canned dog food and it's my ' fast food' for dogs. Earth's Best brand is the only one I've found that lacks the onion.

Sorry this is so choppy but I'm constantly being interrupted.

GOOD LUCK, Bon Appetite!

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Thanks for writing it all out, we'll have to give it a try. It sounds pretty inexpensive too. We've got a pointer and he is young and full of energy still and the vet thinks he is underweight, and I agree with him that he looks scrawny. He eats a ton, he just doesn't put on weight so we have been supplementing his food rather than just piling in more kibble for more calories. This seems like it would be cheap and do the trick and we would only have to do it twice a week.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Have you had his protein levels checked? If your dog needs to put on some weight, try the organic baby food...chicken or turkey without onion and add it to the chicken/beef mixture. You can buy a case of Earth's Best from amazon. Baby food will increase protein and fatten him up fairly quickly. I'm not an expert on pet diets but there are some who are and you can visit their websites. I would also post your concern on Mercola Pets.
It seems a bit odd though that your vet is concerned about being underweight since most young dogs, especially pointers and hounds do appear scrawny. I would be glad that he's not fat like most dogs are today. It's best to keep the weight down since by nature, they will gain as they age. Is there anything else going on? Does your dog cycle with vomiting, behave lethargic or depressed after a few days of eating ? Just curious. What about stool sample...any parasites or worms?
As far as expense, initially, it's expensive to stock your freezer and cupboard but after that it's not expensive than buying those designer dog foods that I don't believe are all that nutritious and mostly fattening.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Haha yes puppies are great.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

He is completely healthy, he just burns a ton of calories running through the yard for hours. His GI system is fine, he just had his checkup and his poop is always nice and regular. He is about 16 mos old so the energy will be there for a few more years but you can tell he still needs to fill out a little more.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

I figured he was ok...I think he's just going through that lanky phase. All my large dogs do that. Even so, after trying to pump him up a bit, if he doesn't respond...have another round of blood work done and check those protein levels. It's better that he's a bit thin and healthy rather than fat and sick. Puppies are fun, aren't they?

[-] 0 points by GumbyDamnit (36) 2 years ago

Remove his testicles and get him a harness for pulling after he heals for a week or so. That will put muscle on him. You can pay a vet or simply slit his scrotum down low and squeeze it out, snip the string and put some neosporin on it.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

without obamacare , when you turn 65 you can choose medicare or choose to keep your private insurance. under obamacare, when you turn 65, you have NO choice , none. obama lied,." if you like your health insurance provider you can keep it. thats a lie.

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

In my case it doesn't matter, I've been uninsured for 10 years by choice. It was a big bill and no one really read it through until it had already been passed. It may be the best thing for all of us if it's found unconstitutional and congress starts over.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The insurance corporations force primary care to MediCare now.

So what's the difference?

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

if you're 65 , you DO NOT have to have medicare,........you can buy your insurance from a private company. under obamacare there is no choice, it's obama care . obama takes away your right to buy insurance from a private company. it take away you right to not buy any insurance at all. obamacare is the federal govt forcing a citizen to buy a product that a citizen doesn't want.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Get it straight. If you qualify for MediCare it becomes primary and your paid for insurance becomes secondary. Age is only one qualifier.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

WRONG, if you qualify for medicare,.................... you do NOT have to take it, you can keep your private insurance or choose not to have insurance at all. under obama care, there is NO choice at all. if you choose medicare , buying a medigap policy would be your choice to cover the things that medicare does not, but again,..........you do not have take medicare, you do not have have medigap ( from a private insurance co, or gov medigap insurance). with obamacare you have NO choice about anything.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Oh, really??

Can I have your cell number so you can argue that with various and sundry billing departments?

I'm speaking from experience. Not what I was told on some web site.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

i speak from experience,.... you,........just babble on and on and on,...................

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

So, no cell number then?

Just more lies?

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

you more expect me to give you my cell phone number than i expect the msm to report the news instead of agenda. The truth is,.............as of right now, when a person turns 65 they DO NOT have to sign up for medicare, they can if they CHOOSE TO get their entire health insurance from a private company. Under obama care,.............you do not have that choice.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Here's the thing.

The corporations have been doing what they can to dump the lions share off on Medicare for many years now.

You just failed to notice. That was and still is your "choice".

