Obama's In Trouble With Health Care

[Old Hippie]

"...ay "you" lost your job. There are policies out there that you can get for less than $100/month..."

 

Not what they appear, I have looked into them in preparation. The cost is maybe $100 for a Kaiser type catastrophic care deal, with a $1500+ deductible or more, +20+% co payment up to maybe $5000 out of pocket or more. And a lot is NOT covered. My insurance on cobra would run me about $350 a month for 18 months, then about $800+ with a $1500 deductible. Either is tough with no income. We need to face it, health care is not affordable, we need to change this.

 

I do agree that people who do not work for their own choice, should be fucked at any and all chance. But for people who have worked and do work, but can't because of illness, should not lose what they have worked for.

 

Problem with long term care is some people are not on a machine that can be turned off...they are just there sucking up space, shitting themselves and drooling...at that point I'd want someone to finish me. Instead, they keep you going because it means income for them...again, we need to change how we do things.

 

Additionally, I'll add post medicare supplemental coverage is also a killer, but so is not having it. So what is the answer here? Raise taxes? tax credit? I believe in flat taxes, no paper work...no deductions...but ok, anything with taxes means more bureaucracy. Again just some plan to keep working people from falling into poverty should they get sick or injured...fuck the bums who don't want to work.

[Bangkoktraveler]

As has already been stated' date=' the Republicans want Obama to fail. They are not interested in any resolutions to this problem, all they is to generate as much retoric as possible.

 

As for Conservatives, they have gone far overboard in their daily mantra of rhetoric.[/quote']

 

LOL ! I usually don't respond to your posts cuz they are usually not on topic or just reflect a poorly-conceived or stupid response. So I wasn't really surprised to see your post above. First, when you say "Repulicans", I take it to refer to Demit's comment a couple of weeks ago. That was ONE Repulican. On the other hand, I would agree that most conservatives (Republican or Demoncrat) want Borat to fail in leading this country into more socialism/communist idealogy. He is exactly as I began describing him a year ago. A fucking SOCIALIST COMMIE intent on robbing those who have worked hard to get what they have and giving it to parasites who, in most cases, are merely oxygen theives. More and more people, according to the polls, are getting tired of his act/policies. And you talk about "rhetoric", if Reagan was "the great communicator", Borat Obama is the "great rhetoricator"...as long as he has a teleprompter in front of him. I don't think he's missed a day in the last two months without giving some speech on how we need health care "reform" TODAY. He and Hillary Klinton should switch positions. All he's good for is trying to make other countries like us here. Like who gives a flying ____? Those same countries which criticise us about GITMO (for instance). I never hear about them ragging on the middle east countries, african countries, China, Burma, etc. Only the US, which has saved some of their asses more than once.

 

Obama is worse than Carter. Carter was too stupid to fuck things up. Nice guy he was...but certainly in way over his head. I'd say Carter was about on an even platform with Palin and not blink.

 

To be honest, if Borat, Pelosi and Reid went down on the same plane tomorrow, I wouldn't grieve a minute. I don't hate the guy personally; I hate what he is trying to do with/to the country.

 

HH

 

 

 

 

 

I have tried getting you to answer this question hh [color:red]

 

"Are you against the government paying for health care? For example, health care at the VA, healthcare for politicians, healthcare for Native Americans and healthcare paid by USA dollars for Iraqi citizens?"[/color]

 

Can I assume a no response means you would like to cut health benefits for vets?

[Hugh_Hoy]

Those are several questions. Assume what you would like.

 

HH

[Bangkoktraveler]

Those are several questions. Assume what you would like.

 

HH

 

 

I guess you want to take socialist, communistic health care out of the VA hospitals. Right?

[rchapstick]

I do agree that people who do not work for their own choice, should be fucked at any and all chance. But for people who have worked and do work, but can't because of illness, should not lose what they have worked for.

 

 

Let me give a very real example of a woman who used to work for me as a nanny. She used to be a mid-level manager with a large tech company, but got leukemia. Had to go on disability, lost her health insurance. When she finally went into remission, she could not get ANY insurance due to her condition. She gets Medi-Cal from California, which pays for limited care, but only if she makes less than $8000 per year. So I ended up having to pay her under-the-table so she could maintain her limited medical coverage.

