Basically, every single Obama voter was thrown overboard into the churning sea, as the deck chairs on the Titanic were rearranged and lifeboats were readied, in order for the crazed Democrats, in desperate need of a passed bill regardless of how lame it is, to ram their garbage through by, um, three votes. Laugh out loud (but it's not really funny) how during this ramming through, the Kucinich plans, the Weiner plans, all the other progressive plans and proposals all disappeared in puffs of smoke, while a nasty anti-abortion amendment ended up very alive and very real. Why, it’s as if Kucinich and Weiner themselves disappeared into puffs of smoke.
And Conyers was never there in the first place, laugh out loud.
There is an important lesson here. Very simply, if you are smart enough to read Common Dreams, you should be smart enough to NEVER again (assuming you ever have) vote for a Democrat or a Republican. Obviously, both of those parties are right wing parties. All non-right wing parties need to unify into a marketable party with a name that has not and can not be severely harmed by propaganda, such as New Democratic Party-US.
Don't look at me, I have a long track record of having little knowledge or capability of politically organizing. I'm a fish out of water there. I'm just trying to tell you that any political party without the right branding and marketing is never going to break into the Democrats-Republicans monopoly. Forget Greens, Independent, Socialist, forget all of those limited and/or damaged brands. The branding has to be just right and the marketing has to be just right to capture that guy in Peoria who needs a job.
Y'all have a good weekend and a good holiday next week.
The above was written in response to this article at Common Dreams.
Friday, November 20, 2009
"You Need to Break Down into Percentages What you are Willing to pay for Things"
GUEST COMMENT
UNITY-PROGRESS RESPONSE
You have the right idea there. Americans need to set some kind of a limit on what percentage of their income they will pay for health expenses (ALL of them COMBINED) if they wish to avoid bankruptcy every ten years and God only knows what kind of destitution in between those bankruptcies every ten years. And if they wish to avoid slavery to health insurance executives, homelessness, and so forth.
Whether your limit will be lower or higher than what the Democrats think your limit should be will depend on individual circumstances, but I can guarantee you that there will be a lot of people who would be wise to set a lower limit than what the right of center Democrats are setting for them. The Democrats, even after all of their at first glance nice sounding limits and regulations are factored in, are effectively setting annual health spending limits for many millions of Americans at well in excess of 20% of anyone's annual income, topping out at, for the sick, as a rough estimate to be improved later, 35% of income. This is of course criminally insane.
You can't defy the laws of personal microeconomics in America or anywhere else. If you pay out 25% or 30% or 35% of your income to health insurance expenses, there are going to be serious consequences for the success or lack of success of your overall personal spending program. There is a lot more that needs expenditure than health care in any rational personal spending program. You have to avoid freezing or starving to death for example.
It would also be nice if there was some money available for job creation outside of the health industry, especially since the banks have taken the economy hostage and are refusing to lend to small and medium sized businesses.
With a target date of the end of the year, I am producing an excel file that will clearly show reasonably good estimates of the real costs of health care in various countries across several disparate income levels, with easy to see comparisons to the far higher US costs. One of several important objectives will be to try to blast away some of the ignorance about premiums being the only or even the main health care expense in the US: as nasty as the premiums alone can be, there is a lot more than just premiums to worry about in the US.
The excel will also, eventually at least, include future year estimations, for 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030. In short, it will be a clear and quick look at the extent to which Americans are being and will be fleeced. The differences between what Americans pay and what almost everyone else pays are so great, and are destined to grow even greater, that the word "fleeced" is fully justified.
Good weekend and holiday next week to all.
The above very outstanding guest comment and our comment were in response to this article at Common Dreams.
rtdrury November 21st, 2009 5:47 pm
"historic health care reform"
The elites started editing the history books before they even made the non-history. Their plan was to pretend to do something worthwhile, while actually making things worst, get paid for it, and write themselves a positive review in the media.
The elites are exploiting the people's hope, trust and loyalty, and manufacturing weapons from that to turn against the people. This is a particularly vicious form of oppression. The weapon of mandatory insurance premiums to a cartel of corporate crooks will persuade the people to shut up and continue paying twice for healthcare what people pay in other countries. The cartel has publicly threatened to raise the cost to five times that in a decade and the people have to be softened up for this slated surge of their enslavement. The elite faction in the Whitey House figures the more enslaved the people are the more the people will enjoy it.
If the people are looking for an alternate paradigm, consider breaking down into percentages what you are willing to pay for things. To figure what you should pay for healthcare, you consider that a national insurance pool makes the most sense, so we can talk about average costs, per capita. Now look at the average cost in the countries with the best value, Canada being a great example, and divide that by the average income in Canada, and with the average hours worked you can figure best value healthcare costs in percent of your time. It's not set in stone. You can look to see if for example Canadians happen to be workaholics to some extent and if so then their percent of time figure for healthcare and everything else is probably too high. So you can demand even greater value, and get it. Do this for all the stuff you need and always know what it costs to do things for yourself too. Show your figures to people and ask if they would like an opportunity to serve you at the specified rate. Write up a contract for long term business based on mutual satisfaction with the terms. Make sure the people you do busness with are involved in independent enterprises of ten man-powers or less, and local.
"new purchasing marketplaces called exchanges where self-employed individuals and small businesses could go to shop for and compare coverage plans."
This would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. The elites are fully aware that the people could someday learn to think for themselves. So the elites call on the Bernays disciples to create a new facade which is the "exchange" described in the quote. It's freaky in its idiocy. We ALREADY HAVE a health insurance marketplace and it sucks, because the prices are fixed illegally at twice the cost in other countries. USans are so blinded by the light, they can't see through it. It's criminal for elites to continue cultivating/exploiting this human weakness.
UNITY-PROGRESS RESPONSE
You have the right idea there. Americans need to set some kind of a limit on what percentage of their income they will pay for health expenses (ALL of them COMBINED) if they wish to avoid bankruptcy every ten years and God only knows what kind of destitution in between those bankruptcies every ten years. And if they wish to avoid slavery to health insurance executives, homelessness, and so forth.
Whether your limit will be lower or higher than what the Democrats think your limit should be will depend on individual circumstances, but I can guarantee you that there will be a lot of people who would be wise to set a lower limit than what the right of center Democrats are setting for them. The Democrats, even after all of their at first glance nice sounding limits and regulations are factored in, are effectively setting annual health spending limits for many millions of Americans at well in excess of 20% of anyone's annual income, topping out at, for the sick, as a rough estimate to be improved later, 35% of income. This is of course criminally insane.
You can't defy the laws of personal microeconomics in America or anywhere else. If you pay out 25% or 30% or 35% of your income to health insurance expenses, there are going to be serious consequences for the success or lack of success of your overall personal spending program. There is a lot more that needs expenditure than health care in any rational personal spending program. You have to avoid freezing or starving to death for example.
It would also be nice if there was some money available for job creation outside of the health industry, especially since the banks have taken the economy hostage and are refusing to lend to small and medium sized businesses.
With a target date of the end of the year, I am producing an excel file that will clearly show reasonably good estimates of the real costs of health care in various countries across several disparate income levels, with easy to see comparisons to the far higher US costs. One of several important objectives will be to try to blast away some of the ignorance about premiums being the only or even the main health care expense in the US: as nasty as the premiums alone can be, there is a lot more than just premiums to worry about in the US.
The excel will also, eventually at least, include future year estimations, for 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030. In short, it will be a clear and quick look at the extent to which Americans are being and will be fleeced. The differences between what Americans pay and what almost everyone else pays are so great, and are destined to grow even greater, that the word "fleeced" is fully justified.
Good weekend and holiday next week to all.
The above very outstanding guest comment and our comment were in response to this article at Common Dreams.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
A Collapsed System, and the Dean of the Harvard Medical School Declares the Health Reform to be a Failure
Donna Smith has been a hard working advocate for a truly good health care system. Her pre-Thanksgiving article on Common Dreams brought up her common themes.
UNITY-PROGRESS COMMENTARY
Not a single job in more than 10 years. And despite the increase since March, not a single dollar added to the stock market averages in more than 11 years. Interest rates on savings are below 2 percent. Homelessness, hunger, abandoned housing etc. are all at, by far, all-time records. Adding both insult and additional injury is that there is even a half-abandoned city: New Orleans, Louisiana. Detroit Michigan and other cities are also virtually half abandoned.
This is obviously a collapsed, failed system, yet it grinds on because of the super forces of greed and arrogance, because of the closed, corporate-controlled political system, because of good old-fashioned living in the past, and perhaps because non-right-wing people do not seem to understand the concept of political marketing, as for example the Canadians running the New Democratic Party do and as many Europeans, Asians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Americans, and still others understand, as shown by the healthy existence of their successful to one extent or another non-right-wing parties.
Meanwhile, in America there is just this big political hole and this show of futility by marginalized figures like Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, and Bernie Sanders, in the background. Overall, it seems that American non-right-wingers are more likely to be arrested where they are not welcome for trying to make their views known than they are to be serving in Government!
As a result of the futility of the non-right-wing in the US, there is virtually no real representation in US government anymore for workers, so it will be no surprise if we reach a 15 or even a 20 year milestone with no jobs.
By the way, is it actually essentially a conspiracy that American non-right wing forces develop only futile political parties, such as the Greens, who are inevitably tagged as one-issue wonders? Very plausibly so, because although it is the right wingers who are known as the great marketers, it seems hard to believe that ALL non right wingers could be naturally less than competent at political marketing. I mean, I know I am probably less than competent at political marketing, but are ALL non-right-wingers less than competent? I find that hard to believe, thus the conspiracy theory.
Anyhow, it was nice not only to check out this Donna Smith article, but also this from Jeffrey Flier, the Dean of the Harvard Medical School:
Dean of the Harvard Medical School Declares Health Care Reform a Failure
As you can see if you go there, the Dean of the Harvard Medical School knows that this legislation is dead on arrival in the sense that it does almost nothing about what was most in need of doing, which was real, true, no pretending, and no kidding cost control. What was by far most needed was left out.
As a major member of the establishment, Mr. Flier had to support the mandate, since there has been an unstated rule in 2009 that every respectable member of the establishment must support the mandate. He had to support people, unless they wisely dodge it, being on the hook for the gross overcharging for health insurance. But at least he was honest about the overall failure and futility of this legislation, which when all is said and done is simply about the Democrats being able to say they did something.
Let's face it, American politicians, the ones in the two corporate parties anyway, in the context of a collapsed system that has been very, very right wing for 30 years and counting, are most likely not going to think of themselves as being responsible for passing legislation that is actually good and effective.
Admittedly, it’s a lot harder to pass truly good legislation in the present context than it was before the system collapsed. So maybe we should have some sympathy for their passing garbage? No, common sense tells you that no one in government should ever be excused from peddling garbage and playing pretend games.
Which brings us back to the need for a non-right wing party that is not a dead on arrival marketing failure like, unfortunately, the Socialists and the Greens and the Independents are. A New Democratic Party-US would be one option that would actually work.
UNITY-PROGRESS COMMENTARY
Not a single job in more than 10 years. And despite the increase since March, not a single dollar added to the stock market averages in more than 11 years. Interest rates on savings are below 2 percent. Homelessness, hunger, abandoned housing etc. are all at, by far, all-time records. Adding both insult and additional injury is that there is even a half-abandoned city: New Orleans, Louisiana. Detroit Michigan and other cities are also virtually half abandoned.
This is obviously a collapsed, failed system, yet it grinds on because of the super forces of greed and arrogance, because of the closed, corporate-controlled political system, because of good old-fashioned living in the past, and perhaps because non-right-wing people do not seem to understand the concept of political marketing, as for example the Canadians running the New Democratic Party do and as many Europeans, Asians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Americans, and still others understand, as shown by the healthy existence of their successful to one extent or another non-right-wing parties.
Meanwhile, in America there is just this big political hole and this show of futility by marginalized figures like Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, and Bernie Sanders, in the background. Overall, it seems that American non-right-wingers are more likely to be arrested where they are not welcome for trying to make their views known than they are to be serving in Government!
As a result of the futility of the non-right-wing in the US, there is virtually no real representation in US government anymore for workers, so it will be no surprise if we reach a 15 or even a 20 year milestone with no jobs.
By the way, is it actually essentially a conspiracy that American non-right wing forces develop only futile political parties, such as the Greens, who are inevitably tagged as one-issue wonders? Very plausibly so, because although it is the right wingers who are known as the great marketers, it seems hard to believe that ALL non right wingers could be naturally less than competent at political marketing. I mean, I know I am probably less than competent at political marketing, but are ALL non-right-wingers less than competent? I find that hard to believe, thus the conspiracy theory.
Anyhow, it was nice not only to check out this Donna Smith article, but also this from Jeffrey Flier, the Dean of the Harvard Medical School:
Dean of the Harvard Medical School Declares Health Care Reform a Failure
As you can see if you go there, the Dean of the Harvard Medical School knows that this legislation is dead on arrival in the sense that it does almost nothing about what was most in need of doing, which was real, true, no pretending, and no kidding cost control. What was by far most needed was left out.
As a major member of the establishment, Mr. Flier had to support the mandate, since there has been an unstated rule in 2009 that every respectable member of the establishment must support the mandate. He had to support people, unless they wisely dodge it, being on the hook for the gross overcharging for health insurance. But at least he was honest about the overall failure and futility of this legislation, which when all is said and done is simply about the Democrats being able to say they did something.
Let's face it, American politicians, the ones in the two corporate parties anyway, in the context of a collapsed system that has been very, very right wing for 30 years and counting, are most likely not going to think of themselves as being responsible for passing legislation that is actually good and effective.
Admittedly, it’s a lot harder to pass truly good legislation in the present context than it was before the system collapsed. So maybe we should have some sympathy for their passing garbage? No, common sense tells you that no one in government should ever be excused from peddling garbage and playing pretend games.
Which brings us back to the need for a non-right wing party that is not a dead on arrival marketing failure like, unfortunately, the Socialists and the Greens and the Independents are. A New Democratic Party-US would be one option that would actually work.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The Christian Science Religion may be an Important way to Avoid Slavery to the Health Insurance Industry
The following was in response to this article, one of the best of the late fall regarding the failure of the US Congress to reform health care in a truly lasting, beneficial way.
Wow, who would have thought that I would be googling "Religions that don't believe in health care," and then, when I got nothing from that, "Religions that do not believe in medicine." (Thank you, Google, for your search suggestions!)
It seems that the fairly large Christian Science Religion was probably the main one the Democrats had in their crazed and obsessed with getting something passed minds when they added in the religious exception clause to the health insurance mandate. It appears, and of course this will have to be verified later, that being a member of the Christian Science Religion will remove from oneself the burden of being a slave to the health insurance multimillionaire execs and the proposed slavery enforcement bureaucracy.
Anyone who has been going without health insurance and who knows or even just strongly suspects that it would do more harm economically than good health wise to be forced to get it now, that in other words it would do more harm than good overall, should consider joining this Religion. Because by default having to heal naturally for some number of years, those who have gone without health insurance have been, probably unbeknownst to them, following a set of very major tenets of this religion: that mankind is more spiritual than physical, and that healing is much more spiritual than physical, and all those who have spiritual health will be physically healed, subject to God's will.
(Jeez, I hope I didn't screw up my description of the Christian Scientists; I'm not exactly a veteran religious reporter, laugh out loud.) Here is where to go for many more details:
For much more information about the Christian Science Religion, see this article.
Note that:
(a) The Christian Science Religion does not expressly forbid adherents from getting health care, though apparently few who are at all serious about their devotion to the Religion do so, except, I would expect, with respect to emergency situations such as car crashes and with respect to dire situations like tumours that could be terminal.
