Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
Retribution Against the Financial Elite!

We Demand Real Healthcare for the 99%

Posted 1 year ago on June 27, 2012, 12:52 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt

Single Payer Now!

On Thursday, June 28th, between 10am and 11am, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to announce its decision to uphold or strike down all or parts of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), aka “Obamacare.”

The same day from 11:30am to 1:30pm, workers and the community will rally against layoffs, healthcare cuts, and hospital closings at Downstate Hospital, a state hospital in Central Brooklyn that handled 75,000 ER visits last year and plays a vital role in the community.

What does the Supreme Court decision have to do with hospital closings in Brooklyn?

It’s quite simple. Both of these events were determined by policy written by and for the 1%.

Health Insurance Reform

Even if the ACA is upheld, and despite the best intentions of many advocates to defend it, the law was largely written by Liz Fowler, Vice President of Policy at the nation’s largest and most profitable health insurance company, WellPoint.

The law will deliver 20+ million new customers and $447 billion in taxpayer subsidies directly to the private health insurance companies, but leave at least 23 million uninsured, and millions more under-insured with inadequate health insurance coverage.

The cornerstone of the ACA is the individual mandate. This regressive policy requires that if you are not eligible for a public program (Medicare, Medicaid, the V.A.), you will then be forced to buy private health insurance, or remain uninsured and pay a fine. The 99% will have to pay a much higher percentage of their income than the affluent for their coverage, and older people pay more than younger people. A 43-year-old individual making 34,000 a year will pay $5,204 in premiums and deductibles before the insurance will kick in to only cover 60% of the cost of care.

Having insurance is no guarantee that you won’t go bankrupt should you have a serious illness or accident. Massachusetts implemented the individual mandate model in 2006, and their numbers still match the nation with 2/3 of all bankruptcies linked to medical debt, even though most people had insurance at the time of illness.

Massachusetts claims it has reduced the number of uninsured in the state by 60-80%, but the state safety net programs have been decimated. With pressure from the federal government, the law funneled public dollars at lightning speed to the private health insurance industry to subsidize their inadequate policies.

Healthcare suffers because these companies do not prioritize paying for care, but rather gobble up 30% of our healthcare dollar with shareholder profits, huge CEO salaries, marketing, high overhead and administrative costs (compared to Medicare with administrative costs of only 2%).

Lessons for New York State

As health reform Massachusetts tells us, health insurance does not equal healthcare. Our public programs will continue to pick up the slack while the free market diverts necessary funds to Wall Street.

In New York State, Governor Cuomo set up Brooklyn Hospitals to fail by cutting Medicaid reimbursements. Then he blamed hospitals for “inefficiency” therefore hospitals will be forced to layoff employees or close.

To make these hospital cuts, Cuomo appointed Wall Street financier Stephen Berger, the “Hospital Hatchet Man,” to head the Medicare Redesign Team (MRT). Berger released his plan in November 2011 calling for the closing and merging of hospitals throughout Brooklyn including closing in-patient services at Downstate and transferring out of the community to Long Island College Hospital.

The Brooklyn community was left out of these discussions while the 1% steamrolls their policies through the communities most impacted by cutting needed healthcare services.

Healthcare for the 99%

Healthcare for the 99% occupies Wall Street because Wall Street is occupying healthcare. In solidarity with community groups, Healthcare for the 99% calls on all people of conscience to join us to speak out at the upcoming actions this week in response to the Supreme Court decision and the layoffs and cuts at Downstate Hospital.

We believe that healthcare is a human right, not a commodity or a luxury for those who can afford it.

Together we will win a universal publicly funded system that guarantees affordable, comprehensive, high-quality healthcare for all – to many of us that means improved Medicare for All (a single-payer healthcare system), that brings everybody in, and kicks the corrupt health insurance industry out.

Join us!

SAVE DOWNSTATE HOSPITAL
Thursday, June 28th 11:30am – 1:30pm
Downstate Hospital 470 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn

More details at owshealthcare.wordpress.com

THE DAY AFTER THE SUPREME COURT DECISION:
RALLY FOR MEDICARE FOR ALL!

Friday, June 29th
5-6:30 p.m
@ the closed St. Vincent's Hospital (West 13th St @ 7th Avenue, Manhattan)

www.pnhpnymetro.blogspot.com

193 Comments

193 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 1 year ago

I'm still wondering why senators and congressmen denied the rest of the American people the same health benefits that these senators and congressmen enjoy. I guess we are not good enough to have the same rights as them

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

They get their health benefits from their employer which just happens to be the government. I get my health benefits from employer. It is not a right that they receive it is a benefit that you receive as part of your compensation for employment.

[-] -2 points by Growup6 (-125) 1 year ago

Joe, you nailed it. But even after very clearly explaining it, they still wonder why.

[-] 3 points by JS93 (-321) 1 year ago

Why don't We get the same healthcare (or wages) Congress gets?

Because Big Biz & $ guarantee a Billion% turnout, and We can barely break 40%. The squeaky wheel... calls the shots! Start breaking 70% and watch out for the benefit tsunami coming your way!! It's called democracy and, contrary to urban legend, conventional wisdom, and good old Big Media brain washing, it's not a spectator sport. Get to know it!

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (18004) 1 year ago

For further insights, please see :

fiat justitia ...

[-] 3 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Exactly. Money Corrupts. These congressmen don't deserve any titles like 'honerable' so and so... They believe they are ELITE. They believe they are Entitled. They are the High Class.

They should have the same Travel Rules, Financial Disclosure Rules, Conflict of Interest Rules (No Gifts valued over $5), and the Same CO-Pays and same Health Care.

There is no way they should be allowed to accept plane rides or plane tickets. They should not be allowed to accept free dinners. They should go through TSA check points and Fly Coach like all Government Employees.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (18004) 1 year ago

"Health Care in an Age of American Decline", by Ravi Katari --- "Two landmark 2009 studies by Harvard physicians David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler were able to show that the extraordinary costs of healthcare and insurance impose crushing financial burdens and leave many who cannot afford insurance to die. They found that 62.1% of bankruptcies filed in the United States in 2007 had medical causes. This value is sharply contrasted with an estimated 8% in 1981 and 46.2% in 2001. 80% of the 2007 figure had health insurance and most were well-educated and middle-class." : http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/17/health-care-in-an-age-of-american-decline/ &

"Has the Drug Industry’s Grip On Health Care Become a Pharmageddon ?", by Martha Rosenberg --- "Without access to the raw drug data, medical professionals cannot practice responsible medicine and guidelines cannot be written. Yet Pharma, with very few exceptions, refuses to publish the data and share them with practitioners. This result is guidelines that are fictions and doctors who lack critical information they need to prescribe and treat." : http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/06/19/has-the-drug-industrys-grip-on-health-care-become-a-pharmageddon/ .

e tenebris, lux ...

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 1 year ago

Nah, not the High Class - they are the King's men and his Court Jesters.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Yes, ever since TV in Congress, they play to the cameras like Jesters ... or like Tin-horn Dictators.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 1 year ago

Not Dictators but Monarchs; with law and legislation so arbitrary we serve wholly at the King's pleasure - and that is the reason we were heretofore possessed of rights "enumerated'; we no longer have those rights because the Supreme Court has systematically opted for a selective placement of precedent to discard them.

I'm not the only person saying this - Google it - Constitutional scholars in academia are saying this. Robert's ruling is bogus.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

I've been saying for a while, that constitutional lawyers learn how to get around the constitution when they are in law school. Lawyer obfuscate and interfer with good laws. And then they become congressmen... or court justices.

But the list of unadressed problems we see today have been coming on since like 1970. They don't get solved. Congress adds to them just as they create tax loop holes and deregulate banking and accounting rules. It was in 1960s that the first American didn't pay taxes because he was wealthy and knew how. And congress found out about it in the 1960s.

And it is not just US laws, but also Global Laws and institutions like the IMF and the WB (World Bank). The US or the Federal Reserve fund these organizations, but the fact is Western banks are profiting off what is supposed to be some altruistic institution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=yQpSq8dkzfg&NR=1 (John Perkins, The Truth Behind the Greek Economic Crisis)

The Banking System is set up to make money and complex benefit packages for executives. There is no 'Bailout' at all when little debt is forgive, a new loan is create with senior debt rights at a nice Interest Rate. Of course there are fees that go back to the bank. And little of the Bail Out to Countries or Banks goes to help the people that have to pay all the taxes to pay for the big mess.

Control the Money, Control the Congress, Control the people, that is why the banks had to campaign to destroy the "Silver Money" around 1890. This put the US into a depression. The Gold backed money was being controled by the banks, held back by high interest rates and few loans.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 1 year ago

Well I don't disagree with that. And had Congress acted earlier in support of the people rather than support of the insurance companies and the medical profession, we would not be here in the first place, but... when issues reach the Supreme Court there are but two possibilities - there will either be the redundant reaffirmation of the Constitution or they will create legislation. The Constitution in its original form was intended to afford the maximum freedom to the maximum number of people. Any time new legislation is created as a redefinition of rights, the rights of one gain favor over the rights of another; if it were not a question of rights, or their proper assignment, the case would have never gone before a constitutional court in the first place. In this case, the Supreme Court took the right of the individual to do nothing tax-free and handed it to the Federal government. Under Robert's ruling, we can now be taxed for doing absolutely nothing, or in other words, for absolutely anything. But to do this, he divorced the commerce law from tax law. In the past, we could only be taxed on some form of commerce, now we can literally be taxed for a) the refusal to conform to the government's wishes, and b) for living and breathing. Many, like myself, would prefer to see the Constitution and our "enumerated rights" preserved. But I think it's time for us to face the truth - the Constitution no longer exists and we have no need of a Supreme Court to decide the nonexistent rights contained within this nonexistent Constitution. .

