jump to last post 1-50 of 54 discussions (133 posts)

Obamacare

  1. habee profile image89
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    According to ABC, 67% of Americans polled want to kill the law completely or kill the individual mandate. Could the law work without the mandate? Any ideas?

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 … l-mandate/

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      These polls change monumentally depending on how the question is asked Gallup tested out different ways of asking whether people favored Obama-care or not, on some 69 percent were in favor in some 50 50.

    2. kerryg profile image84
      kerrygposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I don't like the individual mandate, but some of the other things the law did, like outlawing rescission, were desperately needed, so it's hard to fathom anybody who knows what the law really says wanting to scrap it completely.

    3. Wayne Brown profile image86
      Wayne Brownposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I believe that is a soldi number, Habee. I don't believe our government put any effort in to correcting the problems with MediCare not did it want to do so.  It was the perfect excuse on whicn to hang the reasoning for socialized medicine and now we begin to hear the downside.  That information does not yet contain the truth in terms of the quality of care nor the loss of professionals the medical industry will suffer all in the name of attempting to supply more medical care to more people.  When that care is mediocre at best and it garners a portions of its ability from letting the older generations die purposely, we have made the wrong choice.  I fully believe we need to do our best for everyone but this is not the way...it started off all wrong and it has remained that way from the start.  We cannot do our best for America when we start it on the basis of depriving some to provide for others. WB

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image75
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        The "problems" aren't with Medicare. They are with the inefficient, for-profit hospitals, doctors, labs and testing facilities which deliver a great deal of costly unnecessary "care" and tests and with the parasitic insurance companies whose efforts are directed toward maximizing premiums and minimizing payouts.

    4. Ralph Deeds profile image75
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Paul Krugman provides a few facts, notably that the health care reform law has no effect on the majority who are covered already by insurance through their employers.

      "One indicator of just how good it is comes from the apparent inability of its opponents to make an honest case against it.

      To understand the lies, you first have to understand the truth. How would ObamaRomneycare change American health care?

      For most people the answer is, not at all. In particular, those receiving good health benefits from employers would keep them. The act is aimed, instead, at Americans who fall through the cracks, either going without coverage or relying on the miserably malfunctioning individual, “non-group” insurance market.

      The fact is that individual health insurance, as currently constituted, just doesn’t work. If insurers are left free to deny coverage at will — as they are in, say, California — they offer cheap policies to the young and healthy (and try to yank coverage if you get sick) but refuse to cover anyone likely to need expensive care. Yet simply requiring that insurers cover people with pre-existing conditions, as in New York, doesn’t work either: premiums are sky-high because only the sick buy insurance." Read the complete OP-Ed here and then make up your mind.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/opini … mp;emc=rss

    5. lovemychris profile image79
      lovemychrisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Republicans Supported an Individual Mandate Until Obama Did http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/2 … Obama-Did- Rt

    6. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image92
      TIMETRAVELER2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The law cannot work without the mandate, and what many here have forgotten is that there are millions of people between the ages of 55 and 64 who want to buy insurance but cannot because they have pre existing conditions.  These people are suffering and dying and Obamacare is the only thing that can save them.  Those who are too selfish to want to buy insurance and who are fighting Obamacare may well be taking away any chance these people have to protect their lives.  This is about more than "not wanting to be forced to pay".  Everybody is going to get sick and everybody is going to need care.  Therefore, everybody who is responsible should see the logic in buying health insurance.

    7. profile image57
      JOSEPHKIEFFERposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      There are to many hidden surprises in this piece of trash. I feel people who need health care and cannot afford it should be given the means to obtain it. But not with this Liberal form of trickery and lies. There are astronomical costs involved that effect future generations. Throw it out. Start over.Joe.

    8. lorlie6 profile image87
      lorlie6posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      How about we see what occurs in 2014?  I can't believe folks-we Americans, of course-aren't willing to give it a try, at least!  I've been wondering if people are worried since his healthcare reform is not YET in effect.  You know, the "I want it now, or not at all" factor.
      Pity.
      lovemychris-you've nailed it.  "Poverty was seen as a character defect?"  Ahh, the right wing is at it again!

    9. mio cid profile image65
      mio cidposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I think at this point,the best that could happen is for the supreme court to kill obamacare, and  when dems get the senate and the house again just go for what they should have gone for in the first place full fledged single payer health insurance for all.

  2. Paul Wingert profile image81
    Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago

    Obamacare is a start and does need some modifications, like any other new idea. It would be a lot better if this country would go with universal healthcare like all the other industrial nations and get out of the #35 healthcare ranking.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image75
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      True. The insurance companies are parasites who add little or nothing to health care. They should be taken completely out of the equation via a single payer plan.

  3. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    I'll bet 0% want to go back to denying people for pre-existing conditions, have seniors give back their savings, and have 20 somethings go without healthcare, etc etc etc.

    Or go back to paying for that deluxe medicare that we were footing the bill for.

    Chances are we are all going to use healthcare. Why not all have to pay in? That way it's cheaper for everybody.

    Healthcare is a national issue, not a private one. A healthy country is better than a sick one.

    And--much of ACA is focused on preventive care.

    And covering women on contraceptives is a god-send.

    Obama is forward thinking to the max. I for one will fight like a dog to stop us going back to private for-profit-sick-care.

    1. wilderness profile image92
      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      "I'll bet 0% want to go back to denying people for pre-existing conditions"  If you don't deny pre-existing conditions, you have people simply requiring others to pay the cost instead of buying insurance.  Insurance covers something down the road that might or might not happen, and costs are based on the probability it will happen.  When you wait until you know something is wrong and just get help covering the cost it isn't insurance.

      "Or go back to paying for that deluxe medicare that we were footing the bill for"  You mean as in everyone can have that deluxe medicare instead of only a few, thus running the cost far beyond what it was?

      "Chances are we are all going to use healthcare. Why not all have to pay in"  Not all will pay - those that can't afford it will get it reduced or free.  Just as they do now.  The big difference is the people will obtain medical care far more often, going for a cold or a runny nose instead of self treating.

