MM, you’re not making any sense. Some people who don’t need LTC receive LTC, therefore the government shouldn’t make health insurance cheaper for people with expensive need. Huh?!
Second, I don’t understand you bringing up Cindy’s noble endeavor to take care of her mother. It’s not like a person can’t do good in one sphere of their life (taking care of an ill family member) while doing bad in another sphere (being cavalier about the suffering of strangers as it relates to them paying for healthcare). If Joe Sixpack who is white has an Asian secretary, does that make it not hateful for him to use the N word? No!
First of all, I think you are misrepresenting what I said. I was pointing out that there does seem to be folks who for whatever reason feel that long tern care is ‘easier’ than making a go of it on their own. I think I also said that I was fine with it cause it is what it is. I don’t recall saying government should not make health insurance cheaper for those with expensive needs.
In LTC, you usually have 3 and one half options. Self pay (out of pocket), health insurance coverage, Medicare / Medicaid, or the 1/2 being Medicare with a supplemental policy. I’m not an expert so someone may have to straighten me on that.
My point was that it is sometimes disheartening to see your tax dollars (in this case dollars going for Medicaid) being squandered, and yes that is just my opinion. For the most part, the people overseeing these programs do a wonderful job and I would say that if there is a questionable situation, they usually side on the side of the recipient. Also I realize there are people who have had very hard lives and basically give up. And if they have no loved one to look after them they either end up in squalor or in LTC.
Your point about my point about Cindy (Cindy you must feel like we’re talking about you while you are sitting right there) is quite out there. I was simply applauding the initiative to put ones life on hold to care for a loved one. Let me tell you, I see the flip side to that coin every day.
The context of our discussion was Obamacare, which does just that. Cindy seems to think that’s something the government shouldn’t do. The fact that there are people who abuse LTC is completely irrelevant.
During the last Presidential campaign Bernie Sanders often spoke admiringly about Denmark having “free” health care, education, etc. Here is the thing that gets me more than a little worked up about such statements.
The U.S. pays over 4% of our GDP to defense. Denmark pays 1.3% of their GDP towards their defense. Now if Demark had to pay a comparable amount (4%) … could they also afford the social services? The answer I believe is a resounding NO!
The Danes (and other Europeans) are taxed to the max and if they were forced to pay their fair share for their OWN defense, they could go broke! It seems to me that the U.S. defensive umbrella over Europe permits the life-style of most European nations. So screw them!!!
How about we pull ALL of our military, and other financial defensive aid away from Europe and let them defend themselves?
Or, we could recover the hundreds of million Hillary got from the Russians when she sold our uranium to them, and use that for healthcare.
But seriously, great as it would be to have no bad actors in the world that necessitates a military at all, we have to be prudent.
This spineless Congress - both sides - have the power to replace ACA with something that really works for all folks, but they will not do it. B******s.
Do NOT believe snopes, for God’s sake - they have been uncovered as a sham. If you want sources, I’ll give you sources on both snope and the traitor Hillary. Sorry to put the truth in words like that but she is what she is.
So I believe your “answer” to my question is that you gave your old clothes to catholic social services? Good for you.
Your contention is that I don’t care about the needy because I’m not a fan of Obama “care” (may you never be a victim of it). That’s quite a leap. Unless you have skin in the game, and hard evidence against me, I’m not sure I’m ready to accept your condemnation. Prove your accusations against my character. You cannot. You merely assume and condemn. In your mind, no facts beyond your feelings are needed. You have no credibility with me on this topic.
You think the government should force its worst off citizens (expensive healthcare needs) to compete for economic goods under rules where they are severely disadvantaged. You seem to think the fact that you take care of a family member somehow shows that you care about the millions of strangers with chronic ailments. It doesn’t. There’s zero connection. You only seem concerned about what YOU have to pay for YOUR healthcare; people with preexisting conditions being able to not be buried in debt simply isn’t a price worth you paying higher premiums for. How nice. Saying you care about people with expensive healthcare needs while advocating the government enforce a system of rules that severely diminishes their opportunity to pursue happiness is patronizing. Talk is cheap. Premiums are not.
You are kind of being a door knob here. We all have EVERY RIGHT to be concerned by what WE PAY for health care. This idea that I need to pay for someone else’s preexisting conditions is BS. Pure and simple. You need to move to a Scandinavian country if you want that.
You have no idea what I think, Qaz. You’ve attributed attitudes to me based on your preconceived assumptions and prejudices. You have never even asked me what I think, so please forgive me if I don’t take your condemnation to heart.
Really. So I shouldn’t care for those the Father has given to ME to care for? This is MY responsibility. I do what is set before me to do. I am a limited human being. Should I leave the care of my mother to whom I owe a great debt, to care for someone else’s responsibilities? While it is true that the someone else no doubt has an equal claim on society as that of my mother, nevertheless, my MOTHER is the one who has a claim on ME. Please explain to me for whom YOU are caring. There is, no doubt, in your neighborhood some elderly person who could greatly benefit from even a few hours of your service. Are you giving it? Whom are you helping?
First, you can cut the sarcasm if you don’t want to receive the same in kind, Qaz. I am holding back. Don’t mistake restraint for weakness. I would be willing to pay a premium I could afford. BUT I don’t think for a half a second that the government is capable of providing adequate, let alone good healthcare to anyone… not even their own. Congress, you may have noticed, has exempted its members and employees from Obama “care.” There is a reason for that.
Do you assume that, because I’m conservative I am therefore wealthy? It might surprise you, but the wealthy are typically on your side of the aisle.
Again you assume too much, Qaz. I advocate no such thing. O-care is a failure. It disenfranchises those who make too much money to qualify for subsidies but not enough to pay for their own insurance at the now hugely inflated rates. What happened to the “affordable” in the ACA? It provides sub-sub-standard “healthcare” to those who need it most. I know people at the mercy of government health “care”. There’s a reason the bureaucracy has exempted itself from this form of “charity.” There are better, more effective ways to care for the poor than O-care. The problem is that those ways do not put the recipients into a place of dependency on the mercies of an all-powerful bureaucracy.
What’s more, this “panacea” particularly disenfranchises young people struggling at low-paying jobs (who are now forced to pay elevated insurance premiums). They must buy the inadequate insurance, which most local providers will not accept assignment from, yet they cannot afford the co-pays and end up doing without the healthcare they are forced to subsidize for those who (for whatever reason–and it is NOT always or even usually because of sickness) do not work to provide for their own families. Yes, I have friends in THAT unenviable position, too.
Talk is cheap, you say. So what ARE you contributing? (Aside from your discarded clothing, I mean.) Do tell. Otherwise, please refrain from judging me. I’m sure I’m not living up to your expectations for me, but I’ll bet that you aren’t living up to your expectations for me, either.
Well, you have a big problem with Obamacare, which made healthcare more affordable for millions of unhealthy people by making it more expensive for healthy people. From what I’ve gleaned from your posts, you seem to want either (a) the government out of healthcare altogether or (b) a return to the system we had pre-ACA. Either way, you are advocating what I described: the government forcing its worst off citizens to compete for economic goods under rules where they are severely disadvantaged. Option ‘b’ is simply a less severe version of this than option ‘a’. If I’ve misdiagnosed your position, I apologize. Perhaps you can clarify?
[quote=“Cindy_Skillman, post:1373, topic:6062”]
Really. So I shouldn’t care for those the Father has given to ME to care for? This is MY responsibility. I do what is set before me to do. I am a limited human being. Should I leave the care of my mother to whom I owe a great debt, to care for someone else’s responsibilities? While it is true that the someone else no doubt has an equal claim on society as that of my mother, nevertheless, my MOTHER is the one who has a claim on ME. [/quote]
It sounds to me like you’re creating a false dilemma. Are you really incapable of having health insurance under Obamacare and taking care of your mother? I know Obamacare has some big flaws (I would like to see subsidies increased for people who don’t receive insurance through an employer), but I find what you’re saying hard to believe… Have you looked into the tax credits that are available on the marketplace? Part of Hillary’s platform was expanding them. You can read about it here: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2016/sep/clinton-presidential-health-care-proposal
Yeah, my nextdoor neighbor in fact. I regularly visited his mother who passed away three years ago, and since then have regularly had him over for evenings of talking around the table or living room and watching videos.
You are mistaken. “Among Obamacare customers, 66 percent rate the coverage as good, very good or excellent. A total of 77 percent of Medicaid enrollees gave it such high marks.” “Blumenthal’s comparison to employer-based health coverage appears warranted, based on another recent survey, conducted by Deloitte, of American health-care consumers. That report found that more than half, 53 percent, of Obamacare exchange customers said they were satisfied with their health plan, about the same level as the 54 percent of people who said that about their job-based insurance plan.” https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/24/high-satisfaction-levels-with-obamacare-as-2017-prices-emerge.html
Regarding Congress’s “exemption”, you’re mistaken on that too. Chuck Grassley, a Republican Senator proposed that members of Congress get their insurance through exchanges, and it passed!
Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)1 proposed an amendment to Section 1312 of PPACA removing all members of Congress and their staffs from the Federal Employee Health Benefits (“FEHB”) program and forcing them to enter the newly-formed PPACA insurance exchanges.2As Grassley explained in 2009, “[t]he exchange…is designed to give participants the same kind of choices and options for health care coverage as federal employees. My interest in having members of Congress participate in the exchange is consistent with my long-held view that Congress should live under the same laws it passes for the rest of the country.”3 https://www.americanbar.org/publications/aba_health_esource/2013-14/december/grassley_and_vitter.html
You say the ACA provides “sub-sub-standard” healthcare, but again, that’s not reflected in the polling data among users.
Where did you read that most “local” providers do not accept Obamacare insurance? Please share the article.
I’m contributing by supporting policy that results in me personally having higher healthcare costs and wait times (higher wait times happen when more people are getting the care they need…) so that people with expensive needs can have a better chance at a decent quality of life.
Well we would all like to spend less on military but life won’t permit passivity. My point is the U.S. umbrella allows the Europens some luxeries we can’t afford. If I were ‘king’ I would pull all of our troops out of Europe and let the Europeans fend for themselves.
We could use tthe Army in Texas, Arizona, and California.
The key is finding the “perfect” balance. And as long as we have, human nature what it is…we will NEVER find the “perfect” balance or “perfect” system. And that has been going on, since the fall.
Having said that, we need to pick leaders and agendas - that meet are needs. For me, as an older person…I normally side with any issues the AARP has. Which usually center around, Medicare, Social Security and perhaps Medicaid. And they USUALLY get active, when the federal government representatives… want to RADICALLY change things - in these areas.
But should the tribulation and Zombie Apocalypse arrive tomorrow, then I am well prepared? I have taken extensive memory notes, from ALL The Walking Dead and Fear The Walking Dead TV shows.
"The scales have fallen from Rod Dreher’s eyes. Commenting on Harvard’s decision to suspend and defund a campus religious organization, he says that his belief in “compatibilism” — the idea that it is possible for orthodox religion to coexist peaceably with the modern liberal state — is over. Regarding the new liberal order, he notes that “it doesn’t matter whether or not we consider ourselves its enemy, but whether it regards us as its enemy.”
Mr. Dreher quotes Alasdair MacIntyre, who likens the predicament of the 21st-century religious traditionalist to what faced the civilized people of Rome during that empire’s decline:
A crucial turning point in that earlier history occurred when men and women of good will turned aside from the task of shoring up the Roman imperium and ceased to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of that imperium. What they set themselves to achieve instead—often not recognising fully what they were doing—was the construction of new forms of community within which the moral life could be sustained so that both morality and civility might survive the coming ages of barbarism and darkness.
It is what many of us in the reactionary Right have said: when the Flood is upon us, we must build an ark.
I have one point of disagreement with Mr. Dreher’s essay: he does not seem to understand that liberalism itself is now a religion, and is in fact the established religion of the West. He and his fellow orthodox Christians are not merely political dissenters. They are Cathars. He is clearly despondent, but he is not sufficiently afraid."
I am a little confused as to who to made the following quote:
But I will comment none the less
Religion today must come to grips with why we are in a ‘post Christian’ time. Liberalism, it could be said, is reacting to the inability of fundamental / orthodox Christianity to answer basic questions of origin, evolution, and to be quite honest, basic spirituality. When the underlying phrase from the evangelicals is ‘you just need to have faith,’ it just isn’t cutting it. So I would say that there are new ways of looking at things for us old evangelical sods, and to bring in a point from a different thread, the Idea of Pantelism works quite well. No, we do not have to give up our countries constitution, or bill of rights, but it makes us see thing in a different light.
But all that may be changing. With each fresh instance of liberal despotism, such as the one at Harvard, the compatibilists are likely to adopt a practical non-compatibilist position, even as they continue to reverence the American Founding and all the myriad material benefits of liberal order. There is a logic to this shift. The more the liberal state and liberal institutions squeeze orthodox believers, the harder it becomes to imagine liberalism returning to some prior state—to the days when liberalism not only accommodated but even encouraged traditional morality and belief. Of course, some Christian denominations welcome liberal dominance in the religious sphere and are happy to remake their faith in the image of liberalism—quite literally in the case of the two Cambridge churches. But orthodox believers won’t go along. Which means that our culture war is more likely to heat up than die down in the coming years.