You all are missing part of the main point of all differences....if someone is said to "look like a bunch of paranoid ninnies" that's only someone's opinion and not fact. The news does it and we carry it all forward until people start believeing whatever the issue might be. In this case, IMHO, the republicans did a great job all by themselves without any help needed from anyone.

I repeat...it's a sorry country that doesn't know anything but their own views and who won't show respect due any president that belongs to them. He is my president and as long as he is, I'll trust him not to harm others. I believe that Jon had a point about the division between the right and the left turning into a sunii/shiite situation and it scares the breath out of me. Both of them feel their like religion (Muslim) is (as with the Christians) so different that neither can believe the other sect will have access into heaven. There is no room for respecting others that are different from us and leaving them to make these political/religious decisions for themselves.

If I was afraid to have the president of the united states speak to my children, I sure wouldn't (as did half the population) put him in a position to do so. If I hadn't wanted him to be president, I would still never dream that a man that IS president (whether I chose him or not) isn't "worthy" to speak to my children. If I disagreed with what was said, I'd discuss it with my children and I wouldn't expect everyone else's children to have their rights to hear it taken away because I didn't like it.

I don't think the people who objected were the people who voted for him. Could be wrong though. And who said he wasn't "worthy" to speak?

I certainly do agree with your statement that "it's a sorry country that doesn't know anything but their own views and who won't show respect due any president that belongs to them". Both sides could learn something from that.

jgibson2 Wrote:Who, exactly, do you think is the "right"? There are plenty of us who are right of center who aren't paranoid. That's not news, though. Bad behavior trumps over folks like Laura Bush. I did hear that she'd encouraged people to listen to the speech, but it didn't lead like the badly behaved reactionary types. Go back and re-read Elyzabeth's post for more on that.

I'm right. Are you right?

I could be wrong, but, thankfull, I'm right!

I don't think that the Republican party has gone completely nuts, but I think the Republican party is plagued by a hard core of nuts right now.

I have had the experience of being reunited with a high school acquaintance of mine to find out that he's a watcher of Glenn Beck and has largely swallowed the Kool Aid. And wants me to Know I'm Wrong about pretty much everything.

He:

- Thinks there are disturbing questions about Obama's birth certificate.
- Thinks Obama is collecting names of people who disagree with him.
- Thinks health care reform will try to allow the government to kill old people
- Thinks a million+ people were in front of the Capitol on 9/12 even though DC metro reported only a fraction of the ridership they had on days that we know there were a million people visiting the national mall
- Calls anyone who supports the president an "Obot"
- Likes to proclaim that "everyone is racist"
- Thought Obama was going to tell children to support his heal care initiative. When that didn't pan out, he claimed that the timing was enough to make the speech nefarious. I have repeatedly been asked to "Look at the timing!"

Perhaps the right, as a whole, has not gone nuts. But why do I suddenly have this crazy stalker dude on my Facebook? It got so bad that I hade multiple Facebook friends tell me they didn't want to look at my updates anymore because this guy was popping up un their notifications. (Yes, it was multiple people) ?

Why? He would tell you why. It's because the majority of Americans don't trust Obama. You'd think we didn't just have an election.

-JP

JP,
I saw similar behavior from folks on the left during the Bush II administration. Not many, but quite vocal. Some were prominent and a few even promised to leave the country if he was re-elected. That didn't happen, of course, but there's plenty of "fringe" on all sides.

jgibson2 Wrote:JP,
I saw similar behavior from folks on the left during the Bush II administration. Not many, but quite vocal. Some were prominent and a few even promised to leave the country if he was re-elected. That didn't happen, of course, but there's plenty of "fringe" on all sides.

If you got cyberstalked by any of these people, then I feel your pain.

On the other hand, we didn't see a whole TV network practically devoted to covering and promoting Code Pink. So while I agree (and always do) that there is a fringe on both sides, the dynamic is different.

Ironically, perhaps we can blame the left fringe for some of this. When the left spouted crazy theories about the Bush administration: that they tortured people, that they went after a member of the CIA for political reasons, that there was an attempt to game the independent judiciary with political firings, that they were going to try to push for a war with Iraq (Ha! I remember arguing one crazy liberal down from his claim in 2001 that Iraq is next, mark my words!) their paranoia would be followed up by some evidence down the road. And so perhaps they really believe their "negative fantasies" will be borne out in the fullness of time because they saw it happen in the previous administration.

