?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

...the senators in Washington took the cowardly route. Preserving their own jobs is more important to them than doing what the overwhelming majority of the American people want. Fire them! Vote them out! They don't care about you!

This is as pissed as I've ever seen our President.

Comments

( 20 comments — Leave a comment )
veronica_rich
Apr. 20th, 2013 01:14 am (UTC)
Since you've been following this even closer than I have, can you confirm or deny if the "90 percent of Americans want background checks" is a reputable poll?
bonnie_halfelvn
Apr. 20th, 2013 01:35 am (UTC)
It depends on who you ask, but I've heard as high as 98%, so since 90% is on the conservative end, I think you're safe to cite it.
veronica_rich
Apr. 20th, 2013 01:50 am (UTC)
Have you seen the poll my commenter refers to?
bonnie_halfelvn
Apr. 20th, 2013 02:36 am (UTC)
Now that you mention it, yes. It often depends on how the question is asked. I love the first one in that poll: Do you approve of the way Obama is handling gun control? "No" can mean, "no I think gun laws should be tighter" to "he's not leading" to "no I think gun control laws are too tight already."

The only people I see ranting about "no background checks" are the most conservative, and I am surrounded by them. But the average person seems to favor tighter laws. I mean just basic logical, common sense stuff.
droxy
Apr. 20th, 2013 09:47 pm (UTC)
I just reapplied for my CCW. Let me tell you I have to go through a back ground check- again, and everytime it expires. I can't get it if I owe child support or any fines or back taxes. I cannot have any sort of substance abuse in my past, or disorderly conduct, or restraining orders, or domestic violence, or DUI. Getting arrested for anything. All immediate grounds for not getting one and having it made invalid. I had to fill our 5 pages of legal and permission and promises pages. Trust me they do everything but stick a probe up your anus.

I have to take two tests. Seriously, how much more background checks do they need on me?

Gun control isn't about guns. it's about control. I'm tired of every minute of every day the govt is taking something away from me.

Plus the congress ignored all it's own statistics from the FBI. This was just more of the left's tyrannical statism and govt expansion. They don't want us to have guns. .
bonnie_halfelvn
Apr. 21st, 2013 02:25 am (UTC)
I would like for a guy to have to reload before he can get 30 rounds off. I would like all those things you're screened for to apply to everyone else who wants a gun, too, because right now that's not the case. I would like a ban on semi-automatic weapons.

Call me crazy, but I think I speak for the majority.
veronica_rich
Apr. 21st, 2013 03:25 am (UTC)
This was just more of the left's tyrannical statism and govt expansion. They don't want us to have guns.

Again, I call horseradishes. The Left own the White House and the Senate - if it didn't want Americans to have access to guns, at the very least we would have the background checks and an assault weapons ban, neither of which was approved. (Well, the background checks WAS approved by a legal majority, but it didn't meet this bullshit 60-vote threshold someone's decided to go against the Constitution to put in place of late.)

As I told someone else today, I think a fair gauge of the majority of the Left on guns is a Democrat Congresswoman who was shot in the head who still supports the ability of people to own guns.

Edited at 2013-04-21 03:26 am (UTC)
droxy
Apr. 20th, 2013 09:38 pm (UTC)
The overwhelming majority also didn't want HC passed. Where was the outrage then? I find it amusing no one is bitching about the blatant blow off of the will of the majority when discussing the blow of on the control of citzens and reduction of our rights because some group is pulling the "for the children" card. If it was for the children the govt would lock up more crazies and criminals. Oh wait, we cant lock up crazy people anymore. That piece of sh*t HC law passed over the will of the people is going to increase HC premiums by 40% or more and that is not counting the tax increases that are inplace and coming. Increases that the govt wants hidden from the end consumer but some retailers are exposing that VAT. -sighs-

Yes fire them all and replace them with libertarians. Smaller govt, less spending and more freedoms.

I am sick and tied of congress tying to reduce my rights. Also reducing my rights by executive order. Yes, Bush did the patriot act, but when that expired this current administration continued it instead of killing it. They need to enforce existing laws first, then we can discuss change, and they need to get crazies of the street. Instead it's more and more regulations and laws, and the govt is unwilling to enforce all the ones we already have. Laws will not reduce violent offenders.

I want the ban lifted on clove cigs. I sick of big govt tracking my credit card purchases. Can I please have more freedom from the nanny state?

You should be happy about the Montana laws, finally a govt that removed laws to ensure more freedoms and more liberty. More than I can say for the *ssholes in Washington DC.



veronica_rich
Apr. 21st, 2013 12:05 am (UTC)
The overwhelming majority also didn't want HC passed.

If by HC you mean the Affordable Care Act, I have to call bullshit. The majority of Americans DID want health care legislation. But what they wanted was a public option.

Instead, we're going to force people who can't afford to, to buy insurance from private companies. This wasn't the Left's idea; it was a concession the Democrats made to get the ACA passed because it was something the GOP required to vote for something that wasn't emptying the Treasury for no-bid war contracts. And frankly, I'm still amazed enough Republicans voted in favor to pass the ACA. They must have gotten some GOOD bribes from those HMOs.

I'll tell you all about going years without health insurance anytime, and the resulting chronic illnesses I'm now living with because I couldn't afford to see a doctor and buy antibiotics - even though I was working three concurrent jobs at the time. I'll also tell you about how health care was going UP UP UP UP every year before Obama took office or the ACA was passed. Because this is part of why I couldn't afford a basic policy even though I was working three jobs concurrently.

I'll tell you one other little story. My mother was employed by the state government of a red state for over 30 years as a social worker. When she was diagnosed with leukemia two years after she retired, because she lost her health insurance after she retired, the only reason she was able to afford treatment at all was because of Dad's retirement health insurance - which came through working 30 years on the assembly line at an auto manufacturer.

The manufacturer was the beneficiary of bailout funds to get it back on its feet before that time - it kept the company from going bankrupt and having to default on promises it had made its retirees (whose individual annual salaries/benefits were only roughly equal to the cost of one of the company's nicer SUVs). The bailout was one of the rare things Bush did right in initiating. (Don't get me started on the Patriot Act or this administration's and Congress's refusal to redact some of the bullshit associated with it.)

Just face it: If the Democrats came out tomorrow against public health care, the GOP would fall all over itself to preach about how wonderful a thing it is.

(Now, if I misunderstood what you were talking about with HC, mea culpa and you can disregard it.)
bonnie_halfelvn
Apr. 21st, 2013 02:34 am (UTC)
I have been very fortunate to work for a company that is very generous with its benefits. They were one of the last companies to charge employees for a share of the cost of our health insurance.

But as a type 1 diabetic, I am well aware that if I should lose this job, my personal costs for health care might increase dramatically. I do believe that more people would change jobs or start innovative businesses of their own were they not afraid to let go of health benefits that are tied to a job.
droxy
Apr. 21st, 2013 05:10 am (UTC)
Right, its not a public option, or single payer. So the PPACA is still a total fiasco. No one wanted PPACA, not bullshit but fact, if you take Rassmussen as fact. (61% is what I recall)


Yes, Insurance needs fixing. Everyone agrees with that. =) It's the method of fixing that many people disagree on.

You got PPACA right! You get it. But this crap PPACA got shoved down everyone's throat. PPACA is not what people wanted. But reps voted against what the voters wanted. They did not want PPACA.

We agree that PPACA is nothing more than the same old insurance, under govt control to reduce spending on health care. I read the law. It does not say it will reduce cost of medical care, nope, it states reduce spending on HC services. PPACA insurance mandate will cost us more in premiums, for less services, and add new taxes to support the expanding government layer on it. As an engineer, I don't see how the PPACA formula will help anyone, except the govt and insurance industries.

Despite all the pleading and well aired promises of PPACA being was going cheaper, the reality is HC costs are still going UP UP UP, except at a faster rate than under the broken system, that is also probably happening due to inflationary pressures of cheaper dollars.

Mark my words, PPACA is a fiasco and will be an exceedingly expensive failure that will result in a 2 tier HC market where those with money buy their services outside of insurance. Those 60% of people will pay more than double, and the lower 40 will get crap care under the mandate. Remember the govt run VA is taking 2 years to get benefits to disabled vets. Just imagine what the efficiency of PPACA is going to be like! I can hardly wait for the mind bending crawl of wait times for a procedure approval. I expect people will drop dead waiting for care, in a system that is designed to do just that.

