rabid1st

2% of the Tea Baggers ( and I don't care if my bosses frown on me for calling them that) know whats in the healthcare bill. This leads me to believe that it has nothing to do with healthcare. It's a bunch of racist yokels being led by a bunch of spoiled rebublicans. I hear banjos...

From:

Please see my comment below.

From:

You also left out, that Obama gave the biggest tax cut in US history.

From:

To add some perspective, first let me state that my husband and I are small business owners with two school-aged children. As a result of the recession, we've had to drop our health coverage to make ends meet, and we're not even doing that (we're in a robbing Peter to pay Paul situation and our house will go into foreclosure in a few days if business doesn't pick up in an extreme way soon). I am a liberal and feel that the Federal Gov't has an ethical and moral imperative to provide social services for the betterment of the nation as a whole. I also believe in supporting the arts nationally, but that's a personal bias. I voted for Obama and I think overall he's doing a good job with the mess he's inherited.

My husband is a Ron Paul-supporting Teabagger. He's not some radical conservative yahoo. He's not even a Republican. If you could call him anything, it would be a libertarian with a little l or perhaps a Constitutionalist. He doesn't have issues with health care being provided at a State level like Massachusetts, for example, but he does have problems with federal tax dollars being spent on anything but national defense per the Constitution and wants to see less, not more government. He's against the Federal Reserve, particularly pretending our monetary system can be fixed by treating the Treasury like Kinkos. And he wants us to go back to the Gold standard. And he's anti-bail out, including for our personal business. Period. I don't share all (or even most)of his views, although I certainly understand where he's coming from and feel his views are backed up with real data and historical perspective. So in his case, it's not fear. He simply wants the Federal Government to focus on national security and to let the individual states do their jobs, with more personal liberty for everyone. There are intelligent, rational people who are against big government spending in general, and that's who many of the Teabaggers are. It makes me a little pissed that they're painted with such broad strokes as stupid racist banjo-playing conservatives who probably already have a cushy paycheck and great healthcare benefits.

Thanks for listening. Er, reading, lol.

Edited Date: 2010-03-29 08:35 pm (UTC)

From:

I do realize that there is a staunchly liberatrian side of things as well. I don't tend to agree with most libertarian values, but I am rather conservative in what I think the federal government should do. I do believe that there is a lot of regional inequity and that means that states can't really handle some of the major regulation issues on their own. For example, New York has a lot of people but South Dakota does not. Florida has very low income per capita and an aging population. If we go to states handling health care then some states will need to raise taxes at a steeper rate and care will not be equal.

Basically, I feel that the federal government should be in charge of those things that support a greater welfare for the entire country. This includes education, health, civil and criminal regulations and rights, the environment, commerce and defense. I also believe in a graduated flat tax with no exceptions. So, I would, in fact, get rid of the IRS. Or rather remake it into a much simpler institution. This would also put thousands of accoutants and lawyers out of business. :grin: So...we will need some sort of retraining program.

From:

He doesn't have issues with health care being provided at a State level like Massachusetts, for example, but he does have problems with federal tax dollars being spent on anything but national defense per the Constitution.

By the way, I, too, would like to follow the constitution and I feel national health care does this as follows...

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I believe that health care for all does fall under the heading of general welfare and domestic tranquility.

But there are also two of the Bill of Rights that help us here...

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The people are represented by Congress and this law is to bring care to the people represented. Since some people get free health care in this country, this would, in fact, imply that we the people actually have the RIGHT to free health care if we wish it. I wonder if anyone ever sued for same. :wink:

From:

One can take the "general welfare" too far. Who gets to decide what is truly for the greater good? There are a lot of people who think the sheer cost of the new health care legistlation will do our country more harm than good because we can't just keep printing money and pretending it's worth something, or borrowing even more money from China.

What if at some future time it is decided that it's in our best interest to implant all citizens and new babies with a chip to ensure our taxes are paid? Or that we don't have the right to choose what we want for dinner or be forced to take a vitamin supplement daily? Extreme examples, to be suren but hopefully they make a point worth considering. I do agree with you that socialized health care is ultimately a good thing, but how far is too far?

From:

My uncle Danny died because his insurence kicked him off because of his diabetes. The hospital refused him treatment because of his lack of coverage and he died, slowly and painfully, leaving my aunt a widow at 23.A year before that, their 1 year old son died the same way and for the same reasons. This new bill, makes sure that doesnt happen. Yes it has some bugs to work out and we will work them out as we go along. No one said it was going to be perfect, but I whole heartedly stand by Obama's bill. Not just for myself, but in my uncle's memory and so no one will have to go what he went through and what my poor aunt went through. This same aunt is a pediatrician. It haunts her, when the hospital turns someone away because they have no coverage.
You are entitled to your beliefs, but I stand by my own. I don't think we should hand it over to the states because states like Michigan and Louisiana would be up a shit creek. Since I don't really debate, so lets be cliche and agree to disagree.

From:

My brother also died because he couldn't afford coverage. He worked 3 part time jobs after he was laid off from factory work in the north and moved south. His 3 jobs put a roof over his family and food on the table but he could only afford to send one family member to the doctor...he picked his son...who had hereditary high blood pressure at 17 years old but was partially covered under some child care insurance from the state. Unfortunately, that meant my brother went without medication or any treatment for his own high blood pressure. He died of a massive heart attack after walking home from work one night. I spoke to him two weeks before he died and his wife and I both tried to get him to put some money from his son to his own needs, but he would not do that. And I truly believe that's a choice nobody should have to make in a civilized country anyway.

From:

They aren't *my* beliefs, they're my husband's beliefs. We're without insurane and I can't see a doctor for my hypothyrodism, asthma, and fibromyalgia for fear of them being listed as pre-existing if we're in a position to get re-insured. And god forbid if anything happens to my kids before we're reinsured. We can't afford the CHIP in our state because we make too much for the discounted version and we can't afford the version that is available to us. And you want to know why our insurance was $1k a month? Because I had post-partum depression with my first child and was on zolft for 7 months, went uninsured, got re-insured, and the new insurance considered me a RISK and therefore not eligible for their normal rates. I would frakkin LOVE to be insured again. My only legitimate concern is that the new bill will make things worse for us financially since we can't afford to insure ourselves, let alone future employees, and we'll likely be fined for it, which again, we can't afford.

But I digress; My main argument is that I am just sick of seeing a people with LEGITIMATE reasons for being opposed to big government spending, including the new health care reform bill, as being depicted as a bunch of ass-backward conservative racist yokels. That would be like saying that all of the people in favour of it are Obama-loving bleeding-heart liberal Jews and former hippies who want to legalize recreational drugs and gay marriage the world over. True in some, perhaps many, cases, but certainly not all!

From:

I should add that the 1k a month ONLY covered me and my kids. It would have been an additional $500 to add Bill. My husband hasn't had insurance in close to a decade when the startup he worked for went under. That said, he is STILL opposed to the new regulation bill.

From:

Sorry if we seem to be jumping on you, Gillie! We just all started telling our sad stories on your comment. I almost reconsidered posting my post scripts, but with my mind so foggy, I just didn't think I could rework it for a post somewhere else.

Meanwhile, I do think your first comment is totally fair, people can oppose this bill for the very real reason that they don't think we can afford to pay for it or that it won't help as much as it should or won't help them. You being a small business owner, I can see how you might have some concerns about the fees mentioned, but I would check into the particulars if I was you to make sure you aren't given help in some way for your employees. And then again, maybe it would cost less to pay the fine and have your employees covered by another program. This is the scenario the insurance companies seem to be afraid of. And...as a chronic illness suffer...I'm totally with you on the pre-existing condition nonsense...having THAT be a thing of the past is great. My only concern there is that there isn't currently a provision to keep the insurance companies from gouging people with pre-exisiting conditions. Price controls or a public option would have helped with that one.

Sorry again if we made you feel uncomfortable. Your opinions are always welcome here.

Rae

From:

No worries. I know I am being heard. We're actually all on the same side. I just wanted to make sure my husband's perspective is out there because he IS technically a Teabagger and I don't like seeing such blind prejudice against the total movement because of some loud vocal arseholes with their own agendas.

I agree price gouging is a serious and REAL issue, and I don't see it improving any time soon. Certainly, I've been a victim of it with my last insurance company. They were willing to insure me to be sure, but at double the rate! And I can only imagine it's going to get worse.

Thanks, as always, for listening.

From:

Well, I didn't mean to insult your hubby. I just get angry. With all that's involved, it's become a bit personal, so forgive me if I shoot off. The political climate is very harsh right now. I guess I ranted without apologizing.

From:

saku-teiki.livejournal.com

I was going to copy and paste that same sentence, but I see that tsukikage85 already did it. So I'll post what I was going to say anyway.

"And yes, 3.8% of 170,000 dollars is 6460, but that still leaves them 163,540 to live on...or...roughly...6.5 times the amount of money (25,000 a year) that the average single parent of 2 lives on in this country."

Amen.

From:

saku-teiki.livejournal.com

However, my boyfriend is not one of those moderate income individuals, only making about $10k a year (working part time and going to school full time). So when this law goes into effect he'll be hit with a fine for NOT being able to afford health insurance. Money he COULD use to PAY for health insurance. If it didn't cost twice that fine before the insurance company would even begin to pay for any of his meds.

"People who elect to go without coverage will pay $695 per person per year, or 2.5% of their income, whichever is greater."

From:

If he only makes 10K a year he will get money or more likely be covered for free. He is under the poverty line of 14K at that amount. He should make sure that he's getting subsidies. Also, he should be covered at school if he's going full time. He should look into that, too.

However, we are going to be forced to buy coverage, which isn't something I wanted...I wanted single payer or a public option...but the insurance company lobbies, helped along by taxpayers they hoodwinked with ads that made no sense, stopped that option from going through.

From: