IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Don't get angry, get determined.
http://www.balloon-j.../#comment-4572551

80. fuckwit says:

August 13, 2013 at 7:56 pm

@Kay: This is MLK’s strategy (which he got from Gandhi). You act with dignity, exercise your rights and your humanity with dignity, and let the haters hate on you, take the punches (and firehoses, and insults, and rubber bullets, etc) with resolve, and you don’t strike back, you don’t stoop to their level, you carry on with pride and humility and determination, and let the haters’ hatefullness stand in stark contrast and speak for itself. Then you let decent people who haven’t been paying attention, suddenly take notice of how vile the haters are. And they withdraw their support for the haters, most importantly the implicit support that was obtained by the hate being under radar, hidden. The more and more people come over to the side of justice, and more and more people back away slowly from the side of hate. This is how the Civil Rights movement got their work done. This is how Obama has dealt with the Rethugs since day 1. I was so pissed off at him for the way he was doing things in the early ACA debate, until I understood the strategy, where it comes from, and why he’s doing it that way. Now he has the Rethugs to a point where they’re willng to shut down the United States of America just out of pure mean-spiritedness and spite, to keep 30 million poor people from having medical care, and a hundred of million from having more affordable/available care… and people are finally starting to take notice. Hopefully they’ll notice the hell out of it before the 2014 elections!!

I remember protesting in Dianne Feinstein’s office in 2009, agitating for Medicare for All instead of the ACA. I was with a group that was not affiliated with OFA, and we were irritated by the sellout nature of ACA. An older African-American woman among the group of OFA protesters that was standing near me, turned to me and said “you shouldn’t talk like that, you’ll make people angry, and we don’t want to be angry”. I was surprised, found the perspective interesting, but was a little annoyed by that gentle but unsolicited advice/lecture and was not moved to change what I was doing. I continued on and she quite deliberately turned her back on me and walked away as quickly as possible. It was certainly done respectfully, but it also clearly said, “I do not approve of what you’re doing, I think it is harmful, and I don’t want to be associated with you or be near you.” That did make me wonder if I was doing something wrong. But it was much later, after ACA passed, that I realized she was right. Being angry and bitter and cynical, and pushing for impossible idealized perfection, does not get shit done, does not draw support from non-combatants (the vast majority of voters who aren’t political junkies), and does not present a dignified position and contrast. Also, it is really only now, in the post Trayvon Martin world, that I realized another layer: what I thought was my righteous indignation and my insistence on perfection was really just my white male privilege: not everyone gets to make demands or speak their mind so bluntly, and I need to be mindful of that if I’m working with people who might not be able to get away with going down that road. And that’s really the case in almost all broad-based grassroots political action, it seems.


Very well said.

Cheers,
Scott.
New so paying a shitload of cash to inurance companies
and restricting american's working hours to 29 and insuring that they will never get health insurance? That's a win for insurance companies alright but not for american's so much.
Oh I forgot 99% of small companies doing that is "anecdotal" the president's official mumblers have apprised us of this previously.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
New I always thought...
that companies hired people and set their hours based upon how much work needed to be done and how much money they leave on the table if they don't have enough people.

I used to think that benefits like health insurance was part of a worker's total compensation. If a boss cuts their workers hours, or increases the cost of their insurance, or eliminates their insurance, then the workers have the option of leaving. And then the company has the expense of hiring someone to replace those experienced workers who left, increasing their costs.

To hear the talking points over the last 5 years or so, I guess that's all wrong. I guess it doesn't work that way any more. Instead companies hire people and set their hours based on whether they get enough deference from everyone else. And they can cut hours and reduce benefits during a time when the economy is (slowly) growing and the rest of the workforce will be enjoying increased benefits (thanks to the PPACA) without consequences. Or something. :-/

http://www.irs.gov/u...r-Small-Employers

What You Need to Know about the Small Business Health Care Tax Credit
How will the credit make a difference for you?

For tax years 2010 through 2013, the maximum credit is 35 percent for small business employers and 25 percent for small tax-exempt employers such as charities. An enhanced version of the credit will be effective beginning Jan. 1, 2014. Additional information about the enhanced version will be added to IRS.gov as it becomes available. In general, on Jan. 1, 2014, the rate will increase to 50 percent and 35 percent, respectively.

Here’s what this means for you. If you pay $50,000 a year toward workers’ health care premiums – and if you qualify for a 15 percent credit, you save … $7,500. If you save $7,500 a year from tax year 2010 through 2013, that’s total savings of $30,000. If, in 2014, you qualify for a slightly larger credit, say 20 percent, your savings go from $7,500 a year to $12,000 a year.

[...]

Can you claim the credit?

Now that you know how the credit can make a difference for your business, let’s determine if you can claim it.

To be eligible, you must cover at least 50 percent of the cost of single (not family) health care coverage for each of your employees. You must also have fewer than 25 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs). Those employees must have average wages of less than $50,000 a year.

Let us break it down for you even more.

You are probably wondering: what IS a full-time equivalent employee. Basically, two half-time workers count as one full-timer. Here is an example, 20 half-time employees are equivalent to 10 full-time workers. That makes the number of FTEs 10 not 20.


Tyranny!!!1111

Obviously since the PPACA isn't perfect, it means that Obama is responsible for destroying the country and is just waiting for the right time to have the NSA swoop down with their black helicopters and throw us all in Gitmo for not spending 50% of our gross income on health insurance... http://www.thedailys...xtended-interview

Please.

Oh, also, too - http://thinkprogress...use-of-obamacare/

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New have a free anecdote
In March, Regal Entertainment Group, the country's largest chain of movie theaters, cut non-salaried employees' hours, citing the Affordable Care Act in a memo distributed to all staff. Regal Entertainment declined to comment on the memo.

Regal is not alone. A number of municipalities, school districts, and some businesses that rely on hourly workers have made similar announcements, or have said they are considering such a move.

my county just outsourced the custodial services for the school system to avoid the obamacare cost savings </snark>
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
New Wow.
If a boss cuts their workers hours, or increases the cost of their insurance, or eliminates their insurance, then the workers have the option of leaving.

I never knew you had any latent, severe Nixonian "Love It or Leave It" attitudes.
New Nice. :-/
New Sound like that political guy**...
That said something on the order of:

"Why don't they {Victims of sexual harassment} quit once the so-called harassment starts? If not, the harassed cannot escape some responsibility for the problem. Seeking protection under the civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable"

Wow, Another Scott, sure does sound like you, trotting out something like this.

