Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	TOTUS down to 41% approval
Date:	10/4/2013 11:01:01 PM

i have been looking for the fabled “lemming with a suicide vest”, and i think there’s one around here.

i think its time to face the Piper.    The Tea Party/Libertarian zealots have elected a core of entrenched radicals, but just like radicals anywhere, they aren’t always under rational control.    interesting to note the NYT opinion piece that suggested that the arch right wing of your party was spawned and funded by a relatively small number of really affluent mega-donors who thought that they would be a useful pressure group to use against the Democratic Party.        Only to loose a self-destructive schism into their own ranks.     Now, moderate Republicans are seeing the credibility of their Party be swept away and  i really doubt the Koch Brothers want to see a collapse of the world economy, that sort of thing is really bad for business, ya know.

Frankenstein’s monster.

To the Tea Party’s lasting credit, they really DiD campaign on reducing/eliminating/or simply shutting down the government.    And they weren’t kidding about it, either.   Some of these guys apparently think that bringing the government to a halt, costing the economy much needed traction, and even risking a world-wide economic catastrophe  is a good thing.  it’s a dangerous fantasy, and cuts against the core interests of every constituent the GOP has.     The majority of businessmen and voters in this country are not in favor of electing people who want to damage their society.  

And some of you thought 60’s left wing radicals were dangerous loonies, those guys were nothing compared to today’s crop……   Osama Bin Ladin would clearly bless these radical’s efforts.    He only managed to blow down the Twin Towers, he would be pleased that the Tea Party is willing to bring down the  Full Faith and Credit of the United States.    

This is a turning point for the GOP, i think they will begin to split into 2 factions now… one moderate, and another representing the arch-conservatives.  

Moderate conservatives seem to have been curious about what a lemming with a suicide vest would look like, but nobody wants to live with one. 

Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	Going bad in America
Date:	10/5/2013 10:07:34 AM (updated 10/5/2013 10:09:12 AM)

The trend under DEM domination since 2007 has accelerated towards a form of government (society) that has been historically proven to be unsuccessful… socialism.  Conservatives, both mainstream and Tea Party, have their eye of the objective of turning this trend around. We have illustrative, present day, proof that extorting money from the productive class and redistributing it to the non-productive class is, on the part of the bloated government involved, self-destructive. (Greece, Italy, Ireland, Detroit, Chicago, Stockton, et al)

"...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them." [Thatcher, 05FEB76]

ObamaCare is a case in point, it extorts money from the healthy to fund the medical care of the unhealthy. This is going to turn out to be a VERY expensive enterprise (in premiums, deductibles, and co-pays). Piled on top of it all will be bloated government agencies requiring additional tax derived funds. Not to mention, the degradation and rationing of health care.  If this law were so popular, why would it have to have been passed in the middle of the night on a weekend?

Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	CONDESCENDING CR@P
Date:	10/5/2013 12:19:30 PM

We’ll take on Fishy’s drive-by one piece at a time:

“You quote Thatcher who was prime Minister of a country with socialized medicine and then lambast Obamacare.”  - - One should ask the British how they feel about the delays (waiting) and quality of their health care system.  Margaret Thatcher was against socialism, but found herself unable to undo their socialized (single payer) health care.  For similar reasons, we conservatives would like to stop ObamaCare before it makes our health care like that of the British.

 “Why do you resent those with pre existing conditions obtaining insurance?” - - I do not believe anyone should be denied purchased insurance coverage… as much as I abhor forcing people to buy health insurance. A significant number of “pre-existing” conditions were brought on by poor lifestyle choices and patient negligence. If YOU choose to smoke, glut your way to obesity, do drugs, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet (etc)… you stand a VERY GOOD CHANCE of running out of other people’s money.  YOU should pay a nasty premium for that.  Maybe it will cause your children and grandchildren to carefully consider their lifestyle choices. (Before you launch on me… I know that not all preexisting catastrophic health conditions are a matter of choice. But, there is a better way than ObamaCare to help those folks.)

“After all, it is the same government that provides you with your insurance and millions of seniors under a single payer system unlike (sic) ObamaCare.” - - Fishy, I did not become wealthy serving my country. During my time in the service, I was not paid commensurate with either the private sector or the civil service. To retain me in the service, I was promised medical care for both me and my immediate family for life. Civilians get medical care for life under Medicare (as will you).  Fishy, I paid my insurance premiums through sacrifice and risk. I do not resent not being wealthy because of my service… but, I do resent the condescending blather that comes from you!

