Are we approaching another revolution?


Jbs2763
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Elphaba, we all agree in this site that healthcare reform is needed. We just don't agree that H.R. 676, or any form of nationalized healthcare coverage is the way to go. There have been quite a lot of posts in different threads outlining how some of us believe the government can effect reform without needing to work towards a single-payer system.

Thanks for this clarification, though I was already aware your position, and many others', was as you described.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Believer_1829

Dick Morris, a staunch Republican, is referring to the “nuclear option,” which allows the Senate majority to end a filibuster by majority vote, rather than the usual 60 votes required. At least fifty-one votes are needed, which would be fifty votes from the majority’s senators, and one vote from the vice president.

The nuclear option is not something the Democrats have just come up with to manipulate a Senate vote. In the past, both sides of the aisle have threatened to use it.

From Wiki:

The most well-known instance occurred in 2005 when Republican Senator Bill Frist threatened it to end Democratic-led filibusters of Bush’s judicial nominees.

Again, from Wiki:

Invoking the nuclear option is a strategic move, which is allowed by Senate procedures. This time it is the Democrats threatening to use it, but the Republicans have also strategically used it in the past to threaten the Democrats. People may get upset if the Democrats do invoke it, but given they are the majority, it should not be surprising they would do so.

Elphaba

There is a difference between threatening to use it and actually using it. If the Dems actually use it for this there will be hell to pay. Mark my words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's like saying a child capable of lifting a 1-pound rock is capable of hefting a 1-ton boulder.

No, it’s like saying a machine that can lift a one-ton boulder is capable of lifting other one-ton boulders.

And there's a difference in principle- offering healthcare insurance to an enlisted soldier (who is working a dangerous job and healthcare acts as a benefit of the job) will be different from offering healthcare to the unemployed welfare cases (who aren't offering any work in return for the healthcare insurance).

First, I did not comment on who should, or should not, receive government health insurance. I said the government was capable of providing it to everyone.

Second, the idea that our military should have better government health insurance proves my point. For the sake of argument let’s say the government agrees with you and does offer our military better health insurance. Given the government is capable of providing this superior insurance, it is also capable of developing other health insurance programs, albeit with fewer benefits.

I understand there's more than just the chronic welfare cases who would benefit from nationalized healthcare,

What do you mean by “chronic welfare cases"? If your referring to those who have no intention of getting a job while accepting the government's health insurance, I see your point.

If you're referring to those who are on government assistance, formerly called welfare, I think a clarification is needeed.

There is no more “chronic welfare.“ A person on government assistance can only receive this assistance for two years, not indefinitely. During these two years, the person must be a) actively looking for a job, or b) be in a training/education program to learn a marketable skill. If the person is not doing one of these two, s/he will be dropped from the government program.

Additionally, putting the person to work is the primary objective, and once this happens that person will then pay taxes, thus offsetting the cost of his/her government assistance. They may not pay for it immediately, but they do, eventually, pay for it.

but the hyperbolic nature of my distinction has a point: those who receive healthcare insurance for free are offering nothing in return for the receipt of said healthcare insurance.

I can certainly understand why anyone would resent these people, and I really don't dismiss the problems they cause all of us who have no intention of taking advantage of government assistance.

Having said that I think it is important to recognize the vast number of people who need assistance are in desperate situations, and need it to take care of their families. I think because they are also unemployed far too many people assume they are the people who, as you said, have no intention of giving anything back. They're not.

Nice to see you posting again, Elphaba- missed you.

Thank you. :)

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference between threatening to use it and actually using it. If the Dems actually use it for this there will be hell to pay. Mark my words.

There is no difference when both sides are serious about taking advantage of the nuclear option, which is allowed by Senate procedure. The only reason Senator Frist did not do so is the Democrats caved in.

Now the tables are turned, and to prevent the Democrats from using the nuclear option, all the Republicans need to do is cave in. :P

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it’s like saying a machine that can lift a one-ton boulder is capable of lifting other one-ton boulders.

Let me explain. The amount of those in the military are about 1.45 million (so says the Wikipedia engine); according to the National Coalition on Health Care 46 million Americans are without health insurance, with the numbers projected to increase to 57-60 million people next year.

Of course the situation is far more complex than can be explained by grabbing a few numbers, but my analogy was meant to illustrate a point: a child lifting a one-pound rock cannot life a 31- or 41-pound rock (it might as well by a one-ton boulder; the child cannot lift it). Of course if the child were freakishly strong, maybe... But I don't think our government is in "healthy" condition.

Put more simply: we don't have the money to provide everyone with health insurance.

What do you mean by “chronic welfare cases"? If your referring to those who have no intention of getting a job while accepting the government's health insurance, I see your point.

If you're referring to those who are on government assistance, formerly called welfare, I think a clarification is needeed.

I meant the former.

There is no more “chronic welfare.“ A person on government assistance can only receive this assistance for two years, not indefinitely. During these two years, the person must be a) actively looking for a job, or b) be in a training/education program to learn a marketable skill. If the person is not doing one of these two, s/he will be dropped from the government program.

Would you mind pointing me to the source for this? I'd love to believe you. However, my mom who has been on a few government welfare programs sees the system work in opposite of what you said. I could offer numerous anectdotes (which I won't because of the spurious nature of anecdotal evidence) where the person receiving welfare was punished for going to school. There's also the laughably easy methods of getting around the "looking for a job" clause; all that's required is a business owner's (or manager's) signature on a paper saying that person so-and-so asked about getting a job at the owner's establishment, but the owner wasn't hiring.

If there's really a stipulation that no one can receive more than 2 years' worth of welfare, that's wonderful

I can certainly understand why anyone would resent these people, and I really don't dismiss the problems they cause all of us who have no intention of taking advantage of government assistance.

Having said that I think it is important to recognize the vast number of people who need assistance are in desperate situations, and need it to take care of their families. I think because they are also unemployed far too many people assume they are the people who, as you said, have no intention of giving anything back. They're not.

You're right, there's a very important difference between those who can't but would work for whatever reason, and those who could, but will not work. Edited by Maxel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think our country is set up in a way where it could happen. Too many different groups, with different agenda. In fact it wouldn't surprise my to find out the idea of diversity is meant to keep us divided. We have representative government and the leaders are people who we elected. How do you revolt against the people you put in office? People who have the chance to lose that office every 4 years.

It seems odd that Americans think that the government is in power. I know your government act like it. But when will you learn that people have the power. People could run the government out of existence if they really wanted to!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Medicaid?? Maybe let the states handle it. Couldn't Medicaid be opened up to allow more people to qualify? Do we need to reinvent the wheel here or can we build on the foundation we already have in place?

As long as the rest of all people did not have to do a spend down to the absolute poverty level per Medicaid regulations, then this could be workable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as the rest of all people did not have to do a spend down to the absolute poverty level per Medicaid regulations, then this could be workable.

No, I agree. But the framework could be used and allow more people access by raising the maximum income brackets to say $30k for single adult. $45k single with children and $70k for married with children. Dunno, just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I agree. But the framework could be used and allow more people access by raising the maximum income brackets to say $30k for single adult. $45k single with children and $70k for married with children. Dunno, just a thought.

Probably a very good thought, since this really would solve the problem for the majority of those who have fallen through the cracks.

It would also give time to for the health insurance industry to rake in sufficient bucks, before they are forever banned as parasitical middleman.

A way to adequately finance this idea of Bytor's would be a necessary step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A way to adequately finance this idea of Bytor's would be a necessary step.

Well, Medicaid is a State run program. I'm not sure if the states receive Federal assistance or not, but, they would definitely need it.

Federal funding would be simple.......reduce the size of government and slash wasteful spending, repeal the "emergency spending bill, lower taxes for all, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a little tribute to minimum wage..since both my jobs pay that...

working 70 hrs a week at min wage, not taking any time off for hte year i'll make 24,505

last several years i've averaged over 60....

and i had full bennies..

now no bennifits, total crap economy and no way to even keep the lights on

just what i need, more taxes....

even before this proposed healthcare crap..i'm still paying the same taxes is did last year...

just wait till he takes our whole paycheck and gives us back what the state thinks we need...worked for soviet russia

y'all happy you voted for him now??

I didn't vote for this Obamanation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put more simply: we don't have the money to provide everyone with health insurance.

This article, A Plan to Ensure the Cost of Reform is Budget-Neutral, contains actions I believe provide a comprehensive approach to funding universal health insurance. Obviously, as you said, the healthcare/funding issue is far more complicated than one simple article can address. But my point is, if Congress were committed to universal health care, it is capable of discovering and implementing policies that would facilitate it. It has done so in the past, in spite of great opposition that it wasn't financially feasible.

Obviously that's not going to happen now, and so be it.

Would you mind pointing me to the source for this? I'd love to believe you.

The program is called “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families,” or TANF. Under Bill Clinton, it replaced Aid to Families with Depend Children, the welfare program that allowed people to stay on indefinitely.

From the US Department of Health and Services:

What is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program (TANF)?

TANF is a block grant program to help move recipients into work and turn welfare into a program of temporary assistance. Under the welfare reform legislation of 1996, TANF replaced the old welfare programs known as the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program, and the Emergency Assistance (EA) program. The law ended Federal entitlement to assistance and instead created TANF as a block grant that provides States, Territories, and Tribes Federal funds each year. These funds cover benefits and services targeted to needy families.

. . . .

Highlights of TANF: Work Requirements:

  • With few exceptions, recipients must work as soon as they are job-ready or no later than two years after coming on assistance. (bold mine)
  • To count toward a State’s work participation rate, single parents must participate in work activities for an average of 30 hours per week, or an average of 20 hours per week if they have a child under age six. Two-parent families must participate in work activities for an average of 35 hours a week or, if they receive Federal child care assistance, 55 hours a week.
  • Failure to participate in work requirements can result in a reduction or termination of a family’s benefits.
  • States cannot penalize single parents with a child under six for failing to meet work requirements if they cannot find adequate child care.
  • States must engage a certain percentage of all families and of two-parent families in work activities or face financial penalty. These required State work participation rates are 50 percent overall and 90 percent for two-parent families; however, States can reduce the targets they must meet with a caseload reduction credit. For every percentage point a State reduces its caseload below its FY 2005 level (without restricting eligibility), the credit reduces the States target participation rate by one percentage point.

However, my mom who has been on a few government welfare programs sees the system work in opposite of what you said. I could offer numerous anectdotes (which I won't because of the spurious nature of anecdotal evidence) where the person receiving welfare was punished for going to school.

Actually I would like to hear some of the anecdotes. Based on the little information you’ve given (which is fine), they do not match the TANF requirements I know about. Perhaps I am not aware of some rules that apply to different situations; if so, I would like to know about it.

There's also the laughably easy methods of getting around the "looking for a job" clause; all that's required is a business owner's (or manager's) signature on a paper saying that person so-and-so asked about getting a job at the owner's establishment, but the owner wasn't hiring.

It is highly unlikely, I would say impossible, for this person to get away with this scam.

In the state of Utah, if you are receiving TANF assistance, you have to document, weekly I believe, where, and when, you’ve looked for a job. Additionally, TANF recipients must meet with their eligibility worker every three months.

Obviously, if a person’s weekly documents show the person has only applied at one company per week for three months, the eligibility worker is going to realize the client is lying. She might either terminate his benefits while she investigates his claims, or allow him to stay on TANF until she finishes her investigation.

Either way, she is going to discover the scam, and he would eventually be dropped permanently.

Even if the client convinced the eligibility worker that the business owner is legitimate, s/he would still consider dropping the person from the program because going to one business weekly when the company obviously isn’t hiring means it probably won’t be hiring in the next three months either. This does not meet the TANF’s requirements for government assistance.

Finally, the eligibility worker will suspect both the client and the so-called business owner are committing fraud, which s/he is required by law to report. Obviously this would not only terminate the client’s benefits, it is also very likely the both of them would face criminal charges.