Finally PPACA isn't the way to overhaul HC. If the govt wanted to stick it's nose in the HC business, they should put it under the same consideration as public utilities and remove the anti-competition laws. HC is not something the govt should be involved in, this is my view as a libertarian. History shows us the govt can't successfully handle anything without excessive fraud, politics, and abuse. I don't want the govt owning my doctor or sticking it's nose between me and my doctor. That's what PPACA gives us.

When Democrats agree to cut funding for anything besides defense I think the Repubs will drop dead from shock.

I have a HCA, its like a 401k for medical expenses. I am shoving as much cash into that as I can. I fully expect I will be paying docs directly for care in 5 years. I get the min mandate insurance, but cash will be for anything that's not wellness.

I recall no republicans voted in favor of PPACA. It was passed as a reconciliation act, and therefore there was no cloture motion needing 60 votes. It was a simple majority needed, and it passed 56-43.

The maneuver was used to get around the 60 votes was widely covered and talked about on, well, pretty much every single American media outlet. The repubs are still trying to get rid of PPACA. I hope they do if only to get rid of the mandate and youth penalty and get a discussion on open competition in HC insurance or provide a way for people to self insure/get wellness cheaper. Personally, I wish insurance for HC would just go away and we went back to financially dealing directly with the dentist/doctor. If that happened I suspect service would get ALOT cheaper.
veronica_rich
Apr. 21st, 2013 08:54 pm (UTC)
pt. 1
I read the PM; that's a laundry list! You do have my sympathies. And long reply is long, and I have to break it up, and I do apologize because this is mostly uninteresting and boring as shit to read - but explanations are necessary for my part.

Two conditions I know of that I have are severe hypothyroidism (hence the "that I know of" because there are related problems the doctor and I are still searching for - when you can practically starve yourself and exercise daily and still lose only 15 pounds in several months' time, more than once, there's a problem; it's simply not identified and may never be in my lifetime, who knows) and sleep apnea. The apnea is far more manageable with a CPAP machine, thank heavens.

I'll have to read what you sent me again to make sure I catch specifics later on, but I did read it, and your comments here, and there are general things that jump out at me that I still can't agree with. I can agree with a few comments, such as, problems with the ACA - they exist. I know many people are not happy with the forced-purchase requirement from private insurance; I'm one of them. I also realize any new legislation is going to mean new charges are incurred. This applies to almost anything.

Does it mean we should never pass new legislation? No. My feeling on the ACA is, after 200-plus years of being in existence, this country finally caught up with others that provide health care with citizens' tax money instead of starting wars with it all the time like the U.S. is good at doing. Specific changes to problems within it can always be made after that.

Personally, I wish insurance for HC would just go away and we went back to financially dealing directly with the dentist/doctor. If that happened I suspect service would get ALOT cheaper.

For non-terminal, non-serious health issues, I agree. But the halcyon days of health care had its problems, too. Sure, if you just needed a checkup or a minor surgery, you could self-finance and manage payment in a reasonable time. But what about those with cancer or long-term illnesses, for instance? What if you needed a heart transplant at the age of 35? And what if you don't belong to the local church or don't want to join? It's not like everybody has access to charity help in situations like these.

The whole point of insurance is that a whole bunch of people are supposed to pool reasonable premiums on the expectation they will get sick and need care that costs more than they've paid in, aggregate - whereas the insurance company banks on most people NOT getting that sick. The problem isn't with government interference in this case - much of it is that government hasn't interfered ENOUGH, by instituting caps on administrative and executive salaries within the private insurance industry, and leaving more of what's paid in available to pay doctors (or, rather, making it so those paying in don't have to pay as much).

I'm a journalist; I understand I'm never going to make a lot of money in my field. Health insurance administration should be the same way. Instead, it's become a field you can go into and make a tidy sum of cash. (I feel the same way about any other kind of insurance too.) Regulation could crack down on this.

