To the union man in the Raiders jersey who has made his living by cutting meat for some 30 years, "us" means working-class people.
On the other side are "them." They're the people without jobs, living off the government dime and, in his mind, gaming the system.
"It's always us and them," said Bobby Marin, of Thousand Oaks, two hours before fireworks Wednesday night, complaining that the people without jobs seem to do as well as he does working as a grocery store butcher. "They get by and get away with it."
Immigration. Gay marriage. Fixing the economy. The latest evidence of canyons that separate the nation comes from the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in favor of federal health care reform designed to cover 32 million uninsured Americans. A USA Today/Gallup poll released the day after the decision said 46 percent of Americans liked it; 46 percent did not.
A divided nation?
"Big time," said Marin, who votes Democratic because he thinks the party supports unions. Health care reform, which he sees as more support for "them," has tossed him into conflict.
"I think if we made the people work instead of giving them ways out, we'd be better off," he said.
On a Fourth of July that symbolized unity and patriotism, Ventura County residents decked out in red, white and blue answered questions about division. Interviewed at holiday events in Ventura and Thousand Oaks, they talked about freedom of choice, political opinions posted on Facebook and roadside signs that demand the president's impeachment.
Health insurance, taxes and jobs, said Ruth Gills, rattling off issues that divide people. She sat behind a booth at a Ventura street fair, selling hot dogs and nachos for her 8-year-old son's football league.
Gills was laid off as a bank teller a year ago. Now the Port Hueneme resident takes classes online with the goal of becoming a court reporter.
Her son gets health insurance through a government program. Gills is uncovered, meaning she doesn't go to a doctor even when she should.
Gills hasn't followed health care reform and sometimes feels lost in political debate. But she will vote. If she had to list one thing the election could deliver her, it wouldn't be an insurance policy.
"Get me a job," she said. "It will help me pay for things I can't pay for. Health insurance usually comes with a job. It'll help me survive."
Graciela Soliz is a Democrat, and has been since the seventh grade when her school held a mock election and voted for John Fitzgerald Kennedy. When she learned of the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of health care reform, she called her brother in El Dorado County to share her excitement.
But the battle isn't over, said the retired teacher from Ventura as she worked Wednesday in a voter registration booth decorated with a life-size cutout of President Barack Obama. If Republicans win the election, the Affordable Care Act will likely be history, she said.
And while the mandate to find coverage and bottom-line costs fuels eternal flames of debate, Soliz doesn't see a "them," only an "us."
"I think we're all in this together," she said, explaining why division doesn't worry her. "That's part of our Constitution. It's freedom of choice."
When the high court ruled on health care reform, Cynthia Hiebert posted an epitaph on Facebook.
"The day liberty died," she wrote. "Rest in peace."
Facebook and Twitter change the way people exchange political ideas, said the Oxnard woman who calls herself a Libertarian Republican. People who know enough not to talk politics face to face see exactly how their friends view issues.
"You start thinking, 'I can't believe you think that way,' " she said, perched on a camping chair in a Thousand Oaks parking lot, waiting for fireworks.
Even people with water-and-oil differences want the same things, she said. It's the mechanics of getting there that push people apart.
"I think the biggest thing is the ideological divide of whether government takes care of people or people take care of people," she said, placing herself in the second camp.
In that same parking lot at The Oaks mall in Thousand Oaks, Josh Roscom danced with his grandmother to the music of a pre-fireworks event. He's 21 and studies psychology and interior design at Moorpark College. He knows one thing for sure about the November election.
"I won't vote for Obama," he said.
Roscom's issue is immigration. He wants deportation. He wants legal residents to claim the jobs now done by the undocumented.
"I think Arizona is doing what we need, saving this country," he said of that state's efforts to pursue illegal immigrants.
Immigration is a divide. So is health care. But the issue Lynn Weeks wore on his T-shirt at the street fair in Ventura doesn't stir as much anguish as he'd like.
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can," said the shirt, identifying the 75-year-old former Marine as a veteran for peace.
"I wish we were," he said of whether the country is divided by the war in Afghanistan. "Most folks seem to just sort of accept the war. I don't see a whole lot of revolt."
Once a parole officer and later a marriage and family therapist, Weeks thinks the country is filled with good people who aspire to do the right thing. The divide comes from people's unwillingness to look for middle ground and compromise.
"I believe our differences are more sharply drawn than ever before," he said.The woman waiting in line for kettle corn who opposes health care reform and Obama blames division on ignorance. The guy selling electric bike tours blames the media for not pushing far enough to uncover the truth.
At Ventura's street fair, Guy Cole offered a different path. The Santa Paula farmer who belongs to the National Rifle Association wore a tie-dyed flag of a T-shirt with a peace sign affixed to his jeans.
He pays $230 a month for a health insurance policy that kicks in after a $3,500 deductible. He opposes the health care reform law because it forces people to acquire insurance.
"I think it's unconstitutional," he said before arguing that the divides over insurance and other political wildfires have their limits.
"I think we're only divided until a point of crisis comes along," he said. "And then we're all one. ... Deep down, we're more united than we like to admit."
Birds return to Steckel Park ...
Around the world and back
Slow VA claims process frustrates ...
Danger on rural roads
Gold Coast Concert Chorus
Football All-Star Game Preview
Rick Godwin moves up in ...
Five Questions for Spring Football
Camarillo students create chalk art
Nursery burns near Oxnard
Baseball: Marina 11, Thousand Oaks ...
Ventura County's Most Wanted June 18th
Whole Foods Oxnard opens
The Star's All-County Boys Volleyball…
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 77
legalwarrior writes:
People have to start thinking about issues like this as general policies for the vast majority of people in this country rather than simply thinking, "I got mine, screw everyone else". Approximately 30,000 Americans die every year because they do not have access to healthcare. Without health insurance people generally cannot afford health CARE.
Obamacare provides health insurance for more than 30 million Americans that cannot now afford health insurance. This means that tens of thousands of Americans can now receive care and will survive preventable grave illnesses.
The whole idea behind insurance is to spread risk over a larger number of people. The more people to spread the risk, the cheaper it is for all. Providing coverage for so many more people will result in lower overall costs, more people saved from preventable illnesses and injuries and a safer, healthier society overall.
So, it's time that Americans resume being the good, charitable, kind-hearted people we used to be and act in each other's best interest to allow everyone to obtain affordable health insurance and health care!
VintageRacer writes:
^^^Very well said!
reader3344 writes:
Thank you legal warrior!
It's time the country stop being divided by what's good for the rich-vs-who work for the rich.
Traditional writes:
In its strictist sense, insurance is the pooling of risk against the likelihood of an event, either across time or probability. What Americans typically refer to as health insurance really is more of a pre-paid medical plan and not insurance. If there were more clarity and honesty from politicians on this topic (and of course education of the general public), I think this debate would be quite different.
To say that someone "doesn't have access to healthcare" because they either don't have the money to pay for it or choose not to pay for it is patently false. They have access - they just don't want to pay for it. And perpetuating this lie serves to take our attention off an extremely important issue. Why are medical services so damn expensive? Do doctors really deserve to make $300,000+ per year? Nurses $100,000+? Politicians love using insurance companies as a whipping boy (and I am not defending them, BTW), but this has served to take the public's attention off of a huges part of the problem.
Another big lie is that Obamacare will make health care more affordable. What a crock! My visit to the Doc or the emergency room will cost me no less two years from now than it does now. There is NOTHING in ACA that lowers the costs of medical care. Nothing.
Medical care now accounts for 16% of everything Americans spend. This number is projected to hit 20% in the not-to-distant future. America needs to get serious about addressing the costs of medical care. ACA is merely a political power grab that has the potential to bankrupt this country.
VintageRacer writes:
No jail time
No $25,000 fine
Only you believe that.
Interesting that no one else on this blog corroborates your information.
taxpayer writes:
The high cost of healthcare is not a simple problem. Part of the problem is the high cost of malpractice insurance, and the consequence of that is more redundant tests to cover the doctors liability. Illegals using the system for free. I know of one elderly man who was in the hospital for over a month for heart problems. He is now in a nursing home and has not and will not pay one penny for the services he has used. These are two examples of why health care costs will not be coming down even with Obamacare. In fact, I predict that things will only get worse as more uninsured are added to a failing and overloaded system.
Nosmo_King writes:
Wiggle room , If you don't pay your taxes the IRS comes down on you HARD. Jail is an option unfortunately
VintageRacer writes:
"Try posting an original constructive comment as opposed to the constantly criticizing what others post."
You should do the same. Check your post history. Most of your comments and replies amount to name calling and criticism of others.
VintageRacer writes:
Incorrect. The ACA specifically explains the penalties and does not include jail time. Research it for yourself.
shiro writes:
Now the weak minded liberals can let daddy Obama take care of them. No more heavy lifting for them. Not that any of them have the ability to care for themselves any way.
VintageRacer writes:
Q. Can you go to jail for not participating in the Affordable Care Act?
A. No
This is taken directly from the SCOTUS decision:
"Beginning in 2014, those who do not comply with the mandate must make a “[s]hared responsibility payment” to the Federal Government. §5000A(b)(1). That payment,which the Act describes as a “penalty,” is calculated as a percentage of household income, subject to a floor based on a specified dollar amount and a ceiling based on the average annual premium the individual would have to pay for qualifying private health insurance. §5000A(c). In 2016, for example, the penalty will be 2.5 percent of an individual’s household income, but no less than $695 and no more than the average yearly premium for insurance that covers 60 percent of the cost of 10 specified services (e.g., prescription drugs and hospitalization). Ibid.; 42 U. S. C. §18022. The Act provides that the penalty will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual’s taxes, and “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner”as tax penalties, such as the penalty for claiming too large an income tax refund. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(g)(1). The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies. §5000A(g)(2). And some individuals who are subject to the mandate are nonetheless exempt from the penalty—for example, those with income below a certain threshold and members of Indian tribes. §5000A(e)."
So there you have it. No $25,000 penalty. FACT! No jail time! FACT!
You can link to whatever right wing rag opinion you want, but the law specifically says what the penalties are.
mothmoth#283972 writes:
the neo-cons keep drinking the limbaugh/hannity kool-aid worrying someone is gonna snatch their shotgun under the bed
VintageRacer writes:
Please explain your comment. It makes no sense at all
JohnInSimi writes:
It warms the heart to see how much Obama has united the nation to the degree that he has so far. Hope and chains!
Chilibreath writes:
So, Wiggle, if I get your drift correctly you are saying that although the new Obamacare law requires everyone to actually pay something for their health coverage, there really isn't a penalty if they don't pay, but they can still get medical care if they need it or want it; am I correct in this assessment? And if this is the case then, technically, we are still in the same boat as before the Supreme Court decision, which simply stated is that folks at the low-end of the social scale can still look forward to a host of freebies (paid for by working taxpayers who actually pay taxes) while the uneducated, the lazy and the illegal will still be able to reap the rewards of someone else's hard work. How about it, did I peg the baseline of this issue?
VintageRacer writes:
Yes there is a penalty. From what I can gather, the penalty will be deducted from your tax return. Those that forgo getting insurance will pay the penalty. For the poor, nothing has changed. They still can get Medicad.
For the large pool of under insured and those with pre-existing conditions, the pool of insurers (should) reduce the individual costs. I can't predict one way or the other if this will work. Some experts say it will. Others say it will raise the premiums.
The ACA specifically states that illegal immigrants are not entitled to care under the ACA.
Your comment about "the uneducated, the lazy..." makes no sense.
