E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Eric Kayne / for NBC News
Brandi DeFrank's son Gabriel, 3 months old, is covered under Medicaid, but the program's coverage for the Texas mom herself ended when she gave birth.
As Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama pack in some last-minute campaigning before Tuesday’s election, polls show voters are split just about down the middle on who they prefer: Romney, who has promised to do everything he can do repeal the 2010 health reform law, and Obama, who says its benefits are just beginning to take hold.
But while the presidential race gets most of the attention, the choices voters make to fill governor’s mansions and state legislatures may have just as big an effect on what kind of health coverage they will have in coming years.
That’s in part because the Affordable Care Act sets it up that way, but even more so because the Supreme Court says it’s up to states to decide whether and how to expand the Medicaid health insurance plan for the poor.
“One thing the voters should be aware of is what are their governors are going to be doing. Will more people have access to Medicaid or access to a state-run exchange?” says John Poelman of healthcare consulting firm Leavitt Partners and a former health policy analyst at the Department of Health and Human Services.
Two states at the two extremes of health care coverage are Texas, with a free-market, bare-bones approach, and Vermont, which is unabashedly going for a European-style, government-supported system.
Brandi DeFrank is one of the 6.3 million people in Texas who lack health insurance. That's a quarter of the state's population and the highest percentage of uninsured people in the country.
Like millions of women across the country, DeFrank, 20, was fully covered under Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance plan for low-income people, while she was pregnant. The birth of her 3-month-old son, Gabriel, was also covered, but after that, her own coverage ended. The baby remains on Medicaid -- all states make some provision for children whose parents lack insurance -- but now DeFrank is on her own and gambling that she won’t get sick.
Under federal law, DeFrank could have been covered under her parents’ health insurance. But when she moved out at 18, her father said she had to learn to be an adult.
“He took me off his insurance,” said DeFrank as she cradled Gabriel in a cheerful playroom at Legacy Community Health Services, a non-profit health clinic in southwest Houston where Gabriel gets care. Her husband, who is working as an intern at a medical clinic, is also not covered, says DeFrank, who is about to begin applying to nursing school.
“I didn’t really think about Medicaid or anything. You’re just thinking about college,” she added. “I saved all my money for books.”
'We're not going to be a part of socializing health care'
Texas governor Rick Perry, a Republican, has said he won’t expand Medicaid to cover people like DeFrank, and the Republican-dominated Texas legislature backed him in turning down $76 billion in federal matching funds that would have helped pay to do it over the first five years.
“We’re just not going to be a part of … socializing health care in the state of Texas,” Perry told reporters in July.
But in Vermont, Gov. Peter Shumlin, a Democrat, and the current legislature are pushing hard for a single-payer system that they say will give them the leverage to lower prices and provide better care for everyone in the state. But they’re not there yet and the election will decide if the state will continue to go in that direction, or whether it will be forced to roll back.
The state’s current continuum of programs asks patients to pay at least a minimum premium if they can. They include Catamount Health, a state plan providing subsidies for some people, along with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont; Vermont Health Access Plan, which provides insurance for people who have gone without for a year or more; Dr. Dynasaur; Medicaid, and pharmacy assistance and premium assistance programs.
On Tuesday, residents will go to the polls to decide whether to keep pushing more, towards government-directed health care plan that covers everyone, paid for by taxes.
That’s what Anna Gebhardt would like to see happen. Even though Vermont offers more coverage options for low-income families than some other states, she and her husband, Oliver, don’t have insurance. Their jobs don’t offer coverage, they can’t afford to buy a private policy and, since Oliver got a raise a few months ago at his job as an audio engineer, they earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid. Their children, Leviah, 6, and Immanuel, 13, are covered under the state’s Dr. Dynasaur program, which offers low-cost coverage for kids, but the family struggles to make the payments for it.
Two weeks ago, Gebhardt, a 33-year-old preschool teacher, was sitting nervously in a Burlington, Vt., emergency room after Leviah fell down at school. When the girl was still crying hours later, her mother took her in. It wasn’t an easy decision. Gebhardt was not entirely sure she was paid up on Anna’s health insurance premium under the Dr. Dynasaur program.
“My fingers were crossed and I was thinking ‘Did I pay the bill last month?’” said Gebhardt. “Two other people had to come over and help make sure we were covered before we could even see a doctor. This gives you a lot of anxiety when you have a child who is crying and in pain,” Gebhardt said. Luckily, she had paid and Leviah was just just fine.
DeFrank and Gebhardt are just the type of people that Democrats want to reach with expanded health care, subsidized by the government if needed. And they’re just the type of people that Republicans say could buy their own insurance if the government would just let the free market take over.
The 2010 Affordable Care Act was designed to transform health care in the United States, which most experts agree currently costs too much and leaves far too many people without health insurance. The Affordable Care Act calls for states to set up insurance exchanges, where people who don’t have health insurance through an employer or through government programs can go and buy a plan -- with government subsidies, if they need them.
It also was meant to provide more care to people who can’t buy insurance by forcing states to expand Medicaid. The hope was to add about 16 million of the poorest people to the rolls -- about half of those who need health insurance. But after a series of challenges to the law, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that the Medicaid expansion requirement went too far. While most of the Affordable Care Act was constitutional, the court ruled, the federal government could not force states to offer Medicaid to more people.
'They can disrupt implementation of the law'
So now two of the biggest provisions of the law -- offering Medicaid to more people and setting up the health exchanges -- are in the hands of state officials.
“They can disrupt implementation of the law. Leadership can either be aggressively moving it forward or impeding it,” Poelman says.
The Obama administration is offering to pay the full cost of expanding Medicaid at first, but lawmakers in states like Texas say they can barely afford Medicaid now, let alone when they’ll have to start kicking in 7 percent for all those extra people in 2019.
This frustrates Garnet Coleman, a Democrat in the Texas legislature who represents much of Houston’s poor downtown. Coleman says not only would expanding Medicaid save money in the long run, by getting people treated earlier, it would create much-needed jobs. “Health care is a growth sector,” Coleman says. It will create “beaucoup jobs -- good jobs, as your mama would say.” Jobs that people can get with two-year degrees. “This is just a boost in the arm to the state of Texas,” he says.
Coleman is delighted that Perry and the legislature are balking on setting up an exchange for Texas and looks forward to seeing what the federal government will do instead. The 2010 health reform law says that if states don’t set up their own exchanges by 2014, HHS will do it for them.
Different paths to the same goal
It’s not that Democrats want health care and Republicans don’t. Both sides agree in principle that it’s better for everyone to have health insurance of some kind. It’s cheaper to treat disease or injuries early, and best to prevent disease in the first place. People are more likely to get vaccinated and to take medications such as blood pressure drugs if they’re seeing a doctor regularly.
The Obama administration says the way to get there is with subsidies and government oversight, with a healthy marketplace allowing private health insurers to offer more to those who can pay -- and strict regulation to make sure insurance companies don’t cherry-pick the healthiest customers or dump patients just when they need insurance the most.
Republicans argue that freeing up the marketplace would do that more efficiently. They say that government regulations make it impossible for insurers and health care providers to compete enough to bring costs down.
“No one says it’s better to leave people out,” says Joel Ario, former director of health insurance exchanges at HHS, who is now at law and consulting firm Manatt Phelps & Phillips. “It is just a question of what we can afford or not afford.” It’s also a question of who can best make those decisions – states or the federal government.
“With exchanges, the question is whether the federal government should have a heavy hand in making them work,” Ario added.
In Texas, polls suggest the Republicans will dominate. This likely means Texas will continue to offer a bare minimum of health care and will let the federal government set up its health exchanges.
“There are states referred to as ‘Hell, no states’,” said David Smith, an analyst at Leavitt, the healthcare consulting firm. “A lot of those states don’t necessarily have governors who are up for election.” In those states, voters have to decide whether to help governors by electing members of the same party to the state house.
In Vermont, Shumlin’s Republican opponent, Randy Brock, says single-payer health care is too expensive. Vermont’s legislature will take up the question of how to pay for it in January, with options including a capital gains tax or a tax on employers.
Where other states stand
Republican governors like Iowa’s Terry Branstad, Arizona's Jan Brewer, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, Nebraska’s Dave Heineman, Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Scott Walker of Wisconsin say they have no intention of expanding Medicaid. Florida’s Rick Scott says he won’t expand Medicaid even though his state has the second-highest rate of uninsured adults, after Texas.
Leavitt’s team predicts the majority of state governors -- at least 30 -- will be Republican after the election. Eleven states will be electing governors, and eight of them have Democrats in office now.
