Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
36 States Take Aim to Block Healthcare Plan
(Photos taken at 'Tea Party' protest against health care reform on Capitol Hill, Saturday, March 20, 2010)
WASHINGTON/CHICAGO - As the Congress once again rallies to pass healthcare reform legislation, momentum is growing in many states to pass laws to block the changes -- a move that could lead to a legal battle over states' sovereignty.
Bills and resolutions have been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures seeking to limit or oppose various aspects of the reform plan through laws or state constitutional amendments, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
"There's going to be a big free-for-all lawsuit about this," said Michael Bird, legislative counsel for the NCSL.
The House of Representatives is to due vote on Sunday on a sweeping healthcare overhaul that would require all Americans to have health insurance, but would give subsidies to help low- and middle-income workers. It would also ban insurance practices like refusing coverage to those with pre-existing medical conditions.
Opposition efforts at the state level "in general ... seek to make or keep health insurance optional, and allow people to purchase any type of coverage they may choose," the NCSL said.
Democratic House leaders on Friday voiced growing confidence of winning a close vote. If the bill passes the House, it would then only have to pass the Senate by a simple majority under the planned procedure on the legislation.
Mirroring the partisan politics that have dogged the federal legislation, state measures to block healthcare reform are more likely to arise and succeed in states where Republicans control at least one legislative chamber and the governor's office.
So far, only two states, Idaho and Virginia, have enacted laws, while an Arizona constitutional amendment is seeking voter approval on the November ballot. No anti-health care reform legislation has emerged in Democrat-dominated states like Illinois and New York, according to the NCSL.
Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter signed a bill on Wednesday allowing the state's attorney general to file a lawsuit opposing federal healthcare legislation requiring individuals to buy medical insurance.
Otter sees federal legislation as overreaching and bound to add to medical expenses of state governments, spokesman Jon Hanian said .
"He's concerned we can't afford it," Hanian said, adding that Otter, a Republican, is disappointed in how the Democrat-led U.S. Congress is handling the legislation.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Thursday dismissed as political positioning the complaints by states that the healthcare overhaul may endanger their independence or be too costly.
In the latest version of the bill, all states would receive extra funding to cover Medicaid costs that are expected to rise under the reform, including 100 percent federal coverage for new enrollees under the plan through 2016. Medicaid is the healthcare program for the poor jointly administered by the states and federal government.
Still, states are concerned that the burden of providing healthcare will fall to them without enough federal support and that the reforms infringe on their powers under the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights.
For example, Texas Governor Rick Perry, a Republican, says the proposal will double the number of Medicaid recipients in his state and cost an additional $24.3 billion over the next decade.
TENTH AMENDMENT ARGUMENT
Many states cite the 10th Amendment, which says "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states," as proof that the U.S. government cannot set their healthcare laws.
Gibbs did not accept that complaint. "What we're about to pass and sign into law will meet Constitutional muster," he said.
Robert Natelson, a constitutional law professor at the University of Montana School of Law, said it would be easier for states to argue for standing to file a lawsuit that claims the federal government has overstepped its constitutional powers.
"The legal question is, Does this health care bill exceed the federal government's powers or it is invalid for other reasons?" he said.
Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, a think-tank on the relationships of the states and federal government, pointed to previous state movements to nullify federal laws in areas such as medical marijuana and Real ID, a federal standard for driving licenses. In the case of marijuana, Boldin said 14 states allow its use for medical purposes despite a prohibition in federal law that has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
A similar situation may arise with healthcare reform, where there could be mass noncompliance with the law without any real consequences, Boldin said.
Additional reporting by Jim Christie in San Francisco and Joan Gralla in New York; Editing by Leslie Adler
193 Comments so far
Show AllA fair binding referendum would settle this problem.
Had the Dems passed single-payer the CBO cost forecast would have been lower than the CBO projected cost of Obamacare, and Obama would not have had to cut special deals with Nebraska, Louisiana and Florida.
While the teabaggers' response to single-payer would have been no different than what we are seeing, opposition to reform would have been limited to them and there would be no opportunity for states to test the constitutionality of health care reform.
Because Obamacare is a corporate welfare program disguised as health care reform, Obama cannot defend it against any protest or lawsuits, even the limp protests by teapartiers.
Excellent, succinct analysis.
The vicious and often racist garbage of the right wing is not surprising to those among us that lived in america for more than a few years, but the lack of support for any kind of community spirit is the most shocking part of this debate for me. The greed and selfishness that we see is what sets america apart from the rest of the western world. People don't care if their neighbor cannot afford health care and now we have right wing states ready to go to the wall to make sure their citizens will have nothing to do with a national program. America lives in another age and time.
All countries have a lunatic fringe among their population. The USA seems to be an exception - it has a lunatic mainstream.
All the dems had to do was to create universal healthcare for everyone--at least include the public option. They instead, decided that keeping the war machine operating at full speed 24/7 and to have everyone pay to keep the money flowing to these criminals in the healthcare industry. They then threaten to sic their dogs from the IRS to get what little the people have.
Calling these people names makes you no better, just sound juvenile.
This country doesn't have a "lunatic mainstream", it does however have one that has reached its limit with criminals and shakedown artists.
The democrats have decided to pull the trigger on a dangerous stunt with this bill. In the end, it may be not be the only one thats pulled.
This may be the moment that finally lights the piles of angry tinder lying in every corner of this nation.
If it is, God help us all.
Moonpie says: "This country doesn't have a 'lunatic mainstream', it does however have one that has reached its limit with criminals and shakedown artists."
You are so right, moonpie, and I would add "criminals and shakedown artists" who ignore the law aided and abetted by our elected officials -- or maybe that's who you meant, along with the corporate hucksters and the tyrants of other nations with their hands out who the U.S. government rewards with money and arms and looks away from heinous crimes being committed as our military commits its own with impunity.
Nothing like the whole thing tumbling down to wake everyone up. But my, my, it likely will get savage before the smoke clears, which may take a very long time.
Day by day ... /cm
moonpie
"on a dangerous stunt"
I don't believe I've seen a more appropriate or truthful description of this bill. That is exactly what it is, "a stunt"
I do believe they are about to get their fingers burned if they are truly this arrogant.
Quite right moonpie thanks for being able to see through the garbage spouted by both "sides," the "teabaggers" are ignorant racists, and the Obamabot bill supporters clueless tools of the insurance industry, fuck em' both. I'm sure the financial elite that stands to benefit from this bill is laughing all the way to the bank at the antics of both MSM manufactured "sides."
IMO we on the left need to advocate for killing the bill and starting over with a serious sustained plan to get single payer starting with educating the public. The material on Firedoglake is a good start IMO.
As for states rights what happens to states that already have health coverage arguably better than this plan provides like Oregon?
Both parties and the "health care industry" will now profit from the confusion they created that assured that no rational discussion took place during the past year.
A "lunatic mainstream." You know, I never thought of it that way, but you may have identified our problem.
"A fish rots from the head", as the Yiddish proverb has it.
If the ones in Congress and the White House gave a damn about our needs, it might be harder to understand why people are fighting back. But what we're seeing is the same struggle over the locus of political control that's been going on since the end of the Revolution.
On the one side we had the wealthy, educated, cosmopolitan Federalists who very much liked the idea of a powerful central government that they would own and could exploit for their personal profit. And on the other, the rest of us.
It's the same today. Ave bossa nova, similis bossa seneca.
I own my own home free and clear... I do not have a job... I do not have retirement revenue... I generate $-0- of income.
Will the government now tell me that I MUST go get a job now only to pay for "health insurance"?
Sorry... that sounds like slavery or "indentured servitude" to the government and insurance companies to me. I believe that forcing me to get a job just to buy "health insurance" definately violates the 13th Amendment.
I have to put my foot down firmly on this one... I will not buy mandated health insurance. I will not change the life I've spent half a century building to make the government and insurance companies happy.
Screw 'em.
What are they gonna do??? Put me in jail? I'd rather be the governments prisoner than it's slave or bitch.
Since you have no income, the proposal would subsidize your insurance 100%. Not saying this is a good or bad plan, just informing how it would affect you.
I'd really rather that they just left me the hell alone and stayed out of my personal business.
Actually, It would do more than that, homeless Bob will now qualify for Medicaid coverage. Right now, homeless men do not qualify for medicaid, no matter how destitute.
But, he will have to wait four years for it, as none of the bills provisions kick in until 2014.
But will the bill FUND that Medicaid coverage?
I haven't seen any evidence of sure funding NOW, and all funding seems to drop within the first ten years.
No Child Left Behind had several molifying provisions as well. But the simple magic of NOT FUNDING THEM made them go away, didn't it?
-matti.
The proposal would INTEND to subsidize Bob's insurance 100%, but will that ACTUALLY HAPPEN?
Didn't the GAO and several independent groups report that the subsidy is only funded for a FRACTION of the number of recipients it will need to cover?
And have the provisions for eradicating the financial privacy of those who take the subsidy or heavily fining those who refused been dropped?
So isn't the subsidy even more nasty and de-humanizing than the worst of previous Federal "Welfare Program" attempts?
I don't think we can be so confident that anything in this bill will really be how the resultant Law will "affect" anyone.
-matti.
Until they (or we) get rid of the wars, get single-payer, and get campaign finance reform, we will be dealing with a corrupt, immoral system that only caters to corporations and not ordinary people. Until then we are fighting over crumbs, as it were. We need to continue to advocate for the real changes needed. Until we get them we have to struggle with the corrupt, nasty, inhumane reality of what is before us.
so, your personal health care plan is to just show up at the emergency room and mooch off of the rest of the population?
That's a myth. Try it sometime. Just "show up" and tell them you have no insurance, and no money to pay, and see if they will provide health care for you. They won't.
The only exception is (at some hospitals) for emergency room care in event of serious accident—and that's not "free" either. They bill you, send bill collectors after you and take you to court to force payment or confiscate any assets you have.
(I've read that illegal migrants get free healthcare, because hospitals are able to bill Medicare for it.)
With the apparent exception of illegal migrants, this is a ridiculous myth.
To be fair... and since this was specifically directed to me...
I will also admit that I was smart enough to "semi-retire" in a state with a state-run healthcare "safety-net" for low-income and poor people.
If I absolutely HAD to have major healthcare I could use their services on a sliding scale... (no charity is available to me... I OWN property)
Free medical services at emergency rooms is one of those things that sounds good if you say it fast.
For those without money or insurance, emergency rooms are good for triage only. Yes, they will put a cast on your broken arm or stitch you up to stop the bleeding, but that's it. Try showing up at an emergency room with cancer or diabetes, and an empty pocket, and see how fast they have security show you the door.
Hello Caleb and Bob,
When I showed up at a private hospital emergency room with chest pains, they insisted that I take a treadmill electrocardiogram. Why? Because I have Medicaid. And now, starting in 2014, "Homeless" Bob and 15 million others, everyone up to 133% of the poverty level, will also be able to get Medicaid, including all of the real homeless.
Ah, the dastardly Feds, the evil, cowardly Democrats, making slaves of us all by giving 15 million more poor people SINGLE PAYER coverage. The gospel on these pages seems to be that the Health Care bill is forcing 30 million new customers to the insurance companies. Not quite true. Almost half of the newly covered will go into Medicaid, and a few million more children into S-CHIP.
Under the new bill the Feds will pay a 100% of states' costs for new Medicaid enrollees until 2016. Our job politically is to make sure that the Single Payer components of health care: Medicare, Medicaid, S-Chip and Veterans, will be well funded into the future. If we can do that, then the rest of the population will be clamoring to get in, and be relieved of private insurance larceny. This bill is a wedge towards universal Single Payer, if we have will and energy to use it that way. First step? Register everyone on Medicaid to vote. That alone could change the balance of power in Congress.
Sioux Rose
BECK: These types of bills are always dressed up so that the public gets to hear the best case scenario. Supposedly the bail-out to the big banks (incidentally the same ones that caused the economy to implode) was going to improve lending to small businesses and allow more persons in fiscal hot water to remain in their homes. Did either of these outcomes emerge?
In a time when states are cutting library hours, closing schools, firing TEACHERS!!!! where would the money come from to suddenly subsidize persons like myself who probably qualify for this subsidy? Some real thinkers have said that such a strategy would actually take money away from the existing programs, and for what? So the insurer gets his cut! This is a NAKED bailout to the big insurance companies just as the "leave no banker behind" program likewise lavished splendor upon the already-wealthy while decimating the average persons' savings or 401 K.
Since there are no discernible policy differences between the two parties (given that both clearly serve big corporations), why should anyone who's paying attention believe the hype? We have truckloads of evidence to the contrary on too many significant policies. There is a wide chasm between the stated intentions/objectives and the actual playout!
Laurenceofberk
I hope you don't seriously think that putting people on Medicaid will get them real health care? Its hard enough for folks on Medicaid to find a doctor to see them now. How many can ER's see in any casde, Ins. or not?
And how will California pay for Medicaid after 2016 when the Federal money runs out And its a finite amount by the way. When its gone its gone, no matter the time frame.
I don't believe for a minute that this is a wedge for "Universal Care" If it passes, it will almost guarantee there won't be UC or SP any time soon. This bill won't stand and it won't work.
Its unlikely that the Republicans will go along when they take control in November.
Hello Veritas,
Not only did Medicaid give me an EKG when I hadn't asked for it, but it put me in a private hospital for five days when I had pneumonia. Since I came in with a temperature of 105 1/2 degrees, and was shivering so hard I thought I would fly apart, they most likely saved my life.
Will Medical continue to be funded past 2016? Politics is a crapshoot. But right now, Veritas, you have a choice. You can continue to snipe at the bill as a shuck, joining the Tea Partiers from a different direction; or you join an organization which will
register Medicaid and Free Clinic patients to vote, and change the composition of Congress.
I personally am a workers' power socialist. But if your party is in favor of radical change at the expense of real present day suffering and death, that's not the party I want to belong to.
"I personally am a workers' power socialist."
So why are you schilling for a bill that forces millions of people to buy health insurance from the big insurance corps with no cost control of premiums, pharmaceutical companies or hospitals and leaves 20 MILLION people uninsured? Crony capitalism like the MIC and this bill isn't socialism, it's quite literally Mussolini's fascism:
"An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme[12], meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence, and effectively controls production and allocation of resources. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.[13]
Fascism operated from a Social Darwinist view of human relations. Their aim was to promote superior individuals and weed out the weak.[14] In terms of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the working class.[15] Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because "the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social."[16] Fascist governments encouraged the pursuit of private profit and offered many benefits to large businesses, but they demanded in return that all economic activity should serve the national interest.[17]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism
Sound familiar under both Bush and Obama? A real "socialist" would find anything less than single payer or medicare for *all* unacceptable. This bill was written by the insurance companies and will leave 20 million people uninsured which is the farthest thing from human democratic socialism possible :(
http://static1.firedoglake.com/1/files/2010/03/mythfactshcr-2.pdf
Please read this fact sheet from Firedoglike and get up to speed about what's really going on with this bill as you sound like a nice enough person but IMo you've been sold a bill of goods,
Hello Stereohead,
I already told you why I am supporting this bill. Medicaid saved my life, more than once actually, and I believe that adding 15 million people to Medicaid will save the lives of tens of thousands more. Yet you blithely ignore both my personal experience, AND the reality of the bill. You certainly don't let facts get in the way of your opinion, do you?
Yes, it is true, there is no guarantee that Medicaid will continued to be funded at an adequate level. But I have also outlined a political response. Go out and register poor people to vote, people who will be receiving Medicaid and their friends and relatives; and explain that their future health will depend on their voting, state and national, for candidates who will support health care funding, and the taxes on the rich to sustain it. In California and in many other states, Single Payer is becoming an immediate issue on which people can vote. Now that this bill has expanded Medicaid, the conversation will be much easier for us. "Single Payer is like the Medicaid you have just received, but for everyone. And when Single Payer is universal it will be better funded because, as you know from experience, the government would rather support the "middle class" than only poor people."
When we have this conversation, or similar ones, millions of times, we will be able to make a big dent into the plunder of the insurance companies. And to some of the people we talk to, we will be able to continue on about a socialist program.
Or perhaps, Stereohead, you have a better way to advance socialism than talking to poor people.
Who is right? The answer is ultimately decided, not by the debate between us, but by the results of the organizing that will be done.
20 million people will still be uninsured when this kicks in in 2014 hurray!!!! Oh wait...
A real socialist like Joe Hill would roll in his grave that someone supporting crony capitalism is calling himself a socialist. :(
Socialism means justice for *all* and opposing corporate hegmony, maybe you didn't get the memo?
BTW my life was saved by the actual real public option we have here in Wastenaw county Michigan. And even so both our stories are nothing but anecdotes.
Howdy!
But the real question remains...where do all these new Medicaid folks go? Where aere they going to get this new medical care?
Naturally
You are exactly correct. Only if its an emergency or life threatening are they required to serve you.
"(I've read that illegal migrants get free healthcare, because hospitals are able to bill Medicare for it.)"
I'm sure you meant to say Medicaid, but its only illegal children that are covered under that or CHIPS. The only medical care that illegal adults get comes for pregnant women under CHIPS Peri-Natel program. Adult illegals take their chance with everyone else in the Emergency room or clinics.
Though in Texas we have quite a number of free or low cost clinics both local and faith based that provide care to illegals.
The old saw about illegals living high on the hog with government benefits is exactly that. Yes, they get benefits and its expensive for us, but I wouldn't call it living in the lap of luxury. Most of its tied to the children.
Veritas
I am not quite sure that it is accurate to say that hospitals will accept people only if it's an emergency or life threatening. My youngest brother, who had no health insurance, was treated for testicular cancer by charity care in a hospital in the Northeast about five years ago. It took about a year before the doctor said that he was basically cured. Another brother, who is conservative, crowed that charity care is an example of how Americans can be helped when they do not have health insurance. I attempted to explain to him via an e-mail that charity care does not work at all well for people who have illnesses like diabetes or breast and colon cancer or what my wife has, which is Parkinson's Disease, as those people need preventive and continual care to help them. But it was useless trying to tell him this as he succumbed to emotional arguments by claiming that I was acting like a radical from the 1960s [as if that were something that I should have been ashamed of].
Erroll
"I am not quite sure that it is accurate to say that hospitals will accept people only if it's an emergency or life threatening."
Point taken and thank you. Its not an absolute, but generally speaking its essentially the case as far as I know. I do know that ER staff sometimes treat folks they are not supposed to and the "paperwork" seems to never get started. But I think its less likely in large cities.
Parkinson's. diabetes , breast cancer are never treated by ER staff and what can I say about your brother if he doesn't know that Charity care is limited and HARD to get, I would say he is the "radical" Let me guess...this brother has health insurance.
I'm sure you love him, but you have my complete sympathy!!!
Veritas
The conservative brother moved to a different state a few years ago. That did not work out so he and his wife had to move back to the East Coast but was unable to obtain his former position which meant that he he was forced to take a part time job at Sears. My understanding is that part time employees are not entitled to health insurance. So here we have an ironic situation where Americans such as my brother are advocating against their own self-interests. My sister-in-law [who had married another brother] says that he has a bumper sticker on his vehicle which proudly proclaims: "Don't blame me-I voted for McCain/Palin."
The problem is that people like my brother are very quick to fall for the propaganda that is handed out by Fox "News". Another irony is that he once accussed me a few years ago of not being willing to engage in critical thinking while then writing soon afterwards that he did not wish to talk about the issues [the occupations, health care] any further. In order to maintain familial harmony, I have abstained, for the most part, in bringing up topics which might roil his conservative and reactionary sensibilities.
You must know that the charity treatment your brother received for his cancer is very rare. One year of charity treatment is extremely rare. Unheard of, I would say. Is there some special circumstance that you haven't mentioned?
I hope you don't mean to advance the notion that people with cancer and other diseases can expect to be treated for free if they are unable to pay.
Much more routine are the media accounts of gunshot and stabbing victims being left to die on the sidewalk outside of hospital emergency rooms.
So, if you're "Homeless Bob", how can you own your own home? I think you should have been supporting Single Payer Universal Health Care For All. Then you could have gotten "free" healthcare since you don't work and therefore don't pay taxes. By the way, how do you own your own home and not pay property taxes? Really none of my business, just curious. Your name and your seemingly conflicting statement begs questions.
I do support universal access. 100% But that's not what they are giving us.
I'd even support a Medicare buy-in program... as an OPTION. NOT a mandate.
As for a screenname... LOL! You folks don't actually believe everything someone puts on a screenname, do you?
As for property taxes, I was bright enough to plan and buy in a state that has Homestead Exemption. I have about 20 years of property tax exemption and by then I'll be 70... (And I DO pay property taxes on my ranch land in Texas... but that's not "mine"... that belongs to the family trust for my kids.)
As for the other comment about my "healthcare plan"... No. I do not run to the emergency room. Nor do I run to doctors offices. I maintain my health and eat a healthy diet (mostly produced at home)... I have no real need to go see about every sniffle. When I catch a cold, they can't do anything for it anyway... I stay in bed, tend to myself, and in a day or two I'm fully recovered and back at full activity.
You see... I do something not many people today are capable of, nor do many actualy try to do it... I am responsable for myself.
As I said originally, it has taken 50 years of work and planning to get to the point that I don't have to "work for a living"... Someone with no drive, vision, or not willing to put forth the effort couldn't do it.
100% universal access (a la single-payer, which I favor) would involve everyone paying into the system because nothing is really free. 100% universal access is socialism-- let's not mince words. But you want the government to just leave you the hell alone. Again, if there was 100% access, we would all have to pay into it. And a government run system is best, much less overhead and profit. So where does that leave you? In 10 years, or whenever just "taking care of yourself" isn't enough to get you back to full activity, have fun dealing with the robbers who run health care in America.
Hello Hamster,
2 Points.
1. I think we can assume that Bob is intelligent enough to know that "universal coverage," which he favors, requires taxation. The point, politically, is this. When someone move over towards your point of view, it is self defeating to quickly present more hurdles for that person to jump over. More flies with honey than with vinegar, right? If we're going to save civilization in this country we're going to have to talk to a lot of people who don't entirely agree with us.
2. Universal coverage is not socialism, it is social democracy or a welfare state. In fact universal state health insurance was invented in 1883 by Otto von Bismarck, as part of his "culture war" (kulturkampf) against the socialist and Marxist parties of his day.
Of course there are many definitions of socialism, but Marx himself was clear that it did not mean state control of the economy. In his article about the Paris Commune what he praised was the rapid creation of workers' co-operatives. And members of the First International in 19th century America joined unions which also created workers' co-ops. These unions were dominant within US labor until they were defeated by a combination of savage repression and the AF of L in the 1890's. (cf John Curl's "For all the People," for a history.) Until the establishment of the state socialist Soviet Union, socialism was understood to mean the rule of the WORKING CLASS over the economy, not that of the state. If we can re-establish the original definition today, socialists will do much better politically. Surveys have shown that many people would like to work for a co-op where they can elect the boss, but many fewer want to work for a state bureaucracy.
And by the way, the phrase "state socialism" was used by many Germans to praise what Bismarck had done in opposition to just plain socialism. (Google: Bismarck,"health insurance")
You're being dishonest. I also own my home and don't have a job. I bought my first home many year ago. It was $11,000. I paid $200 down and my payments were $106.00 a month. I paid double payments and paid it off in 10 years. We used the profit from that to purchase another home at a time when real estate was stagnant. We paid $75,000. Twenty years later, it worth $350,000 at the very least and it's paid off. We weren't any more responsible than anyone else. We took advantage of the situation. Oh yeah, I had health care coverage. Everyone did. And medical costs were more reasonable back then. The hospital in our town was owned by Catholics (ideologically a problem). Now they're corporate.
OK, now fast forward to 2010. Who, working for minimum wages, can purchase a nice 3 bedroom home with a big back yard, full basement and a fireplace? and have it paid off in 10 years! No chance.
The situation for younger people today isn't that they're not responsible for themselves, it's that the cards are so stacked against them, they don't have a chance. It makes being "responsible" not so rewarding.
I'm not "dishonest" and you weren't "responsable". You DID take advantage of the situation... I did not.
I purchased my FIRST and ONLY home 1 year ago after working my ass off, often with no "healthcare" ... no insurance ... I also purchased ranch land in Texas 2 years ago with a lifetime of work and savings.
I didn't make big bucks and make double payments... I was RESPONSABLE and saved pennies. I bought cheap food... I produced what I could, etc.
BTW... I don't have a full basement or a fireplace... you must live pretty "high on the hog".
So... yes... PEOPLE (not young people) are irresponsable, live beyond there means on credit they can't repay, buy houses they can't afford, etc.
So much for your theory, huh? Yes... TODAY, 2009, someone can buy a house for cash with money they have saved over years and live debt free.
Sioux Rose
RVR: Excellent post.
HOMELESS: It's responsible.
There is much to be said for the individual who consciously elects to discipline himself to a healthy lifestyle; and much to be said for the one who uses similar discipline to pay for desired investments, such as a home, step by step over time.
However, there are some who, regardless of these types of efforts, find that life's uncertainties derail them. That is where the caring society comes into play. Social Security exists to satisfy this ideal.
In the l950's one parent could work and through that single salary afford a car and a home, and perhaps even college for a child. Today it takes two at best, unless one or both are employed in high-paid positions.
Someone from CD pointed out the excellent fact that if there was universal coverage, or single payer, then added on costs to our car insurance and homeowner's insurance would no longer exist. In other words, a segment of the money we pay each month to various forms of insurance could now go right into the single payer pot. Injuries of all sorts would be routinely covered.
We all know the insurance companies exist only as toll gates. They provide no service other than to themselves. The same could be said for the FED as opposed to having state banks that generated their own interest money directed at investments of communal benefit, rather than expressly towards fat cats who then own the machinery of government (to do as they please with) as is plainly the case today.
Hamster's right.
"As for a screenname... LOL! You folks don't actually believe everything someone puts on a screenname, do you?"
Why not?
Why are you blaming US for YOUR deception and dishonesty, Mr. self-absorbed asshole Bob???
God I hate the absurd internet culture the capitalists have given us.
And by the way, even the most health conscious can find out that they have cancer or other serious, but treatable condition tomorrow. If this happens, will you just decline treatment and go home? I kind-of doubt it.
I myself dislike the current Internet culture for its tendency to involve folks ganging-up on someone with different ideas in an attempt to preserve a totally non-useful Echo Chamber on their favored discussion site.
Calling people "self-absorbed asshole(s)" because they stick to their opinion and answer questions about themselves in Real Life sorta sucks too.
-matti.
What, are you off your meds or something? You attack someone for his screenname? How lame.
Writing as a resident of state, California, that has neighbors whose GOP dominated state office holders are in Tea Bagger-inspired froth mode (like Arizona), to these same erstwhile neighbors: if any of your citizens come over to my state because they can not get the care they need from yours, it would not be out of order for my state to bill yours for the care provided. In fact, if that occurs nationwide, a truly deserved karmic revenge on these state level GOP douche bags would be lawsuits seeking recompense from states who still buy into the wacko neo-Robber Baron mentality and let their citizens rot if they have no money, and come to neighboring states where the lunatics don't run the health care asylum.
In fact, an appropriate response from my state should be the enactment of single payer for its' residents.
NateW
I don't see how this bill helps California pay for health care. You will get the greatest addition of Medicaid patients by far? Isn't that correct? If it is, doesn't that put California even further into the red? (pardon the color)
California almost enacted single payer, Governator vetoed it and said " Health care is not a right"
All while we where busy with prop 8... Freaking gay marriage, that totally effects me as much as not having a check up in 3 years...