Presidential Debate--who watched?

[enjoy the ride]

Miss the north- you can't really start a war with Canadians- they're generally to nice to stay mad at them for long.lol

ScottyG- This is the fundamental divide once all the ranting is over- if your friend does have the resources to pay the $1000 oer month, then I do believe he should pay it if means he lives on Mac and Chesse and oatmeal, etc and never sees a restaurant meal- even if it means he can't take a vacation or buy fancy clothes etc. He should take care of himself til he has used everything he has.

Of course I do not know his situation in full but unless I can really know the full situation, I can not say what is proper.

There was an interview on TV with a woman who had cancer and had spent about $78000 of her own money on various things not covered under her health care plan. She stood in front of her really big, nice house, puttering in her rose garden while she complained to the reporter that she should not have had to put her "future" at risk by spending all but $10,000 dollars of her savings on neccessary care.

After my eyebrows were pried down from their extremely surprised level, I thought the -well-lady, yes that is why your savings are there- to save your life if needed. I don't care if your heirs don't get it or that you can't get that new car or many other things..

So many people treat money they have saved or earned as only something to give themselves a reward or to keep til death because it makes them feel secure. But it is not fair of them to expect me to live poorly to pay when they can pay themselves. Too many people will not be prudent in their lives, will not have enough insurance to cover the "damage" due to unforseen things- they buy the car with leather seats first and then have a vague iidea that they will be taken care of if something bad happens. And complain when it causes them problems. A bad case of what's theirs is theirs and what's mine is their'sd\.

In my life, I have seen a lot people who simply broke their glasses when they wanted new ones if Medicaide paid for them or left their children with a state agency when they wanted to go on vacation or stuff a disabled child into nursing home when they wanted tor travel or take money under the table when on welfare. Who always have money for smoking or pot but not to keep their children clean. There are always people to take advantage, lie and cheat.

So that people who really do need the money are tarred with the same brush - they can't always get what the need because too many people take what they want.

Made a mess of everything I think- gives people an excuse to not provide for others. Trouble is that I think it is a basically valid excuse.


edit- dang dang dang- I am so wordy and my system so slow that the world has marched on by the time I can get a post done.

 

[annmarie]

Oh, and since this all began with the question of presidential candidates (remember them?!) I'm guessing we're talking about universal healthcare because some people have the impression that Obama's plan is universal healthcare? It isn't. I just thought I'd throw that out there in case people are getting the wrong impression. His healthcare plan is basically, if you're covered by your employer, good, that's the way it will stay, but if for whatever reason you're not covered by an employer, and if you can't or don't want to pay for private coverage, you would be provided with the opportunity to purchase health insurance through the same program that the federal government members are covered. It would be much more affordable then trying to buy health insurance on your own. So for any self-sufficiency die-hards (no pun intended!) out there, don't worry, you don't have to have health insurance if you don't want it.

 

[enjoy the ride]

You know federal employee insurance is not so cheap itself- For federal employees the government will pick up 75% (I think that's the amount) of the cost with the employees paying $200- $500 a month or more.
Unless the government is going to subsidize it, it's still going to be pricey- more than many can afford.

And, the cost may be less now because the people who use it are generally healthier then the public- at least they are still working.

And I think he has a delusion about the health care too- the Congress haas given themselves many perks not available to federal employee in general.

As is so often said, the devil is in the details.

 

[annmarie]

You know federal employee insurance is not so cheap itself- For federal employees the government will pick up 75% (I think that's the amount) of the cost with the employees paying $200- $500 a month or more.
Unless the government is going to subsidize it, it's still going to be pricey- more than many can afford.

I don't want to delve into this too deep because I'm definitely no expert. I just didn't want people to have the misconception that we're discussing universal healthcare because of Obama. But one thing to keep in mind is that of course the cost of the federal insurance would become cheap (or cheaper at least) because of the mass quantity of people buying into it. Sort of the Wal-Mart approach (only we we won't have to go to China to get our medical care!)

 

[me&thegals]

Did anybody watch the most recetn debate? I'd love to hear thoughts and opinions from that one. Heard it was a bit tougher and more pointed.

It was very interesting to take ScottyG's suggestion and look up politifact's truth-o-meter. Especially love their "pants on fire" rating! Also spent some time on factcheck.org. Seems like nobody knows how to be honest!!!

 

[reinbeau]

Obama's plan mirrors the malarkey Romney left us with here in Massachusetts. And despite the lies said last night, there most certainly are fines if you decide to forego health insurance. Massachusetts was supposed to be the shining example - and now we're faced with a dearth of primary care physicians when you need to get one. The cost of managing that plan are many, many times what they were supposed to be (huge surprise there. Remember, this is the land of the Big Dig) - it's just working out wonderfully! If I thought government could do it, I'd not be so against it, but I know they can't do it without it costing much more than they say and without it becoming a bohemouth no one can manage properly.

As for not getting fingers reattached, it depends. If it's a work related injury then yes, they will be. If you cut your own finger off with a chain saw and don't have insurance then I guess you're out of luck.

 

[enjoy the ride]

This lastest "fact checking" is really hard to use- if a person voted for a bill that did many things he wanted but one thing he didn't, does that mean he was for the one thing?

Or if he was in the Congress for twenty years, that he voted for more of one thing or another mean he did a better jobs.? Or to the reverse, if he was only in Congress a short time, not having the chance to make more choices, that he was better because he did not vote some bad things?

A slippery concept is truth. Especially political truth.

 

[annmarie]

Obama's plan mirrors the malarkey Romney left us with here in Massachusetts. And despite the lies said last night, there most certainly are fines if you decide to forego health insurance. Massachusetts was supposed to be the shining example - and now we're faced with a dearth of primary care physicians when you need to get one. The cost of managing that plan are many, many times what they were supposed to be (huge surprise there. Remember, this is the land of the Big Dig) - it's just working out wonderfully! If I thought government could do it, I'd not be so against it, but I know they can't do it without it costing much more than they say and without it becoming a bohemouth no one can manage properly.

As for not getting fingers reattached, it depends. If it's a work related injury then yes, they will be. If you cut your own finger off with a chain saw and don't have insurance then I guess you're out of luck.

It sounds like Massachusetts will serve as a "learning opportunity" . Any change requires taking some degree of risk, but when something is as broken as our healthcare system, I think most people are willing to take a little risk in hopes of making things better. We certainly can't afford to keep things the way they are.
The only fines that are involved in Obama's plan do not apply to individuals, it applies only to large employers who choose to not provide health care to it's employees, and the fine would go right into funding the healthcare program. I don't think an amount for that fine has been mentioned though.
As for your chainsaw example, it's easy to say "I guess you're out of luck" when you're typing into a forum, but imagine being a doctor or nurse standing in front of a person (child even) holding a bag full of ice with their fingers in it, and you having to say "I guess you're out of luck". Shouldn't we be a better country than that?

 

[annmarie]

This lastest "fact checking" is really hard to use- if a person voted for a bill that did many things he wanted but one thing he didn't, does that mean he was for the one thing?

Or if he was in the Congress for twenty years, that he voted for more of one thing or another mean he did a better jobs.? Or to the reverse, if he was only in Congress a short time, not having the chance to make more choices, that he was better because he did not vote some bad things?

A slippery concept is truth. Especially political truth.

You've hit the nail on the head! The online fact checkers are great, but I urge everyone to pretty much ignore all claims of "he voted for this" and "he voted against this". It's the easiest and most baseless way in the world for a politician to make the other one look bad. I can comment on this because I spend about 40 hours a week reading laws and legislation of the United States government. The title of almost every single piece of legislation ends with "and for Other Purposes". So candidate A can say that candidate B voted against a law "To Bring World Peace to all the Planet," but the "and for Other Purposes" that isn't mentioned is that they'd also have to vote for injecting melamine into all food before it goes into grocery stores, and crowning George Bush king (sorry, I'm just trying to think of the most ridiculous things possible!). So seriously, I urge you all to ignore the "he voted for this, he voted against that" nonsense.

 

[Better Half]

I watched 2/3 of last nights debate. Unfortunately the DVR stopped recording early. I thought it was the most lively and informative of them all.

About healthcare, Im not sure which method of reform is best but right now its a mess. Until the Dr. that delivered me retired I went to him. He charged just $30 cash. His office was just him and his nurse. Most Drs offices are full of administrators dealing with all the different insurance plans. I've heard administration is close to 70% of the cost.

I have insurance through work that costs my employer $1142/month. My co-pay is $35. I dont like Drs. so I dont go but its there if I get cancer or something. But if I do get really ill I wont be able to work, then Ill lose my insurance.

Part of my property taxes go to a hospital that is not a preferred hospital with my insurance. Part of the sales tax goes to reimburse hospitals for non-payers and to insure low-income children.

When my dad retired my mom lost her insurance. She purchased a plan with a $5000 deductible. She has rheumatoid arthritis so needs medical care. I help her out with her medical bills. My sisters kids are in some weird HMO where it takes at least a month to get an appointment unless they are bleeding.

Im paying for health care in so many ways but still there is no assurance that my loved ones or I will not be bankrupted by illness or accident. It drives me crazy. Government is already involved through taxes and tax-breaks, they need to get in there and take over completely or just get out. Doing things half-way doesnt work.