If you are currently working and have an employer funded health care plan, there will be no impact to you. For those that currently pay for their own healthcare like me, there will be little or no impact.
VintageRacer writes:
Chili-
Here is a better explanation and a link for further reading
ACA penalties for non-compliance
"1. Non-compliance penalty. Most Americans will be required to obtain qualifying health coverage by 2014 or face a penalty. The charge will gradually rise over a three-year period. In 2014, the cost will be $285 per family or 1% of household income (whichever is greater). Individual adults will pay $95. The following year, in 2015, the fee will be $975 per family or 2% of household income (whichever is greater). Individual adults will pay $325. By 2016, the cost will rise to $2,085 or 2.5% of household income (whichever is greater). Individual adults will pay $695. The penalty must be paid to the IRS along with your taxes.
2. Health insurance tax credits. Starting January 2014, if your household income is less than $88,000 for a family of four, and your job doesn’t provide coverage you can afford, you are eligible to receive tax credits to assist you with paying for insurance. An advance payment can be made to your insurance company to help cover the cost of premiums.
3. Health insurance exchange program. Starting January 2014, if your employer does not offer health insurance, you can buy it directly from an Affordable Insurance Exchange. Both small businesses and individuals will be able to participate in this new insurance marketplace. The exchange allows consumers to enroll in a private or public health insurance plan, compare insurance benefit packages to get the best deal, and determine eligibility for tax credits.
4. Increased income tax for high earners. Starting January 2013, if you’re a very high earner you might be hit with higher income taxes. There will be a 3.8% surtax on investment income earned in households earning $200,000 or more for individuals and $250,000 or more for couples."
http://www.blackenterprise.com/money/...
rebel123 writes:
When you use terms like "Obummercare" and inflammatory rhetoric like "ponzi scheme" you simply give those who are not in your camp reason to disregard everything you've said. You may have some good points but they are lost in your vilification of "them". It is not an all or nothing situation. Compromise for rational adults means we know we will not get all that we want but we will get some of what be want. It is not a zero sum game and until we look at "them" without judgement and start the dialog from a point of what we all have in common we will simply keep moving farther apart. We can't solve problems from the opposite ends of the spectrum.
rebel123 writes:
Are you saying that Obama is to blame for the division in this nation? Seems to me that his opposition has made extreme efforts to divide this country with their refusal to compromise, with continued distortion and outright lies and their obstructionist politics. I don't think you can put the division of this country at his feet, my friend.
steveinsocal writes:
Hey_Scapegoat - you and I don't always agree, but as someone who was a Swiss resident before being relocated to the US, I would agree that the Swiss model is a pretty reasonable one to follow.
If I look back at my costs, including accident insurance (which is different to health insurance), I probably paid around 10% of salary. Co-pay was slightly (a lot) higher, but then again cost of living in CH is higher than the US (yes, even CA!)
Theoretically ACA appears to follow this model reasonably closely (from my reading) - however I suspect that "interested parties" will do their upmost to derail...
The big difference between the penalties detailed in ACA and the CH odel is than in CH, if the individual doesn't take out compulsory health insurance then the Canton (State) will enforce a contract with an insurance provider and premiums deducted automatically from payroll. Does this infringe on individual freedom? Well it didn't on mine - in fact I can't believe that people are actually opposed to something that if implemented correctly (i.e. health insurance for all) is actually in their best interests. Is Switzerland a commie left-wing socialist liberal pinko (to paraphase!) paradise? If anyone has bothered to study Swiss politics they'd know that this patently isn't the case.
Do the Swiss feel "repressed" by the State? Arguably a no - their political model and referendums ultimately means that politicians are accountable.