“Your heroes Reagan and Thatcher=Socialized Medicine” - - Yes, Reagan and Thatcher are among my heroes. This is because they inherited, and turned around, countries in a mess.  They had the good sense (and courage) to get competent advice (advisors), make decisions, and shoulder the blame when appropriate. To the contrary, Obama, the arrogant narcissist, does not surround himself with anyone but political hacks, does not make decisions, and pushes the blame for his incompetence on others. The buck does not stop under his heel marks on the Resolute Desk… the same desk on which he has never produced a budget as required by the law.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	CONDESCENDING CR@P
Date:	10/5/2013 1:31:53 PM

"Fishy, I paid my insurance premiums through sacrifice and risk. I do not resent not being wealthy because of my service… but, I do resent the condescending blather that comes from you!"

I have NEVER stated or suggested you are not entitled to the insurance.  I feel anyone who served in a war zone should receive paid medical insurance for life. So, let's put that argument to rest.

Can you explain how you would provide coverage at reasonable rates for those with preexisiting? After Hillarycare in 1992, the GOP said there were better ways to insure the masses. They never came up with a plan. Insurance companies said the same, but,  they never came up with a plan. The result is Obamacare.

Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	The Law of Unintended Consequences
Date:	10/5/2013 2:30:31 PM

But then… Congress didn’t know (didn’t read) the full intent of this Obamanation before they passed it.

 “Can you explain how you would provide coverage at reasonable rates for those with preexisiting (sic)? After Hillarycare in 1992, the GOP said there were better ways to insure the masses. They never came up with a plan. Insurance companies said the same, but, they never came up with a plan. The result is ObamaCare.” [GF, above]

You CANNOT provide coverage at a reasonable rate for an unreasonable risk.  The insurance companies know this.  If they could attract enough healthy people and the gouge them through their premiums… they would do it.

So along comes ObamaCare and… through the coercive might of the IRS… FORCES healthy people… and especially the middle class… to UNDERWRITE the bad risk of pre-existing coverage.  But, guess what… even with the federal arm twisting… premiums for pre-existing conditions are still too expensive.

A non-profit insurance company would fail. And for-profit insurance companies have investors (including retire folks like me who have a retirement portfolio).  I can tell you that we HAVE dumped an insurance investment for losing money. Thus, even under ObamaCare, insurance companies have to show a return on investment.

Thence, under ObamaCare, we have subsidies. From whence, comes the funding of subsidies?

Therefore, high co-pays and deductibles must be introduced into the equation. The co-pays and deductibles are ADDED to the ballooning premiums and increased taxes… or debt… or BOTH… to support subsidies.

Employers who (now must) provide medical insurance, feel the ballooning of their portion of the premiums. Response: a) shed eligible employees, b) reduce full-time and part-time employees to less than 28 hours/week, or/AND c) increase prices. Fewer employees and higher prices - is that affordable?

 “This boat don’t float!” it is already leaking.  We passed the law so that we would know what’s in it… and now we are slowly learning that the “Affordable” Care Act… ISN’T!

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	The Law of Unintended Consequences
Date:	10/5/2013 6:54:36 PM

Major, i wish i could persuade you to take another look at the ACA.    First of all, you deserve to have access to a guaranteed health care system after serving in the military.  No argument from me there.   But the fact that military veterans have this benefit is evidence that we believe in the US that entitlement programs can be a good thing, and necessary for those that benefit from them.    The VA is, without a doubt, an example of a socialized government-run medical program.   And without it, millions of vets would be devastated both medically and financially.

i’m pretty familiar with this as i have worked with many, many vets over the years who were in need of medical help.   i’ve sat in the ER with them until i could arrange transportation to the nearest VA hospital with available beds, sometimes as far as 2 states away…… while we could have treated them down the hall in the same hospital if only our health system was designed differently.      i became really familiar with sorting out the intricacies of insurance coverages as each crisis was heating up.  i always thought the Vets were lucky in that there was always a VA to help them, whereas the fellow in the next room with no insurance had nowhere to go & not enough money for expensive treatment.   For that guy, my job was to get him out the door and protect the hospital from the legal and financial consequences of having yet another uninsured patient.   i sent many of them out the door with a prescription for meds i knew they couldn’t afford, and encouragement to find a doctor to treat them in spite of their inability to pay….    the hospital's bottom line was very much at risk thru their ER services where we treated people regardless of their ability to pay.... but because of their lack of insurance, i always felt it was inadequate and something of a charade.  