(Yes, please take it the way it is meant, not some attack)
--
greg@gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C

** Political guy == Ron Paul
New I'm trying to be realistic here.
I recognize as well as anyone the hardship that changing jobs can cause.

My point could certainly have been expressed better, but I think it stands. The relationship between an employer and an employee is always a compromise and based on an implicit bargain. That does not mean that I believe the relationship is a bargain between equals. There is obviously a power disparity, and obviously fundamental rights can come into play.

I was trying to illustrate that the 1%ers line that 'OMG we'll have to cut hours if the PPACA is enacted' is only one talking point on one side of the issue. Companies don't hire people or assign hours based on the goodness of their hearts. They do it based on the need to have people to earn money. If they cut hours because their feelings are hurt or because they believe that a basic insurance policy is going to cost them $15k/yr for a $30k/yr employee, then they're letting emotion and stupid political talking points blind them to reality. And they deserve what they get when their employees leave and their business fails.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New That's the BEST argument YET for Single Payer.
New When you can find 60 votes in the Senate for it, we'll talk.
New Things change...
They seem to be... but out of desperation, the "others" like to use it against the desperate.
--
greg@gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
New Ding ding ding!
--
greg@gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
New Thanks for clarification.
I appreciate it!
--
greg@gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
New cherokee country school district isn't a 1%
although Rick Steiner may be if he saved some money from rasslin
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
New Schools are being strangled by various factors.
The implosion of the housing market; lack of revenue from the Feds; state and local governments that have to run a balanced budget no matter how bad the economy is; "reform" mania that is designed to transfer the public schools to private companies; etc. are all strangling the public schools. Politicians are using those factors as excuses to cut all sorts of expenses, including health insurance benefits.

It doesn't mean that Obamacare is the reason for the cuts.

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New excuses? not hardly bolded portion mine
http://woodstock.pat...vatize-custodians
The district made the change to adjust to the state eliminating funding towards its non-certified employees participating in the State Health Benefit Plan, recurring, increasing costs in employer and employee costs towards the plan and complying with the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The superintendent said the state had allocated $400 million towards the State Health Benefit Plan, but that money has been "withdrawn," forcing local school districts to make up for the shortfall as well as continue to keep pace with premiums that have "skyrocketed."

"We just simply can’t afford to pay that kind of money for participation in state health benefit plan for all our non-certified employees," he added, noting the same people will be cleaning the district's schools, but won't be on the district's payroll.

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
New More...
http://www.cherokee....ncial%20Facts.pdf (6 page .pdf):

For the next (2013-14) school year, CCSD expects to be approximately $60 Million short of the funding needed to completely restore current budget cuts (e.g., furlough days, increased class size and fewer instructional days) . . . resulting primarily from continued State “austerity” reductions ($24.8 Million) and years of significant decreases in the local Property Tax Digest revenue ($9 Million this year and $30 Million cumulative for 2009-2012).


HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New from the same document, bold is mine
CCSD insurance costs for non-certified employees (e.g., grounds crews, custodians, bus drivers, etc.) are expected to more than double, from
$4.9 Million in 2011-12 to $12.7 Million in 2014-
15, according to officials in the State’s Department
of Community Health, which is now responsible for
the State Health Benefit Plan (SHBP) covering more
than 650,000 State employees. The increased cost
in this regard for 2013-14 is $2.6 Million. Additionally, school districts across the State will have to
cover benefit costs for all full-time employees . . . as
required by the new federal health insurance law


sure its gonna save a lot of money, sure it is
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
New Keep ignoring everything else...
http://portal.cherok.../OGP/default.aspx

Executive Summary - Tentative Budget 2009-10
The proposed Tentative Budget, which does not include a property tax/millage rate increase, addresses the major challenges facing the School District resulting from: significant declines in State and Local revenue; continued State “austerity budget reductions”; a legislatively-required Local Property Tax valuation freeze; a continued increase in student population growth; capital outlay costs for construction of schools and support facilities, land purchases for future school sites, as well as technology replacements and enhancements; opening of the new Mill Creek Middle school; escalating energy and health care costs; and the extraordinary impact of a continuing pattern of State unfunded and underfunded mandates (e.g., transportation, special education, textbooks, etc.)…requiring the utilization of additional local resources to meet critical needs.


Executive Summary - Tentative Budget 2010-11
The proposed 2010-11 Tentative Budget reflects one of the most financially challenging budget years that the School District has ever had to cope with . . . in preparing a balanced budget for consideration by the Board of Education. It addresses: continued/increasing State educational funding reductions of $25 Million in fiscal year 2010-11, which temporarily are bolstered by Federal Stimulus Funds of $3.2 Million – and which will be totally depleted in 2011-12; a significant decline of $12.8 Million in local property tax funding due to residential foreclosures, property value devaluation and a legislatively-required local property tax valuation cap/freeze; a continued increase in student population growth - projected at 653 students; capital outlay costs for construction of schools and support facilities, land purchases for future school sites, as well as technology replacements and enhancements; opening of the R.M. Moore classroom addition and the addition of 10th grade at the new River Ridge High School; escalating energy and health care costs; and the extraordinary impact of a continuing pattern of State unfunded and underfunded mandates (e.g., transportation, special education, textbooks, etc.) . . . requiring the utilization of additional local resources to meet critical needs. In addition to making over $28 Million in General Fund/Operating Budget cuts necessary as a result of these extraordinary shortfalls in State and Local revenue, and to maintain a quality educational program for our students, I am recommending a one mill property tax/millage rate increase to balance the 2010-11 Budget. All other options would cause irreparable damage to the educational services and programs offered by CCSD to its students in 2010-11 and thereafter.


Executive Summary - Tentative Budget 2012-13
The proposed 2012-13 Tentative Budget reflects another year of the most financial challenges with which the School District has ever had to cope in preparing an annual balanced budget for consideration by the Board of Education. Over the last eleven years, CCSD has witnessed over $147.6 Million of accumulative State Education Funding earnings being withheld from the School District by the State…theoretically to help balance the State’s Budget during a time period of unprecedented economic downturn and has also faced an additional $30.4 Million reduction (24.3% decline in property values) in collection of local property taxes over the last four years.