(b) According to the Wikipedia article, many Christian Scientists are not obsessive about overstating what is supposed to be avoided. Many of them do not consider such things as dental care and vision correction as things that need to be avoided. It’s the physician care and medicines that they are thinking are generally unnecessary, in a big majority of cases, and at least for the true Christian Scientist.
(c) This Religion will probably constitute by far the biggest and the most dependable one with respect to not having to comply with any "mandate" to buy private and grossly overpriced health insurance.
Never forget that under single payer and other community based national health systems where private profits and obscene salaires have been mostly or completely removed from the system, adults only in rare circumstances, and children only in certain life threatening circumstances, are required to get the (at the time of the care decision) effectively free health care. Health care liberty is preserved in those systems, unlike in the right wing US proposal.
There are people in those countries who have such strong beliefs against health care in general or medicine in particular that they never or almost never use their national health care system! It is, for example fairly well known by international economists that, although there are probably few British who never ever use their Health Service, that the British are much more reserved and hesitant to use health services than are people of other countries.
What this reminds you of is that you as an American have the perfect right to claim opposition to health treatments (regardless of what combination of motivations for doing so you may have, and expressly including being motivated by not wishing to pay unaffordable amounts to health insurance mega Corporations). Many Americans will now be more or less REQUIRED to somehow gain an exemption to the mandate in order to truly claim opposition to health treatments in the US. One can expect a surge in new converts to the Christian Science Religion over the next few years.
Now that I think of it, (while listening to roots reggae star Gyptian) I think the Rastafarians may qualify for an exemption too, assuming no racism in the selection of religions that will qualify for exemption, And actually, since I already know quite a bit about them and more or less agree with them, maybe I'll formally join the Rastafarians very soon.
Find out much more about the Rastafarian Religiion (or Movement) right here.
Who would have thought my love of reggae music might come in so handy some day. Redemption song indeed.
Wow, who would have thought that I would be googling "Religions that don't believe in health care," and then, when I got nothing from that, "Religions that do not believe in medicine." (Thank you, Google, for your search suggestions!)
It seems that the fairly large Christian Science Religion was probably the main one the Democrats had in their crazed and obsessed with getting something passed minds when they added in the religious exception clause to the health insurance mandate. It appears, and of course this will have to be verified later, that being a member of the Christian Science Religion will remove from oneself the burden of being a slave to the health insurance multimillionaire execs and the proposed slavery enforcement bureaucracy.
Anyone who has been going without health insurance and who knows or even just strongly suspects that it would do more harm economically than good health wise to be forced to get it now, that in other words it would do more harm than good overall, should consider joining this Religion. Because by default having to heal naturally for some number of years, those who have gone without health insurance have been, probably unbeknownst to them, following a set of very major tenets of this religion: that mankind is more spiritual than physical, and that healing is much more spiritual than physical, and all those who have spiritual health will be physically healed, subject to God's will.
(Jeez, I hope I didn't screw up my description of the Christian Scientists; I'm not exactly a veteran religious reporter, laugh out loud.) Here is where to go for many more details:
For much more information about the Christian Science Religion, see this article.
Note that:
(a) The Christian Science Religion does not expressly forbid adherents from getting health care, though apparently few who are at all serious about their devotion to the Religion do so, except, I would expect, with respect to emergency situations such as car crashes and with respect to dire situations like tumours that could be terminal.
(b) According to the Wikipedia article, many Christian Scientists are not obsessive about overstating what is supposed to be avoided. Many of them do not consider such things as dental care and vision correction as things that need to be avoided. It’s the physician care and medicines that they are thinking are generally unnecessary, in a big majority of cases, and at least for the true Christian Scientist.
(c) This Religion will probably constitute by far the biggest and the most dependable one with respect to not having to comply with any "mandate" to buy private and grossly overpriced health insurance.
Never forget that under single payer and other community based national health systems where private profits and obscene salaires have been mostly or completely removed from the system, adults only in rare circumstances, and children only in certain life threatening circumstances, are required to get the (at the time of the care decision) effectively free health care. Health care liberty is preserved in those systems, unlike in the right wing US proposal.
There are people in those countries who have such strong beliefs against health care in general or medicine in particular that they never or almost never use their national health care system! It is, for example fairly well known by international economists that, although there are probably few British who never ever use their Health Service, that the British are much more reserved and hesitant to use health services than are people of other countries.
What this reminds you of is that you as an American have the perfect right to claim opposition to health treatments (regardless of what combination of motivations for doing so you may have, and expressly including being motivated by not wishing to pay unaffordable amounts to health insurance mega Corporations). Many Americans will now be more or less REQUIRED to somehow gain an exemption to the mandate in order to truly claim opposition to health treatments in the US. One can expect a surge in new converts to the Christian Science Religion over the next few years.
Now that I think of it, (while listening to roots reggae star Gyptian) I think the Rastafarians may qualify for an exemption too, assuming no racism in the selection of religions that will qualify for exemption, And actually, since I already know quite a bit about them and more or less agree with them, maybe I'll formally join the Rastafarians very soon.
Find out much more about the Rastafarian Religiion (or Movement) right here.
Who would have thought my love of reggae music might come in so handy some day. Redemption song indeed.