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

I pay property tax to the school district as most home owners do. But I don't own the home. I'm a tenent, lessee, renter, or mortgagee. The bank retains title. There are many kinds of taxes.

Death Tax, Estate tax might be a transfer of wealth, but if we can't leave wealth to kids or family without probabte at the state taking 40%, or facing some other death tax, then we have lost the spirit of America a long time ago. I do have a will with successors of course.

But look also at the powers of the US President, President Obama today. All the power that Georgie W took were handed over to Obama who added to those powers. We have less Individual and Privacy rights, but also we have less right to speedy trial, trial by jury, freedom from cruel punishment...

The point is if you are democrat or republican, the other side gets into the presidency every once in a while and has too much power. But of course Obama Care was provided to you by both the US Senate and the US House who voted for it after being advised by their hordes of Lobbyist.

Having said that ... I would take away the TV, movie, and weightlifting privilages at prisons. We don't see reform in our prisons. We see people that don't mind doing time....

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

we should not clip the prisoner's spinal chords and store them like vegetables

[-] 3 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Ideas??? Honestly I don't think anyone believes we have reform in our penal systems. Prisons have long been a business. A money earner for some companies.

So if we agree to stop putting non-violent people in prison while embracing the idea that white collar crimes on Wall Street should be stronger.... I mean people picked up for drug possession should not be in jail.

1) The US South Pioneered the Work Prison
2) We have private contractors that are required to be awarded Federal Contracts which use volunteer prisoners (UNICOR, FPI)
3) Private corproations run prisons now

So Ideas? How do we make prisons places where

1) Juveniles don't be come career criminals
2) 1st Time Prisoners don't learn how to commit crime or terrorism
3) 1st timers don't become gang members or have to join a gang in prison to defend themselves

Clearly we have to restrict movement of prisoners to prevent them from being assaulted, threatened, blackmailed, and taught crime. Clearly we have to make prison a place of dread, but not a place that is unsafe. Our prisons are unsafe and training criminals.

Having said all that. Somehow we have to allow prisoners to get out of jail and get jobs and get appartments so they don't join the unemployed and the people that need hand outs, social programs, food stamps, public assistance.

After all, if I owned an appartment do I want a gang banger living there? No. But the gang banger might be forced to be a criminal if there are no jobs or apartments. (BTW there is an apartment shortage in the USA these days).

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

get back to work prisoner !

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 1 year ago

Honestly I don't like any part of this healthcare bill. I don't like the idea of a Federally forced expansion of medicaid; in NY we're already tried this only to realize we couldn't afford it. I don't like the idea of providing for illegals unlimited by income; even if in some way it does serve to reduce hospital fees it will do so at the expense of the taxpayer. I don't like the idea of a Federal insurance mandate; no one should be forced to either purchase a policy he or she does not want or pay a penalty for not doing so; and no one should be forced to subsidize with their tax dollars those who will opt out. I don't like the idea of more costly insurance plans; most employers cannot afford them now. We can go on and on here... but the few incentives this bill offers pale in comparison to the enormous burden placed on future personal and national earnings.

This mandate labeled as a stand-alone tax ("for legislative but not constitutional or court purposes" (words to that effect) does not fit any of the categories you describe; it's an entirely new form of tax - and for those on the lower end of the unsubsidized scale, who cannot afford a family plan and choose to opt out, it represents a substantial federal tax increase of as much as 30%; much of it will go to people in other states and even other countries because the states will never, ever, universally agree to permit the Fed to force-law such an expansion - it's unconstitutional.

In short, this whole bill is bogus... and to have it unconstitutionally shoved down our throats by a corrupt political court is SICK.

I don't like the way we pay for healthcare in this country - it's a fees for services concept that only encourages doctors to order tests and procedures that are unnecessary, furthered by tort liability; why would you want to expand their coverage through a national mandate that everyone must participate? I don't like the regional insurance monopolies; while they choke us for every dollar they simultaneously reduce our benefit. I'm concerned, too, about the effect of Dodd-Frank on the insurance industry...

This country cannot continue in this direction with such a corrupt and Anti-American ("American" as in "you and me") government

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Yes, I don't think I buy the idea that everyone has to be in a pool to make health care affordable. That is Lobbyist Spin. We have Federal health Care pools all across the USA. Plus there are state, union, and corporate health care pools.

You are right you should not have to participate in Obama Care. Your taxes are already paying for emergency care visits or paying health care prices that ofset the "Free" health care that goes out to people without any health insurance.

The pooling thing was a scare tactic or just a Lobby strategy. Like how do we know terrorists will come to the US to blow up shopping malls if the CIA doesn't sneek them in. How dow we know health insurance companies will lose any margin on a national health care optional participation. I bet the insurance companies make bigger profits than ever before.

Matter of fact. That should be the Protest of those that oppose Obmama care. That Health Insurnace Corporations will make huge profits with little effort on their part.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

From below my long response. Transfering all our money to banks and insurance companies is #3 or maybe #1... In our medical system some one wants to get rich. I'd like to make the money the insurance companies are makin!

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

I hear the honesty in your voice. You have some good points. You probably know a little more about the health care bill than I do.

We can all agree that this country twists reality in many ways. You can't speak the truth or ask about certain things because they are taboo or not PC in K-12 and even in college.

The health care bill was put together giving a free pass to any kind of price controls. Big mistake. Also why can't they just expand existing federal health care plans or medicare. Why is there no control over liability for doctors, no safety for doctors, something to keep doctors from going bankrupt or needing a billion in insurance. Why do we let hospitals and clinics buy every new piece of diagnostic equipment and drive up the price of services and visits.

1) Portable Pensions are good, IRAs, 401Ks, social security.
2) Portable Health Care might work if the maximum benefit was more like $200K, take a federal health insurance program and it can go across the state line or to the other side of the USA.

The cost is the #1 problem, and Price Controls is #2. Transfering all our money to banks and insurance companies is #3. Because of the low coverage of our normal healthcare, most people go bankrupt in the USA when they have a major health event.

New York is a different world than I live in. But I bet it is amazing how everyone gets a piece of the action when you pay for a a service. Hidden costs or hidden participants that pinch people for a little bit. This is sort of how I see our governments. Whatever they do it better be Transparent, because we know everyone that can will pinch us for their little piece.

If it is not a fee for service care system. Then maybe your health care alotment could go directly to your assigned doctor. Hospital work could be paid from state or federal susidies who would have to control the prices of tylinol, aspirin, xrays, mamograms, minor surgery, ect.

I'm thinking each person can have US health care for $200 per month total cost either to government or individual or both. It is still high at that price totaling $2400 a year with no copays. So if a doctor has 100 patients minimum his brick and mortar business which she shares will bring in $240,000 to split between rent, equipment, and one nurse. But with all the lab work, outside exams, other outside testing, minor surgury, ....what a doctor needs 400 patients to send out payments of $40-$100 dollars to outside offices.

We already have Payroll Taxes of like 7% for low wage earners (unemployment, workers comp, social security). In france it is like 24%. But then it looks like our Individual total tax is 22% and for france it is 26% (round numbers) I guess France takes it all right from Payroll taxes.

We could afford $200 dollars per person, if we held down medical costs and protected doctors from disasterous lawsuits. Maybe it would start to look like 10% payroll tax, but if we keep doctors and hospitals from buying new equipment every month it will keep down costs even if it slows down the economy.

But most of that is just off the top of my head. I lived in an expensive city one time, but parking usually didn't cost me and the hospital was cheap since it was overseas.

The Medical Costs are sick in this country, but I'd be willing to use the care in other countires. Like get a diagnosis in the USA and fly to Costa Rica for treatment. I think a lot of people are way too neurotic about using the best medical care in the USA. Mostly that reflects how crazy I think our system is.

[-] 0 points by JS93 (-321) 1 year ago

Whoa cowboy!

Before you get all medieval on our elected representatives, let's do it to executives of subsidized, tax evading, and bailed-out banks, businesses and corporations. In '08 we should have liquidated all WS (bricks & mortar, art & furniture, limos & timeshares, Cayman & Swiss) assets, moved them into convenient Main Street strip malls, and then assessed their financial necessities. Then re-chartered them as wards to the state, operating under strict supervision, transaction approval, daily reports, weekly performance evals, zero private money-assets-commodity control. Lunch by Micky Ds!!

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Yes, it is a Chicken or the Egg kind of thing. It is worth analysis, evaluation and examination:

  1. Is money the corrupting influence that can be stopped, monitored, tracked, managed, regulations formed, regulations enforced, regulator staffing adjusted, regulator funding reviewed to perform the functions?

  2. Is Congress the Enabler of the TBTF Banks, is congress the body that has the ability to respond and regulate, dissolve, or place TBTF Banks into Receivership? In fact isn't Congress the one that has to take action if we are to apply Anti-Trust Laws or otherwise Breakup TBTF Banks?

  3. Is our only available play regarding TBTF Banks to protest, assemble, and ask them for stronger business ethics?

[-] -1 points by JS93 (-321) 1 year ago

I'm afraid the real question is what is Eric Holder hiding about this?? And why won't he release the secret files on this study??? Where has he hidden Ashcroft and Gonzalez???

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (18004) 1 year ago

Re. Healthcare in The USA, I append for your consideration :

  • "A Huge Bailout for Another Failing Industry - ObamaCare as Corportists United", by Clark Newhall, MD -- "Why does Corporatism favor Obamacare? Because Obamacare is nothing more than a huge bailout for another failing industry — the health insurance industry. No health insurer could continue to raise premiums at the rate of two to three times inflation, as they have done for at least a decade." : http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/06/29/obamacare-as-corportists-united/ .

  • "Obamacare Wins, We Lose", By John Stauber -- "It was a brilliant move by 'Far Right' (but oh so likeable!) Chief Justice Roberts to side with the Dem-appointed Justices and uphold ObamaCare. After all, this is a massive victory for corporate power, forcing citizens to buy an expensive insurance product that won’t serve our needs very well but will profit industry, in lieu of receiving real health care." : http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/06/28/obamacare-wins-we-lose/ .

fiat lux ...

[-] 0 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 1 year ago

When the Exchanges are in place it will be the same.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (18004) 1 year ago

One American's view of Finnish Healthcare :

When a society is actually motivated by 'The Public Good' as well as 'reason and evidence' and 'love and logic' ... many myriad marvelous opportunities can open up for nearly all the citizens - The 99% !

per aspera ad astra ...

[+] -4 points by ChoicesMatter2 (-42) 1 year ago

Seriously? Senators and Representatives are employees. The get pay checks too. You on the other hand are simply looking for a freebie. You are good enough, just not good enough to get things for free with the bill being sent to your neighbor.

[-] 0 points by plainscott (79) from Bowling Green, KY 1 year ago

You're absolutely right, "ChoicesMatter." We SHOULD be paying private, for-profit insurers $7,000 to $10,000 per person per year in premiums, just to have them tell us to FUCK OFF when a medical bill comes due. That IS much more American. Silly me. What a commie I am. HAIL TO THE CORPORATE INSURANCE KINGS!

[-] -3 points by ChoicesMatter2 (-42) 1 year ago

But the don't tell you to fuck off. Private insurance covers more than does current government care and especially more than does Medicaid. Also, it's easier to find a doctor with private insurance than with government care. It's a fantasy that government provides better access and never says "no".

Hail to the bureaucrat where coverage will be determined by politics and lobbying.

[-] 2 points by plainscott (79) from Bowling Green, KY 1 year ago

Oh, I get it now! So, those whole departments inside all private health insurance companies...the ones whose job it is to find ways to deny claims...those departments don't really exist? You know, the people inside those departments who get paid ENORMOUS bonuses for denying a LEGITIMATE claim because someone forgot to "dot the I" on a claim form...those bottomdwellers don't really exist? And how about the huge executive bonuses paid to the CEO's of Wellpoint, Humana, etc... What about the ENORMOUS amounts of advertising and marketing those insurance companies do? How about the 30% of EVERY insurance premium dollar paid going for executive bonuses, investor profits, and administration rather than HEALTH CARE? Oh, wait, let me guess. Those things don't really exist; they are only in MY imagination, right Mr. Choices? The for-profit insurance companies are not REALLY in it for the profits at the expense of people's health...they're in the business out of the goodness of their hearts, right? Wow. Good thing I have YOU to educate me, to show me that all those predatory practices I've read about for YEARS never really existed in the health insurance industry!

[-] 0 points by ChoicesMatter2 (-42) 1 year ago

Government says no more than do private companies. It's simply a fact, private covers more. Thinking otherwise is pure fantasy.

Govt healthcare now is sudsidized by cost shifting. Medicare pays less and Medicaid pays way less than private payers for the same services. As more of the system shifts to gubbermint, the cost shifting game generates progressively lower benefits. As this happens, costs per treatment go up and/or quality and access get worse. The magic of burying the tax on private payers game fades and along with it the fantasy of govt efficiency.

Things can be not for profit for a lot of reasons. It can be just bloated costs and waste. It can also be delivering things that people don't much value meaning you can't charge more than cost or even cost. It hardly ensures goodness. You can just waste your way into being non-profit. That's govt.

As spending explodes because of the loss of cost shifting and millions more people unleashed on the system that act as those care is free, rationing will ensue. Rationing can be as simple as telling you yes, but then you not being able to find a provider. It can be outright no as well. Liberals just aren't reasoning oriented enough to think it through.

So no, you really don't get it at all.

[-] 0 points by JS93 (-321) 1 year ago

When receive orders than do simply all talking points, thinking otherwise, the same, reading said orders onto post first or not at all? Blind obedience, RW zombie gibberish parrot! Belief over thought, 1% would-be King worshiping, Big $$ as Manson cult member. Exactly like Nazis' Das Fuher: Das Private Sector! America and democracy-loathing fascist!

So no, there really is no healthcare treatment for your form of mental illness, beyond supervised quarantine, at all.

[-] 0 points by ChoicesMatter2 (-42) 1 year ago

The government healthcare goodie bag is pure fantasy. It's going to be hilarious watching all the new Medicaid patients look for their gubbermint freebies when they can't find a provider willing to take Medicaid's puny reimbursement. They missed the asterisk where is says "good at participating providers.". LOL

The Post Office can't even cope with email. Just wait with healthcare.

[-] 0 points by JS93 (-321) 1 year ago

Whatever dummy. Not guvmint, idiot. Big Insurance give away! You should love it, it's more Private Sector Graft!!

The Post Office was strapped with a timebomb of an unreasonable 75 year future protection bill for the exclusive purpose of killing it. It's reprehensible and has nothing to do with email. Isn't there a Glenn Beck video you haven't jacked-off to yet?

[-] -1 points by ChoicesMatter2 (-42) 1 year ago

The time bomb is email and their own inability to change. They're strapped to a union that would have us drive empty trucks arounds if needbe. It's also a toy of pork barrell politicians that don't care how dumb something is because the money comes from the rest of the country.

This will be healthcare. Wait until we have a national healthcare union in a gubbermint healthcare system. Holy shit. Yeah, serving patients is what they'll have in mind. LOL. More fantasy. Wait too for things going into what's covered because of lobbying and pork. Some senator will have a company in his state that he'll make sure gets a favor. Clinic locations where we need them? Nope, where the pork system says they should go. And then they'll name the clinics we don't need where we don't need them after the politician that made it happen. Why will chiropractors be included? Need? Nope, it'll be because of lobbying and because patients think it's free so they won't give a shit either.

Good thing we'll get those evil companies out of it. LOL

[-] 1 points by JS93 (-321) 1 year ago

Crazy Cons and the 1% Charlie Mansons you worship hate unions, that's why your attaching Benjamin Franklin's great USPS!! Unions are the People's Corporation at the work place. Fair is fair.

Nothing could be worse than the Big Insurrance/middleman HC system we had before the ACA. It was the laughing stock of the world, just like you crazy Cons. Embarrassment and graft. The example of what NOT to have! Every other modern country has Public HC. Like democracy, it's coming to the USA!!

[-] 1 points by plainscott (79) from Bowling Green, KY 1 year ago

JS93, trying to reason with this "Choice" guy is really quite pointless. If it were up to him and his friends, "GUBMINT SIDEWALKS" would be sold off to private multi-national corporations, with tolls charged for those wishing to "trespass" onto them, and the penalties for refusing to pay those private corporations their tolls would be a long term prison sentence in a privately run CCA prison (with CCA making $200 per prisoner per day in his Utopian Corporate Plutocracy). HAIL TO THE ALL MIGHTY MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION!!!

[-] -1 points by JS93 (-321) 1 year ago

Love that!!!

What is Eric Holder hiding about "GUBMINT SIDEWALKS"????? HHMMmmmmm??? Where are the files??? How many were killed to keep this a secret????? Hmmmm???? Post on Holder Contempt...

[-] 0 points by ChoicesMatter2 (-42) 1 year ago

It's all gonna be great and it's all gonna be free. Big government cares about you, is responsive to your needs, adapts well to change, and is efficient. Thing is, experience says the opposite. Your kind bitches about wealthy control of government, but then at every turn you want government to get bigger and more powerful. I dunno, maybe you drive one of those empty mail trucks..

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

It is interesting that UPS and FedEx do a better job, charges less AND pay their employees more than the USPS.

For a package from 90210(CA) to 10010 (NY)

  1. 10 pounds. USPS = $25.05, UPS=$15.91 (about 37% savings)
  2. 20 pounds. USPS = $34.40, UPS=$26.42 (about 23% savings)

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 4 points by woim (3) 1 year ago

Health care is far too important to go down the failed private health insurance road. We have already learned that is is a dead end.

[-] 0 points by JS93 (-321) 1 year ago

Wait a minute, WS could be relied on to handle our healthcare conscientiously!!

[-] 4 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Real universal healthcare would be nice.

When it comes to the current reform why did the stocks of major insurance companies go up by 10% the day the reform passed?

If insurance companies were the problem... why does the "solution" require people to use the insurance companies?

A real solution would be to cut the insurance and just have a program that pays the money to the healthcare.