Accordingly, the 2012-13 Tentative Budget addresses: continued State Education Funding reductions (so-called “austerity cuts”) of $26.5 Million; another significant decline of $9.3 Million in local property tax funding due to residential foreclosures and property assessment devaluation; a continued increase in student population growth - projected at 292 students; capital outlay costs for construction of schools, technology replacements and enhancements; opening of the new Clark Creek Elementary School, the replacement Ball Ground Elementary School and the addition of 12th grade at the new River Ridge High School; escalating State cost shifts to local school districts in health care and teacher retirement benefits; and the extraordinary impact of a continuing pattern of State unfunded and underfunded mandates (e.g., transportation, special education, textbooks, etc.) … requiring the necessary utilization of additional budget cuts/reductions to meet critical operational needs. As a result of these continued shortfalls in State and Local revenue, and to maintain a quality educational program for our students, over $22.8 Million is required in additional operating budget cuts for 2012-13…beyond the $37.5 Million of the current year’s budget reductions/cost containment, which includes the addition of four furlough days to the already existing four days (for a total of eight furlough days) for full-time employees.


Yup. It's all Obamacare's fault. Just like you said. Yup.

Cheers,
Scott.
New not ignoring anything
you stated that 1% are being petty about cutting employees and hours. You have also parroted about the savings of obama cares.

I reply that our school district had to outsource custodial work because obamacare was going to DOUBLE the premiums for ALL school distric employees but the district is only required to privide that level of care for employees. They can't outsource teachers.

All of your harumphing, hand waving and misdirection about lack of funding for schools doesn't make the fact that obamacare costs are going to double here and that fact caused people to lose benefits and get outsourced. That is the ONLY reason they were outsourced.

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
New We disagree.
New that obamacare costs are going to double here? :-)
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
New The only reason...
they are going to double... is that your state is fighting it.

Seems that states that embrace it are seeing HUGE reductions in premiums.

Funny that happens huh? I can't imagine why putting huge road blocks in the way and forcing a WHOLE OTHER system to be setup, is making the costs higher. Color me boxley.
--
greg@gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
New how easily they forget
the deals made by states for votes 4.3 billion in the case of louisiana
http://www.forbes.co...uisiana-purchase/
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
New Yup. That's not "Obamacare" costing more, but stupidity.
Aided and abetted -- and in effect, therefore, partly provided -- by you and ornery cunts like you.
--
Christian R. Conrad
Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi

(Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
New Money is fungible. You know this.
http://gbpi.org/loca...re-the-new-normal

“This status quo that we’re having now with shorter school days, higher classes, furlough days, shorter school years, all the ways the local districts are managing their budget shortfalls, all of that will continue,” Essig added.

How did Georgia get to this point?

First, nearly a decade state cuts to education. Ten years ago the state contributed 60 percent of school district funds.

“Right now, it’s 50-50,” Essig said.

On top of that, systems must cope with a significant drop in local funding.

“As a result of the great recession and the housing crisis we’re facing, a huge drop in property taxes across the state,” Essig said.

Third, and new this year: the state is no longer paying health insurance for non-certified employees such as bus drivers, custodians, and cafeteria workers.

“All of those things combined are causing significant budget deficits in schools across the state,” Essig said.


Emphasis added.

Obummer didn't make Georgia cut their insurance payments to school employees. Your Republican elected representatives did that.

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New still trying to deny that the cost will double
which is why cherokee county had to outsource. Without the doubling due to obamacare we could have come up with the cash. That question was asked and answered in the meeting.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
New <sigh>
I'm only willing to butt heads with that brick wall head of yours so many times... :-)

http://dch.georgia.g...Budgets_May_9.pdf (26 page .PDF):

See pages 22-23.
FY13
Increase employee premiums 2% ($6,881,250) due to increased costs as a result of the requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act


FY14
Increase employee premiums 2% ($11,966,438) due to increased costs as a result of the requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act


All of the other revenue increases for the Georgia Department of Community Heath (which runs the schools' health insurance program) is a result of choices by your elected officials. Not Obamacare.

I think I'm done with this topic.

Cheers,
Scott.
New okay, catch you in the next thread
not sure why you were listing employee increases instead of school board increases but oh well
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
New Holy fuck, are you really that stupid?
Here I thought it was you being weirdly Yanker-than-the-Yanks for some idiosyncratic gotta-fit-in reason related to you being a first-gen immigrant, but it's beginning to seem that perhaps you are actually really that duped by the Repo rhetoric. Newsflash, BOxy-boy: Just because they *say* it's a "doubling due to obamacare" doesn't mean that's actually what it is.

Or, what, is "obamacare" only going into effect in Georgia, and not in places like New York state? I was labouring under the impression that it was national, federal! How fucking wilfully blind are you being, not to be able to see that this is probably a doubling due to *Republican Georgia politicians trying to sabotage* "obamacare" that you're talking about?

It's one of the oldest tricks in the book: "Let's ratchet up the cost, and claim it's Obummer's fault!" And you're falling for that... Shee-it, man, and here I thought you were smarter than the average garden slug.

Please try to be.
--
Christian R. Conrad
Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi

(Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
New explainin to the ignorant furriner read th comment this time
health care needs to be paid
there is this thing called money that has to come from somewhere to pay the healthcare
if you are a county school district government worker, your employer paid health care portion is paid by money usually collected from the realestate tax, income tax and sales taxes.


Income and most sales taxes are collected by the state
realestate and a small portion of the the sales tax is collected by the county.

School boards are local residents of the county, elected, only one teabagger out of seven and she is gonna get recalled if not convicted for filing a false police report.

The state has decided that they were no longer kicking in the portion of the employer paid part of non certified employees (non teachers)Republica assholes as Scott has referred to them

The county school boad decided ouch but we would find the money.

IMPORTANT PART
The state health care system is self funded. We do not pay insurance companies to do the health care. It is negotiated with the providers to get a cheap price and it is self funded.
That organization stated that the amount of money needed to cover obamacare changes would approximately double in 2014.

So funding cut FIRST then being told that not only funding cuts for non certified but payments needed to double because of obamacare requirements in 2014

The schoolboard then set out a proposal and accepted the deal fro Aramark.

Now you can join nother on the handwaving team or gather with greg on the drooling into their depends team if you wish. Costs will be going up dramatically because of obamacare provisions. Even some democrats in washington are recognising that.




Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
New Yep.
This bill was never about anything other than generating more revenue for private health insurance companies. That was the singular goal and no consideration was ever given to the impact on anything else. The attitude was and as long as Wall Street owns that Yankee government will always be: "Screw the people, Wall Street needs more of their money!" Nobody running a self-funded plan is making any money from premiums. So self-funders were never considered in the drafting of the legislation. The fact that a self-funded plan can even be contemplated by mid-size employers should be enough evidence that there is far too much profit being taken by people who contribute nothing to the delivery of healthcare in this country. But those very people - the privateers - are the only people the Yankee government cares about and works for (aside: arguably, s/works for/is owned by). The additional expenses of the ACA that defenders love to talk about were the crumbs that were fed to useful idiots (think most Democrats) as evidence that their representatives cared about them. But the cost for those "good parts of the Bill" that were designed to be born by private insurers were going to be offset in a HUGE way by the windfall that would be enjoyed by the private insurers.

Nobody but Big Pharma and Big Private Health Insurers were ever even considered in the drafting of the turd that is the ACA.
New That's why the Republicans have voted to repeal it, amirite?
New You expect *ME* to explain Republican thought processes?
New Now, I'm a supporter...
But this is happening.

My son works at Kroger, the nation's largest retailer, and they were just informed that part time workers would all be capped at 28 hours a week due to the health care law.
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New Understood.
The US economy is big. The PPACA is multi-faceted. It's not perfect, but it's a vast improvement over what we had before. There will be some losers - and with luck those things can be fixed when the House returns to sanity...

Kroger is a big business and is unionized. Perhaps their statements have to do with putting pressure on the union - http://www.wcpo.com/...s-come-into-focus

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New It's "the bill you like least".
See link downstream for Obama's quote from a DNC fundraiser.
New See my reply below.
New Here's the full quote.
From http://web.archive.o...allroom-10/20/09/

A speech to a DNC fundraiser on 10/20/2009:

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, well, the banks, they don't want financial regulation; I guess it's just too hard. You know, that poster was nice during the campaign; we had some fun, but oh, well. (Laughter.) We didn’t work so hard to leave our problems to the next generation, the next administration. We came to solve these problems -- right here, right now. (Applause.)

Now is the time to build a clean energy economy that can put people back to work. (Applause.) Now is the time to educate every American child so they can compete in a global economy. (Applause.) Now is the time to make sure that every American has affordable health care. That's what we're fighting for! Not later, but now! (Applause.)

You fired up?

AUDIENCE: Yes!

THE PRESIDENT: I want to recognize the people in this room and the folks watching online who are helping us do exactly that. I want to thank all the Organizing for America volunteers for making calls, knocking on doors, keeping up the fight. (Applause.) You know why this is so important. You know premiums have doubled over the past decade. Some of you have seen it -- your employer said, I'm sorry, I don't want to do it to you, but I'm doubling your premiums. In some cases, what they're paying, your employers are paying is going up even faster than what you're paying. It's unsustainable. It could double again in the next decade. You know that millions of people in this country have been discriminated because they don't -- of a preexisting condition. You know that more companies are dropping coverage. You know that more and more families are struggling to pay for health care even if they have insurance, out-of-pocket costs going up faster and faster.

And you know what Tim Kaine understood and underscored -- we are closer than we've ever been. This has been a battle that has lasted since Teddy Roosevelt -- the basic principle that part of our social contract is you don't go bankrupt if you get sick; that families shouldn’t have to worry if their children need help -- (applause) -- that we are looking after each other enough to make sure that everybody has health care in this country. (Applause.)

We're closer than we've ever been. Five committees of Congress all voted out legislation. As Tim said, the differences are starting to narrow and we're going to, pretty soon, be hitting the floor of the House and the Senate with bills; then we're going to reconcile them. And then we're going to have to vote on them again. And then I'm going to sign it. (Applause.)

Now, there are still some details and some disagreements that have to be worked out.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Single payer!

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Public option!

THE PRESIDENT: Let me say this, because somebody just brought up something. (Laughter.) Among Democrats and progressives there are a whole set of views about how we should do health care. But understand that the bill you least like in Congress right now, the one you least like of the five that are out there would provide 29 million Americans health care -- 29 million Americans who don't have it right now would get it. The bill you least like would prevent insurance companies from barring you from getting health insurance because of preexisting conditions. (Applause.) Whatever the bill you least like would set up an exchange so that people right now who are having to try to bargain for health insurance on their own are suddenly part of a pool of millions that forces insurance companies to compete for their business and give them better deals and lower rates. (Applause.)

So there are going to be some disagreements and details to work out. But to the Democrats, I want to say to you, Democrats, let's make sure that we keep our eye on the prize. (Applause.) And that is, all those millions of Americans who don't have health insurance and all those who do have health insurance that are seeing their costs go up, if we get a bill -- when we get a bill that delivers on those issues --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: When?

THE PRESIDENT: When. That's what I said. (Applause.) Then we have to do everything we can to support it. You know, sometimes Democrats can be their own worst enemies. (Applause.) Democrats are an opinionated bunch. (Applause.) You know, the other side, they just kind of -- sometimes -- do what they're told. (Laughter.) Democrats, you all are thinking for yourselves. (Applause.) I like that in you. But it's time for us to make sure that we finish the job here. We are this close. And we've got to be unified. (Applause.)

And to all those non-Democrats who may be in the audience -- (laughter) -- or who are watching our webcast, or who will hear about this on cable -- (laughter) -- I want you to know I believe in a strong and loyal opposition. I believe in a two-party system where ideas are tested and assumptions are challenged. That's made this legislation that we're working on better and more durable. That's how our democracy works. That's a good thing.


Context matters.

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New before folkert gets penis firmly in hand
we need medicare/medicaid available for all. Take it out of our paychecks, add 2% I have mentioned this before
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
New Purity or Nothing, right?
1) How do you propose to get a Medicare for All bill through the House and Senate?

2) Do you think that if a Medicare for All bill made it through the House and Senate that Obama would veto it?

Thanks.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Answer to (1)
We could have representative government.

