Governor Dennis Daugaard groans and moans that his motto won't let him expand Medicaid under the blessedly Constitutional Affordable Care Act:
The governor said expanding Medicaid "is something I'm not very enthusiastic about."
"In a state like South Dakota, people still believe in self-reliance," he said. "I think able-bodied adults should be self-reliant" [Lynn Taylor Rick, "Governor, Local Docs Respond to Supreme Court Decision," Rapid City Journal, 2012.06.29].
Self-reliance in covering health care costs is a mirage. Show me one able-bodied South Dakotan other than Denny Sanford who can honestly say, "I have enough income and savings to cover any medical situation that may affect my family." We have health insurance because the hardest-working people in South Dakota can't save up enough money to pay for their own medical bills. We don't rely on ourselves; we rely on our fellow policyholders and taxpayers for our medical-financial security.
In health insurance policy, self-reliance is a fantasy. Health care coverage is a community responsibility. The Supreme Court affirmed this principle yesterday. Governor Daugaard doesn't get that, but a young janitor from New York does:
NEAL CONAN: Joseph, what about you? Do you have coverage?
JOSEPH: No, I do not. I'm part-time janitor.
CONAN: And are you going to buy the coverage if that - if it comes to that?
JOSEPH: Yes, I would. I mean, I feel it's my duty as a patriotic citizen. I mean, I'm 27 years old, and you guys have been talking about how young people would be forced into paying the (unintelligible) the people with preexisting conditions and things like that. But as I get older, those younger people will be helping me. So I just feel it's my duty to help them. Somebody has got to start the system going [transcript of call, Talk of the Nation, 2012.06.28].
The live studio audience applauded, and so should we. Joseph the Janitor's patriotism deserves some fireworks. Happy Fourth of July a week early, my fellow Americans. Let us celebrate the great American tradition of helping each other that President Obama and his Affordable Care Act embody.
You are right. It seems that the Republican party holds strong to the Objectivism philosophy over everything else. It is about me, me, me, me and what I want. This philosophy, unfortunately, ignores the rest of the human race and the reality that we are social creatures. When we look to find a way to support all of people of the basic functions needed for success, then we can improve our society.
The sense of community is very apt to the debate and I'm surprised it hasn't been used more. Every US Senator, Member of Congress and Supreme Court Justice is eligible to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan and can do so for life in their retirement, unless they opt out. If it's good enough for the political elites then it should be good enough for all Americans.
"In health insurance policy, self-reliance is a fantasy."
My mom and dad never had health insurance untill they went on Medicare. Same is true of my brother and sister. What is fantasy is thinking there is enough wealth to keep everyone living forever. It is dfue to entitlements like medicare and medicaid that we have the debt we have now. And is case you have not noticed, the annual deficits are exploding. If we don't start doing things for ourselves voluntarily, it well happen by requirement. Then watch the liberals protest, riot, and show exactl;y what kind of community they really are...a bunch of greedy spoiled rotten self-centered brats who think they are owed whatever they want.
Steve --- I genuinely hope that your family enjoyed good health and were fortunate not to require medical care for all those years. Had there been a medical catastrophe, they would certainly have been covered by the phanton universal health care program, i.e., the costs would have been absorbed by the providers, the county, the community, right?
Yes, we had a medical catastrophe and my dad had to pay for his own nursing home costs plus subsidize his room mates that were on Medicaid.
Steve - I commend your dad's sense of independence and self-reliance, but I doubt he would begrudge anyone else getting assistance for a bona fide need.
My dad had a sense of "duty". That is largely loss nowadays and have been replaced by the "me generation" with a sense of entitlement.
Steve, that's the whole point. People shouldn't have to go broke just because they get sick. Sorry about your dad. He should have had insurance. That way he wouldn't have had to blow your inheritance.
...nowadays we have this thing called "family planning" Steve. You might want to look into it.
I hope the governor and attorney general sends a letter to every Medicaid recipient in South Dakota to tell them they should get off the public dole and back on the street. Come out in the open fellas. Don't disrespect the programs that care for Americans while stuffing your state budget with cash from Blue States like California, New York and Massachusetts. Let our fellow South Dakotans know they are wrong to be on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid!
And if you refuse to get up out of that coma, please die fast.
Right on, Jeff!
We could try such rugged self-reliance, Steve, and a lucky few would enjoy the health and wealth to survive it. Most people would find themselves financially crushed. Ask the LD coach at the top of the comments who mentions Ayn Rand's fallaciously named and inconsistently practiced "Objectivism": working from a core value of community responsibility produces a more effective system and more liberty for everyone.