Dylan Ratigan on the insurance mandates - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8R8baHPr2E

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

Dylan Ratigan has brought to light other cost saving ideas relating to HC using hot-spotting. It's already in practice at Local 49 ( http://local49.org ) and it's been saving them money, while INCREASING their care and they're the only union in the US, to see a DECREASE in HC costs. Video at bottom of this page:

http://www.dylanratigan.com/2012/04/10/spend-less-get-more-the-best-solution-for-any-health-network/

Hot-spotting can lead to more effective, affordable health care

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/hot-spotting-can-lead-to-more-effective-affordable-health-care/6asrjm5?from=

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 1 year ago

Universal healthcare would be nice but the solution is not very pragmatic; will we or will we not have the one million plus in tax payer revenue to cover the 310 million people in this country over the course of their lifetme? Will we have it then when our population, say 30 years from now, has grown to 720 million? Do the math... I think not, unless you know of a way to reinstate or legally reemphasize the Hippocratic Oath to rein in the cost of medical care.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Insurance companies ARE a big part of the problem. This (bad) "solution" was the compromise that republicans (just 2 or 3) agreed to after they killed the public option. Remember? And don't forget the health insurance mandate is a republican/heritage foundation/Gingrich/bob Dole idea that evolved when Hilary wanted to create universal health care. I agree with your solution. Cut out the insurance industry. Look at all the money they waste on non health care items as listed above. Remove profit from healthcare!

[-] 5 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

How the heck could republicans kill the public option if the House was 2/3 democrats when the bill became a law. The senate and presidency was held by Democrats as well. They could have passed whatever they wanted.

President Obama made a backroom deal with the for-profit hospital lobby that he would make sure there would be no national public option in the final health reform legislation. Obama, with the help of Rahm Emanuel, used a K Street strategy to pursue health care reform.

I would expect the Supreme Court to strike down the mandate. The government should never have the power and authority to mandate that a citizen purchases a product from a private company. It goes against everything our constitution stands for.

[-] -2 points by JS93 (-321) 1 year ago

FU! You know the reason.

With Blue Dogs and Liebermans, Dems never had a real majority in both houses. Then of course there was conspired and blatant Con sabotage, obstruction and unprecedented filibustering.

Do they wipe your minds clean every two months at the RepubliCon Cult hostiles?

[-] 5 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

In the House the Dens had 99 more seats.

In the Senate it was 55 Dems 2 independents 2 vacancies and 41 Repubs

Th president who's team wrote the legislation with he help of hospitals, drug companies, and testing labs was Democrat.

I am a Libertarian not a Republican. Reps and Dems are mostly from the same cloth.They use different tactics to take our money and are liberties but they are pretty much the same.

[-] -3 points by JS93 (-321) 1 year ago

You're an idiot, and a low-grade probably-oblivious saboteur. Cons proved they could do much more damage than previously conceived, because they abjectly threw the country under the bus. And corporate media turned a blind eye. You recite RW talking points. Your integrity is in the toilet.

[-] 6 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Here is an article in the Huffington Post ( a left leaning organization) about Obama and the back room deals. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

[-] 2 points by JS93 (-321) 1 year ago

Why won't Holder release the files on Obama's back room deals???? What is he hiding???? Hmmmm???? How did Obama coerce Ashcroft and Gonzalez into running guns into Mexico??? Where are the files???

[-] -3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

They did not have 2/3. And there were back room deals but the compromise of that eliminated the public option was becasue the repubs at that time and for the last 3 1/2 yrs have oversused the filibuster. So the Dems had to get the maine repub moderates. But you know all that your pretending the dems "could do whatever they want" 'cause you want to excuse the right wing 1% tools the repubs were at that time. So dems had to deal with repubs, big pharma and other 1%'rs but they got something passed, It is weak health care reform but we got our foot in the door and we will improve it if OWS can grow and protest/pressure all pols to pass more progressive healthcare reforms with a public option.

[-] 4 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

They had 70% of the seats which pretty close to 2/3. They had 99 more seats than the republicans. The Republicans were irrelevant from a numbers perspective and the Democrats for those two years could have done whatever they wanted. Filibuster will only get you so far. Eventually they voted and there was still a 99 vote lead when they voted. The public option was not even in Obama's 2,000 page proposal however.

Here is an article in the Huffington Post ( a left leaning organization) about Obama and the back room deals. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

[-] -3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I'm familiar with the dems backroom "deals" the "compromises" with various right wing groups. I have known for decades that the dems have betrayed their progressive principles (public option) on many policies when they cave in to compromise with the right wing. Right wing policies are at the root of our problems!. Health care reform would be stronger if we didn't have to compromise with the right wing. The mandate is a repub idea and replaces the public option/single payer.

On congress: the House where the dems had a large majority (not 2/3) does not have the filibuster. The Senate (which DOES have the filibuster) the Dems did not 60 votes to defeat it. So dems hadto compromise with right wing! Filibuster will only get you so far"? it prevents any vote! Unless you compromise! So the Dems could not and did not get anything they wanted. The repubs got what they wanted.

Support OWS! Vote out anti public option politicians.

[-] 5 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

The public option was never on the table. It was never in the 2,000+ proposal that Obama and his team created with the help of the hospitals, drug companies, and testing labs.

I don't think our government runs anything well so I really am not in favor of a public option. Look at medicare and medicaid, they are a mess. They pay almost twice what private insurers pay for a particular service or prescription. The last thing we need is the government running health care.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Medicar is by far the most efficient and low cost health insurance option that exists. Private health insurance is a corrupt and most wasteful system. We must pay these private corps profit, (no profit to public option) we have to pay exhorbitant exec salaries/bonuses, (not w/ medicare) and we have to pay advertising costs for private insurance. (not with single payer). The Dems WILL get a public option (expansion of medicare) if we can get enough progressives elected.

[-] 4 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Wrong!

When my father went to Medicare his bill went up 32%. He asked they doctor "Hey, hey , hey, what happened here" to which the doctor replied "That is what medicare pays, your private insurance did not pay that much, don't worry you are not paying it anyway."

Two years later the doctor told him that because of the "Affordable Health Care Act" one of his tests could no longer be done in the doctors office and had to be done in the hospital. The cost went from $600 to $2,300 because of hospital overhead costs. Also the blood test that requires a drop of blood and was done for $30 fee now requires a test tube to be sent to the lab and the fee is $800.

So what happened with the AHCA is that the hospital, drug, and testing lab lobbies got what they wanted at the expense of the taxpayer. The last thing you want is a government monopoly on healthcare. Monopolies lead to inefficiencies, cost overruns, and lower quality standards.

[-] -3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Insurance corp middleman are the problem, put them out of business!. Medicare is more efficient. Tax the rich to pay for it. This is the only answer. I'm sorry. It's ok. Vt and Montana are already looking at dropping private ins corps and implementing single payer. Thank god repubs insisted on state flexibility in the our new Health care bill. You better sell your private insurance stock while it is at a peak.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

LOL Medicare is more efficient? Medicare is 21% of the Federal budget. You call that efficient?

You think Vermont can force it's residents to drop their insurance? That is unconstitutional. States should be allowed to do what they want as long as they do not require their citizens to bout into their system. There are many folks that retire up their with private insurance from their former employers.

[-] 1 points by Growup6 (-125) 1 year ago

And Medicaid now eats over 20% of the average state budget. Of course, that too is headed much higher with Obamacare. He claims he didn't increase middle class taxes, but he's making the states do it to fund his entitlement program.

Government efficiency is also an illusion of cost-shifting. Government can under-reimbursement because the programs free-load to an extent on private payers. But as the government plans grow in share, the cost-shifting game runs out of steam and government costs rise or quality gets crushed.

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

simplicity is at the heart of efficiency

profit is a tax outside of it

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

The parties over! It's a BFD! LMFAO!!

[+] -4 points by PandoraK (1678) 1 year ago

Having a public option will not force anyone to drop their insurance...what cabbage truck did that fall off?

[-] 5 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

" Vt and Montana are already looking at dropping private ins corps and implementing single payer."

I thought you were implying that they were dropping private ins corps. I guess you meant for state workers. Not sure that is a wise idea because it eliminates competition.

Competition is what keeps costs down. If you remove competition you remove the need for a company to keep it's prices competitive. Every few years our company looks at the costs from each company.

Allowing individuals and businesses to purchase insurance across state lines would be a step in the right direction as it would increase competition. The price for health insurance is $70 a month cheaper across the border in PA which is 15 miles from me. I cannot purchase it because of interstate regulations.

Allowing groups of people to get together and buy as a group would be a step in the right direction. Currently in many states that is prohibited unless you are an employer and you are buying fro employees.

So if government would get out of the way and let the competition happen it would drive prices down.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Private ins corps have colluded to gauge American working families with huge premium increases.

I agree in competition! Lets see the private ins criminals compete with a non profit ins provider. Thats fair!

You support that?

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

I am all for it as long as the non profit is funded by insurance premiums and not tax dollars.

I am OK with using tax dollars to funds health care for the poor but not to support an government run insurance blob.

There are several non profit insurance companies already. They cannot sell across state lines, they cannot sell to a group unless they are an employer. and there are other silly "crony" rules about not undercutting. Let's eliminate these regulations that benefit the insurance corporations. It is something we can do right away, today at no cost to anyone.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 1 year ago

I disagree and will leave it at that.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Monopoly = higher prices and lower quality time after time after time.

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

competition results in cheating to win

[-] 3 points by WollyDogq (5) 1 year ago

That makes no sense at all. If there are three gas stations on the corner the prices are alway lower then when there is only one in town. I have seen this over and over and over.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Competition leads service providers to provide a better product for a lower price.

Explain how having more than one hair cutter in town leads to cheating?

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

lower prices result from efficiency

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Cheating is the result of selfishness. Lower prices are the result of competition.

[-] 0 points by m4trix87 (71) 1 year ago

"The Dems WILL get a public option (expansion of medicare) if we can get enough progressives elected."

Promises...promises...promises. The bread and butter of all career 1%er politicians.

[-] 0 points by m4trix87 (71) 1 year ago

Try public healthcare, push for that, just as we push to abolish student debt.

Both are radical- but both are the only real imrovements.

"The Dems WILL get a public option (expansion of medicare) if we can get enough progressives elected."

Their corporate masters won't let them. If they do, next election they will get NO money from the 1%.

This means, no winning them, then all legislature as well becomes GOP, and then the GOP will just dismantle everything.

That's how "democracy" works!

Unless we Force both parties to succumb to direct action by paralysing the system and calling for mass disobedience, totally delegitimising the whole system.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I am with you in calling for mass disobedience. I can't agree with all your predictions about what will happen. but that don't matter. I won't predict how the corrupt, and/or spineless pols will behave. I will push for change in the way you and others have suggested,---- and by voting, protesting/pressuring and agitating for the progressive policies we need to correct the right wing policy mess that has created this mess.

[-] -1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 1 year ago

"Look at medicare and medicaid, " Yes, look. Medical loss ratio of 97%. You know exactly what they are going to pay for and how much and you get paid quickly without hassles. From the doctor's view.

I spent years on billing systems. Private insurance is a nightmare. I could go on at length. But bed time.

[-] 4 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

Wrong! When my father went to Medicare his bill went up 32%. He asked they doctor "Hey, hey , hey, what happened here" to which the doctor replied "That is what medicare pays, your private insurance did not pay that much, don't worry you are not paying it anyway." Two years later the doctor told him that because of the "Affordable Health Care Act" one of his tests could no longer be done in the doctors office and had to be done in the hospital. The cost went from $600 to $2,300 because of hospital overhead costs. Also the blood test that requires a drop of blood and was done for $30 fee now requires a test tube to be sent to the lab and the fee is $800. So what happened with the AHCA is that the hospital, drug, and testing lab lobbies got what they wanted at the expense of the taxpayer. The last thing you want is a government monopoly on healthcare. Monopolies lead to inefficiencies, cost overruns, and lower quality standards.

[-] -3 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 1 year ago

Funny, that used to be illegal.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

What used to be illegal?

[-] 0 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 1 year ago

Charging the government more than "usual and customary" price..I di pharmacy systems and one wanted to to set up to charge medicaid the max they would pay while charging other less. I could not do that because it was illegal. I am sure doctors would like to charge the tax payers more, evil government ya know, but that just might be illegal.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

That is not what happens. The government pays more. The private insurance pays less. My father's doctor gives a discount to people if their insurance does not cover the full medicare price. That is perfectly legal. Some doctors give the discount and others bill you for the difference.

They are not allowed to adjust the medicare price. It is set in stone.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

My sister's fulltime govt job is to catch doctors who are cheating our medicare system. White collar crime on it's own costs the govt many times more than organised crime and the rest put together.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

I know there are doctors that cheat the system but this is not cheating the medicare system. It is being kind and generous to their patients. They are not allowed to adjust the medicare price. It is set in stone. Doctors that cheat the system charge for patients that are dead, do not exist, are not their patients, or never provided a service that they are charging for. This is different and perfectly legal.

The government pays more. Some private insurance cover less. The privates will have a "standard price" that they cover for a procedure. My father's doctor gives a discount to people if their insurance has a lower pay out than the regular price which is usually based on the higher medicare price. That is perfectly legal, kind and generous. Some doctors give the discount and others bill you for the difference. So smart seniors shop around for the doctors that give the discount until they are eligible for Medicare.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Okay. Thanks for the heads up Joe. We have doctors who "bulk bill", which means you pay nothing, and others who make you pay up front, and you have to go claim your percentage back at the medicare office.

My point was, give some people the option to defraud the system, and it doesn't matter what level of education they have, or status in life they possess, and they will try to profit from fraud. Wrecks it for everyone else.

[-] 1 points by m4trix87 (71) 1 year ago

Again:

OWS is NOT the Democrats.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

trix is for kids

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I see OWS as many political persuasions (on the left) I see anarchists, progressives, socialists, and I do see democrats. I see no republicans! I see no right wing conservatives. But I won't speak for OWS. I simply say dems have betrayed their progressive principles, when the cave in and bvote for right wing policies that benefit the 1%. I want OWS to help resurrect a progressive left wing movement to replace/repeal right wing policies with progressive policies. in the case of health care that means creating single payer/public option.

[-] 1 points by m4trix87 (71) 1 year ago

"Problem" is, there are people (anarchists) who see how rigged this "democracy" (actually republic) thing is.

They won't let a good candidate get power. If their media fail, there's vote rigging, if that fails, there's legal war, if that fails, they can pull a Mossadeqh/Alliende.

They won't let the 99% get power in this system.

Thus, it must slowly be overthrown from the bottom up. Neighborhood assemblies , factory occupations, grassroots REAL unions...

search about anarchism and anarchist tactics.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Read/search plenty about all this good stuff, will continue of course. educ is never done.! But I'm not gonna fight about "anarchist tactics". If anyone wants to overthrow from the bottom up I'm with them. "'hood assemblies, occupations, REAL unions" I support. Point me in the right direction. I will be there. I will also vote.

[-] 1 points by JS93 (-321) 1 year ago

Are you saying OWS is Republicon? Or castrated?

Cons are 1% owned, there is no viable 3rd party, and (because of our fickle and capricious support) Dems are left in a sorry state of survival.

If OWS avoids, disavows or discourages participation in the political system (partisan Voting), it might as well be another RepubliCon Voter-Suppression tactic.

[-] 0 points by m4trix87 (71) 1 year ago

Don't go and vote.

Direct action, participatory democracy, grassroots bottom-up resistance.

See anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, IWW.

Push to impose the changes we need, like unionism.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 1 year ago

If you believe change can happen top down, versus bottom up, I have to wonder where you get this faith from? I understand your thinking, I hear it all the time, if not vote then what? Inspired by occupy, some cities throughout the country have stopped working with big banks, we're starting to hear terms like participatory democracy come not from federal congressmen, but people like newly elected city council members. Even a general push by citizens, not calculated to enable the electoral process, can influence change, but it's effects are most profound at the local, grassroots level.

Really, all it would take is for cities, regions, and states to begin asserting themselves. A municipality, for instance, still has the power to open a municipal bank, take ownership of their local cable infrastructure, utilities, etc. When we control the capital that buys our bread, the cable that delivers our information, and the utilities that deliver other basic services (like electricity), then the people begin to take command of their own destiny.

It will not happen by voting for a democrat. I'm not saying don't vote, and given the choices handed to us by our two party duopoly, I suppose I understand the preference for democrats (among more liberally inclined people), but participating in the sham that is our national electoral system, will not help us (at best it's a stopgap measure, but quite frankly, I'm not even sure about that).

In my view democrats are no better than republicans, they just endorse controlling our lives in a slightly different way, but they're no less authoritarian.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by m4trix87 (71) 1 year ago

So the <only> reason Occupy exists is to support a Dem agenda?

We shouldn't rely on others to decide for us-else they decide for <them>.

Else why not just go and do fund gathering for Obama?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JS93 (-321) 1 year ago

We don't need no stinking Big Insurance middlemen, but like Ted Kennedy told Obama, "Take whatever you can get!" We have not been able to make any HC reforms in decades! None of our great public/social services started out full fledged! Baby steps and build!

Let's do the same with our democracy! Let's get Voter turnout up there with Big Biz & $! Then We the People can call the shots! Don't turnout? Then STFU!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I'm with you! Solidarity.

[-] 0 points by JS93 (-321) 1 year ago

Spread thy word!!

Feel free to cut and paste anything I post. Let me know what's needed. Just had a little fun with a new Eric Holder post.

Primary goal going forward, Voter turn out!!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Big turn out is what the 1% fear most!

[-] 1 points by JS93 (-321) 1 year ago

That's why we have Citizens United, see the so-called "Free Marketeers" hate, loath (free and open) competition! They only do MONOPOLY!! They want to be the the ONLY "Big Turnout!" Even if it costs them Trillions! Hell, they'll recover that in one year, and we'll be footing the bill. Smell the racket, smell the Class War!!!!!

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

They are relentless. They understand verywell the use of money/ads. Theyhave spent a quarter billion $ on ads to dishonesty malign the Healthcare law. The numbers for this election are staggering.

[-] 1 points by JS93 (-321) 1 year ago

And we will pay those "numbers," obliviously.

The military got the hardware from Germany after the war, and the evil bastards got the propaganda techniques, Big Lie, etc. The plan for the Class War is "Shock Doctrine." It was devised by Nixon and his henchmen. There is a video (on line) and a book that will shock you, by that name. Recommended.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Seen it. Disturbing, and eye opening. S/b required viewing.

[-] 1 points by JS93 (-321) 1 year ago

OK. WTF are we going to do?

We need to Unite! It's what they hate most, so it just has to be good. It just so happens to be our greatest power. But we are a bunch of fucked up scared cats. Think [Terminator meets Glengarry Glen Ross], always be uniting, always be getting out the vote, and always be watching out for Terminators!! More and more and more people!!! Overkill is the only acceptable goal!! And we can NEVER give up!!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I'm with you. I don't know how to excite people. There is much distrust of dems who have lost their backbone when confronted with 1% right wing policies. Many OWS supporters want nothing to do with voting. They are justifiably suspicious. But you are right we have to unite. And I think we can't let elections go by without trying to vote out right wing wackos. Especially swing states. We should focus on swing states. Thats for sure.

[-] 1 points by JS93 (-321) 1 year ago

Good. I know how to excite or incite people. Cont...

[-] 1 points by m4trix87 (71) 1 year ago

Why don't you two- if you're not the same person or bot with two accounts- realise that OWS is non-partisan?

Why? Because as the time Obama spent and his policies, as well as his funding from Wall Street, are some of the proof that political parties (at least mainstream ones) are all corrupt.

Want to vote? Call people to go vote for say Communist Party USA. That's a radical party- and not corrupted by campaign contributions etc.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by betuadollar (-313) 1 year ago

Nixon, in light of all recent history, was actually one of our better - if not thee best - presidents we've ever had.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

That's only true if you enjoy many forms of treason.

[-] -2 points by betuadollar (-313) 1 year ago

Many presidents have been guilty of treason in varying degrees; in fact, I would say that is true of all within living memory. Nixon, in terms of both foreign and domestic policy was our best president.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26675) 1 year ago

You forgot all about the "I am not a crook" bit and the fact that he scuttled the Viet Nam peace accords, just so he could get elected.

Nixon's the original and still worst, although he gets strong competition in that regard by Reagan.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JS93 (-321) 1 year ago

See Shock Doctrine. Listen to the Nixon tapes.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 1 year ago

Thanks, I'll check it out. But that has nothing at all to do with the Nixon presidency, does it ? I get tired of hearing about how much this country loved Reagan; "loved Reagan, oh really, well how come nobody told me? Because I don't ever recall hearing this from anybody." What I suspect is that it was actually just the media that loved Reagan. And all others presidencies within living memory with the possible exception of Nixon were devastating in one form or another to the American people.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by BushbamneyLies (0) 1 year ago

Plain English Truth About the Supreme Court Obamacare Healthcare Decision:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/todays-health-care-decision-in-plain-english/

Lies & Spin About the Supreme Court Obamacare Healthcare from Obama and Romney:

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/romney-obama-uphold-health-care-falsehoods/

Bottom Line:

It's a Big Win for Health Care & Insurance Corporations (the 1%) being praised by clueless clowns who believe it brings us closer to Universal Coverage. All it really brings us closer to is a fascist state wherein the government dictates how the people (the 99%) must spend their hard-earned money!

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Vt and montana are already looking at single payer. Repubs and Private insurers know the private insurance industries days are numbered! thats why they have spent $250 million dollars spreading lies about this great step towards low cost universal healthcare. I'ts a BFD!

[-] 0 points by m4trix87 (71) 1 year ago

Merger of State(forced to buy Obamacare) and Corporate Power (in this case Ins Comps) = fascism

Mussolini's definition, not mine.

[-] -1 points by m4trix87 (71) 1 year ago

So, why don't we all go vote Dems? Then surely the days of capitalism will be numbered!

Right? Yes, it will finish its transformation into corporatism (worse).

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You mock me!

I ask people to vote the issues that matter to them. For me I vote for pols who speak of and support progressive policies.In my recent state primary (of which I could not vote because I am independent) The dems spoke of progressive 99% agenda. The repubs attack OWS and any progressive policy. I won't pretend that is not the reality. Once dems get in it is up to the PEOPLE to stay awake and protest/pressure agitate for progressive policy.

What do you suggest in regards to voting?

[-] 1 points by m4trix87 (71) 1 year ago

If one wants to vote, promote voting for real radical parties-CPUSA comes to mind.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So the political party that comes to your mind is not prone to the human nature of corruption and spinelessness.? I'm afraid I can't agree with simply "promote voting for real radical parties" as an acceptable answer. I think as we overthrow from the bottom up the CPUSA, Working families, green, socialist, liberal parties are excellent possibilities if they have the right position on the issues.

My suggestion is vote the issues that matter to you. (hopefully I'm talkin to people who value progressive policy solutions). But that is not the end we must stay on woever id elected. Protest/pressure/agitate for continued process on policies that help the 99%. Pressure all pols and above all else keep the right wing from taking anymore power. They will stoop to the lowest level. Commit any crime to suppress the vote (ALEC), steal elections (hanging chads), and but politicians (citizens untited/corp personhood).

[-] 0 points by vvv0630 (-63) 1 year ago

"keep the right wing from taking anymore power"?

What malarkey. The Democrats are no better than the Republicans, Obama has been worse than Bush, and Romney would be no improvement.

REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS: ALL PROBLEMS, NO SOLUTION.

END TWO-PARTY TYRANNY: OUR SECOND REVOLUTION!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Our problems are rooted in right wing policies that republicans trumpet support proudly and dems betray their progressive principles when they support them.

Solutions are in implementing progressive policies. (dem repub CPUSA, Green, working families, liberal, Whoever.) Whatever party id elected will reuqire that the people protest/pressure all pols to pass progressive policies.

I support your revolution. I also will vote to end the right wing policies that exploit the 99% and benefit the 1%.

[-] 0 points by vvv0630 (-63) 1 year ago

Right wing my ass, Obamapologist. The problem is the whole bird...

Republicans and Democrats: All Problems, No Solution.

End Two-Party Tyranny: Our Second Revolution!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Oh. Your back!

PLease leave me alone. We don't agree. Accept that.

It's allowed.

Please refrain from insults, and vulgarity.

In fact please don't respond.

Thx

V

[-] -1 points by vvv0630 (-63) 1 year ago

"V" my ass. More like "PPP" for Planted Partisan Propagandist...

Republicans and Democrats: All Problems, No Solution.

End Two-Party Tyranny: Our Second Revolution!

http://occupywallst.org/forum/us-supreme-court-obamacare-decision-makes-individu/

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by JS93 (-321) 1 year ago

It's called Public Healthcare.

Trying to get people to work together on it, is like wrangling cats.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 1 year ago

I would expect them to strike down the mandate.

The government should never have the power and authority to mandate that a citizen purchases a product from a company. It goes against everything our constitution stands for.

[-] 1 points by JDub (218) 1 year ago

Car Insurance. Home insurance. Taxes(not a product per se, but still u pay). I agree that people should not be peonalized for not having the extra money to pay for an expensive, and often useless( for real life threatening issues are not always covered). Why should a health 26 year old, have to pay for insurance they most likely never will use. PUBLIC option is the only option. Universal health care, paid for by taxes( a much better use than wars, and similar in size of cost) is a must for a moral society. But we are not a moral society, we just pretend to be.

[-] 1 points by m4trix87 (71) 1 year ago

Taxes are not a product.

"Universal health care, paid for by taxes( a much better use than wars, and similar in size of cost) is a must for a moral society. But we are not a moral society, we just pretend to be." This is what must be pushed by Occupy- not being forced to <buy> healthcare, which is just as bad and worse than how things were before.

[-] 2 points by jeff39 (2) 1 year ago

What is Vermont's system like, any Vermonter's out there?

[-] 1 points by m4trix87 (71) 1 year ago

Single-Payer.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

If you give health care to all; paid for through taxes; and remove the "for profit" component; you would save 30%+ right out of the gate. Some of the things you do need to spend money on to supply health care to someone is doctors, nurses, hospitals, drugs, medical equipment, clinics, etc. The one thing you don't need is insurance companies. They offer no service except to jack-up the costs and provide a return for their investors at patients expense. Through sheer volume, we could self insure ourselves at a much cheaper price and more efficiently.

Think about it. The only way an insurance company can make money is to collectively overcharge their customers the percentage of profit margin, over and above their expenses. The expenses include the paying of claims, but also include, executive pay and bonuses, employee pay, benefits, taxes (maybe not), Marketing and Administrative Expenses ( you even have to pay for their TV ads), utility costs, maintenance costs, and much, much, more; that are passed directly to the patient on top of already high actual health care costs.

A 2004 economic study published in The New England Journal of Medicine determined that a national single-payer healthcare system would reduce costs by more than $400 billion a year "despite the expansion of comprehensive care to all Americans." I'm sure that figure has increased since then.

I think the cartoon at the bottom of this page says it all -

http://www.healthcare-now.org/whats-single-payer/

Cheers :)

BTW - Watch the video ( bottom of page) on how to spend less and get MORE health care using hot-spotting :

http://www.dylanratigan.com/2012/04/10/spend-less-get-more-the-best-solution-for-any-health-network/

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I am with single payer, public option, expansion of medicare/medicaid. I remember many progressives pushing for public option in the house and being beaten back by repubs and blue dog dems. We can get this critical progressive policy passed if we protest/pressure all pols. Elect more progressives. Health care is a right!

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

I remember that battle

so I lost heart in he insurance care bill

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I understand. We will have single payer/public option. This bill starts us on that path. Protest all pols for progressive policies.

[-] -1 points by m4trix87 (71) 1 year ago

Why should we always expect the Dems to save us?

Save ourselves.

Strikes in all medical insurance companies until the government is forced to accept single payer(whatever government it is) and the companies to succumb.

Look at the example of greek protests and Chile struggle. Those should be the examples for Occupy to follow, not being sold out like the teabaggers were to the GOP.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I'm with your lets all strike every medical insurance companies! I ain't against your suggestions! I support the actions you've mentioned. I have to mention the greeks just elected a pro austerity pro euro govt! I don't knoe if they are the best example. Personally I think mass action would work. Mass strikes/boycotts can be effective. I am with that. As it grows I will be there.

I don't expect Dems or any party to save us. I expect progressive policies to solve this 1% mess. I don't expect dems to save us I expect the people to elect reps who will pass progressive policies and serve the 99%. Not the corp 1%. I believe the people can do that. (elect pols to serve them) Just as I think people can boycott/strike corps and force gov (pol parties) to accept progressive policies and succumb.

Both ways are people driven and both can work. I Support your idea. Do you support mine? What do you suggest in regards to voting?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

People - start by moving your accounts to a credit union and sign on to move to amend - take personhood away from the monsters.

This is a real start.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Signed up to M T A. I'm workin on the cr union thing.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Good Deal - me too on the cr thing as it is a bit complicated with the auto-deposits from SSD and I have Auto payments going out to the state as I withdrew my 401 to live off of before I lost my home and I need to pay early withdrawal taxes. I plan to get it done or at least started on Monday.

It is so much easier for me to do things for others then it is to do them for myself - sick - Hey?

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 1 year ago

Now that is leadership! And gutsy.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 1 year ago

I certainly understand and empathize with the good intentions behind this idea, and I've spoken to some very good people at functions like occupy town square, who are promoting this idea. But the thing that haunts me, is I know (empirically speaking) running a bureaucracy in small nations like Norway or Canada is much different than in a large nation like the US.

The pattern in the US shows that we do not do a great job of managing huge bureaucracies (best intentions notwithstanding, it winds up becoming a carnival of cronyism).

As it stands now, Medicare has about 47 million beneficiaries, slightly larger than the population of Canada (but not much larger, so it's been manageable). But trying to wrap my mind around the idea of a super bureaucracy that manages the healthcare of 330 million people, is (to say the least) a very difficult exercise.

I would rather see a universal healthcare system, but managed by states (versus a giant, heavily centralized, super-bureaucracy). Ideally, it could even be managed on a more local level e.g. regional, NONPROFIT insurance companies (with public funding, but locally managed, it could even be federal block grant money, tied to mandates). Maybe I'm exaggerating the inherent dysfunction of large, unwieldy centralized bureaucracies, but I think my view is consistent with history and probabilistic outcome (although reasonable minds can certainly disagree).

Of course, maybe we could run it like the IRS. Although centralized in the technical sense, the IRS has offices everywhere, huge regional processing centers, etc. (so there is decentralization and quasi-autonomy, combined with coordination from the top). In general, I favor local over national, but if we ever do something like a Medicare for all, I would hope we at least decentralize it considerably. Also understand, it would take years to build out the bureaucratic infrastructure.

[-] 1 points by m4trix87 (71) 1 year ago

Obamacare, as it stood before the GOP pushed the individual mandate, was good. It then meant (single payer) that the state, using tax money, would buy healthcare for those who couldn't afford it.

Obama then agreed with individual mandate, which basically means everyone buys healthcare on his/her own, just as before. With a difference- now it's compulsory as well!

So basically Obamacare turned into-with the consent of Obama- from a progressive measure to a reactionary, even fascist one. Now it caters to the 1% instead of the 99%.

Why did Obama agree with the GOP for individual mandate? It would be better- if Obamacare couldn't pass any other way- to just withdraw it. Better things as they were than worse.

However, politics- as to not seem to had lost his game to filibustering- forced Obama to accept something he knew was worse than how things were, in hopes of being able to claim a victory.

[-] 1 points by m4trix87 (71) 1 year ago

Obamacare = state forcing you to buy from capital

Guess what is defined as the merger of state and private capital?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

[-] 1 points by m4trix87 (71) 1 year ago

Obamacara = PRIVATE (buying from the private sector) = many still won't be able to pay, and many more in financial hardship

Occupy stands for PUBLIC healthcare.

We have it in Cyprus, and guess what? It works! Keep having your deceiver-in-chief bamboozle you that buying healthcare from ins comps (and now also HAVING TO) is a step towards progressivism.

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 1 year ago

Here is a radical idea. http://www.healthcare.gov/

[-] 1 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 1 year ago

At some point in the near future, we should see whether the Democrats have had a working strategy in mind or not. In theory, with "everyone" guaranteed health care via costly insurance, it should be a no-brainer to offer hospitals public funds to cover various aspects of basic care and provide it for free, with the idea that insurance premiums will (in theory) go down due to the end of these expenditures. Then again, we should have been able to start doing these things long ago - for example, why should parents have to pay for childhood immunizations that are required by schools?

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 1 year ago

well that was different roberts doesn't argue the comerce clause instead he argues the right to tax instead of a penalty or fee. that might be the most liberal tax in the country. It's the only tax you pay for not buying something. all other taxes fit under two catagories income tax or sales tax. this is the first one of a kind non-sales tax. which by default makes the case a comerce clause.

unless of course you have stock in big insurence companies then it's a tax clause, I hate roberts.

[-] 1 points by i8jomomma (80) 1 year ago

ha ha........... you want them to tax the shit out of you if you don't have health insurance..............how is that possible? that's right..............they can do whatever they want and they can tax the shit out of us for anything they want cause they they know we ain't gonna do anything about it except march in the streets and cry............ boo hoo............ suck it up and deal with it............and read the fine print before you think something is a good idea cause they said it was

[-] 1 points by Justoneof99 (80) 1 year ago

Is there anything stopping OWS from starting their own health insurance coop? Don't like what is available, lets offer an alternative. We don't need to beg the Supreme Court or Congress to take care of us and "demanding" isn't going to get us anywhere- we look like spoiled children.

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 1 year ago

I'm from ma. and I'm covered because I'm on ,ma. health What I learned was the power of nothing. I spent a week in a psych ward. I had nothing literally nothing more then my 12yr old truck. I was living in it.

Anyway they wanted $12,000 bucks and I laughed at them, good luck collecting that. It's like trying to hit a fly with a sledge hammer. So the hospital with all it's gumption managed to get me on mass. health to collect what would have been a write off for them. I was denied by mass health months earlier. Hence the power of nothing

So what do I think of obamacare, I think not, ma. care barely works and it can only work within a state specific situation, not on a national level.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

If you give health care to all; paid for through taxes; and remove the "for profit" component; you would save 30%+ right out of the gate. Some of the things you do need to spend money on to supply health care to someone is doctors, nurses, hospitals, drugs, medical equipment, clinics, etc. The one thing you don't need is insurance companies. They offer no service except to jack-up the costs and provide a return for their investors at patients expense. Through sheer volume, we could self insure ourselves at a much cheaper price and more efficiently.

Think about it. The only way an insurance company can make money is to collectively overcharge their customers the percentage of profit margin, over and above their expenses. The expenses include the paying of claims, but also include, executive pay and bonuses, employee pay, benefits, taxes (maybe not), Marketing and Administrative Expenses ( you even have to pay for their TV ads), utility costs, maintenance costs, and much, much, more; that are passed directly to the patient on top of already high actual health care costs.

A 2004 economic study published in The New England Journal of Medicine determined that a national single-payer healthcare system would reduce costs by more than $400 billion a year "despite the expansion of comprehensive care to all Americans." I'm sure that figure has increased since then.

I think the cartoon at the bottom of this page says it all -

http://www.healthcare-now.org/whats-single-payer/

Cheers :)

[-] 1 points by avatar99 (1) 1 year ago

Has anyone thought of looking at how well the National Health Systems ,that are so criticized here, actually work and actually provide healthcare for EVERYONE and at the same cost to everyone (i.e. FREE!)

[-] 1 points by JDub (218) 1 year ago

the real reason the single payer option will most likely not happen in the next 10 years. No corporation will stand to profit from government run healthcare. Not really. Not if they can't charge u $20 for an aspirin, 1 pill mind u.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

The ACA is nothing more than an obamanation. The Supreme Court should overturn the bill, not because the needy don't have a right to universal health care, but because the bill fails to deliver and actually gives the insurance companies carte blanche to charge whatever they want.

Good health care is a basic right, which falls under the unalienable right to life. If our government fails to assure all citizens of their right to life, it's time to replace the government: lock, stock, and barrel.

[-] 1 points by JDub (218) 1 year ago

I agree wholeheartedly. Just don't call it Obamanation. Call it what it is, Health Insurance Mandate. Otherwise u just sound like a fox new nut. Or current field of republicant's

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2367) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

My disgust with the ACA extends to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as well. I guess I could call it obnanharination. :{)

I do not believe what was passed as a health care bill.

[-] 0 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Yes, it was part of the 'Long Con'. Since there were no cost controls and drugs were taken off the table.

[-] 0 points by m4trix87 (71) 1 year ago

To all who support unconditionally supporting Dems and then demanding from them:

If they know you'll be voting for them anyway, why should they respond to your demands? (hint:they actually only care about votes)

As long as they can show themselves to be only slightly better than the atrocious GOP, if we have your reasoning nothing will actually change.