      "And covering women on contraceptives is a god-send"  Covering contraceptives (for contraceptive use, not a medical issue) is not a god send - it is just another case of requiring someone else to pay for something you want but don't want to pay for.  It has absolutely nothing to do with insurance.

      1. Eric Newland profile image61
        Eric Newlandposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        That's a good point. Maybe someone can confirm or deny a rumor I heard a while ago? Basically someone claimed to me that a person with no insurance could get into a car wreck, and if he decided to call an insurance company before calling 911 he could arrive at the hospital fully covered, pay one month's worth of premium for all of his recovery costs, then drop the insurance and no one would be the wiser.

        Would that actually be possible under the provisions of the bill?

      2. profile image0
        Larry Wallposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Your point is true to a certain level. I will use my example. I was employed by the same company for 22 years. Over those years certain health conditions. I lost my job--through no fault of my own. I used COBRA for a year, because my former company paid it as part of my severance package. I tried to buy private insurance and was repeatedly turned down because of my pre-existing conditions.

        As you get older, you develop issues that need attention. I was turned down because I am a type 2 diabetic. That is the one condition for which I take no medicine or insulin. I control it through diet. I have developed high blood pressure, insomnia and other conditions over time.

        Are you telling me because I was unable to keep the job I had for 22 years another five years until Medicare kicked in, I should be denied insurance.

        I expect a higher premium, a higher deductible and a higher co-pay. I also expect the right to be protected from the ravages of age, over which I have no control. I am not a fan of the entire Obamacare program, but forcing insurance to offer coverage to all people is not a bad idea. I will end up paying a higher premium than the 25 year old guy who snorts cocaine on Friday, has unprotected sex with a prostitute on Saturday, drinks excessively and smokes. He will deny all of that on the application and he has never received medical treatment for any of that, so there is no record. All of my ailments are documented in my doctor's files which the insurance company will examine. The 25 year old guy will get coverage. I will be turned down. Do you think that is fair?

        1. Eric Newland profile image61
          Eric Newlandposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Yours is definitely the type of case that I would agree needs protection. You had a lapse in insurance that was beyond your control. Even if you have a single day lapse you can be screwed over by a pre-existing condition. That's a lot different from a healthy person waiting until they get sick to jump on the insurance bandwagon.

  4. profile image0
    idratherbeposted 5 years ago

    I believe the mandate should be revisited but as for the rest of the healthcare bill, it has many good aspects for all. If you had a family member, child, or grandchild with a terminal illness, you wouldn't want a lifetime benefit on your policy. Imagine one of your kids or grandkids, getting treatmens to save their lives and all of a sudden your insuror stops paying because your policy lifetime benefit has been met. People need to research the plan a lot more before they want to eliminate it completely!

  5. steveamy profile image60
    steveamyposted 5 years ago

    single payer

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image75
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      That's the solution that makes the most sense.

  6. profile image68
    logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago

    What ever happened to personal responsibility?  Why should I have to pay for anyone's health care but my own?  I was using preventative measures long before the government decided I wasn't smart enough to think for myself.

    If you or your partner can't afford contraceptives, DON'T HAVE SEX!
    I'm just a little curious how gay people feel about paying for contraceptives for heterosexuals, when gays have no need for them.

    There was a time when this country was mostly rural, that seniors needed to be taken care of.  The time has come for them to take responsibility for their actions. Insurance has been cost effective for some time now, so there really is no reason for people not to have protected themselves for their later years.

    1. Paul Wingert profile image81
      Paul Wingertposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      "What ever happened to personal responsibility?" Gee I don't know. If you went to a public school, I'm sure someone (tax payers) payed for your education. You use the postals service and public library right? And I'm sure you'll get on medicare and other services when you retire. Do you have a private police and fire department or do you call 911? I don't have time to go through the whole list. As of now, 75% of hospital bills are paid for by medicare. Health carer needs to be a right to all US citizens just like education.

    2. profile image0
      Peelander Gallyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      In addition to what Wingert said (+1):

      Right, because people are just going to stop having sex. Derp.

  7. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Well, here's another poll:

    "A full 72% of adults approve of increasing federal taxes on households making more than $250,000 starting in 2013, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

    Fifty-five percent of Republicans want the tax hike, along with 74% of independents and 83% of Democrats."

    Geeee, that's been a big zzzzzzzz to a certain party!

    And I think the mandate has been exploited to the extreme. You have to have health care, no matter if you have insurance or not.
    The mandate only helps those who are paying for it when someone needs it and doesn't pay!

  8. carol3san profile image58
    carol3sanposted 5 years ago

    I believe the insurance has many benefits...every child will be insured, grown children can be on their parents insurance until they are 26 years old (old enough to get themselves settled into a job with benefits) the insurance company will no longer be able to jack up their prices every year or at will.  And the insurance company will no longer be able to deny a person coverage because of pre existing conditions such as diabetes (I know a lot about that)  There are other great benefits but I believe the DEMS did a very poor job with their messaging when they where going through the process of producing the product.  I believe during that time leading up to the production of the bill, there were a lot of false statements and exergarations made by the other side about the coverage.  An example of this is: "A death pannel will come between you and your doctor".

  9. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    yup...and then they had their operatives going into town meetings and screaming at people like demented demons...

    There is WAY to much money in the sick-care scam for them to go down easily. We are lucky we got what we did!

    It will only get better with ACA.....if they dismantle it, we are back to the horror-show of the past.

  10. habee profile image89
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    Like several posters, I have mixed feelings about Obamacare. I really like parts of it, but I'm not so sure about the individual mandate. Could it work without that? How would single payer work?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image75
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Without the mandate adverse selection would occur. That is, young and healthy people, or at least those who believe they are healthy, would tend to opt out and people with poor health would opt in with the result that the cost of insurance would become prohibitive.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image75
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Single payer would work the same as Medicare or Medicare could simply be extended to the entire population. Virtually all other industrialized countries have single payer universal health care. Single payer would eliminate the health care insurance industry. Their opposition is one of the reasons single payer didn't make the cut.

      1. Eric Newland profile image61
        Eric Newlandposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Single payer also means that if you have a problem with the single payer you're screwed, and the only way to fix the problem is to vote for someone who claims they're going to fix the problem and keep your fingers crossed that they're telling the truth.