Don't Forget to add Between $7,000 and $9,500 to What Your Annual Health Insurance Premium is, and Four Ways to Escape
The following was in response to this article, one of the best of the late fall regarding the failure of the US Congress to reform health care in a truly lasting, beneficial way.
FINALLY, someone in a CD article notes that premiums are not the only expense associated with US health care. Unless you want your health insurance to be a never used novelty piece, when you actually seek the actual health care, you will have to pay co-pays that will easily and quickly add up to the $5,000 per year maximum that is in the house bill. Watch out for that to end up being as much as $7,000 per year in the final bill out of conference.
And I guess you can deduce from this article that you should immediately add $1,500 per year to whatever your annual premium is, because you will have to pay that as a deductible every time you first seek health care in a new year. Watch out for that to end up being about $2,000 out of conference. Add whatever your medicines cost (not covered by your health insurance); I'll use $500 for them but I would think could be anything from nothing to $10,000 for medicines.
So to determine your grand total US health tab, add $7,000 to $9,500 per year to whatever your premium is unless your health insurance is just to be a worthless novelty piece.
If this insanity passes there will be millions of fools patting themselves on the back for complying with their right wing government and having health insurance through the exchange or whatever, but with no intention or financial wherewithal of actually seeking health care unless they get hit by a bus or something, in which case they will end up filing for bankruptcy just the same as they would have in the old system.
As I have said before, this is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We are still going down, because systems with holes in them in go down the same way ships do.
How can you avoid becoming a slave to the multimillionaire health plantation owners (um, I mean the health insurance execs)?
--Your income is less than about 133% of the federal poverty line.
--You are in a religion that forswears health care. Start looking for one now; they should be free to join, and maybe you can participate on the internet and never have to physically go to a service (that may not be located in your area). Note that simply being in such a religion does not legally prevent you from getting health care in an emergency where you decide you really need it and want it.
--Move out of the US. Let's face it, with zero jobs created in more than a decade now, and now with the advent of forced purchases of private products, what is the point of living in the US anymore, unless you are old and stuck in your ways?, laugh out loud).
Yes, I know all too well this is far easier said than done. For example, Canada will in most cases catch you, arrest you and throw you out of the country for posing as a Canadian to try to get a Canadian job. You need a multi-year plan, or else you need a destination country that really, really wants new residents.
--Live in or move to a state that fights back by making the Health Insurance Deform partly illegal. There are moves afoot in about a dozen states to make it state law that no resident shall be forced to buy health insurance, and that no resident shall be forbidden from paying cash for health services. More states will join this movement assuming a small number of states blaze the trail by actually passing new legislation.
At the moment there are a lot of know-it-all types claiming these state laws will not be changing much of anything, but that's what they always say, and there are times, especially when the issues involved are quite large, where state laws do change the effect of federal law. On the other hand, nothing has actually passed in any state yet, so obviously this is at the moment just a potential future relief from the burdens of the mandate.
Also, you would be depending on Republicans to bring this relief about, which is not exactly a comforting thought. Maybe it's just me, but the Republicans always seem to become incompetent at exercising power just when you have that rare occasion when you want them to do something that will work in your favor. Whereas they roll over all opposition and get everything they want when it comes to things that will hurt the common people.
Anyhow, here are the preliminary developments in the states:
http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=18906
Of the four ways to avoid the mandate, the first two would seem to be overall the most promising at the moment, although which way is the best will vary from person to person.
FINALLY, someone in a CD article notes that premiums are not the only expense associated with US health care. Unless you want your health insurance to be a never used novelty piece, when you actually seek the actual health care, you will have to pay co-pays that will easily and quickly add up to the $5,000 per year maximum that is in the house bill. Watch out for that to end up being as much as $7,000 per year in the final bill out of conference.
And I guess you can deduce from this article that you should immediately add $1,500 per year to whatever your annual premium is, because you will have to pay that as a deductible every time you first seek health care in a new year. Watch out for that to end up being about $2,000 out of conference. Add whatever your medicines cost (not covered by your health insurance); I'll use $500 for them but I would think could be anything from nothing to $10,000 for medicines.
So to determine your grand total US health tab, add $7,000 to $9,500 per year to whatever your premium is unless your health insurance is just to be a worthless novelty piece.
If this insanity passes there will be millions of fools patting themselves on the back for complying with their right wing government and having health insurance through the exchange or whatever, but with no intention or financial wherewithal of actually seeking health care unless they get hit by a bus or something, in which case they will end up filing for bankruptcy just the same as they would have in the old system.
As I have said before, this is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We are still going down, because systems with holes in them in go down the same way ships do.
How can you avoid becoming a slave to the multimillionaire health plantation owners (um, I mean the health insurance execs)?
--Your income is less than about 133% of the federal poverty line.
--You are in a religion that forswears health care. Start looking for one now; they should be free to join, and maybe you can participate on the internet and never have to physically go to a service (that may not be located in your area). Note that simply being in such a religion does not legally prevent you from getting health care in an emergency where you decide you really need it and want it.
--Move out of the US. Let's face it, with zero jobs created in more than a decade now, and now with the advent of forced purchases of private products, what is the point of living in the US anymore, unless you are old and stuck in your ways?, laugh out loud).
Yes, I know all too well this is far easier said than done. For example, Canada will in most cases catch you, arrest you and throw you out of the country for posing as a Canadian to try to get a Canadian job. You need a multi-year plan, or else you need a destination country that really, really wants new residents.