<Only slightly> better than GOP = Wall Street support Only slightly <better than GOP> = people like JS93 get fooled into voting for them "to escape the worse" = popular base support

Wall Street support + popular base support = win

[-] 0 points by JS93 (-321) 1 year ago

I don't know how to make this clearer:

Baby steps

Major improvement

Elect and support more DEMS!

Build on it!

Demand shit from the Dems you support!

[-] -1 points by m4trix87 (71) 1 year ago

If they know you'll be voting for them anyway, why should they respond to your demands? (hint:they actually only care about votes)

As long as they can show themselves to be only slightly better than the atrocious GOP, if we have your reasoning nothing will actually change.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 1 year ago

There is no greater threat to the future of America than its reproductive health - an undeniably true statement - and in accordance with precedent, henceforth and forever more, it is hereby decreed ye shall all be "taxed" (what?) for the inactivity of the willful failure to engage in such reproductive acts...

And yes this IS a very apt analogy.

SO sayeth the Court Jesters on June Twenty Eighth in the year of our Lord --- your Lord, their Lord, whomever and who-so-ever's Lord, or NOT, I mean, afterall, this IS a free country; RIGHT? --- Two Thousand and Twelve, in the third year of his Sovereign Reign, King Obama Hussein.

And if you think we have a Constitution in this country you're an absolute fool; nor do we have any need of a Supreme Court to decide this nonexistent Constitution, especially in light of the life term - why not simply flush them with every new presidency, the results would be exactly the same.

YOU now serve at the King's Pleasure: so "DANCE, Little [twisted] Sister, DANCE!

I'm not saying we don't need to address the issue of medical costs, or rein in insurance companies, we do... I'm just saying this is NOT it. And one should not be so willing to sacrifice Constitutional freedom for NOT.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 1 year ago

There is no greater threat to the future of America than its reproductive health - an undeniably true statement - and in accordance with precedent, henceforth and forever more, it is hereby decreed ye shall all be "taxed" (what?) for the inactivity of the willful failure to engage in such reproductive acts...

And yes this IS a very apt analogy.

SO sayeth the Court Jesters on June Twenty Eighth in the year of our Lord --- your Lord, their Lord, whomever and who-so-ever's Lord, or NOT, I mean, afterall, this IS a free country; RIGHT? --- Two Thousand and Twelve, in the third year of his Sovereign Reign, King Obama Hussein.

And if you think we have a Constitution in this country you're an absolute fool, nor do we have any need of a Supreme Court to decide this nonexistent Constitution, especially in light of the life term - why not simply flush them with every new presidency, the results would be exactly the same.

YOU now serve at the King's Pleasure: so "DANCE, Little [twisted] Sister, DANCE!

[-] 0 points by m4trix87 (71) 1 year ago

Obamacare = <forced> to <buy> health insurance from a big 1%er corporation.

Nothing to do with public healthcare. And some people still support Obamacare for what?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

To end the middle man = for profit ins companies.

You need a foundation to build on.

It will soon be seen that the middle men ins companies are not necessary and are detrimental.

The people in the industries? Paperwork will still need processing.

[-] -1 points by JusticeF0rTrayvon (-58) 1 year ago

Ending the middle man.... forcing people to buy things from him.....

sounds about equivalent. LOL

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You are a mindless drone. Change your user name you are an insult to Trayvon his family and to humanity.

[-] 0 points by JusticeF0rTrayvon (-58) 1 year ago

Speaking of drones, how many people have been murdered without trial by the assassin-in-chief O-bomb-ya in the last few years?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Don't know.

How many?

Disgusting asshole change your name or expect no more reply's to your persistent BS.

[-] -1 points by JusticeF0rTrayvon (-58) 1 year ago

Well, if I changed my name, you wouldn't know it was me then, would you?

couple that with the fact that a name change is impossible on this site.

Could this be a conversational tactic to leave a losing argument whilst losing minimal pride and change the subject?

Let's face an important fact here, you really could care less how many people were killed without trial by the assassin in chief.

Provided of course, that he was of the right party.

I will sleep well knowing that the missiles the madman is throwing randomly do not have my name on them.

We could have done something about this if we had joined together and gotten the mole out of the party. So sad.... so pitiful.

[-] -1 points by m4trix87 (71) 1 year ago

Those Dem trolls are becoming just as bad as teabaggers.

If Occupy ends up a Dem satellite, i'm abandoning it- as i'm sure many other <true> radicals will.

If voting could change anything, it would be illegal.

[-] -1 points by JusticeF0rTrayvon (-58) 1 year ago

Excellent post.

[-] 0 points by JS93 (-321) 1 year ago

Add one when that drone gets your troll ass.

[-] 0 points by JusticeF0rTrayvon (-58) 1 year ago

Ah, yes, more name calling. Do I need to mention that not one person has refuted anything I said, or is it already blatantly obvious to everyone in the room?

The election is over. Bank bailouts, drone kills, and illegal wars.

All due to your silence during the primary. So sad.... oh well, I'll sleep well while the country burns at the hands of this loser. I didn't vote for him.

[-] -2 points by JusticeF0rTrayvon (-58) 1 year ago

A mindless drone? Ouch, you sound angry. Actually, I am a liberal and an anarchist, but you are welcome to call me anything you like. You are a smart person, and you know full well that the individual mandate is corporate welfare at its worst, you just won't allow yourself to admit it. You have swallowed the reverse psychology of the right wing, and hung on the words of their double agent in the white house. They have accelerated their agenda since the end of the Bush years, and the tag-team destruction of human rights in this country has continued. They're laughing on the inside, but they have to feign anger. Their agenda is nearing completion:

NDAA- check. Dormant for now; waiting for president Romney to revive it.

Wiretapping program: Accelerated; same for extrajudicial retention, bank welfare and drone kills.

You can keep cheerleading for the right wing all you want, the real anarchists in the room are laughing at you.

The real election was lost this spring when no one dared to challenge the neoconservative bastard in the white house in the democratic primary.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You are apparently living in Bizzaro world. Black is white.

Change your name you are foul and disgusting.

[-] -1 points by JusticeF0rTrayvon (-58) 1 year ago

Well, if this is "bizarro world", I'll take it any day over being brainwashed by the self-serving lies of the right wing. "Individual mandate.... yes sir, whatever you say, insurance companies! Baaa-aaaah!"

We had a chance to put a real reformer in the white house. It's a shame, OWS could have actually done something to end the wiretapping, illegal wars, and other constitutional abuses of the O-bomb-ya administration by challenging him in the primary. Oh well, it's not like Buddy Roemer deserved to be president or anything. We'll just keep the bastard we've got, thanks.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You live in Bizzaro world. The rest of us are dealing with reality.

Change your name puss-sack.

[-] -1 points by JusticeF0rTrayvon (-58) 1 year ago

The first person to get angry in an online debate is the first person to realize they are wrong.

Deal with reality all you want to, but that reality now includes a helping of illegal wiretapping, drone kills and gitmo with a side of the NDAA.

Don't blame me, I voted in the primary. LOL

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I am not angry - I am disgusted by you and your choice to use a dead/murdered child's name.

[-] -1 points by JusticeF0rTrayvon (-58) 1 year ago

Not a bit, you are angered by the light of truth I shine on your delusional posts. I dare to challenge everything you think you know, and you realize you've been cheer leading for the insurance companies and their puppet O-bomb-ya. What I say is irrefutable, so the only natural product is anger. don't worry, it may seem confusing now, but it's a perfectly normal human emotion. We're you disgusted by the throngs of protesters using Trayvon's name in protest? Of course not. Your anger is merely the product of other hatred, directed at the only arguable thing about me.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The health care plan as it stands - SUCKS. But it is a step in the right direction. If it were not for the repugs in office we might actually have achieved universal health care.

Change your name you heaping pile of steaming filth - no more responses to any of your persistent shit until you do.

[-] -1 points by JusticeF0rTrayvon (-58) 1 year ago

You'll never stop replying. Truth attracts seekers like a light attracts moths in the summer. Every time I shine a light of truth on you, you get a little bit more angry and call another name. I don't mind; we're both here to grow and learn. I want an end to the Bush years, you're merely fine with slowing them down a hair.

Actually, they'ye been accelerated, but you've been brainwashed into believing that they'd be worse under the Romney campaign that you forgot all about ending them. Which, of course, we could have done in the primary.

Oh well, it's only the future of the country at stake.

It's not at stake any more, it's over. Drone kills and NDAA or drone kills and NDAA? SOunds like a choice to me.

Good night, my fellow sojourner.

[-] 0 points by JS93 (-321) 1 year ago

I support it just to piss you off.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

Want to see who Obamacare serves. Watch the SCOUS decision and see which way the market moves.

[-] -1 points by m4trix87 (71) 1 year ago

JS93 and Vukag2(or whatever his nickname is) keep flaming. Where are the mods?

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by Justoneof99 (80) 1 year ago

Health care is far too important to go down the failed medicare/medicaid road. We have already learned that is is a dead end.

[-] 2 points by grimwomyn (35) from New York, NY 1 year ago

What do you propose instead?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We already provide health care to all. by accepting anyone who shows up at the ER. We must remove that inadequate and expensive practice and we will save more money. Medicaid and medicare will also see fraud drop since hospitals use these govt programs to make up for free ER service.

[Removed]