Sadly, Jeff, there are folks out there that would take your tongue-in-cheek recommendations seriously. What is lost on some people is that recipients of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security often get far less generous benefits than those receiving benefits via the FEHB, and those premiums are heavily subsidized by the taxpayer as well.
"more liberty for everyone"
Without self-relicance there is no liberty but dependancy. And it is Fleming's Marxism that has created the "Me generation" (Jeff proves the point) via the New Age indoctrination in the public schools.
We didn't make it to the top of the food chain by being rugged individualists. We did it by cooperating and taking care of one another.
Suggestions that we now behave otherwise are inhuman and selfish.
But leave it to Sibby, the champion of the zygote to suggest otherwise. Seems the only human life he's concerned about is the unformed and unborn. Once you're out, you're on your own, by gawd.
I think Steve has an exagerated sense of what self-reliance is. Assuming he's participating in the group health plan through his employer (which typically is a prudent thing to do as the the employer often offers it as a perk and helps underwrites the cost) he should acknowledge that he, too, is pooling his risk.
At any given moment in time Sibby has thousands — if not millions— of people propping him up and watching his back. His failure to acknowledge this and adopt an attitude of gratitude is testimony to his runaway narcissictic personality disorder.
"We did it by cooperating and taking care of one another.
Suggestions that we now behave otherwise are inhuman and selfish."
Is it cooperation if you believe you are entitled, or is it selfish?
"I think Steve has an exagerated sense of what self-reliance is."
Having a "sense of duty" would be unthinkable for the "me generation".
Looks like I now have the upper hand in this debate as Fleming goes to the personal atacks.
South Dakota has received $6.9 million in grants for research, planning, information technology development, and implementation of Affordable Insurance Exchanges
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/sd.html
Daaugard takes the PPACA money but has no intention of expanding or implementing the programs. The Feds should have written in a provision to reclaim the money from states who act in bad faith. Every time Daugaard complains about abuse and fraud in federal spending someone should hand him a mirror.
"he, too, is pooling his risk."
So was my dad when he paid Medicaid and Medicare taxes. Except it was not voluntary, nor will it be for the working class who pay Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security taxes only to have the Obamacare tax added on when their employers dump their group plans. So much for the Democrat's middle class policy position.
"Daaugard takes the PPACA money but has no intention of expanding or implementing the programs."
Good point Monty, Daugaard is blowing smoke. So are the Romney supporters who think Romney is anti-Obamacare. Romney invented it.
Read this quickly. I doubt it'll stay up for very long.
"Looks like I now have the upper hand in this debate as Fleming goes to the personal atacks."
No, you don't, Steve. You almost never have the upper hand because you're a lunatic, and you're wrong about basically.
You don't have a "sense of duty" that no one else has. You lack a sense of community. You go around all the time talking about how you're trying to help people. But you don't even know what helping people is. You want to stop the Masons, and the Illuminati. David Icke wants to help people stop the Reptilians. The Westboro Baptist Church wants to help people stop the "fags", because God hates them.
You what people really need help with? Surviving, because your ridiculous free-market ideals have jacked the cost of healthcare up to the most expensive in the so-called "free world", while not managing to get the quality of our healthcare above somewhere around 40th. You want to know who has better quality healthcare than us, Steve? Cuba.
Is this a personal attack? You're damn right it is, because it's about time we stopped coddling you, and arguing with you like you have valid points, because you don't. You're an idiot. You think you're saving people by warning them about the New Age Church of Sex Worship? People die because they don't have healthcare. People die, Steve. What about them?
Thousands of people die in the United States every year only because they don't have health insurance, and aren't as fortunate as your father with their money. It's not about a sense of duty. It's about our system failing completely for them. When the system fails you, you get to be grumpy about children being taught by New Age Marxists. When the system fails them they die. How do you not get that, Steve?
Kindly shut the hell.
..up..
"Surviving, because your ridiculous free-market ideals have jacked the cost of healthcare up to the most expensive in the so-called “free worldâ€"
Medicaid, Medicare, and IHS are not free market. Separating the benefits from those paying the costs violates the cost/benefit rule that has to be applied in a free market.
You joined in with Fleming's personal attack and confirm that I have the upper hand in this debate.
"People die because they don’t have healthcare. People die, Steve. What about them?"
So we are creating a heathcare system where we all live forever? Only New Age Theocrats who believe we have become gods would push for such an utopian world.