States that are safe for Democrats include Maryland, where Gov. Martin O'Malley was one of the first governors to move on health reform. Oregon governor John Kitzhaber also makes health reform a central policy.
Next door in Washington state, health care is playing a big role in making the race tight, with Democrat Jay Inslee, an eight-term congressman from Seattle, battling the Republican state attorney general Rob McKenna. Inslee supported the health law in Congress; McKenna isn’t against expansion but he thinks Medicaid patients should share some of the costs.
In Indiana’s race, Republican congressman Mike Pence has said he wouldn’t set up a state insurance exchange. His Democratic opponent John Gregg hasn’t endorsed the health reform law, either, but has met with current governor Mitch Daniels about how Indiana should move forward on building a health insurance exchange.
Alabama, Florida, Montana and Wyoming have ballot measures asking residents whether they want to block the mandate requiring people to get health insurance. Missouri voters are being asked to decide whether to allow the governor to establish health insurance exchanges.
While they wait to see what happens, Gebhardt and her husband, Oliver, are gambling that they won’t get sick and need medical care.
“We are constantly at the whim of decisions being made by people who don’t depend on those services and don’t realize how their decisions affect people,” Gebhardt said. “We are constantly in limbo. We could create a system where efficiency works for the people and for the budget. That is where Vermont can lead the way.”
Related stories:
- Falling through the cracks if states don't expand Medicaid
- U.S. health care: It's officially a mess, institute says
Leave a Comment:
Which states will get on the exchange bandwagon in wake of
the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on PPACA? http://www.healthcaretownhall.com/?p=5658
Rick Scott is in competition with Texas to have the most uninsured people. Although he loved stealing money from Medicare when he was with HCA, 100's of millions for corporate executives but says the government can't afford ACA but it can afford to pay him 100's of millions in taxpayer money. Go figure.
HCA also had to pay the largest penalty in history for fraudulently billing medicare. This is the healthcare program Rick Scott wants. It has nothing to do with helping people but making money.
This is the modern world, the 21st Century. What group of companies haven't raised prices for their product so they can keep up with the competitors profits? Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter. As the president of AMC said when the country was reeling under Stagflation when asked how much he was going to charge for the new model cars, "All the market can bear."
Vote for Romney. He will cut the education budget to the bone. If he wins this election it will prove that our schools aren't teaching anyway and the money is surely wasted.
Agreed. There's no evidence that throwing more money at education helps. The system has been dumbed down, and the SATs have been renormed (i.e. dumbed down) several times since 1962. We're spending more and getting less bang for our buck in education.
Eliminate federal involvement in education.
It seems that no one can see the obvious. Get a freekin job. Drop out of school since you are over 40 and get a frikin job. Mean time go to the ER like all the illegals do.
This aint rocket science people.
Jay Enslee (in addition to Maria Cantwell) is nothing more than promoting more of the SAME Progressive legislation supported in D.C. A career politician (in addition to Maria Cantwell) who needs to go home and retire. I still have to laugh at Cantwell's false advertising about jobs in Washington State. Apparently.....SHE saved Boeing while supporting NLRB's lawsuit against Boeing for building a plant in S.C. Hypocrite.
Amazing that the States have been granted authority by SCOTUS for expanding Medicaid in their own State when MOST STATES, if not most of them, are on the verge of bankruptcy. Expanding Medicaid will more than likely bankrupt the rest of them.
It is time to TERMINATE the Mandated Universal Health Care Reform legislation and start over with a well thought out program and not one Mr. Obama had passed through the Congressional Chambers using a Cornhusker kickback, Louisiana Purchase, or back room wheeling and dealing with health care institutions. Mr. Obama's most TRANSPARENT administration in HISTORY ??? .......h*** NO !!!
There aren't any affordable health plans in Texas, unless you are willing to get one with a $10,000 deductible per year. But, even those aren't cheap for some reason. It's no wonder a quarter of Texans don't have it.
Mr. Obama's "signature" Mandated Universal Health Care Reform legislation:
Yep, ObamaCare is going to do wonders for American's healthcare.
Meanwhile.....back in reality.....IF, and that is a big IF, Mr. Obama is re-elected.....his first order of business is to make the Mandated Universial Health Care Reform legislation a ONE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.....namely the U.S. Government. And it will be administered by the DSHS and health care providers will be DIRECTED by some GS-4 sitting in D.C. on your health care needs.
So you would rather a heartless, profit-mongering, pencil pusher behind a cubicle making decisions about your health?
It'sSimple @.1.1: My wife and I have health issues related to four of the points you posted. When the Messiah got his ACA signed into law we were notified that our premiums would go up sharply because if the law stands they will be forced to take on people who are dying a slow and expensive death. Not in those words but it's what they meant, since pre-exist is out the window. Our health issues are managed by medications and we will not be dropped or put into any high risk category. My share of my premium as well as my company has doubled since 2008 and it's because they anticipate being forced to pay $100 thousand or more per year to sick people who come to work for the company. Even with this early premium cushion some ins co.s will go out of business.
It's called the Affordable Care Act but I work seven hours to pay one weeks' premium.
One reason that Canada's economy is outperforming the USA economy (on a per cepita GDP basis) is that some years ago, Canada adopted a single-payer health system that allows each Province to control what is essentially universal Medicaid for Canadians.
This really helped Canadian businesses, especially small businesses, for the simple reason that it completely took health care off a burden that made smaller businesses less competitive than larger businesses and corporations. It leveled the playing field a great deal.
Most of what the GOP spreads about the Canadian health care system could be better spread on the flower garder. Canadian health care is: a) More conprehensive than the US system, b) costs less per capita than US health care by far, but server all the population instead of around 38% or so of Ame4ricans who have comparable coverage, c) Replaced all forms of veterans care, retirement health care, and indigent care along with replacing the private insurance model. d) Has services and wait times measurably better than those in the US e) is so good that the Canadian government has had to pass laws restricting American immigration for health care reasons."
Of all the nations considered "economically developed" the US is the only one besides Turkey that does not have universal health care. The US Medicare system is worst health care system in the developed countries of the world --- primarily because of a lack of vision and dental care and the horrific prescription drug coverage.
The US is 42nd in health care sytems in the world, down from 37th just a few years ago.
I have a grand-daughter who ill be 8 on Sunday. She was born with Tetrology of Fallot, a series of founr serious congentai heart defects. She is fine, but the surgery was horribly expensive. Both her parents knew that it was coming before the birth and so both had "family" insurance --- basically paying double for coverage. Before AHA was passed, my son-in-law's insurance was maxed out against the lifetime cap. He was forbidden by law to change insurance companies, to convert to a single person plan or to stop paying premiums unless he changed jobs. My daughter's health insurance is within $100,000 of her lifetime cap. And my grand-daghter will need at least one more major surgery so replace some child-sized dacron with adult sizes.
I saw what relief it was for my daughter and son-in-law when ACA was passed and they could not be denied coverage in the future because of pre-existing conditions, and when the caps were eliminated and they found that they could keep my grand-daughter on their insurance until she is 26. It has meant an end to some massive worry and frustration.
But Romney wants to kill my grand-daughter. He considers her a part of the "47%" who pay no federal income tax and are therefore is free-loading at the public teat. People like Romney and Ryan essentially have no social conscience or morals. They completely ignore the fact that both society and overnment has one sole pair of reasons for existence --- to maximize material wealth through collective effort (a group of hunters is more likely to kill a bison than a sincle hunter) and to spread risk. Romney wants exactly the opposite --- to minimize collective wealth and to place the individual above society in a take-it-and--run way.
BTW: If you look at ALL taxes, not just federal income tax, the lowest half of the country in income pays around 72% of all taxes and fees - federal, state and local. A major reason why so many do not pay federal income tax is that the extremely regressive state and local taxes are figured into the standard deduction.
Imnotlost - so basically you're saying to heck with everyone else. "Those other sick people should just hurry up and die so my premiums could stay low."
Sounds to me like you'd be happier living on a deserted island. It's part of the price we pay to live in a thing called 'civilization".
Can somebody answer these 2 questions logically?
1. If your car has a dented fender and a broken windshield prior to being insured by a new insurance company, should the new insurance company be required to repair the damage?
2. If I have stage 4 cancer prior to being insured by a new insurance company, should the new insurance company be required to repair the damage?
Here are your answers, Mcrich: 1. To compare the value of human life to that of an machine tells me you're spending too much time drinking the TeaBag Kool-Aid. Please don't try to be clever when it's obviously beyond you. 2. If you have Stage 4 cancer, the chances of any insurance company being capable of damage repair are nil. Insurance companies, traditionally, either pay the bills, deny coverage due to 'pre-existing conditions' or refuse to pay for a whatever reason developed to improve their own bottom line best fits the situation. Here's a couple of questions for you: 1. Is your family insured? 2. If you were earning less than $50,000/year, would you be able to afford it all by yourself?
Everyone should be concerned about health care and 99% of Americans are one accident or major illness away from losing everything, including their homes, savings and yes, their lives. I find it appalling that so many people are so selfish that they would rather keep a few dollars in their pocket than help out a neighbor, friend or family member to get medical care. Don't they know that we all pay for the indigent who go to the emergency room anyway?
You guys just don't get it. Yes we need to reform the health care insurance but not the way this admin did it, that is what is being stated. How many of you have read the whole bill? I have and more than a couple times. Yes there are people who do need help with get insurance and again no body will say to that because that will help the tax payer. To those of you who think that Canada, the UK, or Germany have a great a health care plan well it is sure funny that my relatives from Canada and Germany come here for the major stuff because of the waiting time, they tell the small stuff not a problem but they do pay for it in higher prices on other things to pay for this insurance or did you all forget about that.
Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma....
“President Obama is refusing to comply with the law that requires him to publish forthcoming regulations because he doesn’t want the American public to know the terrible cost of the regulatory barrage he plans to unleash in a second term.”
“So instead of being honest with the American people about what’s in store if he wins, he’s been trying to hide the fact that he intends to move forward with a slew of rules that will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and dramatically raise the cost of energy on American families.”
This is the person the left wants to re-elect.... a man that IGNORES the FEDERAL LAW..... at best, he's afraid of the facts...... at worst, he knows the contents & understands the devastation the new rules would have on our country.....
Either way, Mr Obama is VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW..... his oath of office DEMANDS he uphold the Constitution.... while all Barry does is thumb his nose at the responsibility........
Romney/Ryan Express.......... ALL ABOARD....... there's still time to SAVE the UNITED STATES...........
With Bail out number 3 in full swing, and the banks getting more Free money, Obama is thinkking his odds of winning might just pay off. After all Americans are to stupid to look up stuff on there own and buy the main stream media hook line and sinker !
Benghazi and Youtubegate, Obama at the UN stump talking about our Freedom of speech needs limits so we don't offend ??
Fast and Furious , Obama at the stump talking with Mexico's President, saying out 2nd amendment rights need to be taken...
Obama 2012 Cradle to the Grave ! Give me your Money , Give me your Freedoms !
Help him finish taking what he started, Help him Finish America !
Chris,
Did you know Romney is one of the 47% who pays no federal income tax ? By Romney's own words he has been unemployed since resigning as CEO of Bain Capital in 1999 ? The only taxes Romney has paid in the past 12 years is a discounted Capital gains tax averaging 13.1%, and this does not include several million dollars Romney has stashed in foreign accounts.
Steve, we are saving the UNITED STATES by derailing the Romney/Ryan express headed back to a mid-evil times culture were all the wealth and power are reserved to the few, a time when a days work is worth a pound of rice and women are barely treated as humans....4 more for Obama..
This is how it should be. The states decide what they want to do with health care, education, taxes, etc.. Then you shop around, find out which state suits you best and move there. If you like a liberal nanny state, move to California or New York. If you like a state which makes you look out for yourself, move to Texas or South Carolina.
The Federal government should mind its own business and let the states decide.
Well you all might as well forget about the repeal of Obama Care, because that simply is not going to happen. No such thing gets to President Obama's or President Romney's, (God forbid), desk. If you can't see that than you are simply listening to Romney lies that he can not achieve.
However if Romney gets elected, the existing Medicaid program takes billions in cuts not even counting the Obama Care expansion.
I will hate it for the people of those states who's Governors deny the Medicaid expansion. But we will see if the actually do it. First off, it is a lot of money for a very long time that they will be denying coming into their state. Money that they can siphon off. Money that their providers won't get. Money that will instead be spent on ER care that the state's taxpayers will end up picking up. And money that won't offsetincreased premiums of those who are insured to help pay for the expensive ER care of uninsured.
It might also be interesting to see what 25% of the state's population thinks come the next election when they realize neighboring states are getting something they are not allowed to. And then there's going to be another at least 25% who are going to ask why their premiums are so much higher than neighboring states who took the deal? within a couple years you'll see some red states getting light purple. Another suicide pack by the GOP. Even the Evangelicals may be thinking twice once they see what it costs them.
I'm betting that once the heat dies down, it will be just like the stimulus that a bunch of red state governors insisted in bold public statements, they weren't going to touch. Then quietly they became some of the biggest users of those funds. And you know why they took those funds? Because the businesses in the state who support the Republican politicians demanding it. (I am sure some of you know this with first hand knowledge if you live in those states.)
Time will tell, but talk is cheap. Actually doing something is another story.
In Ohio, Obamacare to Increase Individual Insurance Premiums by 55-85%...
Obamacare to cut Medicare by $10,763 per Ohio retiree...
Survey: 24 percent of Ohio doctors will stop accepting Medicare patients,,,
And then there’s Obamacare’s tax increases...
Other state-specific analyses of Obamacare...
UPDATE: In the comments below, Patrick Paule, an insurance broker in Ohio, says that the huge spike in costs for young people will force many employers to drop coverage or pass on premiums for those making more than $21,000:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/10/29/in-ohio-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-55-85/
"It’s to the point that the only ones who are happy with the government’s intervention of their jobs are the politicians. They set their pay, their health care plans, their guaranteed pensions and more. They go through the hell of a political campaign to keep their government jobs. Why wouldn’t they? They love their jobs – they’ve got it made. After all, they get to dictate what the people with necessary jobs in society should do and how they should be compensated for what they do. Politicians have it all".
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/07/09/a-doctors-opinion-of-obamacare/
Be very careful who you vote for.. Your life, or those you love, will depend on it.
Dick-2100 (#1.2 -) has got it right. TX and FL are both big pay to play states who decry "Chicago" politics; FL elected an unindicted felon as governor.
For the last 30+ years GOP health care policy = mass murder. Or, to be charitable, mass negligent homicide. Own it, republickers: you vote for it.
My health insurance premium(employer retiree provided) and co-pays quintupled due to the affordable care act.If I miss a payment ATT will cancel my insurance.I really can't afford the increase and even with insurance will not be able to afford to go to the doctor once a year.Maybe I can buy my thyroid medicine from Canada.Obama stated that Americans with insurance would see their premiums go down due to everybody being forced to buy health insurance.He absolutely lied and Romney called him on it.As far as this mother in the article goes.she should not have had a child that she could not fully support.I'm sick of everybody sticking their hands out for government help unless they are elderly or disabled.As Judge Judy would tell her,"Get three jobs if you need to support your kids and all of their needs."People like me who have worked their whole lives and keep on working should not be penalized for people like this woman's poor life choices.
It's sad that in a rich nation like the US there are so many Meists that are concerned only about themselves at the cost of those who have the least.
It's also sad that those who work hard to barely make a living should have to support those who are too lazy to get off their butts and get jobs.
Patrick - you'll fee differently if you ever stop living in your parents' basement, get a real job, and find out how much you have to pay in taxes to support "those who have the least".
scales67 Texas not only has the fewest people with health insurance, BUT is the most underemployed state in the country..
Sure they created jobs, jobs that were at OR BELOW minimum wage...
HOW CAN ONE GO TO SCHOOL, which nobody can afford and the GOP wants to eliminate funding for, AND LIVE PAY RENT ETC, ETC??????
AS SHOUTED OUT IN THE GOP PRIMARIES:
LET 'EM DIE!!!
right? let 'em die
Patrick -
Those who 'have the least' do not have to worry about a roof over their head, food on their plate, electricity, water, phones or anything whatsoever as long as they think that they can continue voting for people who will take from those who try to hold their own in this economy.
You are right about the job situation in Texas. You have whole neighborhoods of people who do work full time and are still eligible for food stamps. The weather is always ridiculously horrible, too. The weather people on TV go ape when we have a day that isn't life-threateningly scorching hot, or brutally cold. Other than Austin, there's really no reason to come here. Save yourself the misery.
"Those who 'have the least' do not have to worry about a roof over their head, food on their plate, electricity, water, phones or anything whatsoever as long as they think that they can continue voting for people who will take from those who try to hold their own in this economy."
If you think that people on public assistance are the reason that you're "trying to hold your own" you need a lesson in economics.
From the end of World War 2 until the late 1970's (about 35 years) the amount of "wealth" created in this country each year essentially doubled (97% growth) in real dollars. Of that, 95% went to the bottom 99% and 5% went to the top 1%. That means that if you made $5,000 in 1946, in 1978 you made $9,750 in real 1946 income. If you made $1 million dollars in 1946, you made $5 million in 1978. The rich got a little richer but the whole tide lifted the vast majority of us.
In the 40 years since 1980 the economy has grown another 80%. The difference now however is that 100% of that increase went to the top 20% and of that 95% went to the top 1%. That means that the guy getting by on $9,750 in 1978 was STILL getting by on the equivalent of $9,750 in 2010. But the guy who made $5 million dollars in 1978?
In 2010 he made $95 million. In 1978 dollars.
For 40 years we have been funneling the overwhelming majority of our nations wealth to a small number of people thru tax policies that they themselves write.
The economic pie that we all share in grows in part because Americans work harder, are more efficient, are better educated (quite the contrary to what the fools in the first tread are claiming) and grow more productive all the time. Is it completely unreasonable that those workers share in the increased wealth that they have helped produce?
In short Tammy, it ain't because of the poor that you're struggling to get by, it's the rich.
Can you please give me $200 because I need your $200 more than you do? Forget the fact that you earned it and I didn't.
Scales 67 is saying that all jobs offer insurance and we all pay the same? And only people who work harder have good insurance? Bull
mcrich that's exactly what the rich say but they don't say it they do it. How you ask, by lowering working wages and raising theirs, by cutting benefits you work for,as they raise theirs.by raising your taxes while cutting theirs. this is romneys plan .
Obama2012
I have many relatives in Texas and they all held down good paying jobs.My sister is employed in California by a Texas based government contracting firm.They employ many people in Texas paying them good money.SBC,the new ATT is headquartered in Texas.they moved jobs from California to Texas and those are great paying jobs.We had no health insurance growing up and if we did not go to the doctor's unless we were really sick unlike all the people who run to the emergency rooms for a cut finger.that includes those with health insurance who run to the doctor for a runny nose.People wonder why the healthcare system is broken when there are many factors in place,mostly caused by the freeloaders.
My sister is employed in California by a Texas based government contracting firm.They employ many people in Texas paying them good money
**********************************************************
ARE YOU KIDDING????
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING FIRM
The GOP wants a SMALLER GOVERNMENT
Where do you think this "firm" gets their money?
I really love these people like cleaning lady
THEY HAVE NO FRIGGEN CLUE WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT
Im sure there are plenty of "good paying jobs" in Texas, as there are everywhere
BUT the MAJORITY of the jobs created under Perry are exactly what I said, minimum wage or less
Dan,I do have a clue to as what I am talking about.If her job goes away under Romney she will get a job in the private sector.She has a degree and 30 years of ATT under her belt.she has never been unemployed.She and I both voted for Romney even though we know that he will trim the government jobs.Her job by the way is one that the EPA won't let go of because it is cleaning up the toxic ground water sites that were left toxic by companies such as aerospace.Those companies they were fined and the program is funded by those fines.
The writer of this article is afraid to call a spade a spade. The republicans ´want to block Obama care, because it might make Obama look good...and they come with 100 possible alternatives which will not work but everybody has to play the game of the Emperor's new Clothes. What a shame and what a waist of money and time and how many people have to die earlier or get sicker because of no available health care in this rich country which wants to lead the free Western World. But lets see, what health care have our law makers??? Me first...to hell with the people.
politicos,The Republicans want to block the program due to the way it is being funded.Medicare should not fund it.Working people already with employer provided insurance should snot fund it.The big question to the Democrats when Obamacare was presented was and still is,how is it going to be funded.My premiums went up big time as did my co-pays to help fund this program.Obama said premiums would go down right away for people like me.guess he lied didn't he?
“We are constantly at the whim of decisions being made by people who don’t depend on those services and don’t realize how their decisions affect people,” Gebhardt said.
And "we the taxpayers" are constantly @ the whim of the poor decisions made by people reproducing who can't afford to!
How about how YOUR decisions affect us taxpayers?
I am NOT talking about people who need help for a short period of time after a setback...I am talking about the people who use government assistance all their lives.
ERRN: Just who are those people you talk about? Do they exist? Have your researched this? Isn't there a law limiting the number of years of assistance?
As long as they keep squirting out babies, the checks keep coming. That insanity needs to stop.
uneducated, unemployed 20 year olds should not be having babies that taxpayers have to care for.
With household median income down over 8% and the cost of living what it is most families are finding it difficult to take care of their own basic needs.
John is correct, if that mother never works her children are your responsibility until they are 18.
Here's a thought...do like your father wanted you to do. Grow up, act like an adult and get a job before you start reproducing. You are 20 years old. You probably have 25 furtile years ahead of you during which you can have babies. I struggle to pay my own bills. I do not want to pay for her free health care and shouldn't have to do so.
From the looks of her, we will not only be supporting the baby and his health care, but we will also be paying her health care bills when she gets diabetes at age 30.
UMGator - time to wake up. You already are paying for her medical coverage - but it occurs at the highest cost point of entry (emergency room). Why do the conservatives always support the deadbeats? If we make everyone have insurance, we force the deadbeats to pay their own way. But hey - it is a great talking point to charge up the base. Truth is not important...
The free market can do it cheaper? Why have they not done it yet? The 'free market' has had the past 50 years to do it, and has chosen not to do it. Now it is time for the government to do one of the 3 things mandated in the constitution - LIFE. One cannot have life without decent health care. Actually - socialism is the 'one payer system'. It is called medicare - and private business cannot do it as cheaply as the government. If they could - they already would. The claim that private enterprise is cheaper is a LIE.
Sandy -
Just walk into the inner city of any big city like New Orleans, Chicago, Deetroit or the like and you will see all of the multi-generational welfare families you want. I see it all of the time in the New Orleans area. WOmen who check out at the Walmart with food stamps and steaks in their shopping cart and drive away in current year SUVs.
Tammy, funny how you picked cities that have high minority populations. You wouldn't be a little prejudiced there would you? How judgmental to be itemizing what other people pay for on the check out line. I'm curious, how do you know they're paying with food stamps since actual paper stamps were done away with years ago?
Jane, as long as we condone unmarried, unlimited sex, there will be babies. BTW this girl is married and will be going to school. Perhaps she has a job, but it doesn't offer insurance?
BTW this girl is married and will be going to school.
___________________
Married or not perhaps they should have waited until they were financially stable to start a family or at least old enough to drink. When you can't supply insurance for yourself you sure won't be able to supply it for your child.
No need to worry they know the government will take care of it and they'll pay for the mother to go to school too. That's why it didn't concern her much that her father would drop her if she moved out. Not as grown up as she thought.
goodforgoodnesssake...it's called EBT cards...just watch out the next time you are in line....when you see the "EBT" on the "credit/debit" card...that's YOU paying for the items...liberals insisted on taking out the "humilitation" of foodstamps by giving out a credit card.
And...one of my most memorable moments triaging in the ER...a mom, dad and small baby...they didn't speak any English...we had access to the "language hotline"...while I was dialing away, to see what their actual emergency was (no one was turning blue), she kept pushing her medicaid card at me...
Yep, money well spent...
ERRN, moving from printed stamps to the EBT card had nothing to do with liberals taking the "humiliation" out of food stamps. Not unless you consider the George Bush administration liberal!!! The Bush adm. Moved to the EBT card exhausted it saved millions of dollars.
Try google for some facts instead of bashing good liberals like G.W. Bush.
ERRN - would love to see just how much your share of taxes is. My my.. snooping at the "privacy" screen while other people are paying so that you can point your judgemental finger at others. Do you believe people unfortunate enough to rely on food stamps SHOULD be humiliated? As for your last post, just because people don't speak English does not mean they are illegal. My grandparents preferred to speak Italian to each other and had been citizens for over 70 years. I guess you're just used to being superior to everyone else around you. Good luck with that in church today.
Are you kidding, Sandy? We have Medi-cal that was set up as a temporary means until people can get back on their feet. But, instead, it became their way of life. And I speak of generation after generation. It has become to them what an "E" ticket was to Disneyland. A free pass. There is no incentive to even go look for work to support themselves.
AND on top of that they have baby after baby with no self control, or thought as to how they will support them all. They don't have to! The taxpayers will pay for it. IF they had to pay for all their children themselves, would they continue to have them all? Who knows. Our VETS don't even have this luxury.
And as for speaking English? What language they choose to speak in their homes, is their business. But while out in public and tending to business, or seeking medical treatment, speak the language. It is English here. ERRN is absolutely right!
One doesn't move to another country and not expect to learn the language. Other countries to not cater to those who chose to move into their lands and fail to bother with their language. Stop catering. One can't call a service number, or bank number, without having to sit through the whole speech in Spanish first, before they get to it in English. Nor do they give them a "free card" that gives them free access to the grocery store or E.R's, or anything else they need.
It is NOT a matter of being superior, it is matter of respect for the country they chose to move to.
ERRN, in Indiana they have the same card for "welfare money," such as TANF, child support payments, and unemployment payments. You can not necessarily judge someone just because they are paying with a card from the state.
Jane Doe, if people waited until they had enough money, only the wealthy would have kids. Isn't that like practicing eugenics? Now she only has one mind you, not a carload... that's a different story.
20 year olds with no way to support themselves should not be having children!! It's called practicing common sense.
Mind you she is only 20, lots of reproducing years left.
How dare women have sex if they don't have enough money saved up to support a child for 18 years (of course, men get a free pass, it's not their fault they can't keep it in their pants)! We should just pretend sex doesn't happen and not teach kids about it, then they'll never do it.
Oh wait, we tried that already, and apparently rumors from their peers are not a good source of birth control information, and underage pregnanies became more common.
inmissouri
How dare women have sex if they don't have enough money saved up to support a child for 18 years (of course, men get a free pass, it's not their fault they can't keep it in their pants)!
________________
We are discussing a married couple that our unemployed and 20 yrs old. Have as much sex as you want as many times a day as you want but use a condom so I don't have to support your kids.
Jane, You cannot have sex all day long and never get pregnant... it's statistically impossible. But I give them credit for getting married and going to school, it's a better outcome than someone who works at Walmart and has kids.
jane- condoms have a high failure rate, even with perfect use. The lowest failure rates are IUD's and implants, which are too expensive for most who don't have insurance. And one of the families mentioned have both parents working, but still don't have insurance for themselves because their jobs don't have a plan and private insurance is outrageous.
Keep making excuses for kids having kids. She was at HOME AND INSURED she choose to leave and start having kids without a job or any thought of how to care for them because YOU WILL. That is unresponsible no matter what way you want to spin it.
If you want to condone it knock your socks off. I'm tired of struggling to care for my own family which I was able to control myself enough to start when I was an adult with an income. I have no more money to pay for other peoples irresponsible behavior.
I think you should step up and pay for her child since you have no problem with her actions and when she finishes school and gets a job she can pay you back, but don't hold your breathe.
If you are struggling, then shouldn't you have waited until you had enough income so it wouldn't be a struggle? Just saying.
I paid years (decades) for everyone else's public education until I was ready to have my own and could afford to stay home.
Janellect you think your comment is clever. Your mistaken.
There would be no struggle if the world wasn't full of government entitlement leeches who live off of others hard work (such as you). We raised our kids and they are in college. We are also footing that bill without borrowing a dime.
Then there are folks like you. You take anything you can get for free. You want someone else to feed your family buy them clothes supply their healthcare pay their utilities. You take out loans and default.
Your actions and support of them by others are hurting responsible taxpayers. People who did plan, just not on supporting other peoples kids.
I can tell by the way you defend pumping out kids as soon as you can to get a check, that you did the same thing. How does it feel to be a leech on society?
Keep your next BS comment to share with your fellow entitlement group. I'm done wasting my time with you.
Jane, I worked 60 hours a week for 20 years at a physical job while I went to school. When my husband finally made close to six figures, I had one child and started to work freelance. Thankfully, he is an executive now, and I do not need to work full time. If I got pregnant beforehand I would not have aborted it, so hence my support. Now I do know many people who do not get married, "pump them out" with no intention of working (no attending school, free EVERYTHING, etc). So there's a line where someone is trying to better themselves with help, and some who are trying to soak the system.
Just a little overboard, are you? Why are you so bitter??? BTW my total FEDERAL tax was 37,500 and 12,300 for state. That's 50K in taxes for ONE year. I'm so irresponsible?
Republicans argue that freeing up the marketplace would do that more efficiently. They say that government regulations make it impossible for insurers and health care providers to compete enough to bring costs down.
They'll always want to ensure that insurers and health care providers can MAXIMIZE their profits. The unfortunate will be at their total mercy. Many will simply ...... die !!
You have to wonder why that approach has not worked in the last fifteen years, at least that I have been counting. There is something horribly wrong when your health care premium is more than your mortgage and utilities combined.
Not to worry, utilities will soon rise to match, unless you live in a super efficient home or have solar panels and heating out the wazoo.
Well, at least we can take comfort that we have a defense budget that keeps us safe from those tha "hate us, would destroy our way of life and a jealous of our democracy. I bet if cancer were on an Iranian war head pointed at us, we'd have healthcare just to spite the heathen!
Just do NOT go to Benghazi for your health care. You may be forgotten or pushed off the cliff if you live long enough.
When you work for the government and you voluntarily take a position in a war zone, you accept certain risks. Benghazi is not Mayberry. We cannot control everything everywhere every time. We are told to take responsibility for our own actions and health but when it comes to things like Benghazi we want 100% guarantees-- just like the crash-proof airplane.
"When you work for the government and you voluntarily take a position in a war zone, you accept certain risks. Benghazi is not Mayberry"
The Benghazi consulate had “lock-and-key” security, not the same level of defenses as a formal embassy, an intelligence source told POLITICO. That means it had no bulletproof glass, reinforced doors or other features common to embassies. The intelligence source contrasted it with the American embassy in Cairo, Egypt – “a permanent facility, which is a lot easier to defend.” The Cairo embassy also was attacked Tuesday
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81134.html#ixzz2BGjz6qsu
The same thing can be said for the job of President. One knows the risk of this job, and yet chooses it. Yet he doesn't leave the safety of the WH without his Marine fleet.
Obama should consider the same security that he gave our Ambassador : It was staffed by Libyan and State Department security officers.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81134.html#ixzz2BGlH5759
It was bad situation with complete failure on the part of our Commander in Chief to protect our own.
It was bad situation with complete failure on the part of our Commander in Chief to protect our own.
**************************************
YOU=IGNORANT
DO YOU THINK THAT THE POTUS HANDLES EVERYTHING IN DAY TO DAY LIFE IN OUR GOVERNMENT???
Of course you do, because Fox tells you he does...
"Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on
Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds
allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the
majority in 2010"
"For the past two years, House Republicans have
continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department
personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million
off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House
Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on
the department's request by $331 million."
NOW WHAT???????
WHO FAILED??????
In more current news, Marines were flown from Tripoli to Benghazi while the attack on the consulate was being waged, however, they got stuck at the airport and couldn't get to the consulate in time. So, help was sent, but yet never arrived. Let's also realize that an ambassador simply can not be completely surrounded by our marines and still wonder haphazardly around dangerous places. You are supposed to be defended by the troops of the host nation. Would you feel good about the Libyan ambassador rampaging around Washington D.C., or New York, or wherever in America, with a platoon of Libyan troops, who are armed to the teeth? Also realize, that no one person can micromanage the rest of the world, in all of its variations.
Curious, even Democrats are putting distance between themselves and President Oboma on this issue. The Democrats that are bailing want to be re-elected in their next run for office! I wonder why? [:-)]
They are distancing themselves because Democrats are supported by union members.Union members are seeing their health care coverage contributions rising way above what they were last year due to the Affordable Care Act.Did i mention the cost for co-pays,prescriptions,lab etc, went way up on top of the premiums.Romney stated that this act was going to cost those with insurance a lot more each year and Obama denied it.Well he can't deny it any longer.Go ask anybody with an employer sponsered health insurance plan what happened this year to their share of the cost.
Did ti ever occur to you that the insurance co. may just be sticking it to you just because they can, at least until 2014?
Brent-3019177,I speak the facts.ATT receives about as good a deal for insuring thousands.My premiums went up to fund those who have no insurance.Medicare is also paying the doctors,services and hospitals less so those folks are raising their costs for the rest of us,meaning you even our government has past the costs onto the average American for the affordable care act.Be patient and you will see that I am telling the truth.
just a cleaning lady, to fund the ACA, one's taxes might to up to help fund expanded Medicaid and to help subsidize insurance for those who can not afford to pay full premiums on their own or who have no employer sponsored health care. Your insurance premiums would not go up, as they are being paid either by you, your employer, or the government. The insurance companies aren't subsidizing anything. They are raising premiums because they can, at least for now. The ACA is just a good scapegoat for them to use to make their profits higher at your expense.
This is indeed a major election - an election highlighting two choices for change. The choices – incrementally build on the work that's been done, or throw everything out and start over from scratch.
So, if you're not voting, you are leaving this critical decision to others. You're letting your neighbor vote for you. You're letting your grandpa vote for you. You're letting your ex-boyfriend vote for you. You're letting your crazy Uncle Charlie vote for you.
Even if you believe the candidates' differences are not overwhelming, there is always a choice. Even if "you'd rather there was someone else," there is always a choice.
And think about it - who benefits if they can keep you from voting?
I'm not letting that happen with my vote.
It isn't that it will start from scratch. The Rethuglicans want to fill the pockets of their rich buddies at the expense of the poor. It would be a reversion to the failed policy of letting the market regulate itself. We all know where that got us before. It will eventually make the USA a third world country with only the very rich and the very poor. I agree about reproduction but how do you expect people to control that? Abstinence? Socialism balances greed and is a necessary evil that ultimately makes life better for everyone for less tax money. Nothing that everyone needs should produce a profit. We may all need food, but we don't all need steak. We don't all need plastic surgery. We don't all need smartphones. etc. After the first baby at public expense, birth control or sterilization should be mandatory. Sterilization in the event of a second one.
SoftDude: What exactly do you mean by Rethuglicans? Could that be the same a the Demoncrats? I want that darn health care act dropped, the american people should have had a chance to vote on it. Nancy Peloois as she is known as said vote for it before you know what is in it. I have read the darn bill top to bottom, it is all about how much money the demoncrat can line their pockets with. Let us start with the Highest Paid Hooker from Louisana, Let us check out Benson who lay down his morals and cowarded over to vote yes, Let us look at the people who have been put on the waiver to be bypassed by Obamacare, Wendy's, McDonalds, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Longhorn, Steak & Shake, just to name a few. How is it possible for this to be fair with over one thousand companies opting out and not having to apply to the law. We the common people do not have a choice, If we choose not to be part of it, we will be taxed by the IRS, If you have no money you will TAXED BY THE IRS, If you can't purchase insurance, YOU WILL BE TAXED BY THE IRS, now tell what is fair. Who voted for it DEMONCRATS. I would not complain if the Congress and Senate also had the same plan to live by that the American Citizens are going to have to take. Shouldn't that be fair?
Nicholson - you are absolutely correct! The government is suppose to work for the PEOPLE, and yet have the best of healthcare - and pensions.
IF this plan is so great, then we should demand that our public servants live on the same plan they impose on us. WHY should they keep theirs?
I say the same thing of Medicare. Once the public servants retire, they too live off Medicare and Social Security. Think of ALL the money saved by cancelling out their benefits for live, and live on the same system they stuck us with.
Nicholson,People who have company health insurance plans will now be taxed on the company's contribution as income.That is to help fund this affordable Care Act.this act is going to make it unaffordable for those who have healthcare insurance.Now throw in the Medicare money that Obama stole and voila,we have a huge disaster on our hands.The people who vote for Obama will get what they deserve and they won't like it.
Nicholson, I doubt you read the whole bill, otherwise you would have run into the part that says that those who don't make enough money to buy insurance will be subsidized. It could be your comprehension skills are lacking, but most likely, you didn't read it, you just say you did.
If the GOP's sacred cow the free market would take care of this would this discussion be necessary? Remember the companies cancel your policies or refuse to pay claims at there whim.
James that probably wouldn't happen if insurance were a free market able to sell across state lines.
It's BS. Insurance companies are not in the health business - they're in the profit business. So, it's really quite simple, get rid of "health" insurance companies. The whole idea of purchasing it at all is flat out wrong.
goodforgoonesssake has a point. The best way to handle this is to cut out the insurance companies all together and make medicare for all. Otherwise, we are still paying the middleman for services they don't even provide. Sound affordable?
My son who turns 26 on November 12th, will lose my companys health insurance. Ryan has a pre-existing condition. So if Mitt wins he loses on ever having health care, if Obama wins, he can purchase the insurance
he needs. By the way he has a high paying good job, but no one will cover him.
I guess if Mitt wins he can just go to the emergency room. Its a no brainer who we all voted for. Everyone deserves health care.
Nancy-Ohio,your son needs to save some of his high paying paycvheck to cover his medical expenses.He can get coverage but it will be expensive.My niece was dropped also from her Grandparents plan(they raised her)and she has no coverage from her job.she isn't sniveling over it.she went out and bought herself health insurance.she has asthma and had no problem procuring a health insurance plan.If she got in a bind our entire family would chip in and help her out as that is what family's are for.It is not the governments nor the taxpayers responsibility.You think that everybody deserves health insurance and I agree but they should pay for it.i think that I deserve a Rolls Royce.Should the taxpayers pitch in and buy me one or do you think i should earn the money and buy one myself?
I don't see how lining insurance companies coffers lowers cost of health care, one big ponzi scheme. How about if the insurance companies no longer existed then affordable health care may be realized. Really, today's medical care is all about profiting off human misery. Medication is a good example, thanks to a honest caring physician I know buy some of medications from Canada, I save 200% on my inhalers by doing so & by passing my insurance coverage. Without insurance it would cost me over a 100 dollars for one inhaler in the US, with insurance 25-40 dollars, and yet other countries the price is 11 dollars.
I could go on, how about 13,000 dollars for 2 stitches which didn't even hold because the patient was covered by both Federal & State medical programs. Come on, over charged all the way & the person ended up in another hospital 4 hours from home. Or 300 dollar office calls for seeing a Doc for 5 minute or less.
Yes we need to do make changes in all aspects of the medical care. I just don't think Obama's way is the right the one, neither are the republicans. Nor do I think that any government officials should be able to force citizens to purchase any product against their will, thus we are no long the land of the free.
The GOP is so blind... they don't see that by making people have no coverage they are simply making single payer system the system that will come out of all of this... But then the governors and state legislators could really care less since they all have gold plated plans and pensions to boot....
every government employee should live with the same ins plan that the rest of the people of the us . anyone elected to office should go home without a paycheck after they are out of office and go back to work as they did before they were elected.
j martin-1777327,I agree with you on that.
If Romney wins, he will keep the part allowing prior existing conditions as well as the part allowing parents to insure their kids up to the age of 26.
I fail to see this so much as a political party thing. To me, it is more about who or what areas can afford to pay for the insurance or not. The government has too much waste built in. I can just see the big conventions held at the ritzy casinos for the medical care heads, not to mention their pay, expenses and fancy cars. If they had just let the insurance companies cross state lines, that would have helped a lot.
The main thing that worries me is being rolled off the cliff by the death panels. The ones appointed to make the decisions regarding my life, by the self anointed one in the top seat at the moment. I am older and disabled. I would rather have my higher power decides when he wants me to come, rather than have the appointed ones by the self anointed dispatch me when they want.
I do not care who wins the election as long as they do the right thing about everything from health care, to doing right by the military and out of country departments and the national deficit.
I waited until the last minute to vote to see how the candidates would react to Super storm Sandy and to also find out if the truth about Benghazi would come out.
Death panels, that has been debunked by fact checkers. The appointed people who oversee the program are not allowed to make any medical decisions whatsoever for anyone.
Numb3rTech
If Romney wins, he will keep the part allowing prior existing conditions as well as the part allowing parents to insure their kids up to the age of 26.
*****************************************************
WRONG
Under Romney if you didnt have insurance before, you will NOT be covered for a preexsisting condition
YOU HAD TO HAVE HAD AND MAINTAINED INSURANCE
Death Panels???
Thats a bunch of crap, period! I had a few doctors walk in and say your hearts condition is IN-operable. The arteries were plugged up. I also had an aortic anourysm that was ready to blow out! The heart had to be fixed first before they could cut my chest open or I would die on the table with a heart attack I was told. But it was In-operable.
I was by your definition, a 77 year old ideal cliff candidate!!!
I got rid of my medicle advantage plan and joined AARP/UH complete plan. You know the one on TV, see any doctor anywhere, anytime, blah blah blah. The HMO would not give me a refferal to Mass General Hospital. With AARP it didn't matter. I joined got to the hospital they took the card and said this way and never gave me any problems.
To make a long story short as possible.
They put 2 heart stents in!
ENDOLOGIX Corp began a trial for a new aortic stent that could be used for anourysms that enroach apon the renal arteries, those used to require open chest flank incisions that usually resulted in the patient being in intesive care for a few weeks minimum. 50-50 proposition! Went in on Friday home on Monday. The heart stents took 4.5 hours, I was awake and could see some of it in the monitors, in 2 day's on that one.
They tell me I'm the first in the country for the new stent?
So where was the death panel. What the repubs did with thier crap was criminal IMHO!
THIER ARE NO DEATH PANELS!!!
Ha.... they have pain panels for ER visits. I had an dental infection over a holiday weekend and the walk in clinic wouldn't take my case. I went to the ER and my insurance denied me because when I got there my pain was only a 3/10. Nevermind the infection.
Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma....
“President Obama is refusing to comply with the law that requires him to publish forthcoming regulations because he doesn’t want the American public to know the terrible cost of the regulatory barrage he plans to unleash in a second term.”
“So instead of being honest with the American people about what’s in store if he wins, he’s been trying to hide the fact that he intends to move forward with a slew of rules that will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and dramatically raise the cost of energy on American families.”
This is the person the left wants to re-elect.... a man that IGNORES the FEDERAL LAW..... at best, he's afraid of the facts...... at worst, he knows the contents & understands the devastation the new rules would have on our country.....
Either way, Mr Obama is VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW..... his oath of office DEMANDS he uphold the Constitution.... while all Barry does is thumb his nose at the responsibility........
Romney/Ryan Express.......... ALL ABOARD....... there's still time to SAVE the UNITED STATES...........
Everyone actually needs to read the ACA. It is available for download over the internet. The full 2,700 pages. I did download it and have read it. Most of the ACA has not even gone into effect yet. Yes, your health-care will be decided by panels. I also have 2 heart stents placed in my heart. I also have severe arthritis and degenerative disc disease. I have became incapacitated for the most part from the damage to my back increased by the job I had. On good days, with enough medication, I can clean house a bit at a time and on the best days, I can even go outside and work for a few minutes in the yard. I am not complaining. This is just my life. I do have the freedom to make choices about health care and doctors.
I am still paying for my insurance and it costs over 1/3rd of my income. I still have the deductibles to pay above that. I have to live at a very minimal cost to afford the medical along with taxes and upkeep on my house. I do not see how people will afford ACA if they have to rent or a family on one income.
I also believe Mr. President Obama is also violating the Constitution in many ways. I believe the stock market will crash in 2013 or just before if he does win a second term. I will be cashing out what little I have in savings if that happens, and everyone will be hurting badly. The last recession will be a walk in the park. Governor Romney will have a lot of hard work to do to keep that from happening if he wins.
Look at the economy and the facts. Vote for what is best for the country. Vote for freedom.
Romney / Ryan 2012
Romney keeps changing his mind! He also twisted the pre-existing position, which is currently is that you are covered for a pre-ex if you have current insurance. This does not help people with pre-ex trying to buy insurance. We really do not know what position he would really take he has changed his positions on most issues so many times.
You will only be covered for a per existing condition if you have continuous coverage. This is not continuing what the ACA does.
number3tech romneys plan will cover extisting illness if you kept your insurance active employed or not, thats the law anyway.so his plan offers nothing.
Number3Tech,Actually Romney would get rid of the Affordable Care Act and start over which in my opinion is a good thing.Romney has said that his healthcare plan in Massachusetts was a mistake.Obama is going to shove his plan down our throat which will penalize those who work to support those who stick their hands out.
Romney has promised to everything just like when he did NOT create wealth, he only Extracted Existing wealth from companies he TOOK OVER, there is a HUGE difference. It is true, it will take ousting all the TEA-Republican's we can to effect the real change we need here in America. The TEA fringe has taken over local and state governments and trashed or crashed every attempt to fix the Bush fiasco while Boehner, McConnell, Cantor and Ryan worked feverishly to never give Obama any positive spin for any reason. Rick Perry is a perfect example of dereliction of duty and failure of fiduciary functioning for the people instead of the special interests. Every Governorship currently under TEA-Republican control and every Legislature of every state must be clensed of the TEA-Libertarian-Evangelical-Republican to provide health coverage for all the people.
We have not took over anything as you describe. We need to think of Warren Buffet (Great Friend Of The President) laid off over 7000 people from a company in Dalton Georgia. No One is helping them bring back any jobs, the unemployment is over 25 percent in three counties. No JOBS, why shouldn't we complain. We are left out of the loop in jobs because we can't afford College to change our job careers. Most have run out of unemployment benefits and living in poverty. I have seen three counties go down the drain in two years. Yes, I am a Tea Party Member and proud of it. I believe in the Constitution and Congress and the Senate needs to be cleansed. Corrupt useless Harry Reid has not done his job in three years, If they had to be put on a hourly clock and the lowest wage how much work do you think they would do? You seem to be blindsided by the world around you. My ancestors fought for the freedoms that we as Tea Party Members want to reenstill into our country. How many of your ancestors fought for the United States in the Revolutionary War. I am making my family proud that I stand up for what is right and don't bow to the corrupt people who want to stamp out my rights as a citizen. I will admit I voted for Obama the first time but will not make that the same MISTAKE THE SECOND TIME. The president has failed in so many ways, first he will not make them provide the documents to the FAST & FURIOUS, Those documents need to be provided to Congressional Committee, if he don't have anything to hide then he would have done that. The Obamacare Crap needs to be rejected and I could have wrote that plan in one page (1.) No person shall have to pay more for insurance if they have a pre-existing condition, ALL INSURANCE COMPANIES fees would be frozen. (2) If you child is in college or any other institution of higher learning you must keep them on your insurance until they graduate. (3) All people over the age of 55 would receive free health care and can not be turned down for any procedure. (4) Veterans get the highest priotity of treatments no matter the cost. See wasn't that easy, instead of over a thousand of worthless pages. Let me add this one. Any person who has a child out of wedlock under the adult age will be charged to their parents insurance for any cost of prenatal care and delivery. See you should have voted with me. OH one more thing, the president let four people die in Libya and he won't take responsiblity for the actions to stand down and provide help for them. Isn't he liable for the deaths? I call that murder.
The only reason Obama is being shown ahead in polls is because NBC, CBS, BC and CNN are nothing more than Obama propaganda rags. If you told the truth about the economy (i.e. 7.9% is higher unemployment that last month and is indicative of the fact that Obama's economic policies are an albatross around the neck of our nation, or the fact that the only one responsible for the needless lack of security and the murder of 4 Americans at Benghazi is President Obama. Real leaders can never delegate responsibility, only authority. The fact that Obama says the person responisible foor the Benghazi disaser would be dealt with indicates clearly that we need to hold him responsible and replace him with someone who understands that a real leader takes responsibility for his failures. All Obama has done is try tp place blame. The fact that Obama has politicized the disaster of the hurricane in NJ/NY is a disgisting exploitation of the suffering of Americans on the east coast. Mking photo ops and having Cuomo fall over himself praising the President, while pople ae starving for food, shelter, power, and gasoline is an abomination. Or should I ay, Obamanation. He is fool and totally unqualified to lead our nation. We must vote him out this Tuesday. And it is time forf the so-caled free-press to find the balls to really tell the truth to the American peopleabout this ego-maniac.
Your boy Bush was the FOOL. Did you follow how the economy tanked under him and we ran 3.7TRILLION ON WARS whilst cutting taxes? did you see how he ignored the repeated warnings by the CIA about an attack on American soil? did you see how the Bush-Cheney whitehouse secretly airlifted the Bin-Ladens out of this country before we could fly? You are the disgusting low information white racist voter pretending to know facts. When Bush left office(if his tax cuts worked how the HELL did we have 8% unemployment when he left?) we were losing far more jobs. And you think Republicans will go against big business investing in China? How about Fortune No. 2 company Walmart? Do you really think Romney will go against businesses going to China? You sir are the typical republican buffoon in denial.
Doug: GROW UP! You sound like some high school kid who watches FOX! geeeeeeeezzzzzzz.
Roger -
At no point during Bush's tenure did we have unemployment over 8%. In fact unemployment stayed right around 5 % until the bottom dropped out of the housing market - due to the deregulation that occurred during Clinton's tenure.
Look it up!
Tammy if you think the bottom fell out because of Clinton then you are totally lost. You must not have heard about the fancy math the big banks cooked up during dubyas tenure.
Tammy, you are right on. In the 70s and 80s, it was a requirement that you had 20% down payment to buy a home. The community redevelopment act changed everything. It was championed by Clinton and it was the beginning of the end. When you force banks to loan money to people that can't pay it back and when you force banks to lend money with zero percent loans to make it possible, it created a scheme that the banks were forced to implement. One of the benefits of the community reinvestment act, people could borrow 125% of a home value. Oh.. and then after you overborrowed, you could then get a home equity loan. Many people owed 150% for their homes than they were worth. And the democratic congress was the driver that made this possible.
mcrich, so you don't acknowledge that credit default swaps, derivatives, mortgage backed securities, and the self-regulation of investment banks had anything to do with it?
Tammy, nice try, now how about you look up George w. bush and his push to expand home ownership. Especially for minorities. This was a multi-presidential problem, not just Clinton. The recession and housing collapse goes back more than 30 years of deregulation and bad economic choices by both parties.
The next step for the Congress to do is CONTROL the cost across the board, and it does not matter if they are insurance companies, drug companies, medical supplies companies, or equipment companies, the cost has to be controlled, in market price, which means that the price cannot be risen double each decade, when the consumers' salaries are not double each decade. It is a practical assessment and evaluation that the price has to be affordable and reasonable. And when this step of price control is carried out, the OBAMA health care reform will be running very good.
There are examples as follow:
How can a consumer pay the healthcare cost which is double the price (cost) each decade and his/her salary is stable or sometimes lost throughout years?
For instance, how can a pharmacy charge one bag of IV antibiotic for $250.00(per bag) and the patient has to receive a course of 40 bags in 10 days?
Another instance, how can a pharmacy charge one 200 ml of liquid antibiotic for about one hundred dollars?
Another instance, how can a pharmacy charge 5 bone pills for each bone pill for $75.00 each?
More instance, how can a equipment company change the rent of a portable of oxygen tank for 100.00 a day?
In some home health care patients' homes, they have collected the inventories of tubing, from G-Tube or feeding tube, several boxes at home.
The whole health care system that we have today is not that bad, but it is too expensive, too wasteful, too much indulgent . . . And there have been many programs in USA running well; the government, such as Congress, should look into it, and Congress should set up the rules for price control, like gas.
unfortunately, without a free marketplace and without competition, costs will increase dramatically more under Obamacare. There were many other options that could have reduced the cost of healthcare without destroying it to create a government monopoly. Obamacare is not about healthcare. It is all about control.
I guess Texas deserves an a$$hole like Rick Perry. I'm beginning to think America deserves no better. The Republican primary certainly demonstrated that the GOP has a stable of morons to lead the country into oblivion if they get a chance.
Not all of us voted for him. oooops.
Obamacare was pushed down my throat the same as it was yours and I will not vote for Obama because of that and hes just not a good President.
My daughter-in-law had a tumor removed from her uterus a year ago. Her physician told her in his forty-one years in surgery he had seen only four cases of a malignancy in the kind of tumor she had. She was the fifth! In short, the cost of surgery and chemo was $500,000.
Republican working class people are going to be facing cancer, heart disease, diabetes, car wrecks, and many other such health issues that will either cause them to lose their lives or declare bankruptcy. The wealthy don't worry about the latter. I don't give a damn what any of these idiots say---it WILL happen to them or their loved ones. The tragedy is that they are so abysmally ignorant they can't see themselves in such a situation until a physician looks across his or her desk and says, "I'm sorry, but it's cancer! Do you have health insurance?" Then, and only then, can they seem to understand. They or their spouse or child HAS cancer and there is no escape. Maybe it will happen tomorrow or next week or next years, but it WILL happen. Then, and only then, will they understand what they have done.
'We're not going to be a part of socializing health care'
Texas governor Rick Perry, a Republican, has said he won’t expand Medicaid to cover people like DeFrank, and the Republican-dominated Texas legislature backed him in turning down $76 billion in federal matching funds that would have helped pay to do it over the first five years.
“We’re just not going to be a part of … socializing health care in the state of Texas,” Perry told reporters in July.
*********************************************************
FAMOUSLY SHOUTED OUT IN THE GOP PRIMARY DEBATE
LET 'EM DIE!!!!!
Dan: The only good thing about it is that devastating health issues happen to Republicans too! If a person is as ignorant as hammered mud, then he or she reaps what is sown. Of course, they or their spouse or child or grandchild will never experience cancer, heart attacks, diabetes, car wrecks, etc. Those kinds of problems never happen to them. They only happen to the worthless bums living off the government. But, those problems WILL happen to them and it might be tonight or tomorrow. Maybe at 2:00 a.m. they'll awaken with a crushing pain in the chest and they have NO health insurance. Then, and only then, does it seem they can understand anything.
It doesn't even occur to me anymore to expect anything but sadism and ignorance from Rick Perry. I have had given up hope on that long ago. The really sick thing is that there are dudes working minimum wage jobs with no health insurance that will keep voting for his ilk. These people have bought the propaganda and are willing to slit their own throats. It's almost a religious, cult-like hysteria in some respects. My God--it is nauseating, too. There is no logic to it. I will never understand the mentality it takes to go down that road.
So Rick Perry is the typical Christian Republican. He is pro foetus. He wants every woman to carry babies to full term even if t hey are too poor, victims of rape or incest. But once the baby is born you are on your own because you were too stupid to have a baby?
Just so you know, the affordable care act is only for the employee and not the children of the employee. I guess Mr. Obama and Mr Perry think alike according to your diatribe.
He started off as a Democrat but when Texas started turning Red, he changed parties because he knew that he could not stay in office if he wasn't. He is an embarrassment to Aggies and some Texans.
Remember Republicans and Tea Partiers, you judge a society by how it treats its weakest members and you treat them with contempt. What you sow, so shall you reap... the words of your own Bible that you thump so loudly.
Our society spends more than any other for health care, yet what we receive is ranked near the bottom globally. For-profit health care in a free market is not serving us, its killing us.
Does she have a cell phone and a computer with data plan? If so, she can afford basic health coverage for her family. Granted, no frills, no botox or plastics procedures, but plain basic go to the Dr. when you're sick and get your vaccinations coverage. My daughter will graduate college with dual Bacheler's degrees and has neither. It's all about priorities. I applaud her desire to better herself, but don't make martyrs out of people who make poor decisions. Success isn't defined by what you have, but what you overcame to get there. I pay my responsibilities and she should too.
Are you out of your mind? A cell phone and data plan can be had for $50/month. Healthcare for a woman of childbearing age is staggering. Try the hundreds of dollars a month, and for a policy that doesn't cover pregnancy, prescriptions, has a $5000 deductible so that any doctor bill will be paid out of pocket until she reaches, if ever that amount. Let's see.... $5000 a year for the privilege to carry around a pretty insurance card.
If you believe Obamacare will have low deductables you are kidding your self. Also, the employer mandate is for the employee only. It doesn't cover the spouse or children. As an employer, I will be required to offer you coverage for the employee based on 9.5% of your families income. If your income is $30,000 a year and your spouse is $30,000 a year, I can charge you 9.5% of your family monthly income. If you do the math, I can offer you a medical plan for you at the cost of $495 a month. If you fail to accept it, you will be fined by the federal government.
Why do you think that ObamaCare wasn't enacted until after the election?
The employee doesn't have to accept your policy. There will be other choices available.
The ACA has been enacted and has been operating in tiers over the last few years.
You are correct. They don't have to accept my policy that is created through the exchange. But, you will be required to purchase the insurance. You don't have a choice. The government is forcing you to pay for something you don't want or need. But if you don't buy a plan you will be fined.
Sorry, but I DO need insurance in this country. I wish I didn't and we had socialized medicine, but the fact is, we're all going to be sick at one time or another. Insurance has been entirely too expensive for my family. My only hope is that I will be able to get something affordable in 2014.
There have been many times in my history of working and not working. There were times when I chose NOT to get insurance. We did not have insurance when we had one of our four children. Guess what, I paid for the birth for the next 12 months on monthly payments. People should not be forced to buy any product, including insurance.
Yes she has a cell phone with data...but she is not paying for it...it's called Assurance...provided by the gov't...yet one more thing provided for "the poor"
These right wing pols will fall in line when people (as in voters) see what they're being denied. They'll come around.
Don't count on it d*^&tard.
Ricky Perry will wake up tomorrow and forget what it was he wanted to get rid of.
So, there is some small hope. There are some smart people in Texas, really; but It's sad that I feel the need to declare it.