Two-thirds of Americans support Medicare-for-all (#3 of 6)

Informative polls show two-thirds support for single-payer
By Kip Sullivan, JD

In Part 2 of this six-part series, I reported on the results of two “citizen jury” experiments in which advocates for single-payer, managed competition, and high-deductible policies spoke to, and were questioned by, “juries” that were representative of America. In the case of the 1993 “jury” sponsored by the Jefferson Center, 71 percent voted for single-payer. In the case of the 1996 “jury,” 61 percent voted for single-payer when no specific information about its cost to individuals was presented, and 79 percent voted for a single-payer system that would have lowered premium and out-of-pocket costs by as much as taxes rose. Both juries rejected proposals relying on health insurance companies by huge majorities.
...
Table 1: Polls indicating majority support for single-payer

……………………………………………………………For single-payer……..Opposed to single-payer

General public: Polls in which support is 60 percent or higher

Harvard University/Harris (1988)(a)……………………61%…………..not asked
LA Times (1990)(b)…………………………………………….66%………….not asked
Wall Street Journal-NBC (1991)(c)……………………….69%…………….20%
Wash Post-ABC News (2003)(d)…………………………..62%………….not asked
Civil Society Institute (2004)(e)……………………………67%……………..27%
AP-Yahoo (2007)(f)……………………………………………..65%…………..not asked
Grove Insight (2009)(g)………………………………………64%……………..28%
Grove Insight (2009)(g)………………………………………60%……………..27%

General public: Polls in which support is below 60 percent

AP-Yahoo (2007)(f)……………………………………………..54%……………….44%
Kaiser Family Foundation (2009)(h)……………………..58%……………….38%
Kaiser Family Foundation (2009)(h)……………………..50%……………….44%

Doctors

New Eng J Med (medical school faculty and students) (1999)……………….57%…………….not asked
Arch Int Med (doctors) (2004)………………………………64%…………….not asked
Minnesota Med (doctors) (2007)……………………………64%…………….not asked

http://pnhp.org/blog...thirds-support-3/
New Question.
Do you *HONESTLY* think that if a Medicare for All bill were introduced and Obama said he was *ALL FOR IT!!!11!!!!*... how long do you think it would take for it to be voted on... and what do you think the outcome would be in the House and Senate, regardless?

And please be honest.
--
greg@gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
New You've got a point.
Obama is, at best, an ineffectual leader.
New Ineffectual for certain things...
Other things, he is doing great.

I don't particularly care about many things the hand waving right is doing. Nor do I ethically approve of some of the things Obama is excelling at. But... if the Extreme Right (which is in charge of the GOP at the moment) were to actually see the insanity in which they are progressing... pushing the Bell Curve so far right that the left has dropped off... I wonder what would happen if they weren't so damned adversarial.
--
greg@gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
New What color unicorn would you like with that?
We could have 3% unemployment, too.

Now please tell me how a Medicare for All bill would get through the House and Senate.

Thanks.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Objection. Asked and Answered.
It would only go through the Fed *if* we had representative government. A lot of idiots in 2008 *thought* they were getting "Change we can believe in", but they were delusional (and racist, BTW, "Look, he's got to be Progressive. He's mixed race!"). Obama's election made things much, much, much worse. What remained of the Left in this country has exited the process entirely. And why shouldn't they? If Obama is what passes for a Left-Of-Center politician in this country, we may as well leave everything to the Tea Baggers.

We already had a Senate that was Wall Street Banker owned, his election meant we had an Executive branch that continued to be a Wall Street Banker owned institution. The House, under Pelosi and with a strong Democratic majority, was itself largely functional and the *only* representative government we had. But the betrayal of the Left by Obama (who gave him the White House in the first place) meant that they stayed home in the 2010 elections. The Wingnut Hard Right has one thing correct: Obama's election destroyed what was left of the country. But not for the reasons they think (his mixed race); rather, for the reason that he successfully passed as a Liberal and then showed his true Bush III colors.
New Welp, you've made this forum a lot easier to traverse.
Since only things that Big Money supports will get votes in the senate, and Big Money wants an authoritarian and unfettered fascist government, I guess fascism in the U.S. is a foregone conclusion. Not my cup of tea, but since you seem to support it, I guess everything will be fine. And it saves so much reading. Nothing to see here; we'll all be told exactly what reality is (at the moment.)
New <sigh>
Few things would make me happier than Medicare for All. I'd like to see it in my lifetime. Similarly for (a sensible system for) publicly funded election campaigns with uniform national voting standards (for things like days for early voting, mail-in ballots, acceptable proof of eligibility, etc., etc.).

Given the reality of the composition of the House and Senate over the last 5+ years, and the history of the USA, I'm willing to accept incremental progress.

I understand where you folks are coming from - believe it or not. I just don't think that throwing spitballs from the peanut gallery is the way to get to where we (including me) want to be.

Idealism has its place for inspiring people to do better. When it becomes a hindrance to actual progress, well, then it's a hindrance to actual progress. ;-)

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Answer to (2): No question. He absolutely would.
New Evidence, please.
http://en.wikipedia....dent_Barack_Obama

Barack Obama[edit source | editbeta]

December 30, 2009: Vetoed H.J.Res. 64, Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes. Override attempt failed in House.[35]
October 7, 2010: Vetoed H.R. 3808, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010. Override attempt failed in House.[36]


Yeah, he would veto anything even slightly progressive. Look at his record. </snark>

Cheers,
Scott.
New Ask and Ye shall receive.
Why should we not also believe that the White House has a deal to shield insurers from competition by preventing the creation of a public option in exchange for the insurers agreeing to reforms on guaranteed issue and limited community ratings (with the flexibility Baucus provided) and to support this framework with tv ads? (Read Ignagni’s WaPo op-ed today; while defending the PwC study, she says they made a deal, but Baucus broke it; she didn’t say the deal’s off.)

The White House isn’t taking up most of the chairs in Harry’s Reid’s meetings just to watch him make decisions on his own. They’re there to make sure Harry Reid doesn’t undo the White House deals and wander off the reservation.

This President has filled the White House with people who have no inclination to pose any major challenge to the economic power of America’s dominant financial industries (GM being an exception). We’ve already seen this in their dealings with Wall Street investment banks and their too-big-to-fail is too-big-to-challenge approach to financial regulation. We’re seeing it now with efforts to shield the major health and insurance industries from any fundamental challenge.

Sure, there are changes being offered, new regulations being proposed, and more people will be insured than before. But there is no framework being laid for a new structure for how health care is delivered and paid for in America. That is the pattern of this White House, and there is little basis to expect otherwise.

Watch the decisions Harry “makes” in coming days. My bet is they’ll shore up the underlying deals — they’ll make mandated insurance modestly more affordable and fix the mandates a bit, while protecting the insurers from a viable, functioning public option. The industry will still control a system in which consumers will be forced to buy their unreliable products with government subsidies.