Monty makes a good point on SD Leadership havin g already accepted $6.9 million.
Here's what the GOP guest speaker, Bobby Jindal, has said and done:
"Here in Louisiana, we've not applied for the grants, we've not accepted many of these dollars," Jindal said. "We're not implementing the exchanges. We don't think it makes any sense to implement Obamacare in Lousiana. The next opportunity we have to get rid of this law is to get Governor Romney elected, and I absolutely believe that he will be elected in November, and one of his first actions will be to repeal and replace this law."
Just guessing all those people that booed Charlie are going to want to start asking some hard questions about why we took the money if we have no intention of using those federal tax payer funds.
Stace? What's your take?
"Then watch the liberals protest, riot, and show exactl;y what kind of community they really are…a bunch of greedy spoiled rotten self-centered brats who think they are owed whatever they want." - Sibson
As a liberal with heritage going back to the Nonpartisan League. This pisses me off. This is a nation for all of us not just the Conservatives. My people have work hard, bleed and died for this country. I don't appreciate getting called names. Steve, your such a hard working conservative, I challenge you to a day of hard farm labor. Let's see who drops first. I can still toss an alfalfa bale up 5 tiers.
Get your head out of your ass or stand ready to get challenged!
Carter, nice try with the village idiot.
Too bad there are so many who think exactly as he does.
Scary, actually.
carter: we've so all been there. now i just think of sibby as performance art.
too....
There is a nice irrelevancy factor in Daugaard wanting "the able-bodied" to take care of themselves. The able-bodied are not the problem. It is the able-bodied who are no longer able-bodied and the requirement to have insurance will help those able-bodied or not.
Daugaard is spouting expensive nonsense. He is waiting for a Republican president and congress to make sure South Dakota does not get millions of dollars to help the medically unfortunate.
Press people ought to be asking if Daugaard is mentally ill.
More than scary, Bill.
And let me add something, Sibby. You can go your whole life proclaiming how you have a "sense of duty", implying that, by sticking to it, and not, by implication, paying the way for other people, that you have some kind of honor and self-respect by being able to be entirely self reliant.
But trying to hold that above our heads is like trying to hold a steak above the head of a vegetarian. We don't want it, and we don't admire you for having it. I'm sure we'd all feel pretty good, too, being 100% self reliant. But you want to know something? We feel better helping.
Other than my 82 year old grandfather having a very minor heart attack, and my grandmother having ovarian cancer, my family has no history of illness. Other than those two things, no member of my family has spent any real amount of time in the hospital, or any large amount of money on medical care. Most of them have lived their late 90s. Every one of my great-grandmother's sisters lived to be over 100. She died earlier, and only made it to 100, and didn't spend a day in a nursing home until she was 99.
By that record, I probably won't get sick, either, at least not for many decades. I probably don't need health insurance. But I don't care. If I pay into insurance all my life, and never use it, it's not just going to waste. It's going to help people who aren't as fortunate as myself. People who get sick and can't afford "self-reliance". What better charity to give to than to helping people afford medical help?
You can have your self-reliance, Steve. I'll keep the joy I get from knowing I help people, and contribute. I'll bet most of the other people here feel the same.
Of course the law does give the Republicans some guidelines to follow.
"The Affordable Care Act requires states to set up health care benefits exchanges to help Americans buy insurance. If a state fails to act, the federal government will operate that state's exchange program.
States have until Jan. 1, 2013, to demonstrate to the Department of Health and Human Services that it has a plan in place for the exchanges, which are required to be up and running by Jan. 1, 2014. "
So I guess I'm confused about what our intentions are? Wait until November and then hastily cram something together just to get a passing grade? Or are there measures already in place that we have spent money on so South Dakota complies with the law?
The problem with the Socialist ideal of insuring and saving everyone isn't the underlying sympathy for human life, it's the naive ignorance of human nature. Sure, most people are good. But the bad eggs love being in control. If you give your money to the government you aren't giving it to a community of perfect dogooders. You just gave your money to a group of power hungry control freaks who have no problem skimming off the top and misappropriating funds. And they don't have to stay within a budget, if they spend too much money on administrative costs and fluff they can just print more money or raise taxes.
You'd be lucky if 50 cents of each dollar you gave to the government actually went to paying medical bills. Look what happened to Social Security which is so well managed by the government. Nothing but a pile of IOUs the government owes itself. Why? Because the corrupt oligarchy that spends the money we send to the government doesn't respect the hard work that went into earning that money, because they didn't earn it. They've got better things to do with that money, like give themselves raises and fund ineffective programs and pointless committees.