-JP

There was something I heard on NPR that has me a little freaked out... Apparently, the health care bill is fashioned after the Massachusetts plan in one way... that it requires all citizens to have health care insurance. The Mass plan apparently covers a certain amount for families earning 3x or less the poverty rate. One man, who was on the program (can't remember if it was talk of the nation or weekend edition) was able to secure insurance under the plan through the stipend afforded to him by the state, but when he went a few dollars over the limit in pay, suddenly he was faced with having to pay the whole amount himself, which exceeded $1500 a month! I know we do well as a family, but I can't afford that... and we have preexisting conditions here.

He said (and the reporter confirmed) that in Mass, if you're uninsured, you face a penalty of $3800 dollars a year. WTF?

Now, apparently, the Mass income limit is rather liberal compared to the Fed version of it.

I didn't get to hear the whole report (and I'm still trying to find information on it) but one of the things that drives me nuts about congress is its unfunded mandates. It's bad enough when the are forsted upon state governments, but individual citizens certainly can't handle this kind of thing.

Can someone shed a light on this?

I believe that Germany has a similar plan, but without being quite so burdensome - especially at lower income levels. They also have one of the best healthcare systems in the world.

Here in MD, if you've exhausted your COBRA benefits and cannot obtain private insurance, due to pre-existing conditions or otherwise, you can get great rates on state-subsidized health insurance. My oldest son got this information in the mail when he was turned down by a private company for being a few pounds over their weight limit. The subsidized program was cheaper and had better coverage. He's back to employer-subsidized insurance now, but that information came just in time for a neighbor whose COBRA insurance ran out at the same time Rob's did and who has serious pre-existing conditions. No problem with pre-existing conditions under the MD program. Makes me wonder if this whole health-care thing could be handled better at the state level.

One problem, though, is overcoming resistance of those who'd just rather go without insurance because they don't think they'll need it. They do exist. I know a couple of families with self-employed dads who'd just rather go to Disney World every year with the money they save by not buying health insurance. Not a position I understand, but that's what they tell me. Much smaller category than those who cannot afford health insurance, but very real.

I can't go into detail, but yes we are required to have health insurance in MA, and it is a huge gift to the private insurance industry because there is no public option to provide a non-profit-driven alternative that drives cost down.

I don't think the co-opts in the Max Baucus "compromise" are going to solve the problem.

-JP

From what I heard, $3,400 or $3,800 a year was the upper limit for families who choose to go without insurance.

mjfrombuffalo Wrote:From what I heard, $3,400 or $3,800 a year was the upper limit for families who choose to go without insurance.

That would be a pretty good deal if it included health care coverage. Our portion of the federal retiree's insurance is considerably more than that.

No, doesn't include the coverage, that's the fine for not getting coverage. (well in a way it DOES include coverage - catastrophic Medicaid, if you get seriously ill with no insurance and qualify in your state.)

See, now, the Mass. plan, and hence the Baucus plan, scare me for that reason. Suddenly, not only do I fear losing health insurance should something happen to Kurt's job, I fear having to pay for health insurance AND if I don't, paying the government a penalty for not being able to afford health insurance? That is Whack!

I think the opposition would be better off pointing to that not-so-bright idea -- not the stupid death panel lie or the stupid abortion clinic in every school lie.

wivabef Wrote:See, now, the Mass. plan, and hence the Baucus plan, scare me for that reason. Suddenly, not only do I fear losing health insurance should something happen to Kurt's job, I fear having to pay for health insurance AND if I don't, paying the government a penalty for not being able to afford health insurance? That is Whack!

This is why insurance companies love it.

wivabef Wrote:I think the opposition would be better off pointing to that not-so-bright idea -- not the stupid death panel lie or the stupid abortion clinic in every school lie.

Yes, but then they'd have to come up with a suggestion for cost containment, and not many of those have the same impact as allowing non-profit-driven insurance carrier.

I don't think many people get that the public option is still insurance, it's just insurance that isn't run by people looking to get rich off you.

drmomentum Wrote:I don't think many people get that the public option is still insurance, it's just insurance that isn't run by people looking to get rich off you.