 

So HH and YF, how would plans that you support handle a situation like this? Clearly under the previous 8 years of the Bush admin, it was not handled at all.

[Hugh_Hoy]

I expect that the lady is getting (was getting) benefits far in excess of medi-cal from the government, such as supplemental social security, food stamps, housing sllowance, breaks on utilities? As a former mid-level manager, I suspect that she had the smarts to put some $$ away for a rainy day? Also, nanny's can make some good bucks, especially if the income is under the table and tax-free. I wonder how many other clients she might have had a similar arrangement?

 

Don't know if she lived in Silicon Valley, but if so, I imagine she's accumulated some significant wealth in her home...if she bought one. Could use that...or sell it and move to a place that is a LOT less expensive.

 

HH

[Bangkoktraveler]

I do agree that people who do not work for their own choice' date=' should be fucked at any and all chance. But for people who have worked and do work, but can't because of illness, should not lose what they have worked for.

 

[/quote']

 

Let me give a very real example of a woman who used to work for me as a nanny. She used to be a mid-level manager with a large tech company, but got leukemia. Had to go on disability, lost her health insurance. When she finally went into remission, she could not get ANY insurance due to her condition. She gets Medi-Cal from California, which pays for limited care, but only if she makes less than $8000 per year. So I ended up having to pay her under-the-table so she could maintain her limited medical coverage.

 

So HH and YF, how would plans that you support handle a situation like this? Clearly under the previous 8 years of the Bush admin, it was not handled at all.

 

 

 

They do not have a plan.

They would reccomend you buy her a hammer and a cube of salt farmers buy for their livestock and tell her to [color:red]"go pound salt!"[/color]

[Old Hippie]

All of what you say may be true, except, she'd have to liquidate all of that to get the benefits. Additionally, if your tax money is paying for her food stamps, SSI, etc, why not skip that, pay her medical and let her keep working? might be cheaper. Instead, we have taken a productive person, forced her into relative poverty, and made her defendant on "the system."

 

Also note, NOT everyone in the silicon valley can afford to own a home there, some commute quite a distance. Depending on when she bought and where, and how much equity she had in the place, she might not be that well off. Additionally, as I stated, she'd most likely have to sell the home, spend her cash etc before she could qualify for any state assistance...which means nothing for her family. Once "broke" she qualifies for all sorts of shit as long as she stays broke. So again, we pay for her one way or another. The current way we keep paying and get nothing. If we paid her medical, and kept her working, we'd get tax money from her...

 

 

[Bangkoktraveler]

I would say the main problem with this example, which HH refuses to address, is this woman, like a lot of other people with serious health issues, can not get health insurance. No health insurance will provide them with coverage especially for pre-existing conditions.

 

another issue is, the older the person gets, the insurance cost more - in some cases so much that the person can not afford it.

Individual policies in the USA suck! If the person could get a group policy without restrctions for pre-existing conditions, then that would be a lot better.

Old Hippie, don't you think it is strange Conservatives see nothing wrong with USA taxpayers paying the bill for Iraqi healthcare but don't give a damn about such people as this woman?

[Old Hippie]

"...Old Hippie, don't you think it is strange Conservatives see nothing wrong with USA taxpayers paying the bill for Iraqi healthcare but don't give a damn about such people as this woman?..."

 

 

The whole thing is a joke, I have no idea why some people are against the idea of basic health care for American citizens.

 

 

"...Individual policies in the USA suck! If the person could get a group policy without restrctions for pre-existing conditions, then that would be a lot better..."

 

A ;ot of these policies are just plain expensive and cover nothing. Take the $100 a month Plan HH mentioned. Read the fine print on some of them...$100 a month, $2500 a year deductible, then you pay 20% until you max out at anywhere from $5000++ a year, so basically the first $6200-$8700 (depending on the terms) a year is on you, dived by 12 months, and it is no longer $100 a month is it? That is for a single person. A family is a lot more.

 

Now assume you make $35K a year, less taxes, spending $500+ a month for health coverage could cause a serious dent in your budget. That is without even getting sick. The current system blows. Oddly, some on the right want to get rid of ALL the plans such as SSi and Medicare etc...no alternative suggested, just get rid of them...sad is, it is all many have, and all some of us may have in the future as more and more benefits to working people get cut.