If I give a hungry homeless man a sandwich he thanks me and I know my money went to good use. If I send money to the government to feed the homeless that money has to wend it's way through corrupt bureaucracy and unnecessary program costs before it ever reaches a hungry mouth. If everyone on this planet was a good person who would never steal or lie we could afford to take a chance by funding programs through the government. But we don't live in such an idyllic society. We live in the real world.
KimJongNumberUn â€@KimJongNumberUn
Dad had a saying: "Give people healthcare, and before you know it they'll want food, too."
We do live in the real world. Where no one is volunteering to pay the medical bills of anyone else, and the private industry has gone fat-cat on the poorest and sickest.
Geezus libertarians are the cruelest bunch.
Since the government signs off on what's acceptable environmentally it is responsible when acceptable levels are enough to kill or disable someone.
Think of them as known unknowns and unknown unknowns.
"If I give a hungry homeless man a sandwich he thanks me and I know my money went to good use. If I send money to the government to feed the homeless that money has to wend it’s way through corrupt bureaucracy and unnecessary program costs before it ever reaches a hungry mouth. "
Great point, but the liberals go further. They don't want to give to the governemnt, they want you and the self-reliant to give so they don't have too. Then they stand there and act so self-righteous and mock those who work hard and have become self-reliant. The entitlement freaks expect the self-reliant to take care of them too. And they have no clue who are truly selfish.
Steve. Please don't post anymore.
We all pay our taxes. Few of us (I'm sure someone here is) are on food stamps, or medicare, or welfare. We pay taxes just like you. We're willing to give. We all work hard. Every one of us works hard. I work 20 hours a week and take 15-18 credit hours in school, and barely get any financial aid, and all of it in loans. Cory puts in, I'm sure, countless hours every school year teaching (60+ hours a week, I'm willing to bet).
We all work just as hard as you, Steve, and I doubt you're the hardest working here. We don't get anything more out of paying taxes than you do. The difference isn't that we expect you to pay our way. The difference is that we all think everyone, including ourselves, should help. It's like the Three Musketeers. All for one, and one for all.
I've always enjoyed debating the ins and outs of government and economy, but your inability to actually care about people, and simply decide that everyone doesn't support your proven-to-fail free market ideals are selfish is ridiculous.
Don't tell people they're truly selfish, when most of us aren't in the position of getting much out of a socialist system at all. From what I gather, most of the people posting here aren't the poor. We're the middle class, and socialism isn't going to give us anything, really. Slightly higher taxes and fewer medical fees, and that's about it. And yet we're still willing to give what we can to help those less fortunate.
No, Steve. The people who are selfish are the people who claim they are "self-reliant", and don't think they owe anyone else anything. You do, Steve. You owe society everything. Don't start with this entitlement crap.
"The difference is that we all think everyone, including ourselves, should help."
Carter, the problem is that we are not paying for it. we are expanding the federal debt and passing it on to future generastions. Is that moral? The entitklemetn mentaltiy is being created based on greed. It is the entitlement mentality that is creating a huge financial problem for some "community" down the road.
"You owe society everything."
It is the sluggards who do not contribute. Instead they are the parasites. Time for some tuff love. We owe that to America's posterity.
So, if we just stop paying for them, what? Poor people go to the hospital and we say, "Sorry, you're poor. Hit the road. Maybe think about not being so poverty-stricken next time you get cancer"?
Maybe we should just put in income levels. You know how when go to a rollercoaster, and it says "Must be this tall to ride"? It could be like that, but with income. If you don't have a high enough income, then you can't go to the hospital, because you can't pay for it. Unless you have cash on hand, of course, because lots of people have the cash to pay for chemo.
I think this is a pretty good idea, Steve. You're right. We owe it to America to let the poor die. Hell, we shouldn't have housing assistance or food stamps, either. If you can't afford rent, you can live in a box, or the poor can get together and build little shanty towns so the US looks more like Rio de Janeiro. And then they can grow some corn in the giant piles of feces in the ditch and eat that.
Damn, Steve. You're on to something, here. Helping the poor is stupid. If they're not rich, we should just kick them right out.
Carter, we can't afford to keep everyone alive forever, even if we can get the sluggards to contribute their fair share.