And seeing this coming, Nancy Pelosi will push a more reform-minded House to fight back as hard as they can. The House now carries the hopes for even limited reform. Sadly, her opposition is not just the Senate’s 60 vote barrier; it’s in the White House.

http://my.firedoglak...-a-public-option/
New FDL speculation isn't evidence.
FDL was trying to lead the people who wanted a public option in the PPACA, then went off the rails and teamed up with Grover to try to kill it.

http://www.youtube.c...tch?v=fpAyan1fXCE (0:54)

(Please don't bring up other topics where Obama has changed his position - it's not germane to this topic.)

There's a big difference in trying to craft legislation to get enough votes to pass, and vetoing legislation that has already passed. People like Hamsher and others at FDL never got that. I guess you haven't either.

http://en.wikipedia....e_Care_Act#Senate

On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill (a cloture vote to end the filibuster by opponents). The bill then passed by a vote of 60–39 on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against except one (Jim Bunning (R-KY), not voting).[217]


Obama got all he could at the time. Medicare for All would not have passed.

But we've been through this multiple times...

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Here's our difference.
The ACA accomplishes almost nothing. From strictly a pragmatic POV, if the ACA was "the best he could do" then he shouldn't have spent *any* political capital on it. It doesn't make anything better. The "pre-existing" thing? Hell, almost all insurers had dropped pre-existing clauses by 2000. The "cover your kids until they're 26" was similarly a fait accompli. The ACA does nothing to apply downward pressure on insurance prices. The microscopic "good" the ACA does came a far too high a cost: at USSC sanctioned law that says Americans must pay private, for-profit corporations solely on account of their being alive. That's Neo-Fascist at best.

The BL: You think the marginal good the ACA accomplished was worth the effort. My experience working in medical labs, hospitals and private health insurance companies have taught me otherwise.
New Expect your unicorn any day now. I'm sure it'll be great.
New Not looking for one.
We're cooked. It's over. I'm still in ammunition acquisition mode. ;0)
New Enjoy your bunker then. :-/
New SImply: you Can't get There.. from Here, IMO.
It would be necessary
to reverse the Winner-takes-all mentality behind virtually all financial/mercantile transactions. [And votes! ... in another sense.]
to alter greatly the concept of 'Incorporation' in Murica, with even more-stringent checks/balances on any multi-nationals (ours or theirs.) 'People'?. My ass.
to alter taxation: based on Wealth (at least as a factor) and not merely the easily-massaged fiction of 'annual income'.
(It would be nice.. if.. the USSC all dined together to celebrate something, and the fish was rilly-bad (while throwing in a Unicorn, too.))

It would be essential (and will be--increasingly as the planet races towards a lethal environment) that the purloined $Trillions already extracted by compounded System-gamimg:
be recaptured significantly, not merely to take the Fat out of our entire Med/Pharmchem Industrial Cartels, (including the expectations of MDs et al)
.. but to Seriously prepare for [any future at all] worth a pitcher of warm spit.. by, say 2060.

You couldn't alter these koans unless Murica suddenly yearned to become as civilized as.. the other wealthy countries.
It would be a basic Revolution, bloody as usual though not inescapably: depending entirely upon how quickly a plurality of the population Could -???- grow. up.

I can't imagine Euro-style Med funding with any of these elements unsettled. Single-Payer is a chimera in a country as historically ignorant, gullible and superstitious
--and as physically deteriorated (as so many Muricans Are today) and worse.. as mentally deranged. Just look around at Our Performance on. all. scales. ... qed
(And.. we'll never Know: to what extent (re Obama's 'deal' with the $$Overlords) he was out-schemed? OR [more likely, I wot] flat out-Gunned. $$$==Power==purchased votes..

The Fascistic streak, now so increasingly evident in the bloviations of the loudest minorities (collectively already a plurality?) will confound any political action
in the direction of any parts of the above.
So, Yes: we're fucked. Unless and Until: some Very-fucking-Unusual Event galvanizes authentic epiphanies ... amongst millions. [!!111ONE!11]
Hey, I don't recall ever suggesting that the odds FOR our 'survival' were very good, all insanities considered; I suggested many times that, simply: we still have this teensy-Chance.

(Oh.. And: I quite admire Scott's equanimity in the face of soo Many systems clearly in extremis; perhaps he sees the glass only 70% empty?)
But I, having been near-enough sentient during both assassinations--especially the Crucial RFK-elimination--and having 'plotted' the slope of the curve ever-since:
do not believe in religio-miracles as would be Required: ever to counter the miserable stats-to-date of our deservedly crumbling, sanctimonious tribe of (self-deluding) crass narcissists.
(I regret that I have but one-life (not to give) for-my-country, wrong, or Wrong.)
New Largely concur.
About a revolution being necessary (hence my semi-jocular allusion to "ammunition acquisition mode"), that is.

I think in a different century and in a different country, Scott and I would be arguing over whether or not the Duma would save us.
New There will always be things to argue about. ;-)
New The "pre-existing" thing is still an issue.
http://www.balloon-j.../#comment-4602112

47. Comrade Dread says:
September 5, 2013 at 2:28 pm

When my wife lost her job, we had two choices, add her to my company’s HMO plan or try to buy her individual PPO insurance. Due to her pre-existing conditions which she’s had since childhood, no insurance company would take her. After six months (where, by the grace of God, she remained in good health) we signed her up for our state PCIP at just $220 a month. Our state just joined the Federal PCIP plan and our monthly rates for her fell to $161 a month.

If Bush and the culmination of 30 years of Republican economic policies hadn’t already turned me from a conservative to a bleeding heart liberal, Obamacare and the Republican response to it would have assured that I would never have cast another ballot for a Republican again. There is such a thing to be said about being part of a community that takes care of one another and not simply an isolated sheep to be fleeced by the wolves of corporate capitalism.

(Also, I will follow the trend and pimp my blog. I discuss religion, movies, nerd stuff, politics, and food. Click my name if you want to check it out.)


HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New I'm sure in pockets it is still a problem.
But not for most. And it didn't take the ACA to make it that way. And since you're a supporter of the ACA, isn't satisfying the needs of "most" good enough? ;0)
New A brilliant example of
the perfect being the enemy of the good.

The ACA is better than what came before. Why shit on people for supporting something that's not ideal but better than what came before?