And that statement is the one I have trouble with. When do we start going after other businesses? When does food pricing and distribution get taken over by the government- after all, large grocery chains are just trying to get rich off me. So are auto makers, house builders, school teachers- or, maybe they are just working in their own industry and making a living. And sometimes, getting rich, and sometimes not. I'm not in favour of the absolute power the incurance companies have- pre-existing conditions, charing more and more- but I don't see eliminating them entirely as a cure for the problem. I still don't think the problem has been adequately identified.

They're not talking about eliminating private insurance entirely, they are talking about adding an option for people. Some people opt for public school, some people private school, but private schools aren't out of business. Heck, some people with Medicare who can afford it buy private supplemental insurance, so there's already a precedent - there is still a market for private insurance for people over 65.

(how did we get into insurance in the school speech thread anyway? wasn't there already a health insurance thread somewhere?)

(Because... we're EA? )

EA? Pie! I want more pie!

drmomentum Wrote:This is why insurance companies love it.



Yes, but then they'd have to come up with a suggestion for cost containment, and not many of those have the same impact as allowing non-profit-driven insurance carrier.

I don't think many people get that the public option is still insurance, it's just insurance that isn't run by people looking to get rich off you.

No, I get that completely. I'm for health insurance reform... just not reforming it in favor of health insurance companies.

I'm for health insurance reform that makes sense. THAT doesn't make any sense. How does that help anybody BUT the health insurance companies?

I'm feeling extremely dense, here. How is that a good idea for making insurance accessible to all?

I'm gonna take a stab at understanding this, and I don't pretend to understand it at all. I honestly don't, and I want to.

Private Insurance companies will continue to exist.

For those who do not have employer-driven insurance, or private insurance, the government will become their "insurance company", but at a much cheaper rate than buying individual private insurance. So in essence the government will be the insurance company.

I guess it is intended to drive rates of private companies down??? But I don't understand how that will happen.

the govt will run another "insurance company". Since it is government run, it will not be a "for Profit" company. It will give everyone access, and the competition will force private insurance companies to put checks and balances on their costs. The requirment of everyone to carry health insurance also drives more people into the system. The govt run plan is just another option.

mjfrombuffalo Wrote:No, doesn't include the coverage, that's the fine for not getting coverage. (well in a way it DOES include coverage - catastrophic Medicaid, if you get seriously ill with no insurance and qualify in your state.)

I agree that health care reform is necessary. But where is it written that the federal government has the power to mandate for individuals the purchase of health insurance and fine those who do not comply? I see this as a huge power grab.

We've changed things significantly because of "homeland security." I think some would argue that was a huge power grab, while others would argue that it was something that HAD to be done, but was not foreseen by the authors of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

I think the standard of care, globally, has grown significantly. We are lagging behind.

I really and truly don't know the answer about HOW to fix health care, but I know the government should not allow people to die just because they don't have a ton of money, or insurance.

Drivers are mandated to have auto insurance, so there's a similar precedent.

Is that at the Federal level? I thought that was State.

I believe it's one of those things like the speed limit - the state doesn't have to do it but the feds will give them less highway money if they don't.

magenta321 Wrote:Is that at the Federal level? I thought that was State.

It is at the state level and different states have different requirements as to how much insurance you have to carry.

The big difference is that you don't have to own an auto. With health insurance mandates everyone would have to have it.

I can't think of anything that any level of government requires you to buy just for existing.

but people who don't get insurance can still get emergency treatment and the public ends up paying.

I think it boils down to being part of a society. The society as a group provides certain "perks" but someone has to pay.

I don't have a problem with the govt requiring that people carry health insurance. The difficulty I see is determining who can and who can't afford it. There are people who will need a subsidy, but where that line is drawn will be difficult to determine.

We don't care if people don't have auto insurance until they hit us and, at no fault of our own, we owe money. That happened to me when I was hit by an under-insured driver and I had to pay my deductible.

So we can say we don't care if someone without insurance doesn't get treatment, but I hope we do care. We certainly will care when that person has something like tuberculosis, and others start to get sick.