        I still don't see any real difference between a government monopoly and a corporate one, as far as raw capacity to screw people over goes. At least a corporation can't throw you in prison if you refuse to buy what they're selling.

        So...should the old adage be updated to "Never put all your eggs in one basket, unless that basket is the government?"

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image75
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Well, single payer seems to work quite well in many other countries nearly all of which have results superior to the United States and much lower costs. And fewer doctors who are multi-millionares.

          1. Eric Newland profile image61
            Eric Newlandposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I don't have the slightest problem with doctors being multi-millionaires. A pediatric heart surgeon saved my daughter's life. I hope he's a multi-millionaire. It would be a damn travesty if he wasn't, quite frankly. I hope he lives in a mansion the size of a freaking state. I was fortunate enough that my insurance covered my daughter's surgery, but if I had been driven into bankruptcy by it I wouldn't be any less grateful.

            People deserve to be paid based on the value of what they contribute. No more, of course, and that can become a problem. But definitely not a penny less.

            1. lovemychris profile image79
              lovemychrisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              My sister's life was save by heart surgery too...in Sweden, where she and my mom were visiting relatives....

              They were charged nothing, even though we are Americans.

              Personally---I think the Swedish people have a much better grasp on what healthcare is supposed to be.

            2. profile image0
              Peelander Gallyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Why would you even think it'd be an acceptable option to be driven into bankruptcy by hegemonic medical pirates to save your daughter's life? If you went bankrupt and lost your house and maybe even your car, would you still think the system was fair? I know a woman who's had to declare bankruptcy in order to stay alive because her ovarian cancer treatment is so unrealistically expensive. What's the point of even trying to stay alive if you, well, can't live?

              The Nordic economic model is obviously the way to go; Japan has a great system, too. People in countries like the UK and France might complain about high taxes, but being hospitalised here is always a very rude massively debt-inducing awakening for them. The fact that Americans are too stubborn to adopt methods that are and have been effective throughout the world is one of many signs of the nation's rapid decline, in my opinion. Evolve or disappear.

          2. SparklingJewel profile image65
            SparklingJewelposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            ...I am going to have to look for a documentary I saw once that proved the problems in the system of government run healthcare in these other places you have mentioned that run so well...

            who is sorely misled???

            1. kerryg profile image84
              kerrygposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Thanks to the wonders of the internet, I know lots of Brits, Canadians, Aussies, Germans, and French, and I have yet to meet one who would trade their system for ours, problems or no.

              You might want to compare the response to these two posts:

              http://liz-marcs.livejournal.com/453187.html
              http://liz-marcs.livejournal.com/452975.html

        2. kerryg profile image84
          kerrygposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          A bunch of the single payer countries have private insurance in addition to the basic government provided plan, so everybody receives a basic level of care and the wealthy can pay for extra perks if they so desire. Seems like the most sensible option to me.

  11. profile image57
    JOSEPHKIEFFERposted 5 years ago

    I agree that the problems are not with Medicare and I partially agree that the medical costs and Insurance providers are indeed' parasitic". However I feel the the blatant incompetence of the present administration is the cause of all of our problems.There is an abundance of redundant regulations implimented in almost all catagories of our daily lives that prohibit remedial solutions by those more capable. Everything for the last 3 years that the Federal Administration has confronted or proposed has been a failure.

  12. Eric Newland profile image61
    Eric Newlandposted 5 years ago

    Ultimately, I have a personal stake in preserving what's positive about what we already have: we have some of the best technology and some of the brightest minds in medicine anywhere. They may be difficult to access, but they exist. We can do things here that can't be done anywhere else. Under any government healthcare program or a any price.

    We have these things because we have competition in the medical industry, which spurs innovation and new ideas along at a rate that a socialized system simply can't compete with (because socialists don't believe in competing, don'tcha know).

    I've been told that my daughter's surgery wouldn't have been possible as little as ten years ago. Anywhere. That's how fast America is advancing. I also take that to mean that if Obamacare had been in effect ten years ago there's a good chance my daughter would be dead today.

    So by all means, do something to help improve the accessibility of insurance for those who can't afford it. Go ahead and crack down on corruption and artificially inflated costs in the healthcare and health insurance industries too. Be my guest. Hell, I'll hold the club and take a crack or two myself.

    But do not, under any circumstances, cap salaries or stifle competition. We get amazing new cures because, and perhaps only because, doctors and medical researchers have the opportunity to outdo one another and strike it as big as their ambitions will allow. Fix what's broke, not what ain't.

  13. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    really?

    "Romney’s plan to repeal the #ACA would let insurance companies go back to spending up to 40% of your premiums on overhead costs—not care."

    How does that compute?

    My sister's surgery happened WAAAY long time ago.

    It's really only due to hoaring of info and technology that we aren't living as long as we wish to. IMO

    1. Eric Newland profile image61
      Eric Newlandposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I can't speak on your sister's case, obviously. I'm glad she's doing well.

      My daughter had five seperate heart defects. Her aorta was pinched almost shut, and her heart literally almost strangled itself when her ductus closed. She had her surgery at exactly two weeks old, still four days before her originally projected due date.

      Would there have been a doctor overseas who would have done the surgery pro bono? Who knows? She would never have lived long enough to transport her. A strict diet of prostaglandins and epinephrine was the only thing that got her from the ER to the operating room at Cincinnati Children's three days later.

      Dayton Children's (a not-for-profit hospital, by the way) informed me that they had only seen one case in their then 43-year history that even compared in severity.

      In other words, her case was anything but routine, even as far as infant heart surgeries go. Anything short of the cutting edge...probably wouldn't have cut it.

      And wow, a 40% overhead rate? Yep, that's bad. A company that actually spent that much on overhead would be squarely underbid by a competitor who kept their rates at a reasonable level. This just in: insurance providers given enough rope to hang themselves with.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image75
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I assume most of the cost of your daughter's surgery was paid by your insurance company. If you hadn't had insurance the hospital and doctor would have tried to collect from you. If you couldn't pay because you didn't have insurance or the money to pay, the cost would have been absorbed by the people who did have insurance. That's why a mandate is needed.