Then start working on the next iteration of Something Better Than What Came Before.
New I'm unconvinced the ACA is better than what was.
Or even significantly different from what came before. With one exception: it is now the unassailable law of the land that Americans are born owing private corporations a profit. Whatever arguable good the ACA does, it is vastly overwhelmed by that simple fact. Obama had 2/3rds of the People behind him, his political party had a super-majority in the Senate and enough support in the House to at least pass a bill with an option for Single Payer. He fought that option tooth-and-nail from the very first hearings on health care reform. It was the White House who would not let Nader speak in those hearings and it was the White House who would not let even the President of the American Medical Association testify at those hearings because they were in favor of Single Payer, and Obama (the "Change We Can Believe In" President) was opposed to Single Payer above all else. Others can let him off the hook for that in their ceaseless apologizing of the President and his policies, but I'll not join their ranks.
New 50 million people that couldn't get coverage now can
That's an improvement.
New Re: 50 million people that couldn't get coverage now can
if they can afford it
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
New Guess who said this...
"It is a good day for 30 million uninsured Americans who will have access to healthcare. It is a good day for seniors who will continue to see their prescription drug costs go down as the so-called doughnut hole goes away. It is a good day for small businesses who simply cannot continue to afford the escalating costs of providing insurance for their employees. It is a good day for 20 million Americans who will soon be able to find access to community health centers.

"It is an especially good day for the state of Vermont, which stands to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in additional federal funds to help our state achieve universal health care.

"In my view, while the Affordable Care Act is an important step in the right direction and I am glad that the Supreme Court upheld it, [...]


No fair peaking at the URL. ;-)

http://www.sanders.s...97CA-18865C0EB0C3

Cheers,
Scott.
New As from the get-go: S i n g l e - P a y e r is the Only Sane
OPTION--to millions of people demonstrably smarter-than the Σ-vox-populi of the U.S.
But FIRST--as Always--we must 'try' all the self-serving, crass-conceived Alternatives-to-SANE.

Because: That is what made Murica what It Is today. [Fill-in _____ ]

GOOO --> Bernie!
New St Raygun?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
New Guessing from the URL you weren't supposed to peek at...
...somebody named Sanders, probably in the Senate.

Isn't there a Bernie Sanders in American politics?
--
Christian R. Conrad
Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi

(Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
New Hush!
;-)
New Yeah, a champion of Single Payer in Vermont.
New And yet he supported the PPACA. Imagine that.
New He's a sixteenth of a loaf fan.
For everybody else, that is. ;0)

No, I like Bernie, but he used the ACA in order to get Single Payer in his state. He also switched his political affiliation from Socialist to Independent a few years back. So, he's a pragmatist. He knows that folks like the Obama Administration and his fellow career politicians are beholding to large corporations and he does the best he can by his constituents. In this case, he got the brass ring for Vermont: a single payer health plan.
New Evidence has a habit of disappearing from the tubes.
You didn't click any of the links in the article I posted did you? Well, try this one:

http://news.firedogl...ve-to-be-unified/

Then click the link for the White House Official Transcript the article references. Know what you'll get? 404.

Have a nice day.

New Archive.org is your friend.
http://web.archive.o...allroom-10/20/09/

You've again missed my point. Try again. ;-)

Cheers,
Scott.

New Re: Archive.org is your friend.
First, thanks for linky. The President's response was, essentially, "I know what you want. I know you want real reform. I know you want everybody covered. I know you want real change. But you're not going to get it. See, I made a deal with all the privateers of the existing healthcare delivery system and you're not going to screw it up. So, suck it up and take what I hand you."

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Single payer!

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Public option!

THE PRESIDENT: Let me say this, because somebody just brought up something. (Laughter.) Among Democrats and progressives there are a whole set of views about how we should do health care. But understand that the bill you least like in Congress right now, the one you least like of the five that are out there would provide 29 million Americans health care -- 29 million Americans who don't have it right now would get it.

Would that be counting the people who would have gotten it, but won't because their hours are being cut back to insure they aren't eligible? So, was he speaking naively or did he know he was slinging B.S.? If he really wanted those people covered sans profits for his Wall Street buddies, he'd have been a strong advocate for Single Payer, no?
The bill you least like would prevent insurance companies from barring you from getting health insurance because of preexisting conditions. (Applause.)

Um, no. Actually for the overwhelming majority the existing healthcare plan policies themselves bar non-issuance for pre-existing conditions. Mind there is no cap for policy premiums - JUST AS THERE IS NONE IN THE ACA. So, swing and a miss again.

Whatever the bill you least like would set up an exchange so that people right now who are having to try to bargain for health insurance on their own are suddenly part of a pool of millions that forces insurance companies to compete for their business and give them better deals and lower rates.

Um, not Ed Zachary. A lot of states are not building these exchanges. And of those that do, there is no upper bound for health insurance premiums.

So there are going to be some disagreements and details to work out.


Um, yeah. Like a COMPLETE Do-Over.

Was that your point? :0)
New No time to address everything.
But you're wrong about several of your points.

Mind there is no cap for policy premiums - JUST AS THERE IS NONE IN THE ACA.


http://www.towerswat...yers-health-plans

The PPACA also tries to make premiums more affordable to enrollees in exchanges. Individuals with family incomes between 100% and 400% of the poverty level will be eligible for sliding-scale tax credits that cap the premium for a silver plan at 2% to 9.5% of family income.4 Those with incomes between 100% and 250% of the poverty level are also eligible for cost-sharing subsidies that raise the actuarial value of a silver plan to 73% to 94%, depending on income. At all income levels, the premium for the most expensive age group is limited to three times the premium for the least expensive age group within a given plan, which will likely reduce premiums for older people.5 Premiums may not vary by personal claims history or health status.


Read the rest for more of the details. There are many cost-containment features in the PPACA and there's no reason to think they won't work - http://kff.org/healt...ealth-spending-2/

Changes coming under the ACA could also affect these trends significantly. Increases in coverage will induce a modest, one-time bump of a couple percent in spending as people who were previously uninsured get insurance and better access to health services. This will likely coincide with an expected economic recovery, so higher growth rates in health spending due to that recovery should not be attributed to the ACA simply because of the coincidental timing.