If we want to be a society we need to take care of the members of that society. To me that is a no brainer. Where to draw the lines regarding costs - that's pretty complicated though.

This lagging behind that you refer to is purely insurance for all care not in the quality of health care. Maybe, one has something to do with the other whether we want to think so or not. If I am ill and need hospitalization or specialists I ONLY want to find myself in an American hospital using doctors that practice here. While our insurance is high beyond belief, somehow that system has fostered the best medical treatment in the world. I usually don't wax and wane about America but I am familiar with the care in England, Scotland, Italy and a few other nations and it is nothing to compare to ours. We have the best and the latest and the best people that know how to use it.

I have less of a problem with guaranteeing a standard level of health care for everyone as part of a system of social services paid for with tax dollars (much like the protection provided for us through our military) than I do with telling people that they have to purchase health care and fining them if they don't. What level of bureaucracy will that take in addition to the current? If we're trying to save money, adding more government isn't going to solve the problem. And assessing huge penalties to folks who for some very good reasons may not be able to purchase policies isn't good government either.

I too am uncomfortable with the fine, however, I think the goal is to make healthcare affordable for everyone (which may mean free to some), and if that is the case, than I don't think its unreasonable to expect people to be covered.

It seems we all want some sort of healthcare reform, but we're struggling to find the best way.

mjfrombuffalo Wrote:Drivers are mandated to have auto insurance, so there's a similar precedent.

My state requires liability insurance (for 3rd party claims), but I don't have to carry insurance to cover my car or me. Do some states require you to carry insurance to cover yourself? I guess if you have a loan you have to carry collision insurance, but thats more to protect the loan holder. I don't see car insurance as a precedent for health insurance.

Maryland operates under the liability only required system too. No-fault states are more similar to health insurance mandates, though.

The concept of fining people who cannot afford health insurance, for whatever reason, even if it's poor planning, isn't going to work.

We're no fault and have to carry coverage on ourselves to renew our yearly plates.

PA requires insurance.

Prepoia Wrote:This lagging behind that you refer to is purely insurance for all care not in the quality of health care. Maybe, one has something to do with the other whether we want to think so or not. If I am ill and need hospitalization or specialists I ONLY want to find myself in an American hospital using doctors that practice here. While our insurance is high beyond belief, somehow that system has fostered the best medical treatment in the world. I usually don't wax and wane about America but I am familiar with the care in England, Scotland, Italy and a few other nations and it is nothing to compare to ours. We have the best and the latest and the best people that know how to use it.

I don't quite get the claims that we have the "best are anywhere" when our infant mortality rate is higher than most industrialized nations, our life expectancy is lower, and our per capita costs are much much higher.

mjfrombuffalo Wrote:I don't quite get the claims that we have the "best are anywhere" when our infant mortality rate is higher than most industrialized nations, our life expectancy is lower, and our per capita costs are much much higher.

Regarding infant mortality, other countries count dead infants differently than we do. They don't count stillborns or very premature babies as infant deaths. Some of the differences in life expectancies are also due to our higher auto accident rates and murder rates.

The better way to examine if healthcare is working is by looking at healthcare, not different counting methods or societal differences.

We have the best care anywhere, but it is not available to all people.

We have adequate care for all, but those who can't pay are haunted by collection agencies if they can't pay for what they got.

We should not have to have fundraisers for critically ill children to get the best care. Families have to worry enough and deal with the stress of an ill child.

We absolutely need reform. But making the same people who would find themselves looking for fundraisers for their children look for fundraisers to pay their premiums or, worse, pay the fine and then still have to pay the medical bills for their children... that is not the way.

The private insurance lobby is as powerful as the likes of AIG and GM ... they are not going to go along with reform. We have to be strong and kick some ass. But, alas, there are not Teddy Roosevelts around any more, are there? And FDR got what he got because times were desperate (don't even begin to call the easy life most of us have desperate as compared to the 30s.)

We absolutely must protest the forced insurance and instead of thrusting more debt on people who are trying to keep their head out of the water we should sink the private insurance companies and clean house.

The corporate culture is far too strong in this country. I'm sick of them having their way with our government.

Not to worry. Obama promised over and over again during the campaign that he would not raise any form of taxes on families making under $250,000 a year. Not one dime higher. Surely, we all believe him.