Now that the election is over:

[PrincessFiona]

I love reading your perspectives. I feel like there are so many important things to think about ....Angie needs to put that blog together.

[diggitydot]

For starters, it dictates what constitutes a qualified program. That's a huge issue for me. The federal government has now told me what constitutes an acceptable program for me to buy. It's not just a matter of "making sure" that I have insurance. I have to carry qualified insurance.

I thought that the bare minimums were so less sophisticated people weren't duped into purchasing expensive junk policies that still left them with diminished coverage and HUGE bills.

Have you ever dealt with a private insurance company in a coverage dispute? That's bad enough. You will have absolutely no recourse to the federal government's decisions.

Where in the law does the federal government rule on whether an insurer can or cannot pay for care? Isn't that still done through the individual carrier?

The fed determines that some course of coverage is not optimal, or financially "in the best interest" or otherwise not appropriate, your insurance company is covered. It's over.

Like what? Do you mean places like Hoxsey with unproven, experimental care? Or are we talking normal, SOPs? Where in the law is that?

[MrsSz]

I don't think that healthcare assistance to the poor and needy is not appropriate and necessary. To the opposite--Republicans believe that ALL these charitable efforts are important. We just don't think that they should be dictated by the federal government because the federal government is the least responsive and most wasteful. The perception that we are money-hungry, cheap and uncharitable is media-mongering.

This.

I don't know where the idea came from that it is the governments RESPONSIBILITY to provide these things came from. This is where charity comes in to play. I donate to my church or to non profit organizations to provide this support. The fundamental idea of the government is to ensure we have protection on our borders, not to ensure that each of the members have health insurance. I agree, that lack of access to healthcare is horrific and that something needs to be done, but the answer is not government funded.


Moreover, what incentive does someone have to work hard if ultimately the money they are working for is taken away??

[GrayMatterWife]

I thought that the bare minimums were so less sophisticated people weren't duped into purchasing expensive junk policies that still left them with diminished coverage and HUGE bills.



Where in the law does the federal government rule on whether an insurer can or cannot pay for care? Isn't that still done through the individual carrier?

A: Individual carriers have to qualify as qualified plan providers. The federal government will determine what is a qualified plan. The "private" insurers will have zero incentive to provide anything beyond what they must (just like they do now--but those decision are made actuarially, not by administrative fiat). And, of course, who is going to have a massive lobbying power on this issue? I have a GF who does healthcare lobbying for a living. This is where the power and money will really be.



Like what? Do you mean places like Hoxsey with unproven, experimental care? Or are we talking normal, SOPs? Where in the law is that?

A: No, I don't be quacky or non-proven stuff. Heck, most private insurers don't cover that now, of course. I mean what the plans will determine they will cover. Like I said, the plans--if they have smart lawyers, which they will--will provide coverage based on what they have to, not based on what a consumer is willing and interested in paying for. Eventually, our options will be fewer and fewer, as it is no longer necessary to provide competition. This is not a "written part" of the law. This is just economics. Eventually, if the plan does not want to pay for it, they will just get it eliminate from the "coverage" required, and they won't have to. Lobbyists will be shaping our health care plans. Even more than they already do. We think we are getting more charity by ObamaCare--we are actually surrendering more of our choices and turning more of our lives over to insurers and the government. There has to be a better way to effect charity.

edited. sorry!
Sorry--I'd share re: a couple of specific parts that bug me that my GF was going over with me, but I've got to run get the kids from daycare. I'll check back into the site in a little while, though!

[bobk]

I could be wrong, but I thought DADT was always a fight between Democrats and military leadership. I think the Republican position was to defer to the military leaderships's judgement on the issue.

[MrsSz]

I could be wrong, but I thought DADT was always a fight between Democrats and military leadership. I think the Republican position was to defer to the military leaderships's judgement on the issue.

+1

this was my understanding as well..

[GrayMatterWife]

I could be wrong, but I thought DADT was always a fight between Democrats and military leadership. I think the Republican position was to defer to the military leaderships's judgement on the issue.

Yes. DADT was some kind of weird compromise.

[weeniegeniewife]

People don't earn less because they choose to.

Some people most certainly do. My ex-husband is a perfect example of this. His child support was just increased, and he quit his job so he wouldn't have to pay it. This happens all the time in family court.

[Deebs]

In IL, retired teachers (and these are people who were paid extra to retire at age 55) work just enough subbing so that they still get their pension pay. Plenty of people are more than willing to work the system for their maximum personal gain.

[poky]

In IL, retired teachers (and these are people who were paid extra to retire at age 55) work just enough subbing so that they still get their pension pay. Plenty of people are more than willing to work the system for their maximum personal gain.

I don't understand what you mean. They worked, took early retirement, and now...are working more? And that's "working the system"? I've got to be missing something.

[HouseofWool]

She means that they are only working a bit, not enough to endanger their pensions, so it looks like double dipping. Drawing both the pension from the city and a paycheck from the city as well.

[SuzySunshine]

I don't see that as working the system either - a lot of people do that. Once you retire should you not be able to go back to work? My dad will be like that, he's a busy body if you told him he couldn't work once he retired he'd go stir crazy and probably drive my mom nuts too. So he'll retire when he can, draw his retirement and then find something else to do. If the state considers that working the system then don't let them sub at all.

[poky]

Oh! I really should be in bed. That makes sense to me now, thanks.

[HouseofWool]

I think it appears as double dipping because the employer and the pension provider are the same entity. No one would say boo if they wanted to be a Wal-Mart greeter...

[SuzySunshine]

I still don't see how its double dipping, they earned that pension what difference does it make what they choose to do as a very part time job after retirement?