  14. SparklingJewel profile image65
    SparklingJewelposted 5 years ago

    here are some recent interpretations of Obama's healthcare plan (from the right)

    sounds like they have some good points here

    anyone care to compare?

    http://savingourhealthcare.org/newsroom … ?c=2411261

    I know next to nothing about healthcare, being a self-care person that continues to live preventively...haven't seen a mainstream doctor in over 40 years, but I do see health practioners of holistic modalities and do a lot of self-care, as well as pray, meditate and do Tai Chi and yoga

    anyway...I am against anything or system that wants to force me to pay for something I will never use...but I would donate to church hospitals that help others meet their needs...just don't try and force me to do so

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image75
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      How do you know you'll never use health care? Are you a Christian Scientist? Too bad there aren't more of them. It would help keep health care costs down.

    2. profile image0
      Peelander Gallyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It'd be nice if most people were as healthy as you are, but Americans are easily the least healthy people on the planet, which is why there is so much money to be made off their bad habits and desire for miracle fix-it drugs. Many people suffer from something completely out of their control that's usually hereditary, and anyway, what about accidents? If you broke your leg or something you could instantly expect to be tens of thousands in debt unless you know someone who can diagnose the break and set it by hand without crippling you.

  15. billthomas profile image61
    billthomasposted 5 years ago

    This aims to help Americans. Yet, like most Americans, people do not have money in their banking account for additional small emergencies. It's hard to cope up with our health issues nowadays. I guess, it is very important to have cash available to you right away. Either way, you have access to fast cash. Occasionally, a large crisis is something you could have to pay for right away but do not always has the money stocked away for. Repaying a loan is difficult to do all at once, particularly if you took out a large chunk for some sort of financial emergency.

  16. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    I have no problem with the individual mandate.
    My state requires me to purchase insurance in order to drive my car.
    It seems to me having health insurance is the essence of personal responsibility.
    If you're not insured you are playing Russian roulette just waiting for the day when your number comes up. And it will!

    Being insured says, "I value my health enough to get preventive care and immunizations and tests like pap smears and mammograms. I am adult enough to recognize that at some point I or one of my family members for whom I am responsible will require Emergency Room care or even hospitalization or (God forbid) ongoing treatment for a serious illness. I am responsible enough to myself and my family and others that I will willingly do the grownup thing -- buy health insurance and NOT expect others to pay my way for me."

    So much for the personal responsibility argument.
    Next?

    1. wilderness profile image92
      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I agree 100% will all you say, although I would point out that you only need car insurance if you drive a car.  There is no if in the mandate to purchase health insurance.

      Because there is no if there is no personal responsible left after Uncle Same requires it.  Like more and more of our daily lives and activities, the govt. has decided that the American public is not composed of responsible citizens and is not capable of making rational decisions.  Or at least not making the "right" decisions, according to whatever the politicians have decided is "right" for everyone (except, usually, themselves).

  17. lifelovemystery profile image86
    lifelovemysteryposted 5 years ago

    I believe that Obamacare is unconstitutional due to the Commerce Clause. That clause gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

    The clause protects individuals from government overreach and this is an overreach . I am hopeful that the entire bill will be repealed.

  18. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    It's not over-reach, when they have to provide it for so many. As Romney and the Heritage Foundation said before Obama used their idea:  No more free rides! Make everybody pay....and everybody benefits.

    Pay as you go healthcare is well.....just stupid and overly costly.

    And an unhealthy population is worse.

    1. wilderness profile image92
      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Pay as you go healthcare is cheaper than through an insurance company - there are no insurance company profits to add into the bill, no insurance company employees to pay to look over your shoulder and make sure you aren't getting more than you paid for.  There are no reams of paper for the doctor and hospital to fill out and send to the insurance company (and that you pay for). 

      The problem, of course, is that few people can pay for a major medical problem - it will bankrupt them.  Insurance companies exist for only that reason - the idea that they must pay for minor problems or non-medical issues such as contraceptives is another reason that costs are so high.  When you run to the doctor for every sniffle or bruise or for non-medical issues like contraceptives and then distribute those costs to everyone, well, everyone pays more.  Including the insured.

    2. lifelovemystery profile image86
      lifelovemysteryposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      @ lovemychris It is an overreach to force this on people that don't want it. If you don't have health care through your job and you choose not to participate in ObamaCare there is a IRS enforced fine of several thousand dollars.

      I don't pay for other people's car insurance and I don't want my tax dollars paying for their health insurance. People need to stand on their own feet and stop depending on the government.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image75
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Under the current system, your tax dollars through Medicaid and, if you have health care insurance, your insurance premiums are paying for the health care of many people who can't afford health care insurance or afford to pay directly for the care themselves. I think I read that major health care bills are the single largest cause of bankruptcy in this country.

  19. profile image0
    idratherbeposted 5 years ago

    If your employer is providing your health insurance, you're not standing on your own feet. Call any insurance company and ask how much it would cost "you for health insurance as an individual". You will be shocked how much it would cost you if you had to stand on your own two feet. I'd venture to say, you couldn't afford it. Not all employers provide health insurance. So before passing judgement on those who don't have insurance, do your homework.

    1. lifelovemystery profile image86
      lifelovemysteryposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I don't have health insurance and I paid for an ultrasound today. Out of my own pocket. Standing on my own two feet.

      1. profile image0
        idratherbeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        As I pay for my procedures out of pocket as well. Then you realize what the cost is for an individual? Most can't affford it. Some choose not to have insurance as they have the income to pay for the procedures. Not everyone has a job that can support medical costs out of pocket. So what are we to do, become judge and jury and let those who can't afford healthcare die?

        1. lifelovemystery profile image86
          lifelovemysteryposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Hi idratherbe, I have been unemployed for eight months. During that time gas and grocery costs have escalated. I didn't think that I could afford the ultrasound, however I am shocked to find how low health care costs are if you offer to pay cash. The ultrasound cost was $110. I can only imagine that the cost would be quadruple or more if I had insurance. I think your statement about letting people who cannot afford healthcare die, is a little extreme and sounds like a media sound bite.