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

the goal of obamacare is to put all private insurance companies out of business. that's tyranny.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Read the link...

Why do I have to keep telling people that?

Obamacare is a stopgap, until they can figure out the paradigm to make it all work.

Healthcare, really is too big to fail.

[-] -2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

lol

it gives money to private insurance

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

i intend to pay for my own private insurance my entire life. if and when obama care kicks in , i won't have that choice.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

It's a failed business model. You're plan will never work without a paradigm shift.

They know it, now you can too.

http://wendellpotter.com/2012/03/the-end-of-health-insurance-as-we-know-it/

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

corporations are dumping what?
i pay for my own private health insurance and have done so for years.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You're just not in a position for them to do it,......... yet.

Please don't think they won't. They do it everyday.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

obamacare is NOT a stop gap. its purpose is to put private insurance companies out of business. US health insurance works just fine.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

They are already out of business.

That's what a failed business model means.

Read the damn thing, would you?

[-] -1 points by GumbyDamnit (36) 2 years ago

Post yours, loser.

NOTHING is too big to fail and if Healthcare fails without taking from those who owe it nothing, than it should so medical costs are righteously corrected.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

That made no sense in relation to the conversation.

That just means you didn't read it either.

Do even have anything relevant to add?

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

do you expect private companies NOT to make a profit?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

The actual question, had you been paying attention, is that private corporations, currently profit off of MediCare.

By your response to this, should I assume that you are also gumby?

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

private companies make a profit from the premiums paid in every month. most people pay their premiumns without using the service.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by tomdavid55 (93) 2 years ago

How can they make us buy liabilty car insurance, if not health insurance? Go here for some truth; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTQ1WOC9RgY

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

It's the states that do that in return for the privilege of driving. Part of the reason that's done is because you don't have to drive, and part of it is that the states can require things the Federal government can't.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21407) 2 years ago

I agree. Why don't they argue the "promote the general welfare" clause in the preamble to the Constitution. The health of the citizens surely falls into its purview and health insurance should not be compared to car insurance except to show how pathetic it is that we cover our cars better than ourselves.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Furthermore, people Are forced by law to pay for auto insurance, and if they don't they are subjected to heavy fines. You see, the current Supreme Court simply decides cases upon whatever they see as being in the interest of the oligarchs.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21407) 2 years ago

Great point, GypsyKing.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

How can we be forced to buy auto-insurance by government mandate and then be told it is unconstitutional to be forced to buy medical insurance by government mandate? It seems the insurance companies get to decide what's Constitutional, based on their own bottom line.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21407) 2 years ago

Good question. It can't be justified.

[-] 1 points by Rael (176) 2 years ago

People can choose not to drive. Can they choose not to live?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Right. All the more reason that everybody be covered. I think if the Supreme Court strikes down this law we need to demand single payer, like they have in the sane countries.

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

The preamble has been seen by the courts only as an introduction to the constitution. It doesn't actually give he government any authority. I would assume that the Solicitor General and the administration's legal team didn't want to risk everything on a move no court has ever based a decision on.

[-] 1 points by lancealotlink (147) 2 years ago

If that is correct then what Constitutional clause did FDR argue to get SS and LBJ to get. medicare.

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

FDR and congress argued general welfare, but used the governments right to tax as the basis for Social Security. The court found that congress had the right to tax.

I don't know if Medicare has ever been challenged and brought to the supreme court. It's a government run insurance program but it's not mandatory.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21407) 2 years ago

They should try it, if you ask me, but I'm no constitutional expert. LOL! Seems to me the constitution's general premise, it's over-arching goal, if you will, is to promote the general welfare of the American people.

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

I'm not an expert either. I simply know that no court at any level has ever used it as the deciding factor in any case. The powers and limits of the government are laid out in the articles and amendments. I think the preamble is seen as too vague.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21407) 2 years ago

Vague, yet humane.

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

It tries to set the tone for the document itself. Unfortunately vague makes for poor law. It may be a good thing for this whole law to be thrown out, a single payer system would be far superior.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21407) 2 years ago

I agree!

[-] -1 points by aflockofdoofi (-18) 2 years ago

Obama could easily have created a single payer option but he would have had to create a new tax, and that tax would have had to be regressive, and include everyone. Someone did the math in another post, and the cost would have had to have been at least $645 a month per person. The only way insurance works is to include healthy young people and tax them enough to cover the older sicker people.

This is how Europe does it, with a 17-21% Value Added Tax, which is extremely regressive.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21407) 2 years ago

We need a single payer system. That would be the cheapest way to go for everyone. It would eliminate the risks associated with becoming ill and free people up to do other things that they couldn't otherwise do like start a business, stay in school, etc.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

That can't be said often enough.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21407) 2 years ago

Yes. And, regardless of what b.s. argument they can come up with against it, it would be the cheapest way to go, and most importantly, every American would be covered.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

I guess it makes too much sense. The tea party pubs run on propaganda and racism, not facts.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21407) 2 years ago

I cannot understand how anyone could not want everyone to have healthcare coverage. It just boggles my mind.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

nj has no tax on clothing or food. sales tax is a user tax. many states have no income tax. yes there are taxes on things,.... many of then are due to the inability of a state to balance it's budget. to live within its means.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

If you own a home you pay property taxes, which pay for roads and schools. you are not forced to buy a house. not all states have an income tax , they have user taxes.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21407) 2 years ago

What about sales tax? You can't live in this country without paying a tax of some kind that goes to pay for things you may or may not want.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

you can question someone's "sanity" who does not have health insurance,.........but it's still a person choice. with obamacare , there is NO choice. you will be forced by the govt to pay for something you do not want.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (21407) 2 years ago

Well. Technically, we're forced to pay for roads and schools and lots of stuff we may not use or want. How is healthcare any different? It should just be restructured as a tax to avoid this mandate business, thereby making the whole argument null and void. And no one will be forced to go to the doctor.

[-] 1 points by flip (7071) 2 years ago

i am paying for wars and killing that i do not want - lots of money - 54% of your tax dollars - that seems to be a better place to start for those complaining about being forced to pay for things - don't you agree?

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

because it's a choice, why can't understand a persons choice about what they want to do with their money ?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21407) 2 years ago

Look. What sane person would not want health insurance? I can understand not wanting health insurance the way it is offered today, but with universal coverage in a single payer form it would be much more affordable for everyone and it would eliminate personal risk.

[-] 1 points by flip (7071) 2 years ago

and when you fall out of a tree in your backyard - shatter your leg and the ambulance comes - do they ask if you have ins - do they leave if you do not? how do you handle that situation - this is not like having a library card

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Yeah, I heard some of them spouting nonsense about the Federal Debt being 15 trillion dollars.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Historically, as a percentage of GDP, it's been there before. How did we handle this? Guess what, genius: We raised taxes!

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

I didn't say we shouldn't, why would you assume that? I said the Flea Partiers keep telling half-truths about the federal debt.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Sorry. I'm kinda rushed these days...

[-] 0 points by Quark3 (54) 2 years ago

How can we make a single payer system happen as soon as possible?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21407) 2 years ago

Educating people about the benefits of a single payer plan would be useful. And, expanding Medicare would be one way to start.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Thom Hartmann speaks to your important comment and point, in his most recent 'The BIG Picture' RT programme :

Re. 'TH', also see :

a) http://www.thomhartmann.com/ ,

b) http://rt.com/programs/big-picture/ &

c) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thom_Hartmann .

~*~

fiat lux et fiat justitia ...

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21407) 2 years ago

Thanks for the excellent links, as usual, shadz66.

[-] 0 points by Quark3 (54) 2 years ago

Is anyone in politics suggesting this? I thought Massachusetts & Maine were but it seems to have disappeared as an valid idea for America. The media is doing such a bad job at reporting the news, it's hard to know.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21407) 2 years ago

Massachusetts doesn't have single payer, but it has nearly universal healthcare. It is more close to what Obama has proposed, with the mandate and penalty if you don't comply.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

A little premature don't you think, the Court hasn't even decided the issue yet (and the talking heads don't have a clue ... we shouldn't let CNN and other media organizations be our crystal ball).

[-] 1 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

This law was such a bad egg, it needs to go. If we can allow the government to make us, under the law, to buy a product from a private party, then where is the line drawn? Obama had a "super majority" and could have made medicare/medicaid available to all and adjust rates as needed, but chose instead to ram a partisan bill through that is little more than a windfall to the insurance companies.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Do you know Anthony Kennedy? Have you ever met him? If you had you wouldn't be saying that.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]