This segues into my second point: The problem I have with Libertarians is that while they have admirable ideals and goals, many are not good at taking actual human behavior into consideration. The goal of capitalism (such as in health care administration) is incompatible with health care - period. It's also incompatible with basic travel a nation as large as ours needs for worker bees to run the economy (meaning, we should look into nationalizing the petroleum supply in this country, instead of leaving it in the hands of a few greedy little Guses who can charge whatever they want without regard for actual supply and demand working in concert - and they get government subsidies to do it!).
veronica_rich
Apr. 21st, 2013 08:55 pm (UTC)
pt. 2
If you don't place clear, stringent regulations on industries that deal in necessities of the public, you have pure competition between predators that have no predators buckling down to eliminate them in turn. It turns into the rabbit problem in Australia. There was a country before FDR, and it wasn't roses and champagne all day long for the common person. These companies will feed on each other, then consumers, who have far less power as a result of having less money to influence legislators. (And helping them are a lot of really stupid voters who regularly agree to vote against their own long-term interests.)

Without government "interference," what are the chances we would have eradicated slavery at the time we did; or ensured the national vote for women; or be as close to not punishing people for wanting same-sex marriage as we are now? I don't believe a one of those things would have happened sooner than it did if there wasn't some larger force countering majority human nature and forcing people to ... well, behave decently, for lack of a better term. I don't want to leave my country in the hands of the Christians and venture capitalists to make those decisions for me; I want it to come from people I vote in.

(I have a co-worker who lives in a fantasyland and has tried to argue that air pollution today would be down just as much as it is, from 100 years ago - or more! - if government hadn't enacted regulations on those poor, poor job-creators, costing them more money. Why? Because it would be in their best interests to keep their customers alive, of course, by cutting polluted output on their own. I could go on for days about what's wrong with this naive view of people whose primary goal is to make money off the quantity of consumers, not the quality of their lives, but I won't.)

My co-worker never once said these companies would keep their pollution in check because it's the right, moral thing to do. While I understand our society now is all about making the most money possible, and I operate and do business within that reality, it worries me that this has become the acceptable paradigm for civilized adult behavior at all times. But it is - and government still has a place in combating that against civil rights (such as the right not to have to die simply because you can't afford a simple lifesaving surgery or antibiotics) when it's needed.

Another thing I notice you talk about is saving money you would spend on health care, and using that for when you get sick. My mother's cancer cost well in excess of $1 million by the time she died, and that was just 7 months after she was diagnosed. There is no way in their entire lives she and Dad would have been able to save a million dollars, even if they walked to work and lived in a cardboard box. I don't think they're unusual in that.
veronica_rich
Apr. 21st, 2013 08:56 pm (UTC)
pt. 3 (Jesus God, this went on)
I don't know what you and your husband earn, but here are some facts just about me:

1. Remember the three jobs I mentioned? They totaled about $25,000 annually during those years. I was far from abnormal in this; in fact, a lot of single people like me - with no help from a spouse or family, or anyone else - actually make less. And it's not because we don't work as hard as someone making four times as much (oh, how angry I get when I hear that a rich person has all they have because they "worked hard," like us lazy slags have all been sitting around instead masturbating or eating Cheetos all day) - sometimes it's the kind of job a person has or is qualified to do. Sometimes, as in my case, it's the economy and the fact you live somewhere where you don't know anybody and you're not related to anyone, and you just have to punt and hope you can feed yourself.

So, the reason I didn't buy health insurance those years I was between jobs that came with insurance isn't because I was wisely squirreling away that premium money for later on down the road, a rainy day - it's because I never had it to spend or squirrel in the first place. (My friend, who works for a large company and does have health insurance right now, won't go to the doctor with a bad knee because before insurance will pay out, she has to meet a rather large deductible ... the amount of which is a significant percentage of her annual salary. People should not be expected to exist this way, in this country.)

2. The monthly premium I was quoted for self-insurance in 2001 (well before you point out the ACA made it illegal) was in the hundreds of dollars - no children, no family plan, just me, with my history of NOT running to the doctor for every boo-boo (imagine if I had such a history then!). I admire you able to find "creative financing" to pay for serious illness treatments, but I challenge you to find any creative financing that allows a person making $15,000 (as I did that year, job-searching and working intermittently when I could find a job to do) to pay for rent, gas, food, car insurance (because there was no public transportation where I lived), even a cheap car, and health care. The bright side is that gas was not $4 in 2001.

Finally: I expect people will drop dead waiting for care, in a system that is designed to do just that.

The difference between waiting in line and now is the waiting in line option. You don't get to go stand in line at all when you can't pay for what's at the end of it, and nothing else will, either. At least with the ACA there's the promise of a line, is how I feel.

(DONE. I may never answer again if this is what it means, LOL!)
droxy
Apr. 21st, 2013 11:15 pm (UTC)
Re: pt. 3 (Jesus God, this went on)
Hugs.. I hate typing. Wish I could banter with you on the phone. =)
bonnie_halfelvn
Apr. 21st, 2013 02:27 am (UTC)
I don't really have to add anything, because veronica_rich pretty much summed it up for me, including what I think the majority wants. And again, call me crazy, but yes, I'd be willing to pay more taxes in order to get it.

But mind you, the Mitt Romneys of this country should be paying more, as well, dammit!

Edited at 2013-04-21 02:35 am (UTC)
droxy
Apr. 21st, 2013 04:26 am (UTC)
Every citizen should all pay something, but the govt should be spending within it's revenue.

So you'd be willing to be taxed effective at 45% of your income for insurance that would cost you 10% at an effective rate of 25%?

No one is stopping anyone from getting insurance. PPACA- we all still have to pay premiums. No one gets it, the cost is the same, just adding govt layer to private insurance. It reduces service and coverage but cost more. I do not get why no one understands this. people re very low information on the costs of PPACA. it's so so so much cheaper to self insure.

Yeah, Mitt Romney should pay more, but so should Hollywood (e.g. Katy Perry et al) who got a lot of tax loopholes added. So I call bullshit on tax policy. Clearly its not fair, and rather shows extreme hypocrisy of the Hollywood wealthy elite when that elite is more than happy to progandize the seizure of my assets while getting to keep theirs. Funny how they the rich say tax the rich but then they bitch about the taxes. huh what? That's what they wanted. No one is giving us a break. The left's rich get away with tax avoidance as much as the Mitt Romneys of the world, if not more.
veronica_rich
Apr. 21st, 2013 11:09 am (UTC)
"... it's so so so much cheaper to self insure."

And may I ask what chronic or otherwise compromised health condition you have, that your insurance company was good enough to overlook it and insure you alone affordably, anyway? Before the ACA started requiring it not be able to turn you away for preexisting illness, I mean.

I don't mean through a workplace, either - I presume you're self-insured, on a policy by yourself, which is why you're talking so knowledgeably about it. Because I'd like to compare your actual premium/income ratio to my quote for a self policy in 2001, please. (And in 2001 I had no preexisting conditions yet, so that won't be included in my astronomical quote reply. Of course, in 2001 it would have been moot, because it's unlikely any insurer would have written me a self policy anyway with such a condition.)
droxy
Apr. 21st, 2013 06:25 pm (UTC)
sending u a PM, I don't like disclosing medical openly.
bonnie_halfelvn
Apr. 22nd, 2013 01:47 am (UTC)
I don't know the ins and outs of all of this, but what I see is Hawaii, which has socialized health care. People there are taxed at a much higher rate, yet they're happy with it.

I suppose being surrounded by beautiful beaches would help in the happiness factor, but I'm not stupid enough to think that what I want will not cost lots of money.

One of the greatest problems with our country is we have very expensive health care, but we do NOT have the best health care. Capitalism does not work in health care for many reasons, one being that the real money is to be made in maintenance of chronic conditions and diseases. Our country as a whole eats too much and all the wrong things, and we don't exercise enough. The overwhelming majority of our ills stem from obesity. But since there's no money in wellness, take a pill for whatever ails you.

I'm not much for consipracy theories, but I do wonder if some diseases and chronic illnesses would have been cured by now, if simply managing them until they got the better of you (and cost several more thousand before you finally die) wasn't where the profit came from. And let us not forget those who are unfortunate enough to contract some extremely rare disease, because there's no money in treating those.

And that's all I'm going to say on this subject, because frankly, I've had a very busy day and now it's bed time.

Goodnight, all.
( 20 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

Galadriel sketch
bonnie_halfelvn
bonnie_halfelvn

Latest Month

March 2015
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars