wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 10:42:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 22:57:28 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 16:39:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
news:t1nka6t433accl3g3cqurj5jclqenier4i@4ax. com...
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 10:35:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:

According to you. Kids are allowed to stay on the parent policies
until
26.
Yes, there are always exceptions.

It is true that your 2o something can stay on the policy but it is
extra money. ($200 at Aetna)

As from a previous response... Did she suppose it would be free?


$2400 a year is far from free though and that is after tax money so it
is more like $2700. If your kid doesn't have a serious disease, it is
a horrible deal.

I have no idea what the actual cost of the policy is, but I do know that
nobody has a contract with God. Feel free to not have homeowner's
insurance,
fire insurance, flood insurance, etc.


I have fire, theft and liability but I dropped flood and windstorm ...
for the same reason.
If I keep the $4,000 a year they want for the insurance, I can cover
the 25 year storm (that is the break even point assuming maximum
payout and zero interest). Granted we have the contacts in the
construction industry that would allow us to make repairs quickly and
fairly cheap but I also have the ability to take he hit.
Insurance is like credit cards. It is a huge price you pay for not
saving any money in your life and becomes a trap.
I thought they were on the right track when they were pushing tax free
health savings accounts.

Well, again... you can afford to keep money in reserve. That's great, but
that's not very typical.

I'm on the fence about the HSAs and Flexible Spending accounts. You have
to
pay them upfront and then if you don't use all of it you lose it. It's
pre-tax, but you have to be really good at estimating your expenses. I
don't
use either, but I have the option.


That is just bad legislation, not a problem with the idea. There is no
reason why your HSA should not stay with you for your whole life, in
effect self insuring you for the sickness that generally comes toward
the end of your life. "Insurance" should only be for catastrophic
illness and accidents. In fact, that is the way it was in the 50s and
early 60s. You had coverage for accidents and major medical. You were
on your own for the day to day sniffles and such.
A doctor visit was also about what you would expect to pay for a nice
dinner at a restaurant.

Great. So, let's get rid of the insurance companies, then create wellness
programs nationwide. I'm all for it, but it sounds like a gov't takeover.

bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 20:42:49 -0400, wrote:


bpuharic wrote:

turns out incomes of most americans are dropping. but not the rich,
thank god!! they're doing just fine.

the american dream is alive. while the middle class continues to get
hammered, the rich prove that america is becoming a plutocracy...all
the while rush and the right wing tell us it isn't


http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cha...-rich-and-poor


Thank you!

any time. always glad to tell the truth about the right

No, blind man, thanks for that cash you *gave* me!

On 10/5/10 8:58 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:31:17 -0700,
wrote:

You have described the problem but the ONLY fix it is to get some
personal responsibility back in the populace. I am not rich and I
really never have been but I was brought up understanding it is better
to save up your money and buy something instead of doing it on credit.
Insurance is nothing but prepaid credit.

That's part of the "fix" but most people take personal responsibility if
given half a chance. Personal responsibility doesn't help much if you're
making minimum wage or have medical problems.


If you are making double the minimum wage, you are still eligible for
Medicaid.

As well you should be.

--
Republicans are the Party of No:
No Leaders / No Ideas / No Morals

wrote in message
news
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:31:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

You have described the problem but the ONLY fix it is to get some
personal responsibility back in the populace. I am not rich and I
really never have been but I was brought up understanding it is better
to save up your money and buy something instead of doing it on credit.
Insurance is nothing but prepaid credit.

That's part of the "fix" but most people take personal responsibility if
given half a chance. Personal responsibility doesn't help much if you're
making minimum wage or have medical problems.


If you are making double the minimum wage, you are still eligible for
Medicaid.

Wow... that means you're rich and have no problem supporting yourself,
because the min. wage is a true living wage. NOT

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:17:26 -0400, Secular Humoresque
wrote:

That's part of the "fix" but most people take personal responsibility
if
given half a chance. Personal responsibility doesn't help much if
you're
making minimum wage or have medical problems.


If you are making double the minimum wage, you are still eligible for
Medicaid.

As well you should be.


That is why "the poor" were a red herring in this whole health care
debate. The people most likely not to have insurance are in the
25k-50k range and the younger of them by choice ... until they get
sick.
From what I am seeing, they may still choose not to have insurance and
just pay the fine until 2014 when it really becomes a number.

I think when this shakes out, you will see a whole lot of people on
high deductible plans and they still won't be able to afford to go to
doctors for minor ailments.

It's hardly every "by choice." It's more about not being able to afford
much.

And, it's not as simple as you make it out to be re the fine. Read up.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:32:27 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

No repeal is needed or warranted. It's totally fixable. The repeal first
is
just a reactionary load of crap that would put us back. Many programs
start
as major compromises. There's nothing new. Social Security and Medicare
are
good examples. They've been amended many times, and they still have
problems
(fixable problems), but few people seriously advocate repealing them.


By definition you have to repeal one law to replace it with another
one.
In fact when you actually read the legislation it will say "delete XXX
add YYY" to whatever statute they are changing.

No.... did we repeal the Constitution when we amended it? I missed that
one.
So, by your own statement, laws are changed. Would you like to try again?

Counselor it is clear you have read a lot of laws but it is also clear
you have not read much of the legislation that writes those laws.

This is the first part of the current stem cell bill (just chosen at
random from yesterday on Thomas.)

Every time they say "strike" they are repealing that part of the
existing law and most legislation is actually changing an existing
law. Most if the heath care bill looks just like this.



A BILL

To amend the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research
Reauthorization Act of 2010'.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE STEM CELL THERAPEUTIC AND RESEARCH ACT OF
2005.

(a) Cord Blood Inventory- Section 2 of the Stem Cell Therapeutic
and Research Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 274k note) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a), by inserting `at least' before
`150,000';

(2) in subsection (c)(3), by inserting `at least' before
`150,000';

(3) in subsection (d)--

(A) in paragraph (2), by striking `; and' and
inserting `;';

(B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (5);
and

(C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:

`(3) will provide a plan to increase cord blood unit
collections at collection sites that exist at the time of application,
assist with the establishment of new collection sites, or contract
with new collection sites;

`(4) will annually provide to the Secretary a plan for,
and demonstrate, ongoing measurable progress toward achieving
self-sufficiency of cord blood unit collection and banking operations;
and';

(4) in subsection (e)--

(A) in paragraph (1)--

(i) by striking `10 years' and inserting `a
period of at least 10 years beginning on the last date on which the
recipient of a contract under this section receives Federal funds
under this section'; and

(ii) by striking the second sentence and
inserting `The Secretary shall ensure that no Federal funds shall be
obligated under any such contract after the date that is 5 years after
the date on which the contract is entered into, except as provided in
paragraphs (2) and (3).';

(B) in paragraph (2)--

(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)--

(I) by striking `Subject to paragraph
(1)(B), the' and inserting `The'; and

(II) by striking `3' and inserting `5';

(ii) in subparagraph (A)--

(I) by inserting `at least' before
`150,000'; and

(II) by striking `; and' and inserting
`;';

(iii) in subparagraph (B)--

(I) by inserting `meeting the
requirements under subsection (d)' after `receive an application for a
contract under this section'; and

(II) by striking `or the Secretary' and
all that follows through the period at the end and inserting `; or';
and

(iv) by adding at the end the following:

`(C) the Secretary determines that the outstanding
inventory need cannot be met by the qualified cord blood banks under
contract under this section.'; and



... and on and on, striking and inserting.

Repealing PART of a law is not the same as repealing the ENTIRE law. As I
said, laws are amended all the time, including the Constitution... like when
they REPEALED the 18th (Volstead Act). They didn't repeal the entire
Constitution.

wrote in message
news
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:33:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:17:26 -0400, Secular Humoresque
wrote:

That's part of the "fix" but most people take personal responsibility
if
given half a chance. Personal responsibility doesn't help much if
you're
making minimum wage or have medical problems.


If you are making double the minimum wage, you are still eligible for
Medicaid.

As well you should be.


That is why "the poor" were a red herring in this whole health care
debate. The people most likely not to have insurance are in the
25k-50k range and the younger of them by choice ... until they get
sick.
From what I am seeing, they may still choose not to have insurance and
just pay the fine until 2014 when it really becomes a number.

I think when this shakes out, you will see a whole lot of people on
high deductible plans and they still won't be able to afford to go to
doctors for minor ailments.

It's hardly every "by choice." It's more about not being able to afford
much.

And, it's not as simple as you make it out to be re the fine. Read up.

If they "can't afford much" how will they be dealing with having to
buy insurance. We have all agreed it won't be free.

So, you think that someone who can make a $200/mo payment is the same as the
person who has $3K sitting in the bank?