The bottom line is that your scenario would surely be discovered, and action taken--it’s just too obvious to miss.

If there's really a stipulation that no one can receive more than 2 years' worth of welfare, that's wonderful.

I was a department head at one of the local UCAT colleges in Utah. I personally saw student after student, hardworking and committed, training for a career while receiving TANF assistance. I saw people’s lives change, especially families whose parents were the working poor.

TANF gave these students the opportunity to enter two-year training programs which made them marketable, so much so that they could walk through the doors of a company and immediately go to work. Their TANF assistance gave them the opportunity to make a living wage that made it possible for them to take care of their families without the constant worry of a catastrophe putting them on the streets.

Additionally, once they were working they were then paying taxes;, which offset the cost of their training. Thus, their TANF assistance, that facilitated their training, was not free. I wish more people realized this.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Medicaid is a State run program. I'm not sure if the states receive Federal assistance or not, but, they would definitely need it.

Medicaid is funded by federal monies, at least partly. (I'm not sure if state taxes are added to the pot or not). The state has certain federal guidelines it must meet, but outside of these guidlines I believe the state is allowed to allocate the funds as it sees fit.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elphaba- Thanks for the articles! Those will be useful to peruse.

Actually I would like to hear some of the anecdotes. Based on the little information you’ve given (which is fine), they do not match the TANF requirements I know about. Perhaps I am not aware of some rules that apply to different situations; if so, I would like to know about it

All right- my mom's sleeping right now and she knows more, but I'll list the ones I remember. I don't know which welfare programs some of the people in the anecdotes were from (my mom might know).

-Single mom of 2 children who attended my mom's daycare. She was eligible for government assistance when working as a bartender 40 hours/week, but not when she was working part-time and going to school. Eventually, she had to drop out of school and return to bartending.

-My own mom is eligible for government assistance while working part-time and not going to school, but not while working part-time and attending school.

Obviously, if a person’s weekly documents show the person has only applied at one company per week for three months, the eligibility worker is going to realize the client is lying. She might either terminate his benefits while she investigates his claims, or allow him to stay on TANF until she finishes her investigation... [More reasons follow.]

I agree that the scam is obvious and hard to miss. However, every reason you've quoted that the scammer would be caught relies on the eligibility worker's close attention to the details. Unfortunately (at least where I've lived), those eligibility workers don't care/don't catch the scam. It might be just the workers in certain parts of Colorado and Kansas, but those kind of workers don't exist.

Also, someone using this scam would easily be able to go into more than 1 business a week- probably upwards of 12-15 per week. The key of the scam is to find businesses the scammer knows isn't hiring so they can get the signatures. In times of economic hard times, such scams might appear to be legitimate efforts to find a job.

I was a department head at one of the local UCAT colleges in Utah. I personally saw student after student, hardworking and committed, training for a career while receiving TANF assistance. I saw people’s lives change, especially families whose parents were the working poor.

TANF gave these students the opportunity to enter two-year training programs which made them marketable, so much so that they could walk through the doors of a company and immediately go to work. Their TANF assistance gave them the opportunity to make a living wage that made it possible for them to take care of their families without the constant worry of a catastrophe putting them on the streets.

Additionally, once they were working they were then paying taxes;, which offset the cost of their training. Thus, their TANF assistance, that facilitated their training, was not free. I wish more people realized this.

This sounds like a good program. I'll have to ask my mom which programs those in my proffered anecdotes are from. I'll be back on later when I have more information.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Medicaid is funded by federal monies, at least partly. (I'm not sure if state taxes are added to the pot or not). The state has certain federal guidelines it must meet, but outside of these guidlines I believe the state is allowed to allocate the funds as it sees fit.

Elphaba

Yes, States need to pay a matching percentage. In Utah this year, the State declined to have vision and dental care for medicaid recipients because the 10% match they were asked to pay, was a low priority on the buget wish list. Now that Governor Huntsman is not around, perhaps even more of Medicaid and social programs will be on the chopping block.

Interestingly, Arizona is the only State in the Union that has elected not to participate in the Medicaid program.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share