Announcement

**Gatefan1976** · 20 October 2013, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by jelgate View Post

The definition of government

I dunno dude.
Certainly true since politics have become a career rather than a calling however.

**SGalisa** · 02 November 2013, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by SGalisa View Post

health care insurance --
...
According to several reports, several companies have already either dropped their FULL time employees down below the part-time minimum, just so they don't have to pay for the insurance benefits (to *full* time employees).

I have a relative who said the folks at the top controlling her and her coworkers office has opted out of insurance, and dropped their current insurance --but providing it only for the person at the top of the staff-- because they can't afford to pay out for everyone staffed any more.. or some bizarre excuse similar to that.
Mild translation, my relative and most of her coworkers are screwed to find on their own time and money, and pay for their OWN insurance, because that's what their superiors have decided to enforce into policy.

Originally posted by SGalisa View Post

hmmm. Those in the USA gov't in favor of this entire healthcare package seem to have narrow vision.
There are three main reasons surrounding the *demand-to-access* of this entire healthcare exchange POV--

Reason #1--
Those who *fear* getting sacked with a hefty FINE/Penalty for NOT signing up or getting health insurance.
(reminder -- penalty fee goes up to $695.00 USA dollars in 2016, for anyone NOT obtaining healthcare insurance...!)

Reason #2--
Those who believe (probably with all their heart, mind, and soul) that they will be getting a bargain deal along with "best of care" in signing up and (finally) getting some form of healthcare insurance.

Reason #3--
Those who are just signing in, because they have NO other alternative, except to get the insurance on their own, because their employer bailed out from getting a group policy. Otherwise, refer back to either reason #1 or #2 for having a possible reason for joining up on the healthcare . gov exchange site to get what they've been told (ordered, lest they get FINED) to do.

Sort of like holding a person ...with the threat of "You WILL do this, or ELSE..."
(pay the penalty price one way or another).

Just heard 2 more casualties, in the local region, to the ACA promises. Both persons had "good" health insurance/plans and both within 2 weeks apart heard their existing insurance is being dropped.. so, go look for another company and insurance plan. So much for keeping their doctor.. Both are now looking for new healthcare plans and hoping their existing doctor/care is on the new *plan*.

And here's an article (in the spoiler brackets) to reinforce all of the above..

Spoiler:

Oh, details, details.. "You can KEEP *your* doctor..." BUT at a higher (double the) price tag than you currently pay out!

Spoiler:

Basically, the article was saying that folks are getting shafted with the new healthcare system.. that's it in a nutshell!

Otherwise, if the guy in the article is really an "Obama supporter," then what he stated is part of the many other shell shocked folks hoping to get a decent deal on healthcare, and finding the end results doubling their current, existing policy instead.

As stated in the above article, one of the many mantra complaints echoes this way--
"They canceled my insurance, then said, 'Hey go get yourself some insurance, and if you don't, we're going to fine you'"...
...hmmm, wasn't that already mentioned several times over and over and via how many postings and how many hundreds, if not thousands of articles discussing the ultimate end results??

Oh, tiny details that are either being ignored or overlooked (ignored is more likely).. talk radio has been harping on this from the very beginning, and it gets annoying hearing it played over and over--
when the ACA plan was first being presented, President Obama stated that Americans could
"KEEP" their health plan and KEEP their doctor.. maybe the details left out was only at a higher price--like double or triple of their current, existing health plan.. and that is ONLY IF they still have their JOB to keep that same doctor and insurance. uhh.. Details.. details..

So far, thousands and thousands of working full time (US)Americans have already had or will have their full time hours reduced to the new minimum 30 hours or less. What?--they actually need the extra 8 hours to get groceries, pay bills, and maintain regular maintenance on their homes/car vehicle(s)..? Most families now are either 2-income or multi-income (usually being part time and the kiddies also working thru high school/college)-- it used to be to get some extra holiday spending money or squirrel away for emergency funds (things in house break down and need fixing or replacing.. not just home improvements, but necessary home repair projects!) I know lots of people with that sort of life..

And there's a kink in the ACA system--apart from website issues and fears of identity theft from personal info being handed out just to sign up, etc. (from hackers accessing on-line anything personal data). That kink is having most of the middle (middle and especially lower rungs middle financial levels) who are being strapped with being forced to pay for dozens of strangers leeching from the system, well, guess what--
(example in spoiler brackets for space--)

Spoiler:

ex: Richie & Deanna both work one full time job each and are in their late 50's age-wise, with a few health issues already being tended to by their existing health care plan.

In October 2013, Richie is informed he gets to keep his existing doctors and insurance plan, but the insurance is doubling in price, in order for him to keep it and help "subsidize" the lesser unfortunate folks. Deanna works full time (37-1/2 hours) is on Richie's spouse health insurance plan, so she doesn't have to deal with the paperwork.

December 24, 2013, Richie's employer informs Richie's office group that 5 out of 8 employees will be getting "let go" in order for the company/employer to stay in business. Richie was one of the employees losing his job and suddenly on the unemployment lines as of February 1, 2014 (or sooner). THUS, Richie has not only lost his job, where he only recently started saving $100 extra per month as emergency/spending money, but he is also losing his EXISTING DOCTOR and a fairly decent, but increased payouts/etc. or nearly DOUBLED HEALTH CARE plan. Not only that, since his wife was on Richie's spouse plan, she also loses HER EXISTING DOCTOR AND HEALTH CARE plan.

Also, since jobs are very scarce or already taken (not many new hires) in the regional area where Richie and Deanna live, some friends of theirs offered to help find a job-- but that's more than 500 miles away. So, in the meantime, since they BOTH would have to relocate to another state, Deanna is also out of a job, doctor, insurance... Their new incomes --if any jobs are actually available AND hiring with their skills/health status-- probably won't exist yet possibly for a few weeks or even could be a few months and in the meantime, will be literally $ZERO (unless unemployment helps out on Richie's end). Richie not so rich any more, even if his previous salary was classified in the lowest end of the middle-middle class level. And God help them if there were children involved..

the kids would probably end up get taken away to foster homes.

That actually is not a ficticious story, but really real.. just the names have been changed!
Only the mystery of what Dec.24,2013 (or thereabouts..with the end of the year holidays/Christmas and new year "bummer" news) what it will behold is the current unknown factor in this whole situation.
Meantime, bad enough having a major coronary over age-related aging.

And goodness, now the welfare classes will be having less money (stamps) coming in per month to feed their families, with (gov't) threats of more cuts in payouts later down the road also coming..!

Spoiler:

There's another story of someone needing emergency surgery, on an extremely *limited/limited* income,

Spoiler:

Hello--the numbers simply doNOT add up...! Sadly, there are probably more stories similar on the edge of current crisis existence.

And one of my distant friends, who has welfare level insurance, well---she needs a knee replacement, because she's got nothing but bone grinding on bones in there. hmmm.. my mom died from a MRSA infection that got into her knee from botched surgery.. so, I'm kinda concerned for my friend. Maybe since she IS on welfare, she might get better care/surgery.. IDK.

**Falcon Horus** · 02 November 2013, 03:45 PM

Affordable Care Act in 906 pages! - for those who are interested in reading the law as it was passed.

**SGalisa** · 02 November 2013, 07:52 PM

apologies in advance for (my) not linking the ACA (see PLAW-111publ148.pdf)...

Originally posted by Falcon Horus View Post

Affordable Care Act in 906 pages! - for those who are interested in reading the law as it was passed.

wow! Text version is only 3.27MB long. That should keep insomniacs busy for awhile.

anywho..I got my copy of it ages ago (in 2011), shortly after it first came out.. (in 2010).

(GPO's) Link might change (usually always does annually), so no sense bothering to include the text version link. However, at least for now, in case the links do change (PDF link too), the key to locate the original law as it was passed--is
PLAW-111publ148.

NOTE: 111=congressional year, Law number 148. This is how the Library of Congress lists it as.

148. H.R.3590 : Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 9/17/2009) Cosponsors (40)
Committees: House Ways and Means
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 111-148 [GPO: Text, PDF]
Note: H.R.4872 makes a number of health-related financing and revenue changes to this bill. Read together, this bill and the health care-related provisions of H.R.4872 are commonly referred to as the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

H.R.= House of Representatives (branch of gov't with bill #..3590, etc.)
Search thomas.loc.gov website, if all else fails (oops, their links change too!).
(it takes longer to keeping up with tracking any new links for it, than to just archive it.. just saying..)

Originally posted by SGalisa View Post

note--{original quote was at posting #13978984

hmmm. Those in the USA gov't in favor of this entire healthcare package seem to have narrow vision.
There are three main reasons surrounding the *demand-to-access* of this entire healthcare exchange POV--

Reason #1--
Those who *fear* getting sacked with a hefty FINE/Penalty for NOT signing up or getting health insurance.
(reminder -- penalty fee goes up to $695.00 USA dollars in 2016, for anyone NOT obtaining healthcare insurance...!)

Reason #2--
Those who believe (probably with all their heart, mind, and soul) that they will be getting a bargain deal along with "best of care" in signing up and (finally) getting some form of healthcare insurance.

Reason #3--
Those who are just signing in, because they have NO other alternative, except to get the insurance on their own, because their employer bailed out from getting a group policy. Otherwise, refer back to either reason #1 or #2 for having a possible reason for joining up on the healthcare . gov exchange site to get what they've been told (ordered, lest they get FINED) to do.

Sort of like holding a person ...with the threat of "You WILL do this, or ELSE..."
(pay the penalty price one way or another).

As for the penalty fines being enforced for not obtaining health insurance somewhere, somehow, the term "fine" (mostly used by the news & media world) will probably get changed to TAX. Another TAX on top of all the other taxes people complain about. Fines sound sort of criminal in nature, but TAX is a bit more subtle. Still harsh, but subtle in what is entailed (sometimes deeply embedded) within it.

**Coco Pops** · 31 December 2013, 03:54 PM

We are already seeing under the highly conservative Harper government in Canada the destruction of science libraries.

http://m.thetyee.ca/News/2013/12/23/...nce-Libraries/

Why are conservative governments threatened by science? Are they scared of science?

**jelgate** · 31 December 2013, 04:07 PM

It sounds more like government incompetence and has little to do with political ideologies

**Coco Pops** · 31 December 2013, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by jelgate View Post

It sounds more like government incompetence and has little to do with political ideologies

Maybe so but even where I live our government which is very conservative has started putting the knife into science programs and bodies like the CSIRO ... It is killing innovation.

Australia doesn't even have a science minister any more he got sacked and they won't replace that portfolio.

**jelgate** · 31 December 2013, 04:35 PM

Thats unfortunate but I don't believe conservatives are against science. I find that to be a sterotype

**Gatefan1976** · 31 December 2013, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by jelgate View Post

Thats unfortunate but I don't believe conservatives are against science. I find that to be a sterotype

Stereotypes exist for a reason. They are rarely *true* of any individual however.

**jelgate** · 31 December 2013, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View Post

Stereotypes exist for a reason. They are rarely *true* of any individual however.

Because its easier to make wide generalizations about a group than then to judge on an indvidual basis.

**Gatefan1976** · 31 December 2013, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by jelgate View Post

Because its easier to make wide generalizations about a group than then to judge on an indvidual basis.

That's garbage Jel, and you know it. There are many instances where dealing with things on the individual level is simply impractical.

**mad_gater** · 01 January 2014, 11:06 AM

I think the political system is different too.......Australia has 3 parties: Labour, Liberal, and Conservative.....I think the Labour and Conservative parties are both after the same thing, which is unchecked expansion of government power....but have different methods......the Liberal party I think is the one that is more in line with the TEA party values of reining in the government instead of expanding it....not sure if the UK's political system is anything like Australia's

**mad_gater** · 01 January 2014, 11:08 AM

I'm just about as conservative as they come yet I study to get licensed in a career that I have to study a lot of body science for

**Coco Pops** · 01 January 2014, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by mad_gater View Post

I think the political system is different too.......Australia has 3 parties: Labour, Liberal, and Conservative.....I think the Labour and Conservative parties are both after the same thing, which is unchecked expansion of government power....but have different methods......the Liberal party I think is the one that is more in line with the TEA party values of reining in the government instead of expanding it....not sure if the UK's political system is anything like Australia's

Wrong.

Australia has 2 political parties. Labor and the Liberal party which are the conservatives. Usually religiously led nutbags like the current govt we got run by a catholic nutjob who doesn't believe in climate change, has sacked the science minister because his party thinks science is a "luxury" and in doesn't believe in local manufacturing or innovation. Well screw that I didn't vote for this nutjob..

The Labor party is the total opposite and they believe in being progressive and innovative however a staggering amount of stupid people voted for Abbot in September because the Liberal party ran a campaign of fear and negativity based on negative spin of the economy and fear of refugees.

**Gatefan1976** · 01 January 2014, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Coco Pops View Post

Wrong.

Correct

but lets expand on that.

Australia has 2 political parties. Labor and the Liberal party which are the conservatives. Usually religiously led nutbags like the current govt we got run by a catholic nutjob who doesn't believe in climate change, has sacked the science minister because his party thinks science is a "luxury" and in doesn't believe in local manufacturing or innovation. Well screw that I didn't vote for this nutjob..

Well, technically we have 4 *main* parties, Labor, Liberal, the Nationals and the Greens. of these, the nationals align with the Liberals, and the Greens *tend* to side with Labor. The aforementioned nutjub Coco is referring to is the "Fred Nile group" or the "Christian Democratic party". Now, we DO have other parties, and independants, but they are the main ones. Pretty much anyone can make a political party if they wish, but the odds of actually doing anything are slim.

The Labor party is the total opposite and they believe in being progressive and innovative however a staggering amount of stupid people voted for Abbot in September because the Liberal party ran a campaign of fear and negativity based on negative spin of the economy and fear of refugees.

Another way to look at it is Labor is more the party of "self investment", they are generally the party who will build infrastructure, Liberals tend toward the fiscal conservative side, building up the budget surplus etc. I myself often change what party I vote for based on the policies they offer (which is damn hard sometimes) If you asked me in 2012 who I was going to vote for, I would have said Liberal, but by the time the election came around I had changed my vote to Labor, mainly based on the dross that the liberals were pushing for, and the fact that I was concerned about a Labour wipeout in the federal government (which is always a bad thing)
Come on Coco, did you honestly think Labour had a chance in hell of victory in September? put aside the campaigns that they both run, Labour shot itself if the face with all the flip flopping and leadership debacles with Rudd. I knew they were going to loose, it was just a question of by how much.

Announcement

The Political Discussion Thread

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment