• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

While waiting the the pizza the guy next to me says that the NSA was spying on the Pope! What's wrong with these people. That would be the last guy we should be spying on!

I also hear that Sabelius said that it was illegal for her to opt out of her plan and do into the exchange. Since when is opting out of your employers plan and getting one of your own illegal?
 
michaelskis said:
While waiting the the pizza the guy next to me says that the NSA was spying on the Pope! What's wrong with these people. That would be the last guy we should be spying on!

I also hear that Sabelius said that it was illegal for her to opt out of her plan and do into the exchange. Since when is opting out of your employers plan and getting one of your own illegal?
Click to expand...

Dude, that's nothin': while waiting in line at the liquor store the guy next to me says the NSA was spying on Galileo and some genius in the future, working on a replacement for oil! What's the matter with these people?!? Since when is that legal, huh? :not:
 
michaelskis said:
While waiting the the pizza the guy next to me says that the NSA was spying on the Pope! What's wrong with these people. That would be the last guy we should be spying on!

I also hear that Sabelius said that it was illegal for her to opt out of her plan and do into the exchange. Since when is opting out of your employers plan and getting one of your own illegal?
Click to expand...

Since whenever. I can't opt out of my employer plan and into the Cali exchange. Even though it looks more attractive and cost efficient.

Also, The NSA says nope we did not spy on the pope! http://m.cnet.com/news/nsa-says-nope-to-spying-on-pope/57610134

A guy I know just got diagnosed with skin cancer, which never happened to him before obamacare. Freaking Obamacare causes skin cancer!
 
Gotcha. Funny. I've always been able to opt out if I wanted to.

Are you one of those whose bedroom walls are plastered with Obama posters, who has 10 Obama stickers on his car and wear nothing but Obama t-shirts?

imaplanner said:
Since whenever. I can't opt out of my employer plan and into the Cali exchange. Even though it looks more attractive and cost efficient.

Also, The NSA says nope we did not spy on the pope! http://m.cnet.com/news/nsa-says-nope-to-spying-on-pope/57610134

A guy I know just got diagnosed with skin cancer, which never happened to him before obamacare. Freaking Obamacare causes skin cancer!
Click to expand...
 
michaelskis said:
While waiting the the pizza the guy next to me says that the NSA was spying on the Pope! What's wrong with these people. That would be the last guy we should be spying on!

I also hear that Sabelius said that it was illegal for her to opt out of her plan and do into the exchange. Since when is opting out of your employers plan and getting one of your own illegal?
Click to expand...

I actually think this new Pope would probably be a waste to listen to because he is actually humble and seems like what the church needs, but in the past, I would say yea it probably makes sense. The Pope / Vatican haven't exactly been the cleanest organization in the past oh 300 years... ;)
 
michaelskis said:
While waiting the the pizza the guy next to me says that the NSA was spying on the Pope! What's wrong with these people. That would be the last guy we should be spying on!

I also hear that Sabelius said that it was illegal for her to opt out of her plan and do into the exchange. Since when is opting out of your employers plan and getting one of your own illegal?
Click to expand...

Of course they should be spying on him.

The Illuminati runs strong...

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/pope-illuminati-rumors-francis/2013/03/15/id/494835
 
imaplanner said:
Since whenever. I can't opt out of my employer plan and into the Cali exchange. Even though it looks more attractive and cost efficient.

Also, The NSA says nope we did not spy on the pope! http://m.cnet.com/news/nsa-says-nope-to-spying-on-pope/57610134

A guy I know just got diagnosed with skin cancer, which never happened to him before obamacare. Freaking Obamacare causes skin cancer!
Click to expand...

That is funny, because PolitiFact says that it is NOT illegal for her to opt out of her plan and join the exchange. (Link) The part that scares me is she is in charge of the HHS and she does not even know what her options are. If she doesn't understand it, how is anyone else going to fully understand it.

Are you telling me that your employer requires you to participate in their program and that you have no options?

As for the NSA... they are spies, ofcourse they will deny spying on people. In fear that you would call the US reports biased, I look for a foreign source. Here it is Sounds like they did not target the Vatican, but did spy on the Pope before he was elected.
 
Personally, I find all these allegations by other countries that the US was (*gasp*) spying on them amusing. Like that isn't a two-way street:r:
 
Maister said:
Personally, I find all these allegations by other countries that the US was (*gasp*) spying on them amusing. Like that isn't a two-way street:r:
Click to expand...

And why should we care if they are mad at us for spying? I guess I think if we are going to be the enforcer, the protector, and the money behind the rebuilding, than we have some extra rights. I am not saying that we should be any of those things, but until we stop being those things, I don't really care what other countries think about our policies.
 
Hink said:
And why should we care if they are mad at us for spying? I guess I think if we are going to be the enforcer, the protector, and the money behind the rebuilding, than we have some extra rights. I am not saying that we should be any of those things, but until we stop being those things, I don't really care what other countries think about our policies.
Click to expand...

I guess that is the thing, I don't think we should be the enforcer, the protector, and the money behind the rebuilding after we F things up in places that we don't belong in.
 
My employer requires me to be in their health program unless I am already in my spouses employer provided program. They wont let me go into the california exchange, which I have looked into and would be a better deal. My employer says I cant do it.

Personally, I don't believe the nsa when they deny spying. I just like the phrase "nope we did not spy on the pope" because it rhymes.

I also really dislike president Obama.

As far as the nsa, there were revelations a while back that they spied on Obama and others under the Bush admin and i bet they are spying on Chris Christie, Rand Paul and others now. They spy on everyone.
 
imaplanner said:
My employer requires me to be in their health program unless I am already in my spouses employer provided program. They wont let me go into the california exchange, which I have looked into and would be a better deal. My employer says I cant do it.

Personally, I don't believe the nsa when they deny spying. I just like the phrase "nope we did not spy on the pope" because it rhymes.

I also really dislike president Obama.

As far as the nsa, there were revelations a while back that they spied on Obama and others under the Bush admin and i bet they are spying on Chris Christie, Rand Paul and others now. They spy on everyone.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many other people are in the same health care situation as you are in? I think that you should be given the choice... but that is just my opinion.

I don't doubt that the NSA spies on all the big players, foreign and domestic. I don't think that they should, but I don't doubt that they do.
 
How is the Obamacare website still down? What an epic fail. I want to know if there is a clause in the contract which requires the consultants to deliver a working, fully functional product.
 
hilldweller said:
How is the Obamacare website still down? What an epic fail. I want to know if there is a clause in the contract which requires the consultants to deliver a working, fully functional product.
Click to expand...

How is it that people are asserting the site is "down"? What an epic fail, both of messaging and informationing.
 
You know this whole healthcare website debacle is downright laughable, as well as a piety.

1. The website doesn't work. Ok, so it doesn't work. Any on-line retailer (and i should know, i help run my wife's business' website) will have bugs when you roll it out and constantly will have it. Ever try to buy a world series or concert ticket the day it goes on sale? Crash and burn man. It takes time to test and work out the kinks. Yes, the government has supplied money, but also, congress, controlled by the "R"s may not have doled out enough to properly test the site. Yes, the contractor needs to suck it up and work out the site and make it functional.

2. Healthcare.gov is not the entire nation. The media, specifically conservatives are spinning this thing like the entire roll it is flawed. Healthcare.gov is the exchange for states that opted out of creating their own exchanges, which happens to be many states that are republican controlled. California's exchange is up, running, and is easy to navigate and browse and review.

3. I know this is a dem talking point, but Medicare part D went through the same troubles, hated by one-side of the isle and crashed and burned after a few months. Now it is a loved by many. These things take time.

4. The Obama administration needs to push back the deadline. The website is effed up for those states who's [STRIKEOUT]party[/STRIKEOUT] elected officials did not want to create their own exchange, which happens to be the state's with the least amount of people covered with health insurance.

5. I don't see the whole argument of a "mandate". Think of it like insurance, specifically car insurance. In CA, it is required to carry insurance. Period. Get caught driving w/o insurance, and face a fine, a hefty one at that. Can't register your car without it. Are there insurance mins, yes. So does that mean you can't skirt by, yes. Healthcare is similar.
 
hilldweller said:
I'm sorry, the website still doesn't work. Is that better?
Click to expand...

How do you know it doesn't work right now. Have you tried it?
I just tried to play with it (just for the hell of it since my state implemented its own exchange that works pretty well- but I like to find things out for myself not rely on media sources with an agenda) and it seemed to work pretty well. Last week I tried and it just kept timing out and I couldn't get anywhere.
 
ColoGI said:
What channel told you that?
Click to expand...

The healthcare.gov website doesn't work dipshit. This is a fact, although you probably think its a right-wing conspiracy.