Do the Swiss have probably one of the highest standard of livings? Difficult to quantify, but from the intangible "quality of life" perspective there's a strong argument that Switzerland shades this... and they also have great mass transit.
rebel123 writes:
Yours is a great example of an extreme position that has little truth. You've lumped all liberals into one category of "weak minded" and implied that liberals are afraid of hauling their own weight or take care of themselves. Obviously that is patently wrongb because most liberals do in fact take care of themselves, their families and are productive members of society. In fact, since most blue collar workers are democrats, clearly they are not afraid of hard work and are the foundation of the middle class. Yet because you've said it, you've now alienated liberals from anything you may subsequently say. Your comment is bereft of any substantive or informative, factual information and is simply you venting your frustrations. You have illustrated the "us and them" position very well and you've vilified "them". By doing so, you've given all liberals tacit approval to disregard anything of merit you may have to say. That is not a wise position if you wish to convince us liberals of the error of our ways, my friend. I have said this before and I'll repeat myself here:
If the "us and them" situation were a football game, you'd have people like you in one end zone and those who are just as rabid about their opposing views and would call you equally onerous names in the other end zone. The rest of us, the majority, would be on each of the 60 yard lines, trying to have a civil, meaningful conversation about what we can do to solve the problems of this country. The problem is, we can't hear each other over the yelling from those in the end zones who would lump "the other side" into extreme, all encompassing and very untrue categories and think the solution is for the "other guys" to come completely over to their way of thinking. Compromise means that we get some of what we want, but not all of what we want. Rational adults understand this and until the extremes on both sides realize that vilifying "them" is only going to push us farther away from each other and we will not see solutions, just more vitriol and arguments. We all have more in common than not.
Traditional writes:
A little extra reading for those who have time.
http://news.investors.com/article/617...
JohnInSimi writes:
I guess what you're really saying is that Obama is a weak and impotent leader. On that premise, I agree and I won't lay the division of this country at his feet. So tell me, are you going to vote for a person who can't lead, who blames others for his problems in November?
rebel123 writes:
Which truth is that exactly? I am not denying any truth. I am simply trying to point out that those who choose to vilify their opposition do so at the risk of alienating them and pushing them farther away. Not a wise thing to do if you wish to change minds and hearts, don't you agree? As to the truth... I read no truth in the post to which I was replying, which implied that all liberals are weak minded, unwilling to shoulder their own weight and unwilling to take care of themselves. That is not truth. That is a sweeping generalization with no foundation in reality. That you find what I wrote "rambling verbiage" tells me you are unwilling to see "truth" unless it follows exactly along the lines of your own views. This is not a zero sum game and there is merit on both sides. If you refuse to acknowledge that, you are clearly not willing to seek consensus and wish only to alienate those who disagree with you.
JohnInSimi writes:
...........crickets..............
rebel123 writes:
I will give gateaway the same leeway that I suggest that others do for those who disagree with me. If I call him/her a "troll", I give him/her permission to disregard anything I say. Gateaway is passionate about his/her beliefs,as are most of us. The mistake comes in refusing to acknowledge that there is a good deal of middle ground to be had and insulting and demeaning all who disagree with anything he/she believes in. I'm sure gateaway has some valid points. Unfortunately, they are typically framed in such objectionable or insulting language for those on the "other" team, it is hard not to turn away completely or respond in kind with similar insults. A most unproductive way of going about things in my view.
rebel123 writes:
We disagree on what constitutes leadership. What point is there in debating that?
rebel123 writes:
Gateaway, I would like to hear your side but can't when your thoughts apparently (or allegedly) fall into the category of too inflammatory to stay on the board. Maybe you could rephrase?
rebel123 writes:
Lurker_X: I'm not sure why at least one of your comments was removed, but the one calling gateaway a "troll" was removed because someone found that to be offensive. Which is exactly why I replied to your post suggesting that we don't win minds (or hearts) when we offend others, regardless of how far away from our own point of view their position may be.
rebel123 writes:
Well, it does appear that Lurker_X's comments were also stricken. Seems there's some degree of parity there. I'd like to see everyone stick to civil dialog so we can read everyone's thoughts. We all matter, regardless of our divergent views.
JohnInSimi writes:
LOL! I haven't seen your ideas about what constitute "leadership" yet. Can you at least give me a hint?