          1. profile image0
            idratherbeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I don't where you went, but my research shows people pay the full amount. Not the reasonable and customary fee that doctors accept from insurance companies. Again, call an insurance company, ask for the same coverage you have on your policy and be prepared to be shocked. An individual doesn't have the advantage of group discounts. And no the comment about not having health insurance people can die is accurate. If they don't have the money, they don't get the care. Commom sense.

            1. lifelovemystery profile image86
              lifelovemysteryposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I live in Houston. I don't need to call an insurance company, I handled this myself. As a nation we have become to dependent on the things that our government can offer us. We need to get back to taking care of ourselves, our families and our neighbors. Yes, people can die. However, it is a ridiculous statement to lump everyone without insurance into a category of people that will die. I respect your opinion, but for me it stretches a bit more than necessary. If illegal aliens can get qualified care in our hospitals, so can American citizens without health insurance.

              For me, common sense includes asking the right questions - not making assumptions.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image75
                Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Every man for himself, and let the devil take the hindmost.

            2. Ralph Deeds profile image75
              Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              That's right. Uninsured individuals pay much more than what the hospitals and doctors charge insurance companies for the same procedures.

              1. lifelovemystery profile image86
                lifelovemysteryposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                According to this website http://www.compareultrasoundcost.com/ I was charged a fair price for my ultrasound - without insurance.

                1. profile image0
                  idratherbeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Fair and what people are charged are usually two different things. But that doesn't distract from my original comment. People, living on low incomes are forced to make a decision, more times then not. DO I pay the rent and buy food, or go to the doctor. So many finding themselves unable to afford insurance go without needed care. And yes, not giving all a chance to afford health insurance leaves me to believe the Haves decide whether the Have Nots live or die. Not all employers offer health insurance so, yes, some people have to purchase it. Thing is, it's not affordable to most. In your case you afforde the ultrasound. Now let's say you need surgery and the cost is thousands of dollars. If you can afford it, that's great. But someone working at minimun wage can't.

                  1. lifelovemystery profile image86
                    lifelovemysteryposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    So I should pay for the poor to have health insurance because a greedy government and special interests demand it? Pass.
                    I should pay for welfare programs? Pass
                    I should pay for food stamps? Pass
                    I should pay for government funded abortions? Pass

                    Oh wait. I already do. Thanks Big Gov.

                2. Ralph Deeds profile image75
                  Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  That may well be true. However, many people get charged outrageous amounts by hospitals for tests and procedures. That's a well known fact.

                  1. lifelovemystery profile image86
                    lifelovemysteryposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Guess who regulates the insurance industry? Guess who tells them where they can and cannot set up shop? Guess who regulates what they can and cannot charge?

                    Big Gov backed by lobbyist money. Go ahead and tear down hospitals, doctors and the insurance industry but you might want to dig a little deeper.

  20. Ralph Deeds profile image75
    Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

    The Weak Case Against Affordable Health Care Law--Linda Greenhouse

    "Court cases are trickier. It’s one thing to engage in prediction that flows from analysis: which side is most likely to win? It’s quite another to let readers in on the fact that one side’s argument is so manifestly weak that it doesn’t deserve to win. Journalistic accounts of court cases, at least in advance of a definitive ruling, understandably tend to take the safe course and treat the arguments on both sides with equal dignity. So it’s perhaps not surprising that just about half the public apparently believes that the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate is unconstitutional.

    "Free of convention, and fresh from reading the main briefs in the case to be argued before the Supreme Court next week, I’m here to tell you: that belief is simply wrong. The constitutional challenge to the law’s requirement for people to buy health insurance — specifically, the argument that the mandate exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause — is rhetorically powerful but analytically so weak that it dissolves on close inspection. There’s just no there there."


    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … before/?hp

  21. Eric Newland profile image61
    Eric Newlandposted 5 years ago

    Whoa...I can't believe I just now realized this.

    People who don't have health insurance and don't want it will now be required to pay for it.

    People who don't have health insurance but want it might get it for free.

    yikes

  22. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Ahaha! Just heard about that lady who was gung-ho against "Obamacare"... "I'm not paying" "You can't force me"...well, her husband got very ill, and needed care.....Cost a ton of money--and guess what? They don't have it!

    Now, YOU ....all of you.....must pay higher premiums to make up for what she refused to pay.

    No more free rides. Mandate, and eventually we will get to single payer, like the rest of the civilized world.

    High quality/Affordable!----that should be easy for "the greatest nation on earth"....right?

    1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image92
      TIMETRAVELER2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It just amazes me to see how many people don't get it about Obamacare.  Many think because they're healthy NOW that they will always be healthy and therefore feel "put upon" if they are "forced" to pay for health insurance.  Big news flash!!  You are paying for the healthcare of others right now!  Check the listings on your paychecks.  Check your own doctor or hospital bill.  Who do you think is paying for all those emergency room visits the non insured make??  And to those of you who don't want to pay for insurance now?  If you wait until something happens and then want to pay for it?  Without Obamacare, you won't be able to get it.

      If you think your finances are tight now, wait until you get really sick or need surgery,  THEN you'll find out why you should accept the Obamacare mandate.

      We need to stop being so shortsighted.  A healthy country is best for all of us.  Obamacare is trying to make that possible.  I hope it is able to continue.

  23. profile image0
    idratherbeposted 5 years ago

    Timetraveler2 you are so right! People with insurance just don't get it. If they lose their insurance, they won't be able to afford it. If they get a terminal illness and use all the life time benefit, they are without insurance or will be looking at premiums that they can't afford. They think that $300.00 a month they pay is what it costs. Boy do they have a rude awakening if they lose their insurance! It's more like $1,200.00 a month for less coverage for an individual. But they obviously live with a mentality that, it can't happen to me. Some need to wake up and smell the roses and do their homework before they lose their jobs and find themselves with insurance they can't afford!

  24. profile image0
    Larry Wallposted 5 years ago

    I will give you the perfect example.

    I am 60, a Type 2 diabetic (no medication) with high blood pressure and elevated cholesterol, both under control with diet and medicine.

    For 22 years I worked for one company that had gold plated insurance. I had to pay about one-third of the premium as a payroll deduction, so I never missed it.

    After 22 years I was let go because my position was eliminated. The company paid for my COBRA coverage for one year. I could have purchased six more months of COBRA coverage myself, but the premium was $1,800 a month--like I said the plan was gold plated. I cannot afford that premium. I am still unemployed.

    I went to buy private insurance. Because of my pre-existing conditions, no major insurance company would even talk to me. I got one to accept an application so they could send me a letter of denial.

    There is a government program called PCIP, which is designed for people with prior conditions. The premium for my wif3e and me will be close to $900 per month. However, to qualify, you have to be without credible coverage for six months prior to applying for the PCIP insurance and then it takes a month to process the application.

    In the interim I have a limited medical indemnity plan that does not include major medical. I was told by the company issuing the policy and the independent agent that it would meet the requirements of the PCIP as not being credible coverage. I have letters stating that from the agent and the company issuing the plan.

    Guess what? PCIP is saying that the coverage I have is credible and therefore I would not be eligible to get the PCIP coverage in July as I had planned.

    I have my two U.S. Senators and my U.S. Representative working on this. If I cannot get PCIP to change their ruling, I will be forced to cancel the policy I have, buy something that would have to be worse (which is hard to imagine) and then wait another six months before being able to apply for the PCIP program.

    PCIP will not provide a list of companies that meets their criteria.

    No one plans to be a diabetic. High blood pressure runs in the family as does high cholesterol. I had a perforated colon when I was 49. The doctor said there was nothing I could have done to prevent it and it could not be predicted. It just happened.

    Insurance is not a luxury. It is an absolute necessity, especially when you get older. I have to take nine prescription drugs in the course of a day. If I purchase all of them at retail prices, I am looking at several thousand dollars.

    It is not pretty out there in insurance land.

    1. profile image0
      idratherbeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Larry, I know the feeling, I'm in the same boat! But so many DON'T understand how little they pay and the employer pays. They don't understand it say, costing more then a couple hundred dollars. I will say however, should they lose their job, welcome to our world! Yet so many so called Christains say, get a job, pay for it yourself. They are clueless as to cost!

      1. lifelovemystery profile image86
        lifelovemysteryposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        @ ifratherbe I've bee in your boat for eight months. Trust me, I get it. I'm not sure about your comment regarding 'so-called Christians' though. I don't know why they are suddenly thrown into the fire, or why you think they are clueless.

        1. profile image0
          idratherbeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I say that because as Christains I would hope we would care about our fellow man. Not put money ahead of life. That so many, because they have insurance, haven't had to walk a different path. What happened to caring about each other and putting a value on all life, not just those who have the means to purchase insurance and suggesting many are just looking for a handout.

    2. lifelovemystery profile image86
      lifelovemysteryposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      @ Larry Wall. I agree that insurance is a necessity because you never know if or when a medical catastrophe might occur. However, I don't want to be on the hook as a taxpayer for everyone else's necessity.

      I need to have a biopsy performed but I don't expect anyone else to pay for it, and I'm not going to cry about the cost. I'll suck it up and pay for it.

      We already have 49% of American's that don't pay federal taxes. I'm really sick of entitlement programs and the people standing in line to collect. I hope you stay well sir.

  25. Eric Newland profile image61
    Eric Newlandposted 5 years ago

    Er, for my own part, just because I uphold people's right not to have to buy something simply because they breathe doesn't mean I think not having insurance is a good idea.

    1. Paul Wingert profile image81
      Paul Wingertposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Obama made the mistake of comparing the requirement to buy health insurance to buying auto insurance. Bad comparison because not everyone drives or even owns a car. I want to know is what happened to the public option. I agree with killing the mandate and figure something else out. But as far as the rest of the health care law, it's a start.

  26. Paul Wingert profile image81
    Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago

    It's funny how Romney (professional flip flopper and liar) condems the healthcare law when it was modeled after Romneycare and he helped push it through.

    1. lovemychris profile image79
      lovemychrisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      He's the one who said: "No more free rides..!!

      I guess he's for free rides now that Obama used his AND the Heritage Foundation's idea.

      Change of heart? Somehow I doubt it.

  27. melpor profile image89
    melporposted 5 years ago

    I personally have no problem with the health care that the Obama's administration has put in place. I do not agree that someone should be force to pay for something, but in this case everyone needs some form of health insurance. We all do get sick from time to time. I  believe most people are upset  with the idea of being fine if you do not buy health insurance. I do believe we all should have access to affordable health insurance. If everyone is paying a monthly premium to have health insurance it makes sense for people not having insurance to be fine. This is done with auto insurance in some states, if you are caught driving without insurance in most cases you will be fined. Again, in the long run someone will have to pay for the uninsured if the money is not generated from fines or from some other source to covered their expensive medical bill. Bear in mind, politicians have been debating since Franklin Roosevelt on the issue of putting together an affordable, universal health plan for everyone and so far President Obama has come the closest in achieving that, but it is not perfect.

  28. profile image0
    Larry Wallposted 5 years ago

    There is one point to consider regarding the requirement that everyone buy insurance. If people who do not make extensive use of the coverage and pay into the program it could possibly reduce the cost of older people who make greater use of the program. That is just a theory. I do not have the data to run any kind of analysis that would validate that theory. However, that is the primary purpose of any insurance program. Just a thought.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image75
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Makes sense. That's the way insurance works. The lucky ones help pay for the unlucky ones.

  29. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Well, and isn't 90% of healthcare cost used on a person's last year of life??

    We are 100% of us going to have a last year of life.

    1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image92
      TIMETRAVELER2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It interests me that in all of these discussions, I have never seen anyone discuss just how much Medicare actually costs.  While it's true that basic coverage only costs around $100 per month, it is also true that people who have Medicare must pick up the other 20% of costs PLUS pay various annual deductibles.  So, if someone has a $100,000 surgery, their personal balance due is $20,000.  This doesn't sound like "cheap" to me!  Also, if you choose to avoid having that problem, the monthly cost of a Medigap policy for a couple is easily $360 a month.

      Every year my husband and I pay between $12,000 and $15,000 for health care.  So to those of you who think you're paying all of our healthcare costs, you better think again.  We paid in for years and now we're still paying.

  30. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago
  31. Onusonus profile image86
    Onusonusposted 5 years ago

    The supreme court will start to hear the case for Obamacare tomorrow. I hope it gets shot out of the air like a big fat flying goose on opening day of hunting season.

    http://www.mrctv.org/videos/war-women-or-war-religion

  32. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    With that supreme court, it just might. Those brainiacs passed Citizens United.

  33. mikelong profile image74
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    It's simply sad how those who are opposed to "Obama Care" (a nonsensical term) are often those who know the least about 1) our current system and 2) what this law entails.

    There's way to much "rah rah rah...my team only...everyone else is wrong"...going on...

    Then again, judging from the "religiosity" of many in this group (and the same biased way of thinking towards other religions/sects), I am not surprised.

    1. profile image0
      idratherbeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      @mikelong, you are so right. Worst thing is the ones hooting and howling to get rid of it have no idea what they're giving up. Much of what's in place just might be needed by them. Seems to me if big business and insurance companies are so against it, it must help the average American! But instead of researching it, they assume the GOP representatives working to get rid of the program, are working to help them! So untrue. I agree it may need tweeked, but it's definately a bill in the right direction!

  34. mikelong profile image74
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    Well, remember, the GOP is the "More American" party anyways.....right?  (eyes rolling) I mean, they surround themselves with so many American flags, and chant "U.S.A.!" so much for the dumbest/most ludicrous reasons....they must know more about 'Merica than the rest of us poor folks..

    1. profile image0
      idratherbeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      @mikelong, and don't forget they seem to think they're more Christain too! That's why they don't seem to care if someone doesn't have insurance and is destined to an early death because they don't have enough money to afford $1,200.00 a month for an individual healthcare plan.

  35. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "Let me ask Mr. Ryan one question. How much money do you think I can save for my healthcare as a senior citizen at 54 years of age until I have to pay for care when I'm 65? Do you have any f'ing idea how much an MRI costs? A one-day stay in a hospital? Home care? A hip replacement? 11 stents? Chemo for melanoma? Right now my parents (85 and 89) are helped by Medicare and a modestly priced supplemental. If it had not been for those programs they would have died. You're going to give me a VOUCHER?!!!!! After I paid into Medicare for 39 years? You can stick your Ryan Plan 2.0 up your....."

  36. carol3san profile image58
    carol3sanposted 5 years ago

    lovemychris, I absolutely agree with you.

    1. lovemychris profile image79
      lovemychrisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I just can't understand the attitude....
      I was driving home, and on the radio they were talking about this guy in Belgium who has ALS disease....he's getting the best of care, at no cost! Why? Cause he's paid taxes all his life.

      We pay taxes, and what? 3/4 goes to administrative cost for insurance companies!
      Who used to deny people if they were TOO sick--before ACA.... And people want to go BACK to that!

      and before somebody says "Move to Belgium, then."
      No--I want that for here!Our citizens.

  37. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Chart of the Day: The Affordable Care Act and Women http://mojo.ly/H9DBsc

    "You can call it Obamacare, because I do care."---Barack Obama

    1. lifelovemystery profile image86
      lifelovemysteryposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      "$1.76 Trillion ObamaCare Cost Doubles Down On Failure"

      http://news.investors.com/article/60440 … ma-vow.htm

  38. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Investors don't care.

    IE: I'm through listening to "Money Men" about Healthcare.

    Profit is not in the Hippocratic Oath.

    On a related note:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBEwBjcS … r_embedded

  39. Dolores Monet profile image91
    Dolores Monetposted 5 years ago

    One of the biggest problems with health care is the cost and it must be reduced. Many long years ago, it wasn't so horrible. Then when hospitals and insurance companies were allowed to function as for profit entities, costs went up. A hospital used to be just a place you went when you were sick. Now they look like upscale hotels or art museums.

    Plus, years ago, they did not allow drug ads on TV and in magazines. Now, half the ads you see are for medicines. Who pays for that? People who have drug coverage. And who were some of the highest compensated CEO's of the last few years? People in the health care industry.

    Some years back one of the drug companies was under fire because of the cost of a chemotherapy drug for children with cancer. When asked about the high cost, the spokeswoman answered, "that's what the market will bear."

  40. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "without the ACA, we could lose our house, what’s left of our 401ks, and everything else to keep our son healthy. That’s what’s at stake."

    "Someone explain why Clarence Thomas isnt required to recuse himself since his wife is a insurance lobbyist? MASSIVE CONFLICT OF INTEREST?"

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image75
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Good question.

      I just got an NPR email report that Scalia, Alito and Thomas have made their "NO"
      votes clear in the questioning today. I guess that's not surprise. Looks like Kennedy will be the deciding vote.

      NPR BREAKING NEWS:

      Insurance Mandate A Tough Sell To Justices

      The U.S. Supreme Court appeared split Tuesday on whether the federal government can force people to buy health insurance. "Three of the conservatives are clearly going to vote to strike it down -- that would be justices Scalia, Alito and Thomas," NPR's Nina Totenberg reports from outside the court.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        It was going to come down to Kennedy all along.  I'm surprised that Roberts is down as a maybe.  Predictably, Thomas has been asleep throughout the proceedings...

  41. Onusonus profile image86
    Onusonusposted 5 years ago

    Supreme court justice Elena Kagan will be sitting in judgment of the hearing for Obamacare, the very same person who assigned a lawyer to defend it, no bias there. Judicial activism at its worst.

  42. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "USA - Remember Party of Koch & Norquist servants on SCOTUS - Scalia, Thomas, Roberts - have TAX PAYER provided free health care."

    If they vote against it---shouldn't they give it back?

    ?

  43. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "The American oligarchy increasingly has less in common with the American people than it does with the equivalent oligarchies in Germany or Mexico or Japan." -- Lewis Lapham, editor of Harpers

    They don't care. They speak in platitudes, live in a story-land.

    Go to their cocktail parties and wonder that the "regular" people can't make it like them.

    What is it to them if people die for lack of healthcare??
    Their simple platitudes of "freedom" will remain intact. As will their insulation from our realities, due to their tax-payer funded luxury life.

    Compassion is not a requisite for the Money Bots.

    Nor is it, apparently, for the highest arbiters of this Land.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image75
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Many of them give to museums, orchestras and other organizations, not out of compassion but to improve their social among the elite.