You're aware, Steve, that our debt is higher than almost every other nation in the entire world? Almost every country with some degree of social medicine has less public debt than we do. Have you stopped to consider that maybe we should focus on cutting things that really matter, like spending hundreds of billions of dollars on "defense"? Other countries have no problem affording to keep everyone alive. If we're truly the greatest country in the world, we shouldn't have a problem, either.
Maybe if people were more willing to give up some of their money...
But you're probably right. Letting the poor die is probably a better idea.
Carter, I believe that the role of government should be limited so that we the people have more resources to take care of family and neighbors who have fallen on bad times ourselves. Instead we expect them to rely on government, so we don't have to do anything but complain that the wealthy corporatists are ripping us off. I am asking you to consider the idea that government is the instrument that the corporatists use to rip us off.
At the moment, the government is the instrument that the corporatists use to rip us off, but it doesn't have to be that way. It's like a broken machine. If your washing machine breaks, you don't just say "F*** it", throw it out, and wash all your clothes by hand for the rest of your life. You get it fixed, or get a new one.
The thing is, socialism doesn't really work without restrictions on the government. We don't just hope the government is made up of nice people. Instead, we need a government that is tied down enough that it can't work with the corporations.
Honestly, the argument against socialized medicine makes sense if you just take it by itself. But the thing people ignore is that a huge percentage of our medical costs are jacked up extremely high by things like paying per visit just to be told to see a specialist, and by high profit margins on things like MRIs.
One of the main outcomes of socialized medicine (and hopefully ACA) is that it will not only get everyone insurance, but also pressure the healthcare industry into bringing prices down to a realistic levels.
It becomes more and more affordable over time as the prices go down, and that's how much of socialism works. It keeps corporations and the government in line through careful, thoughtful regulation. In the end, this brings the prices of things way down to make them affordable to people.
So, I agree that we need to watch out for corporations controlling the government, but anarchy (I'm not sure what else to call your viewpoint) isn't going to fix it. It's going to make it worse because it will give the corporations direct, unregulated control over peoples' lives.
The government needs fixing, not just throwing out.
And as for people taking care of their neighbors? That won't happen. Lots of countries don't have the social safety nets we have in place, and they aren't that inclined to help their neighbors, either. Besides, even if that works on a small scale, what about a large scale? Here in Madison, people might help each other out, but not everywhere, and then what? You're just totally screwed if you live somewhere that no one will help you?
"And as for people taking care of their neighbors? That won’t happen."
And putting uncaring people into government isn't working neither. The solution has to be us. We need to care and then decide we will do it ourselves. That is why I reject the premise of Cory's post. I believe the people of South Dakota can and should become more self-reliant.
Carter, thanks for the conversation, I need to move up for today. Sorry what I wrote earlier upset you so much. I used to consider upsetting people as funny, but not no more.
"The solution has to be us." Yes. It is. "We the people." (aka the US Government as per the US Constitution.) We are it. Why do you think you are not, Steve? Are you anti-Constitution now too?
What about cancer? Do you know how much cancer treatment costs? $500,000? Something like that. You can't just expect a couple neighbors to each pitch in a few hundred thousand dollars for you. No one has that much money, unless they're ludicrously rich, already.
Bill, yes! That's it, exactly. At the moment, it's not so much about us (Steve is right that the corporations control a lot of the government), but we can fix that.
Something I think is missing right now is the political culture of ancient Greece. It wasn't just that people were expected to vote, but people were expected to keep up with what was going on, and to try to understand what was happening, and to care. We tell people to vote, but we don't tell them to learn.
If we can get people more interested in issues, not just in watching pundits telling them what to think, then we might be able to get ourselves back on the track to Of the People, For the People.
Thank you for apologizing, Steve, and I'm glad you don't think it's funny to upset people anymore. I'd prefer it, though, if you'd focus your empathy the people out there who really need your help, like the people who can't afford treatment for their cancer. I'm doing quite alright here in my little freshly-cleaned apartment, upset or not.
Correct, Carter. The reason we have a government in the first place is to provide for things we can't provide for ourselves individually. It's a "social contract" which people like Sibby love to confuse with "socialism" and play boogy man.
Maybe it's just the word. "Socialism". People don't like it because they don't really understand it. Maybe we should come up with a new word, like..."Individual collectivism" or something. Or "Musketeerism".
" “We the people.†(aka the US Government as per the US Constitution.) We are it. Why do you think you are not, Steve? Are you anti-Constitution now too?"