JohnInSimi writes:
Before you enlighten me, let me preface my view that I think Bush was a very poor excuse for a leader. I look forward to your response.
JohnInSimi writes:
And so do I. However I want give Rebel a chance to state his case.
ephilli1 writes:
How is it unconstitional to require health insurance but constituntional to require car insurance? And I suppose that everyone here who opposes ACA will decline Medicare? I for one am tired of having my health care costs increased to pay for those who do not have health insurance and use the ER as their doctor. I also do not believe that health care should be limited to only rich people or employed people. Finally, my daughter was born significantly premature which is listed as a pre-existing condition. She could be denied health care for the rest of her life without ACA. I think Obama tried to compromise with Repoublicans by adding the mandate which was/is a Republican idea, and look what that got him?
rebel123 writes:
Your initial post posited that Obama is to blame for the division in this country. I countered that he has faced unprecedented opposition from the GOP that has had the intended consequence of dividing the nation. It is clear that the obstructionist politics and the zero sum political culture of the GOP along with the admitted belief that "compromise" means not giving up an inch of ground to the Democrats has been intended to divide and conquer. The current approval ratings for the POTUS are around 47% with a 3% variance, that seems to me that almost half the country is behind him. On the other hand, the GOP leaders' approval rating is at 33%. I frankly had hopes that Obama would be a better communicator. That said, given the hostile environment that the GOP has created, the division in this country has been created with intent and the blame for that should be placed at the feet of the GOP. In general, I believe that ad hominem attacks are counter productive. But, in this case, I have to note that I have yet to hear a single rationale or justification for the vile and unrelenting and unprecedented personal attacks on Obama from the far right that contain not a shred of logic or reason. The Birthers and their nonsense being the obvious case in point. The only conclusion left to me is that they oppose Obama because of his skin color, and nothing else. If half the nation is still behind him after all that, I'd say he is more of a leader than you give him credit for.
JohnInSimi writes:
Ah, here we go. It's Obama's skin color and not his policies to blame for his opposition. Really? Do you think that Clinton even came close to the leftist policies that Obama supports? Further, all you have done is lay BLAME. You haven't even written one word about leadership. Here let me start..How about a leader who leads in spite of opposition? How about a leader who takes charge in spite of his opponents instead of whining about the lack of cooperation? How about a leader that makes decisions out of integrity instead of political expediency? I present Mitt Romney can be a leader and Obama has clearly proven he is not. Obama had 4 years of challenges to be a leader and he has failed miserably.
JohnInSimi writes:
Well not quite 4 years but you get the point. I'm rationally judging Obama by his character and his leadership skills and not his skin color. Would you yet label me racist because I don't think he's the better man in this election?
rebel123 writes:
I am saying that the unprecedented, unrelenting and outrageous personal attacks are very likely because of his skin color. I don't expect you to agree with me. Especially since you categorize my response as whining. The leftist policies that Obama has supported? Which are those? A health care policy that was almost exactly the same as the one that Romney put in place in Mass and very similar to the one that Hilary Clinton tried to push through? Or the continuation of the bail outs that Bush started? Not sure which you're speaking of. You think he's failed over four years. Half the country disagrees with you.
rebel123 writes:
No, I don't think you're a racist because you feel Mitt is the better candidate. I do believe that there are many, and I know quite a few personally, who think he is the spawn of the devil, a Muslim, was born in Kenya, and is ready to hand over the country to the Muslims. That, my friend, has to do with his skin color. The vile nature of so many outrageous attacks have not been seen before. Even Bush got more respect and he was categorically a failure as a leader or a president.
JohnInSimi writes:
Again you got it wrong my friend. I haven't categorized any of your posts of whining at all. You seem to a be a good intentioned person who has some moral background and you believe what you write. I respect that friend. I am however accusing Obama of whining... whining is not a good mark of a leader don't you agree? Honest, forthright, and firm leadership doesn't resort to whining. Regardless of the policies you mentioned, I haven't heard of one SINGLE statement that Romney has whined about his opposition. That's the mark of a good leader.
JohnInSimi writes:
Rebel, you are well aware you're going to have extreme views from both the left and the right. I'm with you friend. I think those folks who make such crazy statements are mentally bent and cannot see beyond the fist of rage they shove into those they disagree with.
steveinsocal writes:
See left and right can have a constructive debate every now and again :-)
Not sure coercion was kept to a minimum(!) as you have 30 days from registering with the Controle des Habitants and obtaining your "Permis" to register with an insurance provider. If not then the Canton will mandate one.
I can't comment upon lawyers and malpractice suits, but IMHO, we Europeans tend not to be as litigious as our American cousins and I suspect that it is something that as a nation you need to address.
NYT columnist and economist Paul Krugman commented that the US could do worse than adopt the Swiss model..
Of course Politicians could work together to resolve this, although if the past few years are anything to go by it's in neither interests.
rebel123 writes:
Thanks for clarifying... I re-read your post and understand who was whining. My apologies for the mis-reading of it initially. Should wear my glasses! We disagree on who the best candidate is. Isn't that the great thing about this nation? Different minds, different people, different thoughts. I am betting we agree on a great many things. We all count and that's what really matters.
rebel123 writes:
Yup. Those camped in opposite end zones are making so much noise none of in the middle of the field can hear over their outraged rants. As long as those of us with level heads can agree to disagree and still respect each others' point of view, there is hope.
JohnInSimi writes:
On that note, have a great weekend Rebel. I'm about to watch another stupidly funny episode of Mystery Science Theatre 3000 on Netflix :O)
rebel123 writes:
Have fun! http://www.mst3k.com/
VintageRacer writes:
Finally some good debate! Excellent points from both sides!
rh_02eat1 writes:
Two problems with your last statement.
1) our costs associated plans provided by employers or secured prvately are going up due to mandates of coverage and increase in costs.
2) neither you nor anyone else can ensure that employers won't drop coverage shifting our plans from the current model to increased use of government provided coverage.
The current model is flawed, that seems to be agreed upon. I think that portability has been and remains a key issue because insurance is related to employment, change employment and change plans. We didn't address this because unions own the Democrats thus they are not able to provide a solution to this key issue. Fix this and the driver for costs is modified by putting the citizens in direct control of creating demand that will drive costs down for the working class. In that this increased use of consumer discretion will reduce the strain on the system the costs to cover the uninsured can be managed with less costs. Since increased taxes are called for in the ACA to cover these individual, the amount of tax and the way it is attached are what remains for debate.
In the end there are many other solutions to the challenge of providing coverage to those without and relief to providers stuck holding the bag, the above are only a start. The fact remains, some very destructive precedents were set in the ACA and the opportunity to provide real and beneficial improvement to the model was squandered by Pelosi/Reid/Obama. Those that support this have done a huge disservice to the following generations.
AngryChihuahua writes:
It's interesting that no one mentions how the insurance companies have been pretty much stealing your money. Huge premiums, huge deductibles. Then when you get sick, they kick you off! It's a ridiculous when your health insurance premium is higher than your mortgage. Is it because the cost of health care is so high? Or is it because the insurance companies take a huge chunk of your premiums to pay executive salaries. Just for kicks you should google health insurance CEO salaries. They make tens of millions a year! One CEO actually made a billion dollars! Under Obamacare, health insurance companies have to spend 80% of your premiums on your healthcare. If they spend less than 80% they have to give you a refund. And they can't kick you off if you reach your cap. I guess my right wing friends would say that Obamacare is taking away insurance companies freedom to gouge you. Please read the bill! While it's not prefect, it's better than nothing.
rh_02eat1 writes:
Steve, you still read Paul Krugman, really? Have they moved his column to the funny pages yet? Oh, I forget, the NYT is the funny pages.
Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.