You keep talking about the government 35% subsidy but the rates have
gone up close to 100% so you still will have employers who will not be
offering insurance. The small business people we know are still scared
to death about how this will work out for them and that is why they
are not hiring. The kid that used to be my wife's assistant is working
70-80 hours a week at the gate company as is his boss because they are
afraid to hire anyone.

?? Firstly, I never said anything about subsidies. Yes, there will be
employers who don't offer insurance. And, that means they don't have to
spend money on those programs and can hire people. I don't know who you've
been talking to, but the definition of a small business seems pretty loose.
There are some pretty big companies that are technically and for tax
purposes are considered "small businesses."

Yes, Karl Rove and friends certainly did a number on lots of people. They
are certainly afraid.

He is happy with the money tho. This is a smart kid and he is paying
down his mortgage with his overtime.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:30:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
news
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:31:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

You have described the problem but the ONLY fix it is to get some
personal responsibility back in the populace. I am not rich and I
really never have been but I was brought up understanding it is better
to save up your money and buy something instead of doing it on credit.
Insurance is nothing but prepaid credit.

That's part of the "fix" but most people take personal responsibility if
given half a chance. Personal responsibility doesn't help much if you're
making minimum wage or have medical problems.


If you are making double the minimum wage, you are still eligible for
Medicaid.

Wow... that means you're rich and have no problem supporting yourself,
because the min. wage is a true living wage. NOT

I responded to your minimum wage note,

I still say, if you are too broke to pay your bills, how can you
afford to support a banker/insurance company and still pay your bills.

You claimed that somehow someone who makes twice the minimum age shouldn't
be eligible for Medicaid. I called you out on that.

Who's talking about supporting banker/ins. companies?????

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:36:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Repealing PART of a law is not the same as repealing the ENTIRE law. As I
said, laws are amended all the time, including the Constitution... like
when
they REPEALED the 18th (Volstead Act). They didn't repeal the entire
Constitution.


The health care law is just like this one. Most of it is changing
existing law. To repeal it they will need another 2000 pages of
"strikes" and "inserts" restoring the original language., It won't
just be a 1 liner like Sec 1 of the 21st amendment.

In that regard the whole idea of "repeal" is just a metaphor to feed
the masses. I think the GOP is screwing up even using the word.
It is stupid, politically but they have not really showed much
political intelligence for 15 years

?? You're making my argument for me. Again, modifying a law isn't
necessarily a repeal, and the 21st didn't repeal the Const.

If it's pabulum for the masses, why do you keep trying to use it in an
argument? You used it. The GOP is using it.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 21:14:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
news
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:33:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...

If they "can't afford much" how will they be dealing with having to
buy insurance. We have all agreed it won't be free.

So, you think that someone who can make a $200/mo payment is the same as
the
person who has $3K sitting in the bank?

Adding me was $500 a month, $200 was the 26 year old AFTER you bought
the $500 "family" policy. Total $700 a month.

I thought you were rich. What's the problem?

You keep talking about the government 35% subsidy but the rates have
gone up close to 100% so you still will have employers who will not be
offering insurance. The small business people we know are still scared
to death about how this will work out for them and that is why they
are not hiring. The kid that used to be my wife's assistant is working
70-80 hours a week at the gate company as is his boss because they are
afraid to hire anyone.

?? Firstly, I never said anything about subsidies. Yes, there will be
employers who don't offer insurance. And, that means they don't have to
spend money on those programs and can hire people. I don't know who you've
been talking to, but the definition of a small business seems pretty
loose.
There are some pretty big companies that are technically and for tax
purposes are considered "small businesses."


I am talking about small business 4-20 employees. Your confusion is
the legislation talks about type S corporations and everyone assumes
that means "S"mall. It is just a type of closely held corporation ...
of any size. I had a type S for years.

So does Bechtel and a host of other "small" corporations of similar size.
It's not _my_ confusion. It's the confusion that the Republicans are
perpetrating on the American public.

Yes, Karl Rove and friends certainly did a number on lots of people. They
are certainly afraid.

What does Karl Rove have to do with a health care bill written in
Harry Reids office?

It wasn't "written in Harry Reid's office." Nice try. The Republicans made
lots of contributions, as did Democrats, and unfortunately too many
lobbyists and not enough regular people.

Karl Rove... not a thing, except all the money he's funneling into negative
campaigns.. money from guess who? Don't know? Neither do I. Why? The
Disclosure Act that was blocked by Republicans.

He is happy with the money tho. This is a smart kid and he is paying
down his mortgage with his overtime.