10225976614_bfc255fee8.jpg

webquest-soccer-red-card by cityplan_2000, on Flickr

Moderator note:

We will not tolerate name calling. See you Tuesday
 
hilldweller said:
The healthcare.gov website doesn't work dipshit. This is a fact, although you probably think its a right-wing conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Puerile widdle namie-names aside, are you actually claiming that if I were to go to the ObummerKKKare website today (or yesterday) it wouldn't work? What is this "not work" you are claiming??????????
 
ColoGI said:
Puerile widdle namie-names aside, are you actually claiming that if I were to go to the ObummerKKKare website today (or yesterday) it wouldn't work? What is this "not work" you are claiming??????????
Click to expand...

I just spent some time on it again today just for the hell of it and it's working pretty well at the moment. I found I can get a platinum plan (the best) in Alabama for about 309 a month - before subsidies.

Hilldweller, spend some time on the site and find out for yourself. It's certainly been having problems and the first few weeks it crashed alot. People have been signing up and it seems to be working okay at the moment when I navigate through it so I would disagree that its a fact its not working.
 
imaplanner said:
I just spent some time on it again today just for the hell of it and it's working pretty well at the moment. I found I can get a platinum plan (the best) in Alabama for about 309 a month - before subsidies.
.
Click to expand...

The problem here is the party in decline is doing their standard tactic: spending a ton of time and money parading around a few examples and claiming it is this way for everybody.

Lots of documentation on these few individuals who were paraded on Faux (and presumably wined and dined afterwards) showing their claims were false. It is clear The Noise Machine is cranked up to 11 trying to thwart implementation, which is why we get false claims that the aforementioned site doesn't work.

We should start a pool on what the weekly talking points will be for each week, as the traffic declines and the bugs get worked out. I'm sure political scientists are documenting the comedy for future books and articles.
 
imaplanner said:
My employer requires me to be in their health program unless I am already in my spouses employer provided program. They wont let me go into the california exchange, which I have looked into and would be a better deal. My employer says I cant do it.

Personally, I don't believe the nsa when they deny spying. I just like the phrase "nope we did not spy on the pope" because it rhymes.

I also really dislike president Obama.

As far as the nsa, there were revelations a while back that they spied on Obama and others under the Bush admin and i bet they are spying on Chris Christie, Rand Paul and others now. They spy on everyone.
Click to expand...

How come your employer "requires" you to be enrolled in their heath plan, do they pay 100% of the cost for you? Every place I've ever worked allows you to opt out. The crappy thing about the subsidies is that if you have an employer sponsored plan you are not eligible for the subsidy. The offerings in NJ are pretty meager on the federal exchange, a whole 3 carriers-two existing insurers and one brand new one. One of the existing carriers I would not touch with a ten foot pole due to how badly they screwed my employer a few years ago. The second existing insurer is excellent but you pay a price for that and the new one....well it will be a wait and see. It does seem like many insurers that are not participating in the exchanges are offering ACA compliant plans via their own websites.
 
Raf said:
You know this whole healthcare website debacle is downright laughable, as well as a piety.

1. The website doesn't work. Ok, so it doesn't work. Any on-line retailer (and i should know, i help run my wife's business' website) will have bugs when you roll it out and constantly will have it. Ever try to buy a world series or concert ticket the day it goes on sale? Crash and burn man. It takes time to test and work out the kinks. Yes, the government has supplied money, but also, congress, controlled by the "R"s may not have doled out enough to properly test the site. Yes, the contractor needs to suck it up and work out the site and make it functional.

2. Healthcare.gov is not the entire nation. The media, specifically conservatives are spinning this thing like the entire roll it is flawed. Healthcare.gov is the exchange for states that opted out of creating their own exchanges, which happens to be many states that are republican controlled. California's exchange is up, running, and is easy to navigate and browse and review.

3. I know this is a dem talking point, but Medicare part D went through the same troubles, hated by one-side of the isle and crashed and burned after a few months. Now it is a loved by many. These things take time.

4. The Obama administration needs to push back the deadline. The website is effed up for those states who's [STRIKEOUT]party[/STRIKEOUT] elected officials did not want to create their own exchange, which happens to be the state's with the least amount of people covered with health insurance.

5. I don't see the whole argument of a "mandate". Think of it like insurance, specifically car insurance. In CA, it is required to carry insurance. Period. Get caught driving w/o insurance, and face a fine, a hefty one at that. Can't register your car without it. Are there insurance mins, yes. So does that mean you can't skirt by, yes. Healthcare is similar.
Click to expand...

All excellent points Raf. The Covered CA website is working pretty good. I was able to search for plans for my g/f and was able to get her signed up for insurance with little problem. I also agree with you on this whole "mandate" nonsense. The charge that the ACA is government-run healthcare is laughable. The Feds have only set minimum standards that each plan has to meet. It is similar to safety standards or mileage standards that the government already requires; no one is making the argument that the auto or farming industries are government controlled. The health insurance industry was in dire need of reform and standards, many of the plans that the insurance companies were offering were complete crap with crazy high deductibles and terrible coverage.

The analogy about requiring auto insurance and health insurance is a good one. One of the reasons why healthcare has gotten so expensive is because of people without insurance using the ER as their doctor. Now with healthcare reform people will be able to get preventative care which can catch health problems before they become major problems.
 
kjel said:
How come your employer "requires" you to be enrolled in their heath plan, do they pay 100% of the cost for you? Every place I've ever worked allows you to opt out. .
Click to expand...

My employer only lets me opt out if I'm covered by a spouses plan, which I am. But in order to opt out and get the benefit as money I had to prove I was on my spouses plan. They say they wont just let me opt out into the individual market exhange. I don't know why. Both my employer plan that is available and my wifes plan I'm under are not as generous coverage as the platinum plan under the exchange which would actually be cheaper than required employee contributions to their plans.
 
imaplanner said:
My employer only lets me opt out if I'm covered by a spouses plan, which I am. But in order to opt out and get the benefit as money I had to prove I was on my spouses plan. They say they wont just let me opt out into the individual market exhange. I don't know why. Both my employer plan that is available and my wifes plan I'm under are not as generous coverage as the platinum plan under the exchange which would actually be cheaper than required employee contributions to their plans.
Click to expand...

Very strange and doesn't seem legal unless you forgo the monetary benefit.
 
Raf said:
No, but your pretty much hosed if you don't :p.

Your argument is irrational. Similar to, hey do you own your body? Why hell you do, better insure that b*tch... :-c
Click to expand...

I don't think it is irrational at all. You need car insurance only if you have a car. To own a car is optional, therefore the insurance is also optional. Obamacare is not optional.

As for the discussion about the website, yes, the launch was an epic failure, and I think that the administration knew it was going to be. But it will get fixed. What won't get fixed is Obamacare, how in the end we will end up paying more (directly into the plans or as part of our taxes) and the quality and options of care.
 
kjel said:
Very strange and doesn't seem legal unless you forgo the monetary benefit.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. I never really questioned it but our personel department is borderline incompetent. I wonder how I could find out if it is actually legal for them to do that.

Edit: I called and bitched a bit at personnel. As it turns out its part of the union contract. I can opt out if I have religious beliefs that require me to not have coverage (wtf what religion is that?) or if I'm covered by another plan but I have to already be covered by the enrollment date of my plan or I am prohibited from opting out. The issue with the exhanges is that their enrollment period didnt open until my employers enrollment closed, and unless the enrollment periods get in line with each other next year I will have the same problem.
 
Last edited:
michaelskis said:
I don't think it is irrational at all. You need car insurance only if you have a car. To own a car is optional, therefore the insurance is also optional. Obamacare is not optional.

As for the discussion about the website, yes, the launch was an epic failure, and I think that the administration knew it was going to be. But it will get fixed. What won't get fixed is Obamacare, how in the end we will end up paying more (directly into the plans or as part of our taxes) and the quality and options of care.
Click to expand...

It is also your responsibility to ensure that the driver of the car you are in is insured as well; if you are apart of the system, either directly or indirectly, you need to make sure you are protected. Back in the day, I could see the argument of choosing to have health insurance. Then again, care was also much more rudimentary. Now, I would hate to be without health insurance. Things happen when it may seem the most inconvenient, and given the costs and complexity of healthcare, you need the support of insurance or risk potential financial ruin. Developed countries that have a universal healthcare system get a far greater 'bang for their buck" and far better health outcomes than we have been getting.

Now, my employer paid health plans for the 2014 calendar year have either remained the same or lowered slightly in price, so I'm not sure where this sweeping "we will pay more" comes from.
 
michaelskis said:
I don't think it is irrational at all. You need car insurance only if you have a car. To own a car is optional, therefore the insurance is also optional. Obamacare is not optional.

As for the discussion about the website, yes, the launch was an epic failure, and I think that the administration knew it was going to be. But it will get fixed. What won't get fixed is Obamacare, how in the end we will end up paying more (directly into the plans or as part of our taxes) and the quality and options of care.
Click to expand...

You assume the system prior to ACA was good and didn't need fixing. You should look at the health statistics someone and see where we rank. Before you go there, you can't place 90% of the blame on individuals and the choices they make. Further, you can't use yourself and the choices you make as the litmus test that everyone should follow.
 
michaelskis said:
. What won't get fixed is Obamacare, how in the end we will end up paying more (directly into the plans or as part of our taxes) and the quality and options of care.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone thinks Obamacare is not without problems. And problems can always be fixed if people are willing to fix them.

Your position is that the health care system before Obamacare did not need fixing?
 
michaelskis said:
You need car insurance only if you have a car. To own a car is optional, therefore the insurance is also optional. Obamacare is not optional.
Click to expand...

Your reasoning is incomplete and the premises are flawed as well.

If you own a car, insurance is mandatory under the law. Under the law, the ACA has mandatory elements as well.

HTH.
 
michaelskis said:
I don't think it is irrational at all. You need car insurance only if you have a car. To own a car is optional, therefore the insurance is also optional. Obamacare is not optional.

As for the discussion about the website, yes, the launch was an epic failure, and I think that the administration knew it was going to be. But it will get fixed. What won't get fixed is Obamacare, how in the end we will end up paying more (directly into the plans or as part of our taxes) and the quality and options of care.
Click to expand...

Where this argument falls apart is that if you don't have health insurance, there is the chance that you could adversely impact the health care costs of others, because your care would be subsidized.

The same with a car. Insurance is required because there is a chance that your driving actions may adversely impact the costs of others.

Everybody, at some point in their lives, takes part in the health care industry, thus the need to make sure that everyone carries insurance.
 
Whose Yur Planner said:
...Before you go there, you can't place 90% of the blame on individuals and the choices they make. Further, you can't use yourself and the choices you make as the litmus test that everyone should follow.
Click to expand...

This statement is dependent upon one's ideology and mental circuitry. Plenty of people believe - and have incorporated it into their self-identity - the opposite of what you wrote. I'm not saying you are incorrect, I'm just saying the "truth" of your statement depends upon what one believes. This is all part of our ongoing rapid understanding of the human brain and how it works, and statements like yours are illustrative to help researchers understand in-group identity and mental circuitry.

.02
 
imaplanner said:
Hmmm. I never really questioned it but our personel department is borderline incompetent. I wonder how I could find out if it is actually legal for them to do that.

Edit: I called and bitched a bit at personnel. As it turns out its part of the union contract. I can opt out if I have religious beliefs that require me to not have coverage (wtf what religion is that?) or if I'm covered by another plan but I have to already be covered by the enrollment date of my plan or I am prohibited from opting out. The issue with the exhanges is that their enrollment period didnt open until my employers enrollment closed, and unless the enrollment periods get in line with each other next year I will have the same problem.
Click to expand...

I was going to ask if you were union.

From the Healthcare.gov website: For 2014, the Open Enrollment Period is October 1, 2013–March 31, 2014. For 2015 and later years, the Open Enrollment Period is October 15 to December 7 of the previous year.
 
Hink said:
Chris Christie Is About To Win In A Landslide, And He Wants Every Republican To Understand Why
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chris-christie-win-landslide-wants-022005963.html

This is telling - Christie is winning by a lot. Cuccinelli is losing by a lot.

Quite telling....
Click to expand...

perhaps it's quite telling for NJ, or the mid-Atlantic states, or maybe even the northeast in general, but nationally there are huge swaths of the country that have bought wholesale into the ideological purity/better-to-default-on-debt-than-comprimise concept.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the car insurance comparison... can someone (anyone) show me any state legislation or federal regulations that requires a person to own a car? I agree that if someone choses to own a car, then insurance should be required... and even that process is different from State to State because it is not a duty of the Federal Government. If you want to drive a car on public roads, you need to have a driver's license... and once again, that is a state by state process.

I agree that the system right now is far from perfect and has tons of flaws... but Obamacare does not fix those problems. Instead it requires people to pay for coverage that they don't need. My neighbor Zac, who is gay and lives with his partner, is curious why or his partner needs a plan that includes OBGYN and Maternity coverage.

There is a fundamental belief difference here... I am of the mind that the Federal Government should stay out of people's business unless it is a power that is expressively listed in the Constitution and if States want to implement something, then they can do so. Many others in here feel that the Federal Government should be able to do as they wish.
 
michaelskis said:
I am of the mind that the Federal Government should stay out of people's business unless it is a power that is expressively listed in the Constitution and if States want to implement something, then they can do so.
Click to expand...

In that case, than you okay with slavery and a black man being 3/5ths of a person right? I mean it was expressively written in the Constitution, by your logic, it should be okay, because it is what the founding fathers intended...:-@
 
michaelskis said:
Regarding the car insurance comparison... can someone (anyone) show me any state legislation or federal regulations that requires a person to own a car? I agree that if someone choses to own a car, then insurance should be required... and even that process is different from State to State because it is not a duty of the Federal Government. If you want to drive a car on public roads, you need to have a driver's license... and once again, that is a state by state process.

I agree that the system right now is far from perfect and has tons of flaws... but Obamacare does not fix those problems. Instead it requires people to pay for coverage that they don't need. My neighbor Zac, who is gay and lives with his partner, is curious why or his partner needs a plan that includes OBGYN and Maternity coverage.

There is a fundamental belief difference here... I am of the mind that the Federal Government should stay out of people's business unless it is a power that is expressively listed in the Constitution and if States want to implement something, then they can do so. Many others in here feel that the Federal Government should be able to do as they wish.
Click to expand...

No one is required to own a car.

But everyone single person at some point in their life will most likely access the health care system, so they should be required to have insurance. If someone signs a waiver that they will never seek medical treatment in their lifetime, and I will not be required to subsidize their care, then I don't care if you have health insurance. But I'm tired of people being freeloaders in this country. I would figure this is a conservative principle that many Republicans and Libertarians can get behind.

Should the country continue to subsidize those people who refuse to get health insurance but continue to access the health care system?

Also, I think everyone would like to be able to choose their health care plans a la carte. But insurance providers cannot offer them this way because they would never make money. Similar to why cable companies do not offer channels a la carte.
 
btrage said:
No one is required to own a car.

But everyone single person at some point in their life will most likely access the health care system, so they should be required to have insurance. If someone signs a waiver that they will never seek medical treatment in their lifetime, and I will not be required to subsidize their care, then I don't care if you have health insurance. But I'm tired of people being freeloaders in this country. I would figure this is a conservative principle that many Republicans and Libertarians can get behind.

Should the country continue to subsidize those people who refuse to get health insurance but continue to access the health care system?

Also, I think everyone would like to be able to choose their health care plans a la carte. But insurance providers cannot offer them this way because they would never make money. Similar to why cable companies do not offer channels a la carte.
Click to expand...

You are correct, the vast majority will need insurance at some point. I don't like the freeloading either, but to make it a federal law is like killing a fly with a cannon. It might correct one issue, but cause more harm than good.

I think that people forget that there are to ways that we are paying for this. The first is direct and the second is with taxes. There are people who are getting subsidized based on income. Where is that money coming from? Second we being forced to pay for coverage that we don't need.

I think it is stupid for a person not to have coverage, but I don't think that it should be required by the Feds.
 
Hink said:
Chris Christie Is About To Win In A Landslide, And He Wants Every Republican To Understand Why
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chris-christie-win-landslide-wants-022005963.html

This is telling - Christie is winning by a lot. Cuccinelli is losing by a lot.

Quite telling....
Click to expand...

It's not "telling".

Politics in NJ still largely operates on a party machine basis. The only Democrat that would have had a reasonable chance against Christie was Cory Booker and it would have been a nasty election. With Sen. Frank Lautenberg's passing, Booker seized the opportunity to run for the senate seat, Christie pretty much helped him get it by scheduling the special primary and special general election. Why? Because with Booker out of the way, Christie would win hands down since there is no other Democrat that could beat him.

State Sen. Barbara Buono is good people, I've met her several times and our community development network has worked with her on key legislation over the years to good effect. However, she just does not have the name recognition that Christie (or Booker) does and can't win. Gov. Christie has figured out that he's had to court the Democratic machine in order to accomplish goals. Currently he has the assembly speaker in his back pocket and the Democratic machine and party bosses are all supporting Christie's re-election.

I'm not a huge fan, but NJ has some deep seated issues that he's been willing to address that none of the previous governors have. What you see is what you get and frankly there are few surprises with him. My main point of criticism has been that the lower income residents of the state have born the fiscal brunt of his changes which for me is unacceptable-gutting the affordable housing legislation, changing Medicaid eligibility rules for adults (this is one personally hit me very hard), squandering the foreclosure settlement on a budget plug, and vilifying teachers and rank & file public employees. Although he is conservative on the NJ spectrum, he's a moderate on the national spectrum.

He will win this election, only because there is not a viable candidate. I feel sorry for Sen. Buono because she is the sacrificial lamb. Will Christie make a run for the Republican presidential nomination? Perhaps, but he's going to have to veer hard right to get the fringe vote to tie up a nomination unless the GOP somehow manages to implode.
 
M'skis, I believe your question about the OBGYN coverage and how it relates to your gay neighbors is probably in reference to the list of coverage all insurers are now required to buy. Just because OBGYN services are included does not mean it is necessarily pertinent or that it costs more. Its just the IF you are a woman AND you need those services, the provider must offer it. That's the law. The same way that the requirement to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions does not mean that you HAVE to have a pre-existing condition to get the coverage. Its also like the issue of covering birth control. That coverage does not REQUIRE that everyone get birth control. It simply means if one seeks it, they need to cover it. My wife's current insurance covers it, but she can't have any more babies. So can she ask her insurer to remove that item from the coverage and bring the cost down? No. They don't operate like that. Its just part of the package which was offered through my job. You get what you get. Its like the ala carte analogy Btrage mentioned.

I am not sure I buy the "being forced to pay for coverage we don't need" argument. This makes it sound like prior to the ACA coming online we could just go pick and choose the types of coverage we wanted like shopping at the supermarket. I have both received insurance through employers and on my own and my personal experience has been the painful process of choosing the lesser of two evils. Do I go for the super high deductible (and where most of the out of pocket expenses I pay do not even count toward it), the coverage that does not include hospitalization or the one with the high co-pay? Its like choosing between crap or sh!t for breakfast. It all blows and much of the coverage provided does not suit my needs anyway. The new requirements attempt to provide a basic level of coverage that is most pertinent to most of the population. I don't think that is a bad idea at all.

As to the "paying twice" thing, I am not sure where that logic comes from. Currently, we (taxpayers) foot the bill for ALL people who seek medical help but have no insurance. The feds (and the states, covering what the feds do not) pay for unreimbursable costs of healthcare delivery every year. Hospitals seek recompense for astronomical sums annually. In this way, we are ALREADY subsidizing health coverage but in a very inefficient manner. On top of paying the cost of the actual service, we are also paying lots of administrative costs that would have been avoided if the coverage was in place to begin with. Add to this the benefit of intervening with patients before things become a crisis by connecting them with a primary care provider. Yes, there will always be people who put things off and end up in the ER when they could have avoided it by talking to their doctor earlier, but we definitely will see some improvement in overall health by connecting more people directly with doctors. That seems like a no-brainer. The idea is that money (that we are already paying) gets reapportioned into providing subsidies (allowing people to get care earlier) and also to cover the uninsured who will by definition be a smaller number than we presently have (if not, then we wouldn't be paying money out for subsidies). I don't see where the paying twice comes into play. Its the same money, being paid out more at the front end to keep overall costs down.

Lastly, can I just point out that the ACA ISN'T EVEN IN FULL EFFECT YET!!?? How can we be passing judgment on it when we hardly have any idea of how it is going to play out? The closest thing we have to compare it to is Romneycare which by most accounts seems to be functioning well. Regardless, no one has yet to actually USE any of the coverages offered through the exchanges. That doesn't happen until 2014. Can we at least wait another 6 months before positing opinions on whether its "working?"
 
Last edited:
The status quo before obamacare was costing lots of taxpayer money for non-insured and under-insured people, and the status quo was that tens of millions could not afford insurance, that roughly 50,000 Americans died every year from lack of insurance, that people with pre-existing conditions often were denied insurance and treatment, and that premiums were increasing by 10 to 40% every year. That was the status quo that Mskis prefers. Obamacare is not perfect and is actually quite problematic in many aspects, but the status quo was also ridiculously terrible. But it attempts to deal with the cluster that is American health care, versus the position of mskis and friends which appears to support doing nothing.

As to the big things Obamacare attempts to deal with, getting nearly everyone insured and making sure people with pre-existing conditions could obtain coverage and treatment, most Americans support those things even if they disagree with how Obamacare addresses them. Reading comments I think its fair to say mskis opposes those things. And I think it comes from a world view that differs from that of most Americans. Most Americans seem to support the idea that we are in this society together and have some level of responsibility for each other. I interpret skis comments as coming from a world view where Americans in unfortunate economic and health situations should be on their own even if it means pain and death. Rugged individualism is a great trait but it's also a little unrealistic to apply over an entire society. And the idea that the poor and sick should basically just fend for themselves and/or crawl in a hole and die is not shared by most Americans, which is why the status quo was unacceptable to most.
 
Last edited:
Hink said:
Chris Christie Is About To Win In A Landslide, And He Wants Every Republican To Understand Why
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chris-christie-win-landslide-wants-022005963.html

This is telling - Christie is winning by a lot. Cuccinelli is losing by a lot.

Quite telling....
Click to expand...

...proof that the Rockefeller Republicans are not dead.

There are red states with Democrats as govenor...I like to beleive that most of the time the best candiate wins...hence Christie winning tomorrow.
 
<3 Obamacare

For several years (a couple of decades) my bunions gradually progressed to the point where it was increasingly difficult to walk, or wear cycling shoes. Consequently I tapered off on exercise, which eased me towards borderline diabetes. I've also suffered from a torn meniscus and carpal tunnel syndrome.

Discovered a compound that alleviates the effects of diabetes (which I do not have) and also works on metabolic syndrome. So many people in my fair state have this condition that our #1 hypermart retailer gives the Rx away. For free.

After my job ended in 2009, I lost my healthcare coverage. Went shopping in the private sector. While nothing was financially out of reach, every company told me that due to my "preexisting condition," I was uninsurable. How was this determined? Because I take this free Rx for metabolic syndrome. Waitaminute. I do not have diabetes, and the Rx helped stave it off. Nevermind, big corporations decided for me what my life should be like.

All that changed with the Affordable Care Act, which stipulated that states must offer coverage to those refused by the private sector. I obtained insurance in April 2012, and immediately started knocking down the worn-out parts. Had the knee fixed late summer, followed by one wrist and one foot. After cycling season this fall I had the other foot repaired, soon to be followed by the other wrist.

Various Cyburbians may posit all kinds of incorrect dreck about this legislation; you do not have all the facts to make sweeping generalizations. I am walking, talking, proud proof that our US healthcare needed fixing, and that it is happening.

Here's a photo of my knee-wheeler, sporting a bumper sticker I had made.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151150386379562&l=e6957311d5
 
Veloise said:
For several years (a couple of decades) my bunions gradually progressed to the point where it was increasingly difficult to walk, or wear cycling shoes. Consequently I tapered off on exercise, which eased me towards borderline diabetes. I've also suffered from a torn meniscus and carpal tunnel syndrome.

Discovered a compound that alleviates the effects of diabetes (which I do not have) and also works on metabolic syndrome. So many people in my fair state have this condition that our #1 hypermart retailer gives the Rx away. For free.

After my job ended in 2009, I lost my healthcare coverage. Went shopping in the private sector. While nothing was financially out of reach, every company told me that due to my "preexisting condition," I was uninsurable. How was this determined? Because I take this free Rx for metabolic syndrome. Waitaminute. I do not have diabetes, and the Rx helped stave it off. Nevermind, big corporations decided for me what my life should be like.

All that changed with the Affordable Care Act, which stipulated that states must offer coverage to those refused by the private sector. I obtained insurance in April 2012, and immediately started knocking down the worn-out parts. Had the knee fixed late summer, followed by one wrist and one foot. After cycling season this fall I had the other foot repaired, soon to be followed by the other wrist.

Various Cyburbians may posit all kinds of incorrect dreck about this legislation; you do not have all the facts to make sweeping generalizations. I am walking, talking, proud proof that our US healthcare needed fixing, and that it is happening.


Here's a photo of my knee-wheeler, sporting a bumper sticker I had made.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151150386379562&l=e6957311d5
Click to expand...

Vel, thank you for posting this story. I wish the media would cover these stories instead of this nonsense that Fox has been covering about "real stories. real people" of Obamacare. Salon.com fact checked some of these stories and came to the conclusion Fox is basically full of s**t. A large number of people who are "losing" their coverage under Obamacare is because their current plan is crap, that either has ridiculous deductible or covers nothing. To all bitching that the new insurance requirements cover unneeded things such as OB-GYN, or prostate exams, I cant think of a pre-Obamacare health care plan that would let you pick from services al a carte. There is no doubt that the ACA roll-out hasnt been smooth, but states that are running their own exchanges have had significantly better roll-outs. The ultimate ironiy is that the states who refused to implement their own insurance exchanges have been forced to the federal exchange. And now these are the same people complain that the federal website is slow and difficult.
 
Back
Top