On the other side of the ledger, the bulk of the Medicare savings included in the ACA – primarily achieved through smaller increases in payments to providers – have yet to be realized and will lower the future growth in spending in that program. Changes in the delivery system – through accountable care organizations (ACOs) and bundled payments to providers – may also yield results and help to keep “excess” health costs down in public programs, as well as in private insurance. In addition, the ACA’s tax on high cost, “Cadillac” employer-sponsored health plans, scheduled to take effect in 2018, is expected to trim the cost of benefits and could lead to lower overall health spending as well.


Yeah, it's possible to get insurance with pre-existing conditions. But how many people didn't because they couldn't afford it, didn't want to start a business, didn't qualify for Medicaid, etc., etc. http://www.webmd.com...ve-health-problem

The Federal government will build exchanges for states that don't. https://www.healthca...ce/#state=indiana

Health Insurance Marketplace in Indiana

If you live in Indiana, you’ll use this website, HealthCare.gov, to apply for coverage, compare plans, and enroll. You can apply as early as October 1, 2013. Learn more about the Marketplace and how you can get ready.


48 days! Don't be late!!!11

FWIW. HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New No time. Will be back tomorrow. Same Bat Channel, ... ;0)
New Okay, I'll revise.
For anyone in the US making more that $46,000/year, there is no downward pressure on insurance premiums (http://aspe.hhs.gov/...ty.cfm#thresholds). And, gee, what a great deal for somebody making $45,000/year: the most they can pay a Wall Street traded, private health insurer is $4,275/year (of which up to 20% will never be spent on the delivery of healthcare). What a sweetheart of a deal! No wonder you support it! And in the face of everybody's health insurance premiums soaring, too.
New Remember, I learned it from watching you!
--
greg@gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
     Don't get angry, get determined. - (Another Scott) - (80)
         so paying a shitload of cash to inurance companies - (boxley) - (37)
             I always thought... - (Another Scott) - (36)
                 have a free anecdote - (boxley)
                 Wow. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                     Nice. :-/ -NT - (Another Scott)
                 Sound like that political guy**... - (folkert) - (27)
                     I'm trying to be realistic here. - (Another Scott) - (26)
                         That's the BEST argument YET for Single Payer. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                             When you can find 60 votes in the Senate for it, we'll talk. -NT - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                 Things change... - (folkert)
                             Ding ding ding! -NT - (folkert)
                         Thanks for clarification. - (folkert)
                         cherokee country school district isn't a 1% - (boxley) - (20)
                             Schools are being strangled by various factors. - (Another Scott) - (19)
                                 excuses? not hardly bolded portion mine - (boxley) - (18)
                                     More... - (Another Scott) - (17)
                                         from the same document, bold is mine - (boxley) - (16)
                                             Keep ignoring everything else... - (Another Scott) - (15)
                                                 not ignoring anything - (boxley) - (14)
                                                     We disagree. -NT - (Another Scott) - (13)
                                                         that obamacare costs are going to double here? :-) -NT - (boxley) - (12)
                                                             The only reason... - (folkert) - (1)
                                                                 how easily they forget - (boxley)
                                                             Yup. That's not "Obamacare" costing more, but stupidity. - (CRConrad)
                                                             Money is fungible. You know this. - (Another Scott) - (8)
                                                                 still trying to deny that the cost will double - (boxley) - (7)
                                                                     <sigh> - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                         okay, catch you in the next thread - (boxley)
                                                                     Holy fuck, are you really that stupid? - (CRConrad) - (4)
                                                                         explainin to the ignorant furriner read th comment this time - (boxley) - (3)
                                                                             Yep. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                                                 That's why the Republicans have voted to repeal it, amirite? -NT - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                                     You expect *ME* to explain Republican thought processes? -NT - (mmoffitt)
                 Now, I'm a supporter... - (malraux) - (4)
                     Understood. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                         It's "the bill you like least". - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                             See my reply below. -NT - (Another Scott)
                             Here's the full quote. - (Another Scott)
         before folkert gets penis firmly in hand - (boxley) - (41)
             Purity or Nothing, right? - (Another Scott) - (39)
                 Answer to (1) - (mmoffitt) - (7)
                     Question. - (folkert) - (2)
                         You've got a point. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                             Ineffectual for certain things... - (folkert)
                     What color unicorn would you like with that? - (Another Scott) - (3)
                         Objection. Asked and Answered. - (mmoffitt)
                         Welp, you've made this forum a lot easier to traverse. - (hnick) - (1)
                             <sigh> - (Another Scott)
                 Answer to (2): No question. He absolutely would. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (30)
                     Evidence, please. - (Another Scott) - (29)
                         Ask and Ye shall receive. - (mmoffitt) - (28)
                             FDL speculation isn't evidence. - (Another Scott) - (27)
                                 Here's our difference. - (mmoffitt) - (20)
                                     Expect your unicorn any day now. I'm sure it'll be great. -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                         Not looking for one. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                             Enjoy your bunker then. :-/ -NT - (Another Scott)
                                     SImply: you Can't get There.. from Here, IMO. - (Ashton) - (2)
                                         Largely concur. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                             There will always be things to argue about. ;-) -NT - (Another Scott)
                                     The "pre-existing" thing is still an issue. - (Another Scott) - (13)
                                         I'm sure in pockets it is still a problem. - (mmoffitt) - (12)
                                             A brilliant example of - (jake123) - (11)
                                                 I'm unconvinced the ACA is better than what was. - (mmoffitt) - (10)
                                                     50 million people that couldn't get coverage now can - (jake123) - (1)
                                                         Re: 50 million people that couldn't get coverage now can - (boxley)
                                                     Guess who said this... - (Another Scott) - (7)
                                                         As from the get-go: S i n g l e - P a y e r is the Only Sane - (Ashton)
                                                         St Raygun? -NT - (boxley) - (5)
                                                             Guessing from the URL you weren't supposed to peek at... - (CRConrad) - (4)
                                                                 Hush! -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                                 Yeah, a champion of Single Payer in Vermont. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                                     And yet he supported the PPACA. Imagine that. -NT - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                         He's a sixteenth of a loaf fan. - (mmoffitt)
                                 Evidence has a habit of disappearing from the tubes. - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                                     Archive.org is your friend. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                         Re: Archive.org is your friend. - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                             No time to address everything. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                 No time. Will be back tomorrow. Same Bat Channel, ... ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                 Okay, I'll revise. - (mmoffitt)
             Remember, I learned it from watching you! -NT - (folkert)

I'm sure when this came out, it was better than whatever else was out. Want to play chess with me, son? No way, Dad.
216 ms