The reasoning behind having a VA medical system & Tricare is pretty sound:   if we want a ready and able military force, we need to be sure that anyone who is willing to make this sacrifice is protected in this way… and this includes their families.  Without it, i doubt very much an all-volunteer military could exist.   But there is another reason to provide this system to you and your family.   That’s because veterans could not get adequate medical coverage if they were forced to compete in the same marketplace, under the same conditions, as everyone else.    

 One way to think about it is this: if we want all retiring or disabled vets to have medical coverage, why don’t we simplify the system by just giving them an extra $500 monthly stipend to buy their own policies in the marketplace?    This would eliminate the need for a huge part of the federal bureaucracy, and let the vets benefit from the competitive advantages of having choices of multiple insurance carriers.   The law of supply and demand says that this should keep their premiums low.      That sounds pretty good, except it won’t work.   The reason it wouldn’t work is because insurance companies do not want to have expensive consumers on their membership rolls, and have a multitude of ways to either avoid or dismiss these consumers when they are identified.   Refining the membership rolls to decrease the number of people likely to NEED insurance is simply a more profitable way to conduct business.         injured vets wouldn’t be allowed coverage by commercial insurers… others often have pre-existing conditions and risk factors that are best avoided if you want to make a profit in the health care business.   Lifetime limits would also an impediment to their insurability.     So, a socialized system that guarantees their coverage is necessary to protect them.

i know you feel that eliminating rules about pre-existing conditions is already a good idea, i do too.   But please allow me to push the argument a bit further.   Why should one class of citizens have an entitlement program like this and others be prevented from doing so?   Why should vets be shielded from the realities of the commercial insurance markets when the rest of us are just as deserving of our health and medical care?    if the commercial insurance market isn’t good enough for Veterans, why is it good enough for the rest of us?

in my case, i am uninsurable, and the only insurance i can get is a policy through the State Employees Health Plan, though i have never been a state employee.  in this plan, the state of Alabama apparently has to offer financial inducements to Blue Cross or United Health Care to allow me to enroll for basic coverage.     My premium, for just me alone, is $800 per month.  i have no idea how much money it costs State tax payers to keep the program running, but it is the only option available for every Alabama citizen who can’t get regular insurance coverage.     And why am i uninsurable?    Well, because my MD noticed that i had high iron levels in my blood and sent me to a specialist who performed a genetic test.  This test showed that i have 2 genes associated with the possible development of liver cancer.  it’s a pretty common trait among white males of northern European heritage… 1 in 200 of us have it   (Hemochromotosis is sometimes referred to as the Celtic Disease).   And i am not sick in any way, all i have to do is give blood every few months to keep my iron levels low.   if i do that (and i will), i won’t ever actually get sick.   However, insurance companies look at genetic tests as firmly predictive, and i was denied all coverage because i am considered too risky to insure.    The many vets i know would have far more conditions that insurance companies would want to stay away from. 

From my POV, the Affordable Care Act is already a compromise that fails to correct some of the worst problems in healthcare because it leaves the insurance & Pharmaceutical industries very much in play.   They will continue to focus on ways to enhance their profits under the ACA.   i really would have preferred a single-payer system like Tricare for all of us, but a plan of that scope could not be pushed thru Congress.   So, we will have a hybrid system that won’t be socialized medicine at all…. For profit insurers will benefit as more people will have coverage, and a larger pool of premium-payers will fill the system.    Government’s role will be to prevent profiteering, not take the place of the insurance companies.    i don’t think anyone is being extorted by this, most middle class families already have coverage and have long accepted medical insurance as a necessary part of securing their finances.   From the early evidence coming in now from various insurance exchanges, many of them will actually have reduced costs.    And requiring people to have coverage is not going to be destructive, its going to make the system run and prevent folks from buying insurance just before they walk into the ER, and then drop their coverage when they leave.     A successful insurance pool requires maximum participation of both people who need insurance this moment, and those who don’t.     i expect that many small businesses will drop their employee insurance plans because they will determine that the administrative costs of this are outweighed by letting their employees purchase on the exchanges.   Ultimately, i think you will hear those business owners rather enjoy NOT having to negotiate new terms with insurance companies every year, and then having to explain to employees what has changed when they, or their families, need a doctor.