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The US Government is not the people Fleming. Read the Tenth Amendment. I did not destroy the Constitution, that happened shortly after the Civil War when they passed the 14th Amendment and too powers away from the states and the people. South Dakota or the people should not be bound by ObamaCare's mandates.
Carter,
I understand the word and abhor its principles. I think those who oppose it understand it quite well. No matter what you call it, it will still stink. :)
Got an affirmation in moderation over at DWC, Troy: sometimes your integrity makes me weep for my own lack of it.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
So Steve, if the Constitution isn't the vehicle for creating our Union with one another, what is it?
Carter, I just ignore Sibby. I skip over his posts. I think of them like an ad that is in the way so I just go around it. He's not rational.
Anti-ACA people like to go on and on about the "sluggards, cheats" etc. I want everyone of those people off the roles. They absolutely should be working, holding a job, paying their way.
Now I'm going to write in capitals, not because I'm shouting, but because I want you to notice and actually address this issue. Okay, maybe I'm shouting:
WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PHYSICALLY/MENTALLY UNABLE TO WORK AND PAY THEIR OWN WAY?????????????????
Tell me what your plan is to get those deadbeats off the rolls, yet not abandon the people who need the help? They will be the first to lose all resources. They are not capable of gaming the system. I want the sluggards off, but I am not willing to through wonderful, deserving people out in the streets and to their deaths.I am not like the Repubs who chanted at a Repub debate, "Let them die." So I repeat:
WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PHYSICALLY/MENTALLY UNABLE TO WORK AND PAY THEIR OWN WAY?????????????????
A person who is unable to work would fall under the poverty line, and would already be covered by existing safety nets.
DEBishop Corporate welfare far exceeds private welfare.......... The big 5 oil companies far exceeded 10 BILLION dollars in profits yet still get subsidized not to mention all the other corporations........... The average person can hardly afford to pay daycare so how do you expect them to pay for anything else. We need to get back to where the wealth was distributed better before we can even talk about welfare reform. Forbes won't even talk about anyone who has millions of dollars now .... you have to have Billions.......... The rate of poverty has risen in the United States but you are so involved in fantasy you wouldn't know the true numbers.
We have right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not the guarantee of happiness. Not equality of means or ends.
We live in the richest country in the world. What about the starving orphans living in countries where people make less than $1 a day. You're rich. How much money have you sent these poor, starving orphans rich man?
You people have all gone insaner than I, and do not take that statement lightly, like Bill did when I proved I could fry an egg in my shoe.
Hey, Daugaard: GET A FREAKING CLUE.
Did you forget your health care is a taxpayer paid entitlement given to you? That does not make you a "self-reliant man" does it? When you give up your socialized health care, and pay for it yourself, then you can preach about self-reliance. Otherwise shut the "f" up.
Grudz, I thought Bill fried the egg in the South American priest's shoe?
That was a story he asked me to fabricate. In reality, it was I frying the egg in my own shoe. Reality Stories Bill Asks Me To Tell.
Reality (me frying an egg in my own shoe) [does not equal] stories Bill likes me to tell.
Mr. H wouldn't let my math symbols show up here. Im on some sort of quasi banishment or something. Rest assured...Sunday at breakfast, I am on top of my game Bill! And I'm ambulatory again.
Try =! for "does not equal", Grudz.
A person who is unable to work would fall under the poverty line, and would already be covered by existing safety nets.
Bree: You are very mistaken with this statement. The level to qualify to for medical assistance is very low, and is based on what you own which is figured into the computations. If you were working a job at 10 dollars an hour without healthcare, you would not qualify or assistance. If you are laid off of that job, you would first go through COBRA until any savings that you had were gone or as the DSS puts it:
"Resources are limited to $2,000 not including the family’s home, personal effects, one household vehicle regardless of value, other vehicles valued under $4,650 used for work/school, and vehicles used as a family home, to transport a disabled household member(s) or in self-employment. Resources include Cash, Checking, Savings, Credit Union, Stocks, Bonds, Certificates of Deposit, Life Insurance, Trust Funds, Individual Indian Monies (IIM), Money Market Funds, Deferred Compensation Plan, Burial Funds, Contracts for Deed, IRAs, 401K, Keogh plan, and other items of value."
Let's say that you are laid off from your $10 an hour job and your husband's job does not have insurance and pays $9 an hour. Figuring he works 40 hours a week, that put family income at $1340. Under those guidelines, there would have to be at least 10 people in the household to qualify for medical support by the state.
If you have resources then you should pay for your healthcare. If you are laid off from your job making $10 an hour then go find a job at McDonald's making $8 an hour. Even if you don't find a job there you would still qualify for Section 42 housing which should help with the bills. And if you still can't afford basic healthcare, hospitals provide inhouse healthcare programs for low income households.
Not only is Obamacare an unconstitutional expansion of federal powers (or a constitutional tax in the middle of the Great Recession, whichever you prefer) but it is also an overpriced corrupt solution we don't need because we can solve our healthcare problems without socializing medicine. If the government is going to do anything it should give us medical tort reform.
Really Bree , you cannot put yourself above the supreme court and say it is not constitutional when in fact the Supreme courts job is to determine whether or not it is constitutional....... You pay a lot more when people making 10 dollars an hour go in for major surgery then the few pennies it will cost to insure them and keep them healthier.
Bree is gaming all of you. S/he is having a great time sucking up the oxygen in here. If you say you like your oxygen, s/he is going to say you're wrong in about 75 posts. Move on.
Our group's current campaign is seeking out the candidates/office holders in my state who have released statements publicly supporting ACA and the decision. We're emailing their names to our email lists and promoting the candidates, along with their Facebook page link, their website link, Twitter account and especially their Actblue/Paypal link.
We've got another opportunity to sell the ACA and its benefits, and we're doing it from the ground up this time.
I appreciate your good, positive posts about this, Cory, and rely on this blog for fact checking, if it's not otherwise readily available.
"Gaming" has the ring of juvenility. By marginalizing my posts as merely childish, you can continue your personal delusion that socialists are more intelligent than conservatives.
“Gaming†has the ring of juvenility... if the shoe fits, fry an egg in it, Bree.
Let's be clear. The Constitution stipulates that the Supreme Court has the final say on whether a law is Constitutional or not. One can argue whether or not they find a SCOTUS decision good or bad, moral or immoral, stupid or smart, etc. But they cannot argue that it's unconstitutional.
It most certainly is, because the Constitution says it is, whether Rand Paul and Bree agree or not.
So drop that on your huarache and fry it, grudznik.
Taunia,
If you check this or any other blog (conservative or liberal) for facts, you have a poor idea of what is facts. Blogs articulate arguments and are selective about their facts. Cory is really good at stringing together arguments (debate coach experience) but not good at facts.
And, my statement he isn't good at facts is because he focuses on making arguments. Providing facts requires documenting veractity which takes time and distracts from the argument.
Pearce, reread: I think you and D.E. Bishop are on the same side. I agree there are people who will take advantage of any system and cause waste. I think D.E. is asking the very practical question of how we minimize such abuse without reducing assistance to folks who really need it. I am wholly with your point that abuse by corporate welfare recipients far outweighs abuse by low-income welfare recipients.
Troy, I wear my debate coach experience as a badge of honor and a sign of my commitment to both good arguments and facts. It is a fact that the high cost of health care makes it impossible, or at least fatal, to adopt self-reliance as your primary value. There is a role for self-reliance in health: grow some of your own food, watch what you eat, don't smoke, exercise, stay away from blogs so you don't get high blood pressure....
We can each make numerous personal choices to stay healthy. But we can't choose not to get cancer or hit by a drunk driver. Most people can't choose to make a million dollars a year to ensure that they will have enough money in the bank to pay for any medical misfortune that may strike them or their families. We thus form insurance pools and government programs to take care of each other. We thus choose community over self-reliance as our primary policy response to health costs.
Bill, I clearly stated that Obamacare is either an unconstitutional expansion of federal powers or a constitutional tax in the middle of the Great Recession. Saying that Obamacare is corrupt and overpriced doesn't reflect any judgment on my part against the Supreme Court, so what precisely are you arguing against?
In other words, Bill which mud pile would you like to step in first? Better put your shoes on.
Because you pose a false dichotomy, Bree, with the first option a known falsity on its face the moment you wrote it. You are thus being intentionally, intellectually dishonest — not to mention amateurishly transparent about it.
Bill, I'm being open minded. I'm willing to accept at face value the liberal argument that Obamacare is a constitutional tax in the middle of the Great Recession. But you aren't willing to even consider the argument of constitutional conservatives that Obamacare is unconstitutional. At the very least it's hardly a "known falsity" since everything Obama's lawyer argued was ruled unconstitutional except for Obamacare being a tax. For example, in case you forgot, the Supreme Court upheld South Dakota's right to choose not implement the Medicaid expansion.
As to your second point (also dubious) exactly when is it that you feel poor people and their children should most be assisted with their health care needs if not during a depression/recession period of job scarcity? I don't know which is worse, your unfathomable ignorance, or the haughty arrogance that accompanys it.
The Constitutionality, Bree is moot point once the Supremes have decided. That IS what the Constitution prescribes as a remedy for such disputes.
And on to a completely different topic.
Bill we have Section 8. Section 42. Food stamps. WIC. Soup kitchens. Food banks. Medicaid. Free health clinics. Free pharmaceutical programs. In-house hospital healthcare programs. In-house cost reductions from utility companies. Lots of private charitable money dedicated to the poor.
This isn't a moral issue, Bill. It isn't immoral if someone doesn't want to give their hard-earned money to the state so that it can be wasted on dubious programs. There are better ways, more efficient methods of making healthcare affordable. The first thing we need is medical tort reform.
We need Universal, single payer health care like the rest of the Free World Bree.
Yes, let's do things the expensive, corrupt way instead of the efficient, productive way. Let's have 75% taxation and "my way or the highway" healthcare. Welcome to the Free World.
No one has answered my question yet. Bree, you must not be aware of how standards for those programs work. The streets are full of people who do not meet those standards. Listen closely: "WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PHYSICALLY/MENTALLY UNABLE TO WORK AND PAY THEIR OWN WAY?????????????????"
No, we do not have programs that cover all those people. A few programs help a few people. Then there are all the tens of thousands left. The majority of Americans living in poverty and without health care are children. WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?
Bree, read this, then talk to us about "expensive." http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/oecd042111.cfm
D. E., I have already responded to your question. People who are unable to work fall under the poverty line and are covered under existing safety nets. If you want to be delusional and insist that isn't the case go right ahead. Also, Medicaid covers children even when it doesn't cover the parents, because the income cutoffs are higher. But nevermind the currently available government programs. What about all of the charitable organizations and private institutions that can fill this gap? You act like socialized medicine is the only answer. Not only is not the only answer, but it's a bad one.
Bill, I'll check whatever that is out when I get back.
Two things Bree we are the only developed country without either single payer or a combination... we also have a higher mortality rate then these countries..... I don't want to hear about health care breaking the economy because even countries like Rwanda have it and our economy is in the toilet anyway.
Two the cost of these wars could have provided every US citizen with free healthcare for 5 years . Have we become so uncivilized and so afraid of not having material things that our neighbors no longer matter ?
I am aware of the out of control spending on healthcare in this country, Bill. Which is why we need some kind of tort reform, at least on a state level.
RPearce, our mortality rate is higher because we choose to shove twinkies and potato chips down our collective throats. We choose, as individuals, to die at a younger age because we won't accept personal responsibility for our actions. Someone else needs to take care of us, and fix it for us. Doctor, give us a pill.
The other "developed" countries (Greece?) can't afford the twinkies.
More homework for you Bree:
http://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/index.php/Kellogg/article/tort_reform_no_miracle_cure/
Thank God I'm well past the age where I'd have to pointlessly regurgitate useless facts onto lined paper.
Whenever I see "edu" in a web address I tend to lose interest immediately.
It is just plain unAmerican to perpetuate a system that hurts people and and that puts America a ta tremendous economic disadvantage relative to other countries.
 78% percent of all bankruptcies are medical related I believe that all citizens should have an equal chance at achieving middle class and being able to have some money to retire on.
It is just ridiculous that a family who falls just above being able to enroll in medicaid must then fear being sick. It's ridiculous at what the insurance companies make................. It was ok for Wall street and the banks to take welfare , I would much rather see individual citizens be protected from bankruptcy and from the drug companies.
"Thank God I’m well past the age where I’d have to pointlessly regurgitate useless facts onto lined paper."
Translation: Bree doesn't like it when facts contradict her opinions.
Sure, Bree, but when we try to use policy to stop people from eating so many Twinkies and drinking so many Big Gulps, folks like you scream "Nanny State!"
Actually, Bree is just shouting two of the Right's favorite distraction techniques. First, refuse to accept facts by concocting some silly reason (it's a university, all universities lie!) to indict any evidence offered. Second, blame people for their misfortunes. If you're sick or poor or unemployed, it must be your fault, absolving us of any obligation to help... because Jesus clearly said "Love only thy perfect neighbors," and because Thomas Jefferson said, "All men lucky enough not to get sicker than their bank account can cover are created equal; the rest don't deserve liberty."