Affordable Care Act

I thought this wasn't supposed to happen?

I'm telling you, single payer is coming -- in about 4-1/2 years when all the insurers have pulled out of the ACA.

As long as the American people continue licking the feet of their great god Capitalism, this kind of shit will continue. And, of course, all of the problems will be blamed on the "government getting between me and my doctor" and "socialism" rather than on the insurance industry and the right-wing weasels in Congress and the state governments.

We need it so bad. Single payer is the only way to go, we are going to have to get the profit motive out. And doctors are gonna have to learn they too can drive the same Jeeps and Fords and Toyotas that we do and doctor schools are just gonna have to pad their pockets with another plan. This entire thing is nuts.

Hell, we can't even get the profit motive out of government; how are we going to get it out of medicine?

We are the only wealthy country that does not have single-payer health insurance. And the doctors in the other countries are not starving last time I checked (with a doctor in England who lives in a $2M home and drives a $100K car).

As long as the insurance/medical industry owns a large chunk of Congress, we shall remain screwed.

There was a great segment on Rachel Maddow last night on the ACA.  There are websites popping up all over the country, supposedly spontaneously and grass-roots, encouraging people to sign a pledge to NOT sign up for the ACA.  Some of the websites are blatant -- "STOP OBAMACARE IN ITS TRACKS" -- and others are more subtle ("Alaska Heathcare Initiative") --

A little research turned up something interesting.  All of these websites can be traced back to the Koch brothers.  They are quietly funding a "grassroots" effort nationwide to discourage people from signing up.  They were unsuccessful stopping the ACA at the polls, they were unsuccessful stopping that ACA in the courts, they were unsuccessful getting Congress to defund the ACA (43 times...), so their only avenue left is to try to prevent people from signing up.  This has to be done stealthily because if people KNEW they were being manipulated by billonaires simply to embarass and frustrate the president, they might not feel so inclined.

Heinous.

One has to wonder why the Republicans are so insanely opposed to an insurance plan that has been proposed by their party several times in the past forty years. Hell, the Heritage Foundation has proposed a plan almost identical to the ACA.

I still think we have a severe pigment problem in the GOP. It is, after all, little more than a white southern party.

I don't think the GOP is opposed to the ACA per se.  Afterall they themselves proposed essentially the same thing when the Dems were in power -- and it was modeled after Romneycare.

I don't think the GOP is opposed to Judge Taranto, who was confirmed 90-to-0 today after Democrats eliminated the Republican's power to filibuster (he'd been "on hold" for 17 months).  

No, it has nothing to do with policy or personality or politics or winning votes.  Simply stated, the Republicans decided, early on in Obama's tenure, that they would do whatever they could to make sure Obama's presidency was mired in inaction, that Obama's agenda would see no action, that they would do everything in their power to stifle and stymie his presidency.

They have largely succeeded.

Whether it hurts them or the president more, is an open question.

One sure loser: the country.

The Supremes just agreed to rule on whether your boss has the power to force you to have a baby.

Well, they have ruled that corporations are people, now we need to find out whether or not John Roberts and his asshole buddies on the court are in fact human. They certainly don't act so.

Surprise!? Hobby Lobby won.
SCOTUS sucks so much I can hardly believe it.

Is there a religion test to become an employee? I believe, as a private company, that's their right.

If so, non-coverage for birth control makes perfect sense.

On her show last night Rachel was all up in arms about women's reproductive rights but I don't think she had the story straight.

She compared it to a restaurant in Mississippi that denied service to African Americans, but I don't think the comparison is valid. One is excluding the public from being served, and that is clearly unconstitutional. The other is about employee health benefits, for a privately-held company. Employees are not forced to work there, and the employer cannot be forced to hire gays and lesbians or blacks or atheists. It's a private contract, between employer and employee, and the court has no jurisdiction.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Employees are not forced to work there, and the employer cannot be forced to hire gays and lesbians or blacks or atheists. It's a private contract, between employer and employee, and the court has no jurisdiction.

Whoa!

You're starting to sound like a Republican. Maybe we should change your name to NoKo(ch).

I do believe in federal minimalism, or whatever it's called.  There are certain areas that are not and should not be under federal jurisdiction.  No nanny state.

So you are against the Affordable Care Act, minimum wage, OSHA, etc.?

What is minimum federalism? Leaving everything except the military to the states?
How about child labor laws? I've no doubt there are several states that would do away with them.

I'll respond to your questions when I get home.

Meanwhile here's a new twist to the Hobby Lobby story. I just heard on the radio that the Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby, are spending $440 million to put a Bible Museum on the Capitol Mall.

And they have already spent millions developing a bible study curriculum (currently being tested in Oklahoma) that can be offered as an elective in public schools coast to coast.

How do you feel about public schoolteachers teaching the bible? How do you feel about our nation's Capitol having an evangelical-based (read: 6000 year old earth, dinosaurs walked with man) museum within steps of the Washington Monument?

I feel that all those things are abominations.
It's time for the American people - ALL OF THEM - to grow up and join the 21st century.

After talking this over with Mrs NoCo over dinner, I think I'm okay with the museum but against the bible classes.

If the museum is a private enterprise -- and pays taxes on the admissions -- and sits on land purchased by the Green family -- then it should be protected. It's a business, and like any business it should not be restricted. Attendees can choose to see fantasy history of the world or they can decide to visit the Natural History Museum instead.

But the classes? Even as an elective, these classes would be taught by public employees on public property. Taxes should not be used to proselytize religion to children.

To decide if something is a fair and proper distancing of religion and government the tides should be turned 180 degrees. If the evangelicals are okay with Muslims doing the same thing in the name of Islam, then it should be okay for Christians to do it.

A "Muslim Cultural Center" in downtown Manhattan, just blocks from Ground Zero? Okay in my book.

Muslims teaching the Koran in schools using public schoolteachers? Not okay.

Whether the bible museum is legal or not, I do not think it is right. But, of course, I don't think much is right about religion. And I don't think that it should be a matter for public display or interfere in the lives of others.

If these people want special dispensation for their religious beliefs, then why don't they adhere to all of the crap in the Bible? They just pick out the bits they like or that they find advantageous or profitable.

"Bible Museum"? How about Matthew 6:1
"Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them."

Prayer in school? How about Mathew 6:6?
"But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

And there are numerous instances in the Bible which prohibit the collection of interest on loans of any type.

So if these Bible Thumpers want to stick to their silly superstitions, fine. But do it privately - the way that book they keep thumping tells them to.

You're conflating the practice of religion with the practices of religion.

You say Tomato I say Semantics....

_Howard wrote:

So you are against the Affordable Care Act, minimum wage, OSHA, etc.?

What is minimum federalism? Leaving everything except the military to the states?
How about child labor laws? I've no doubt there are several states that would do away with them.

Government has a valuable role to play -- or as Thoreau said, at least until man is ready to do away with it -- but it is also subject to bureaucratic mission creep. I agree with the Tea Party on one aspect; that government actions must be periodically examined and discarded if found to be overly intrusive or freedom-limiting.

• Affordable Care Act? An abomination, but an improvement over what we had before. If socialized medicine isn't possible in the current political climate maybe it's the best we can do, for now.
  
  
• Minimum wage? You already know I think a minimum wage is essential, and it should be high. Low or no minimum wage is what leads to immigration problems, systemic poverty, class divisions, obscene corporate profits and many other problems. It's simple economics, easily proven.
  
  
• OSHA? Beside military and police protections, safety and health concerns are one of the core duties of any government.
  
  
• States rights? Although there are regional variations in a country as broad and varied as these disunited states, I do not believe elevating the state to primacy does anything but enhance our differences and lead to disharmony.
  
  
• Child labor laws? See "minimum wage" above.
  
  
• Education standards? Universal free college-level education should be a right.

Here are a few of the things I think government has NO PLACE being in:

• Promotion of business
  
• Promotion of the arts
  
• Immigration policy
  
• Cultural imperialism (viz. taking the children of Native Americans away to be educated in white schools)
  
• Establishment/tolerance of religion
  
• Regulation of sport
  

There are many grey areas -- minimum MPG standards for automobiles? Would a free market prevail? Trademark & copyright? Should the individuals be required to police their own? Domestic and international surveillance? Certainly strong controls and transparency are needed. Monetary policy? FDIC? NASA?

Debatable.

_Howard wrote:

Whether the bible museum is legal or not, I do not think it is right.

Right and wrong are difficult concepts, and not universally agreed-upon.

_Howard wrote:

If these people want special dispensation for their religious beliefs, then why don't they adhere to all of the crap in the Bible? They just pick out the bits they like or that they find advantageous or profitable.

The Babble is incoherent and contradictory enough that almost ANY viewpoint can be babblically-supported.  Other religious scripture survives by this sort of time-defying ambiguity too.