--Live in or move to a state that fights back by making the Health Insurance Deform partly illegal. There are moves afoot in about a dozen states to make it state law that no resident shall be forced to buy health insurance, and that no resident shall be forbidden from paying cash for health services. More states will join this movement assuming a small number of states blaze the trail by actually passing new legislation.
At the moment there are a lot of know-it-all types claiming these state laws will not be changing much of anything, but that's what they always say, and there are times, especially when the issues involved are quite large, where state laws do change the effect of federal law. On the other hand, nothing has actually passed in any state yet, so obviously this is at the moment just a potential future relief from the burdens of the mandate.
Also, you would be depending on Republicans to bring this relief about, which is not exactly a comforting thought. Maybe it's just me, but the Republicans always seem to become incompetent at exercising power just when you have that rare occasion when you want them to do something that will work in your favor. Whereas they roll over all opposition and get everything they want when it comes to things that will hurt the common people.
Anyhow, here are the preliminary developments in the states:
http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=18906
Of the four ways to avoid the mandate, the first two would seem to be overall the most promising at the moment, although which way is the best will vary from person to person.
Squatting via Eminent Domain
The derogatory term squatting is used when low income people use abandoned property. But isn't that essentially what Phizer did in this case? They squatted for a few years and then quit squatting when they decided to squat elsewhere (probably in China or India). Just because Phizer has lawyers who make big money, don't think that what they do has any more validity than what a "squatter" does. When all is said and done, everyone is a "squatter."
And...
"Barren weed fields are all that exist where homes once stood."
Death, destruction, destitution, and barren weed fields have a way of cropping up all over the place when the right wing is in full control for a number of years.
GUEST COMMENT:
UNITY-PROGRESS:
Well like everything else that benefits the poor more than the rich, squatting has a more favorable reputation and more governmental support in most other countries than in the most pro-rich country, the US.
GUEST COMMENT:
UNITY-PROGRESS
Well since Phizer failed to develop what they said they would, they were definitely squatting. They did get stock market and other gains over the mere plans to develop what they said they would, but they never paid the taxes they implicity promised to pay in the development plan that got them the residential property.
Morever, for anyone who does not accept the process, or for that matter the general concept of large Corporations taking over private, middle class or lower class residential property, they were squatting regardless of whether they developed what they said they would or not.
The above conversation was in response to this article at Common Dreams.
And...
"Barren weed fields are all that exist where homes once stood."
Death, destruction, destitution, and barren weed fields have a way of cropping up all over the place when the right wing is in full control for a number of years.
GUEST COMMENT:
bardamu November 18th, 2009 9:37 pm
Not everyone considers the term squatting derogatory. It is also the term for a considerable movement around urban land and ownership reform in England and, to an extent, elsewhere.
I got some of the sharpest lessons I have encountered yet in anarchistic cooperation in London and Bristol squats a couple decades ago, and had they not been previously burned by bad press and suspected me of writerly motives, they might have taught me more.
Cheers to Brixton and Southwark from an old fool who never fit elsewhere either!
UNITY-PROGRESS:
Well like everything else that benefits the poor more than the rich, squatting has a more favorable reputation and more governmental support in most other countries than in the most pro-rich country, the US.
GUEST COMMENT:
Desmoulins November 18th, 2009 4:36 pm
"The derogatory term squatting is used when low income people use abandoned property. But isn't that essentially what Phizer did in this case?"
No. What you describe would be a little like old Golda Meir's lying dream of Israel: "a land without people for a people [in this case, corporation] without land." Phizer didn't squat on abandonded property. They got the city to use "eminent domain" to seize people's homes and evict them, tear down housing which had been occupied, and give the property to Phizer to develop.
UNITY-PROGRESS
Well since Phizer failed to develop what they said they would, they were definitely squatting. They did get stock market and other gains over the mere plans to develop what they said they would, but they never paid the taxes they implicity promised to pay in the development plan that got them the residential property.
Morever, for anyone who does not accept the process, or for that matter the general concept of large Corporations taking over private, middle class or lower class residential property, they were squatting regardless of whether they developed what they said they would or not.
The above conversation was in response to this article at Common Dreams.
The Wolf at the Door, and Mitch McConnell Versus Barack Obama
The following exchange was in response to this article by Robert Scheer, which is about what happened to make Obama fail to provide hardly any of the change he promised.
GUEST COMMENTARY
UNITY-PROGRESS COMMENTARY
Exactly. It's much better for the town to know there really is a dangerous and ravenous wolf around than to think the wolf is really a relatively tame dog who would never attack one of the children. Everyone would know that Mitch McConnell is a wolf, including Mitch McConnell, laugh out loud. Whereas there are many millions who do not understand that Obama is a wolf, also.
A GUEST COMMENT IN RESPONSE TO OUR COMMENT
UNITY-PROGRESS COMMENTARY
I don't know exactly what you mean, but I'm in a writing mood, so...
About the only reason I am participating and trying to help the non-right wing with my writing and research is that, roughly speaking, the ravenous wolves are at my door already. If I need an old fashioned job, I most likely can't get one now given the economic disaster. I can't get health care at a reasonable price. I can't do much of anything without being subject to being tricked and scammed down the river by some corporate trick. And so on and so forth.
Society has more or less collapsed and the wolves are at or at least very close to the door, my friend.
It's not at all about "crying wolf". Obama is actually a right-wing wolf, there is absolutely no exaggeration in that and there is absolutely no doubt about that. So no one on this site is crying anything that isn't true.
The country would be essentially in the exact same condition now and in the next 5-20 years if Mitch McConnell were the President. True, there would be some minor differences. For example, some teachers, some firefighters, and possibly even some police officers would be unemployed if Mitch were President, but there would be roughly an equal number of corporate employees, together with a small number of small business owners and employees, who would still be employed if Mitch McConnell were President, who have already or will soon lose their jobs, with no chance of re-employment, under the minute details of Obama's measures.
The question of Mitch McConnell versus Barack Obama really amounts to where you want to place the deck chairs on the Titanic, and, at this point in the collapse of the economy, who exactly gets on what life boat.
But as I said, everyone would know that Mitch McConnell represents the wealthy and elitists, and so everyone who is not a right winger would be arranging their own affairs as best as they could to minimize the negative effects to themselves of Mitch McConnell being the President. Whereas now, there are many millions who have been fooled and who are not being as careful to avoid societal traps and scams as they would be if Mitch McConnell were president.
For example, the average opinion (on sites other than Common Dreams, where very few are fooled) about Obama's mandate to buy grossly overpriced health insurance is characterized by annoyance and dismay, whereas if the mandate came down from Mitch McConnell, there would be many more people serious about avoiding it so as to avoid eventual economic disaster to themselves resulting from huge payments for health insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-payments.
I mean, with Bush, eventually the military was having difficulty recruiting for Iraq, and eventually, many people learned their lesson about not automatically trusting contracts that seem too good to be true, such as sub-prime mortgage contracts with interest rate kickers. There are people alive right now who would have been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan were it not for the backlash against Bush. There are people who would have been bankrupt and/or living under a bridge were it not for becoming, as a result of the backlash against Bush, very cautious about signing right wing contracts.
But with Obama, too many have gone back to not being careful and defensive about right wing policies and contracts. So Obama has not only followed most of Bush’s policies, he has actually infused them with a big shot in the arm due to there being little backlash against himself, because most do not see Obama as a wolf.
You get the wolf thing now? I hope so, because that is all I’m going to do to get you to get it.
AND ON A LIGHTER NOTE
Laugh out loud!
GUEST COMMENTARY
Vern November 18th, 2009 10:24 am
At least with Mitch McConnell we wouldn't be bullied to believe he was anything other than what he is. The danger with Obama and he can talk a good game and posture as something other than what he is and despite the growing body of evidence some will be dredging up the same hollow excuses and apologies giving him a pass while the rug is being pulled out.
UNITY-PROGRESS COMMENTARY
Exactly. It's much better for the town to know there really is a dangerous and ravenous wolf around than to think the wolf is really a relatively tame dog who would never attack one of the children. Everyone would know that Mitch McConnell is a wolf, including Mitch McConnell, laugh out loud. Whereas there are many millions who do not understand that Obama is a wolf, also.
A GUEST COMMENT IN RESPONSE TO OUR COMMENT
waiguoren November 18th, 2009 2:06 pm
The boy who cried "ravenous wolf!"
That's how you want to characterize Obama?
We'll be curious to know what you'll say when real ravenous wolves are at your door
UNITY-PROGRESS COMMENTARY
I don't know exactly what you mean, but I'm in a writing mood, so...
About the only reason I am participating and trying to help the non-right wing with my writing and research is that, roughly speaking, the ravenous wolves are at my door already. If I need an old fashioned job, I most likely can't get one now given the economic disaster. I can't get health care at a reasonable price. I can't do much of anything without being subject to being tricked and scammed down the river by some corporate trick. And so on and so forth.
Society has more or less collapsed and the wolves are at or at least very close to the door, my friend.
It's not at all about "crying wolf". Obama is actually a right-wing wolf, there is absolutely no exaggeration in that and there is absolutely no doubt about that. So no one on this site is crying anything that isn't true.
The country would be essentially in the exact same condition now and in the next 5-20 years if Mitch McConnell were the President. True, there would be some minor differences. For example, some teachers, some firefighters, and possibly even some police officers would be unemployed if Mitch were President, but there would be roughly an equal number of corporate employees, together with a small number of small business owners and employees, who would still be employed if Mitch McConnell were President, who have already or will soon lose their jobs, with no chance of re-employment, under the minute details of Obama's measures.
The question of Mitch McConnell versus Barack Obama really amounts to where you want to place the deck chairs on the Titanic, and, at this point in the collapse of the economy, who exactly gets on what life boat.
But as I said, everyone would know that Mitch McConnell represents the wealthy and elitists, and so everyone who is not a right winger would be arranging their own affairs as best as they could to minimize the negative effects to themselves of Mitch McConnell being the President. Whereas now, there are many millions who have been fooled and who are not being as careful to avoid societal traps and scams as they would be if Mitch McConnell were president.
For example, the average opinion (on sites other than Common Dreams, where very few are fooled) about Obama's mandate to buy grossly overpriced health insurance is characterized by annoyance and dismay, whereas if the mandate came down from Mitch McConnell, there would be many more people serious about avoiding it so as to avoid eventual economic disaster to themselves resulting from huge payments for health insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-payments.
I mean, with Bush, eventually the military was having difficulty recruiting for Iraq, and eventually, many people learned their lesson about not automatically trusting contracts that seem too good to be true, such as sub-prime mortgage contracts with interest rate kickers. There are people alive right now who would have been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan were it not for the backlash against Bush. There are people who would have been bankrupt and/or living under a bridge were it not for becoming, as a result of the backlash against Bush, very cautious about signing right wing contracts.
But with Obama, too many have gone back to not being careful and defensive about right wing policies and contracts. So Obama has not only followed most of Bush’s policies, he has actually infused them with a big shot in the arm due to there being little backlash against himself, because most do not see Obama as a wolf.
You get the wolf thing now? I hope so, because that is all I’m going to do to get you to get it.
AND ON A LIGHTER NOTE
bgcd November 18th, 2009 1:29 pm
He's black and a community organizer! Cool man! He looks and talks like Malcolm X! Really cool man! He's hip, he's cool, he's black! I mean hey! He's cooool!
Laugh out loud!
What Happened to Obama's "Changes," and Will Blacks Still Vote for him in 2012?
The following were in response to this article by Robert Scheer, which is about what happened to make Obama fail to provide hardly any of the change he promised.
AND A SECOND GUEST COMMENT:
MY COMMENT TO THE SCHEER ARTICLE AND TO THE ABOVE TWO COMMENTS:
With each passing month it seems that Obama is rooted an unknown but increasing number of hundreds of years in the past. If the gesture was standing alone I wouldn't have said a thing, but his bow to the Japanese Emperor in conjunction with everything else Obama has done is notable, as it seems to be more evidence that Obama is indeed some kind of classic elitist type, plausibly up to and including being an elitist in the feudal mode. This type of character is not at all unheard of in Africa.
-----------------
In the same forum for the Scheer article, about what happened to make Obama fail to provide hardly any of the change he promised, the question came up: Will Barack Obama lose a lot of his black supporters in 2012? Here is how your Unity-Progress creator and producer answered this:
Obama will inevitably lose some amount of black support in 2012 compared with 2008; exactly how much is uncertain because there has most likely never been a combination of circumstances like these twisted circustances in world history.
But the number of black people actually validly registered and eligible to vote in 2012 as compared to 2008 will almost certainly be much less. The true, full black unemployment rate is approaching 40% and even black people can only go so long without income from employment before they either drop dead or become economic refugees with no fixed address and thus no good way to get registered to vote.
Ian Kochera November 18th, 2009 10:27 am
The author plaintively asks, 'What's up with Barack Obama?'
Bob. May I call you Bob? I share your frustration about Obama, in particular with respect to his dealings with the financial sector.
To understanstand Obama, one has to go back to his youth. Read his book 'Dreams of my father' carefully again, and you are transported into the tormented world of a young Obama, with an absent yet demanding father who abandoned him and his mother to vie for prominence in Kenyan politics. That painful sacrifice might have been acceptable had his father succeeded in politics. But, and this is the crucial lesson of his father's life for Obama, he was driven to destitution because he dared to buck the preeminent power in the country - Kenyatta himself.
Fast forward to 2009 USA. The now President Obama grew up constitutionally incapable of bucking the powers that be, to risk walking in his father's shoes, to be driven from power and to fail. And in the US, the preeminent powers are the Wall Street titans and other elites, who Obama knows to be every bit as vengeful as Kenyatta of Kenya was.
I don't know if anyone as sensitive and introspective as Obama is capable of reconciling with memories of a father who fluttered into and out of his youth, and who is now long gone but hardly forgotten. For our sake, I hope he does, and soon.
AND A SECOND GUEST COMMENT:
pjd412 November 18th, 2009 1:07 pm
Me, I was just thinking that Obama is a classic 18-19th century Hamiltonian (the US "founding father")- only rich elites should be in charge of the deliberative process. It also has a bit of a medieval feudalist - "accept your lot in life" feel to it.
MY COMMENT TO THE SCHEER ARTICLE AND TO THE ABOVE TWO COMMENTS:
With each passing month it seems that Obama is rooted an unknown but increasing number of hundreds of years in the past. If the gesture was standing alone I wouldn't have said a thing, but his bow to the Japanese Emperor in conjunction with everything else Obama has done is notable, as it seems to be more evidence that Obama is indeed some kind of classic elitist type, plausibly up to and including being an elitist in the feudal mode. This type of character is not at all unheard of in Africa.
-----------------
In the same forum for the Scheer article, about what happened to make Obama fail to provide hardly any of the change he promised, the question came up: Will Barack Obama lose a lot of his black supporters in 2012? Here is how your Unity-Progress creator and producer answered this:
Obama will inevitably lose some amount of black support in 2012 compared with 2008; exactly how much is uncertain because there has most likely never been a combination of circumstances like these twisted circustances in world history.
But the number of black people actually validly registered and eligible to vote in 2012 as compared to 2008 will almost certainly be much less. The true, full black unemployment rate is approaching 40% and even black people can only go so long without income from employment before they either drop dead or become economic refugees with no fixed address and thus no good way to get registered to vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
STATES ACT TO COUNTER THE DOOMED TO FAIL 2010 US HEALTH LAWS
THINK AGAIN IF YOU THINK BEING FORCED TO BUY INSURANCE IS A GOOD LONG TERM PLAN