      1. lovemychris profile image79
        lovemychrisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I appreciate what they do for hospitals and museums, but I too, feel as if it's an ego thing. Make the situations better for people so they don't NEED charity and such!

        Nobody likes asking...it's embarrasing.

        Puts it in an equation of one being better than another.

    2. Repairguy47 profile image59
      Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Tax-payer funded luxury life? Its clear from all you have ever written that is exactly what you want, ain't gonna happen for you.

      1. lovemychris profile image79
        lovemychrisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Yet again, personal insults from the Right Wing.

        so predictable.

        1. lovemychris profile image79
          lovemychrisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          "Poverty was seen as a character defect; not a circumstance. The poor were poor because they were vagrants, drunkards, morally bankrupt prostitutes, etc., and when it came to their children it wasn’t only that no one wanted to fork over their money to feed a little hungry mouth they did not create, it was a mistrust of the irresponsibility involved.

          Because it’s always been easier to vilify victims than to address the problematic social structure."


          http://www.kitsch-slapped.com/2009/07/w … ngle-moms/

          1. lorlie6 profile image87
            lorlie6posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            lovemychris, thanks for this: 

            "Poverty was seen as a character defect; not a circumstance. The poor were poor because they were vagrants, drunkards, morally bankrupt prostitutes, etc., and when it came to their children it wasn’t only that no one wanted to fork over their money to feed a little hungry mouth they did not create, it was a mistrust of the irresponsibility involved.

            Because it’s always been easier to vilify victims than to address the problematic social structure."

            Ain't it the truth????

        2. Repairguy47 profile image59
          Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          An attempt to have someone banned by screaming insult.

          So predictable.

          1. lovemychris profile image79
            lovemychrisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            What? I didn't try to ban anyone....

            1. Repairguy47 profile image59
              Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

              lollollollol

              1. lovemychris profile image79
                lovemychrisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                smilesmilesmilesmilesmile

                1. lorlie6 profile image87
                  lorlie6posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  lmc trying to ban someone?  I sure didn't see such a thing.  Oh, and since we're trading emoticons...smilesmilesmilesmilesmilesmile

  44. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Throw the GOP out. Then we can continue in a real way. IMO

    "Notice a pattern here, on tax cut heavy stimulus, on health care mandate, on ditching public option, on bush tax cuts, EVERY TIME Obama has given the GOP what they want they turn around and slap him in the face with it"

    Privitize is what you people want? NO way.
    WE voted for Obama....enuff of your canoodling to get your way.

  45. profile image0
    Larry Wallposted 5 years ago

    It is always up to the judge to decide if he needs to recuse himself. If he refuses, you can appeal. Unfortunately, when you are dealing with a Supreme Court Justice, there is no place to file an appeal.

    This is just one of the things the Founding Fathers did not anticipate when they created our for of government. They did a good job. Unfortunately, many pick and choose the parts they like and ignore the rest.

  46. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "It's obvious that America has been turned into a proto-fascist dictatorship of the plutocracy during the decades since Reagan came to power. The right controls the Court, so it overturns Gore's victory and is now about to overturn Obama's attempt to create a more just, and less expensive, healthcare system. The right controls the Congress with campaign contributions, made all the more all-powerful by, what else?, the Roberts "Court." And the right controls the political brains of the largest group most hurt by their oligarchic power, tens of millions of uneducated, working-class white voters who've been easily conditioned by Fox, Rush, and the Kochs to be the strongest SUPPORTERS of the oligarchy's dictatorship, instead of its bitterest enemies, as they were, sensibly, in the Depression. The oligarchy would be powerless without the support of these dumb white voters, as the oligarchy was under FDR, when the grandparents of these fools knew who their class enemies WERE. No longer, now the whole oligarchic structure rests on the knee-jerk support of the mob the oligarchs are progressively impoverishing as they themselves just get richer and richer from their control of the system. In other words, THERE'S NO WAY OUT. We're all locked onto the American Titanic, because the masses are just putty in the hands of the Kochs and the rest who are gutting our economy to explode their own riches."


    "Probably.

    I think this election is the last chance to save it."

    1. profile image0
      Larry Wallposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I will be the first to admit things are not perfect. I am unemployed, after 22 years on the same job. I have a joke of an insurance policy right now. I am pushing 61 so I will probably never work again.

      But I have also studied history and this nation, its people, have an uncanny ability to recover and move forward. You use a lot of big words but you are belittling the people  you are apparently claiming to support.

      We have survived civil wars, world wars, depressions, famine, the 60s, scandals in the White House, ineffective Congresses, the McCarthy red scare and so much more. We will survive this time of uncertainty. 

      I refuse to throw in the towel and say its all over but the counting of the corpses.

  47. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "Romney says on Leno he'll cover folks w/pre-ex cond only if they've been insured before. He's clearly never worried about his own health care."

    Of course not. Doesn't even understand the concept of not having everything  you need.

    "Why, what's wrong with you?"

    says the gvrs son, a fortunate one.

    http://hubpages.com/forum/post/edit/2034841

  48. mikelong profile image74
    mikelongposted 5 years ago

    The United States has survived a lot...

    But, when looking at past civilizations and the problems they faced, "the 60's", the scandals of the White House, "the McCarthy Red Scare" (which was mostly b.s.), famine, and depression are small pickings.

    The United States has benefited enormously from things out of its control....namely its geographic location, technological inheritance and economic advantage tied to Britain, and mineral wealth. The philosophical/religious evolution that had taken place in the centuries prior to the establishment of the United States (which wrought destruction, death, and deep hatred/resentment throughout the "Old World").

    The United States has yet to prove that it is more than a temporary blip on the larger historical timeline.

    If the United States, as a collective, wishes to continue as a strong, successful, cohesive nation, it needs to look out for the benefit of all its citizens and stakeholders.....not just those who are at the top.

  49. profile image68
    logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago

    If the country is to continue to thrive and prosper, the government needs to step back.  Individual citizens need to step up, take responsibility for their actions, and have the strength and courage to do for themselves instead of relying on a government that caters to the weak and corrupt.

  50. lorlie6 profile image87
    lorlie6posted 5 years ago

    Patience IS a virtue!  At least that's what I've been told.

 
working