[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

•17,000 new IRS agents (at minimum) checking 300M Americans on a monthly basis to see whether or not they have government approved health insurance and fining or jailing them if they refuse. (You like the IRS a lot, right?)

Perhaps this was explicitly specified in the new legislation, I don't know, but I'd imagine they'd do it more like Massachusetts already does (which, thankfully '09 was the last year I had to deal with). Massachusetts doesn't check every mont to ensure that you're in compliance. Instead, when you file your state income taxes you append a certificate provided by your insurance company that shows that you were covered by insurance and when. So they only actually look at it once per year.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And if the country goes bankrupt in short order I'm sure you'll be okay with that.

Goes bankrupt? Like future tense?

Somebody go xerox him the memo that has the national debt on it. $948B is a drop in the bucket.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by sek929 

According to most Republicans the destruction of this country started with FDR, and it is sure taking its sweet time.

Indeed. Even the High Priest of Conservatism himself said the following:

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

If you don't [stop Medicare] and I don't do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free.

And the government was going to be telling doctors where they could and could not practice. And telling people what they could and could not do for a living. Blah blah blah. Typical conservative paranoia and fear mongering.

But this was Reagan arguing against the enactment of Medicare. A program that is ridiculously popular with the American people today. The same program that the Republicans expanded by adding a prescription drug benefit (Medicare Part D) and didn't even attempt to pay for it. The same program that they've been running around scaring seniors about how this reform is going to "cut their Medicare benefits" ... while at the same time slamming "government run healthcare".

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Dang, I was really hoping for some new unforeseen or unheard of threat. Healthcare is so old hat.

Complete Annihilation sounds like a Dolph Lundgren movie.

Funny, you'd think this "neutered" bill would only accomplish partial annihilation of our liberties.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

So Big Mac, what's your solution for someone like me? I can't get health insurance unless it's through an employer. Not because I'm unhealthy, but because my mother, uncle, grandmother, and grandfather all had cancer. I'm considered high risk, and something my mother had is considered a pre-existing condition for me.

I didn't support the bill, by the way, it's nothing like the initial bill I supported. The only thing I wanted was the removal of pre-existing conditions. I get that with the new bill, yes, but there's so much other crap in there that it doesn't justify it for me. Also, I'm unhappy in the manner the bill was passed.

That's an unfortunate and unjust situation, olePigeon. I did insurance underwriting for a while, but I personally wasn't aware that family history alone could be considered a preexisting condition, at least not in health insurance. (I know it happens in life insurance.)

I don't like preexisting condition exclusions, either. And in truth I believe the insurance companies are largely responsible for this train wreck legislation because they couldn't come together to voluntarily find a solution. And it's obvious that the companies could have found a solution because they cover new people with preexisting conditions all the time when people are added to employer group plans.

Health insurance providers could have come up with a self-regulating plan in which preexisting conditions would be covered after a certain exclusion period of months had passed. Apparently, though, they decided they would be able to get more by going along with Obama-care so that they could get a mandate for all Americans to purchase insurance. What they don't realize is that they're now at the mercy of the State, and at a certain point in the near future they're going to be found to be superfluous - when the next phase of the government takeover occurs.

[Rumor]

[SpaceMonkey]

Woo-hoo! Shrooms!

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by OAW 

1. In 2007 approximately 85% of Americans had health insurance. Of this number, 60% had employer provided insurance, 28-30% had government provided insurance, and 9-10% had insurance purchased on the individual market. 15% of Americans (approx. 45 million people) had no health insurance at all. And this was prior to the Great Recession where we've seen millions of job losses. So undoubtedly this figure is considerably higher today.

2. Medicare, Medicaid, etc. already account for 50% of all healthcare spending. Today.

You don't see a problem here? 28-30% of Americans accounted for 50% of the health care spending? And you want to add another 15% of people to that amount?

I don't know if your numbers are accurate, but if they are it's pretty damn scary that we're going to be putting more money into something so inefficient.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

You don't see a problem here? 28-30% of Americans accounted for 50% of the health care spending? And you want to add another 15% of people to that amount?

I don't know if your numbers are accurate, but if they are it's pretty damn scary that we're going to be putting more money into something so inefficient.

It probably has at least as much to do with the class of patient than it does the efficiency of the system. Presumably the vast majority of people receiving "government-provided insurance" today are the elderly and the disabled, who you would expect to have higher health care costs in general.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

You don't see a problem here? 28-30% of Americans accounted for 50% of the health care spending? And you want to add another 15% of people to that amount?

I don't know if your numbers are accurate, but if they are it's pretty damn scary that we're going to be putting more money into something so inefficient.

I, for one, am shocked that older people account for more health care spending than everyone else.

Just shocked.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

The health care bill does not include single payer.
The health care bill does not have a public option.

Maybe by the 22nd century?

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Obama is far and away outdoing Bush in the destruction of this country.

Well, Apple switched to Intel during the Bush administration.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Well, Apple switched to Intel during the Bush administration.

Oh snap!

[OAW]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

You don't see a problem here? 28-30% of Americans accounted for 50% of the health care spending? And you want to add another 15% of people to that amount?

I don't know if your numbers are accurate, but if they are it's pretty damn scary that we're going to be putting more money into something so inefficient.

Well why is that surprising? Medicare covers the elderly who naturally have larger health care expenditures than younger people. This has nothing to do with "efficiency". If we want to get into the "efficiency" argument, then we have to deal with the fact that Medicare overhead is approximately 3% ... whereas the overhead for the typical private insurance plan is 12%. IOW, Medicare consumes 3 cents out of every dollar spent on healthcare for administrative costs while private insurers consume 12 cents out of every dollar spent.

OAW

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Trekkie 

The tone of your posts belies your true intention. You're not looking for an honest reply or even meaningful discussion but a gotcha moment. A dreadful debating tactic if you ask me; though it is interesting how both you and dcmacdaddy interjected with the exact same argument. Also see my prior reply about ascertaining the "will of the people" in said election.

I won't speak for stevesnj but *I* am looking for "an honest reply to this question"? I want to know honestly if Snow-i thinks the "will of the people" should be observed in ALL circumstances or just those that favor his political leanings. Because, an honest reply to my question will determine if in fact Snow-i is in favor of adhering to the "will of the people" in all circumstances.
(Of course, this assumes he ignores my comment about the US being a representative democracy and NOT a direct democracy. Because, if he takes that issue into consideration then these questions are moot as he would realize that the "will of the people" is manifest by their representative and not by themselves.)


PS: Thanks for the correction regarding the distinction between majority and plurality. I was wrong when I said Gore had a majority. He in fact had a plurality of the vote.

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Wow. Reality is there is no guarantee of an increase in healthcare services for your fellow employee. Reality is Medicare has a higher rate of claims denials than private insurance. The reality is that you start paying now while your fellow co-worker dies waiting on the provision to kick in by 2014. You really want to exploit a friend and co-worker to make an argument on MacNN? Really?

The reality is that Medicare is already insolvent and they've added 30 million people to it. Reality is they're going to author massive unfunded mandates on small businesses and States that are already struggling to stay afloat. The reality is that there will in fact be an increase in doctor shortages and healthcare providers among a host of other realities that will prove to do nothing for your co-worker in the short term, very little in the long term, and bankrupt the entire country in the meantime. i.e. there is absolutely nothing to ensure your co-worker gets 3 chemo treatments a week. Particularly if he or she is over 50.

She is paying out of her own pocket, she was denied coverage for her cancer treatments, in 2014 she can get the proper chemo treatments since she was denied because she had a 'pre-existing' condition.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well why is that surprising? Medicare covers the elderly who naturally have larger health care expenditures than younger people. This has nothing to do with "efficiency". If we want to get into the "efficiency" argument, then we have to deal with the fact that Medicare overhead is approximately 3% ... whereas the overhead for the typical private insurance plan is 12%. IOW, Medicare consumes 3 cents out of every dollar spent on healthcare for administrative costs while private insurers consume 12 cents out of every dollar spent.

OAW

FWIW, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Iowa paid out more in benefits last year than it took in in premiums.

[OAW]

And of course we have certain members of the Tea Party crowd revealing their true colors in the wake of all this:

Civil rights icon and veteran Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, said anti-health care bill protesters Saturday repeatedly yelled the "N" word at him as he left a heath care meeting and walked to the Capitol.

"I haven't seen heard anything like this in more than 40 years, maybe 45." Lewis said. "Since the march from Selma to Montgomery really."

"Yeah, but it's okay," Lewis added. "I've faced this before. So, it reminded me of the 60's. There's a lot of downright hate and anger and people are just being downright mean."

The incident was confirmed by Rep. Andre Carson, D-Indiana, who was walking with Lewis at the time. Protesters were yelling, "'kill the bill, kill the bill' and the 'N' word several times," Carson said.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Missouri, released a statement late Saturday saying he too was called the "N" word as he walked to the Capitol for a vote and that he was spat on by one protestor who was arrested by U.S. Capitol Police. Cleaver declined to press charges against the man, the statement said.

Protesters also hurled anti-gay comments at Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, who is openly gay, as he left the same health care meeting that Lewis attended in a House office building.

A CNN producer overheard the word "faggot" yelled at Frank several times in the lobby of the Longworth building. Frank said he heard someone yell "homo" at him.

"I'm disappointed," Frank said. "There's an unwillingness to be civil."

Frank, who said he rarely hears such slurs anymore, said the health care issue has become "the proxy for a lot of other sentiments. A lot of which are perfectly reasonable but some of which are kind of ugly."

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Protesters hurl slurs and spit at Democrats � - Blogs from CNN.com

And then we have self-described conservative bloggers openly calling for President Obama's assassination on Twitter:





TCOT? The "Top Conservatives on Twitter" tag. And then after this idiot's tweets go viral and it dawns upon him that he's broken the law ... TWICE ... then all of a sudden he wants to backtrack and claim to be a "good American".



I suppose a Secret Service investigation will do that to you huh?

OAW

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

She is paying out of her own pocket, she was denied coverage for her cancer treatments, in 2014 she can get the proper chemo treatments since she was denied because she had a 'pre-existing' condition.

Bowel cancer victims in UK denied life prolonging drug that's free in Europe | Mail Online
Cancer patients 'denied treatment' - Yahoo! News UK
BBC NEWS | UK | Wales | Cancer therapy denied due to cost
Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: 16,000 dying patients denied cancer drugs

Not even because of a "pre-existing condition", but because a "death panel" thinks it too expensive.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

She is paying out of her own pocket, she was denied coverage for her cancer treatments, in 2014 she can get the proper chemo treatments since she was denied because she had a 'pre-existing' condition.

Will she be able to get onto the new high-risk insurance pools that are supposed to be introduced in the next couple months?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And then after this idiot's tweets go viral and it dawns upon him that he's broken the law ... TWICE ...

...

I suppose a Secret Service investigation will do that to you huh?

My my. Land of the free, eh?

Not against the law to say "someone should shoot Gordon Brown" here.

And this place is an oppressed craphole. What does that make yours?

[Eug]

Well, I guess if the secret service beats the crap out of this Solly guy, he'll have medical insurance to pay for treatment. That is if he doesn't opt out to take the fine instead.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Bowel cancer victims in UK denied life prolonging drug that's free in Europe | Mail Online
Cancer patients 'denied treatment' - Yahoo! News UK
BBC NEWS | UK | Wales | Cancer therapy denied due to cost
Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: 16,000 dying patients denied cancer drugs

Not even because of a "pre-existing condition", but because a "death panel" thinks it too expensive.

Interestingly, similar things exist in Canada. However, these are generally for very specific and newer drugs that usually have limited applications, for example some cancer drugs that are only used in end-stage disease when other drugs have failed. Assuming there is availability though, and it isn't covered, then you can pay for it yourself either out of pocket or through a supplemental medical insurance plan.

ie. Having government backed universal health insurance does not necessarily preclude one from purchasing additional health insurance. In Canada I have basic health care paid for already through my taxes, but I have additional health insurance to help pay for dental care and eye care, etc., as well as prescription medications that are not be covered by the usual basic health care. This is through my employer, but if were self-employed, I could buy it as an individual as well.

In addition, some countries have critical illness insurance you can purchase. These are like disability insurance, but pays out if you get diagnosed with say terminal cancer, to help you get your finances in order before you die, and provide funds to pay for very expensive procedures and drugs for example. I personally do not have critical illness insurance since I personally feel having my basic health care, plus additional health insurance, plus disability insurance, plus having an additional emergency fund I'm building up now should suffice.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Well, I guess if the secret service beats the crap out of him, he'll have medical insurance to pay for treatment. That is he doesn't opt out to take the fine instead.

There is that.

OAW

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Interestingly, similar things exist in Canada. However...

I know, I know. I'm just pointing out to your southern neighbours that what they're celebrating might not work out how they think it's going to work out. If they think insurance companies are pretty good at weaselling out of stumping up when payment is due, they haven't had much experience with governments.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

My my. Land of the free, eh?

Not against the law to say "someone should shoot Gordon Brown" here.

And this place is an oppressed craphole. What does that make yours?

And a similar statement about Barack Obama is not necessarily a crime here. But the Secret Service will investigate it, just as I'm sure authorities in Britain would investigate statements about Gordon Brown.

Although I've always found it interesting that there are no similar statutes about threats against Congressional leaders (with the exception being if the President is incapacitated, and the Speaker of the House becomes the second-in-line behind the VP). Chalk it up to our royal upbringing.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I'm sure authorities in Britain would investigate statements about Gordon Brown.

Nahh. They might investigate people who don't want to shoot him, since said people are the ones most likely to be the nutters.

[OAW]

Apparently the Republican mantra is changing from "Kill the bill!" to "Repeal the bill!". I mean seriously ... are these people on drugs?

To repeal this bill would require the following:

1. Win back the majority in both the House and the Senate.

2. Pass a bill repealing the legislation. And explain to people why insurance companies can once again deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. Explain to seniors why the donut hole is coming back. And explain to the uninsured who were finally going to be able to get some coverage just why they are SOL once again.

3. Get President Obama to sign the bill repealing the legislation that was his top domestic priority. Yeah right.

4. Muster up a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate to override the inevitable Presidential veto.

Don't these people realize that it's all over except for the screaming and the shouting?

OAW

[Kerrigan]

This is a big step towards the complete polarization and paralysis of the US.

[The Final Dakar]

So was electing a black president.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Apparently the Republican mantra is changing from "Kill the bill!" to "Repeal the bill!". I mean seriously ... are these people on drugs?

To repeal this bill would require the following:

1. Win back the majority in both the House and the Senate.

2. Pass a bill repealing the legislation. And explain to people why insurance companies can once again deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. Explain to seniors why the donut hole is coming back. And explain to the uninsured who were finally going to be able to get some coverage just why they are SOL once again.

3. Get President Obama to sign the bill repealing the legislation that was his top domestic priority. Yeah right.

4. Muster up a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate to override the inevitable Presidential veto.

Don't these people realize that it's all over except for the screaming and the shouting?

OAW

The more I read about stuff like that, the more I agree with Rahm's assessment that the party is controlled by the lunatic fringe. Scary, really. If they could have kept the fringe element in line we might have had an intelligent debate about health care. What's even more scary is that many congressmen and woman and possibly senators could easily be included in that lunatic fringe category.

Don't get me wrong, the left has its lunatic fringe too, but has Dennis Kucinich, Michael Moore, and people like that really been dominating this debate? I've heard more from Michelle Bachman, who I believe was leading the charge to repeal the bill, than I have from all of these dudes on the left combined.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So was electing a statist president.

fixed

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

This is a big step towards the complete polarization and paralysis of the US.

The polarization of the US has nothing to do with policies or ideologies and everything to do with presentation, marketing, and political tribalism: Less Wrong: The Two-Party Swindle.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

This is a big step towards the complete polarization and paralysis of the US.

More like, this entire process has just really driven home the reality of just how polarized and paralyzed politics in this country are.

I blame the internet and 24-hour news cycle. No one I know in real life is this worked up about things... but you go online or watch the news and everything is suddenly of incredible epic life and death importance, what with people posting ridiculous things like "The Complete Annihilation of American Liberty" as a thread title with a straight face.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The more I read about stuff like that, the more I agree with Rahm's assessment that the party is controlled by the lunatic fringe.

All parties are controlled by their lunatic fringe. All the sane peeps are at the beach watching the volleyball.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I am not clever

"fixed"

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

fixed

Wait, I thought Obama was Socialist? Or was it Communist? Maoist? A Nazi? What is it?

Didn't I tell you guys months ago that when you fling about these sorts of ridiculous labels that the intelligent among us will just tune you out?

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Will she be able to get onto the new high-risk insurance pools that are supposed to be introduced in the next couple months?

Dunno, I would think so, I haven't talked to her in a few weeks. This bill just may of saved her life!!! How novel

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by ort888 

...what with people posting ridiculous things like "The Complete Annihilation of American Liberty" as a thread title with a straight face.

Yeh and they complain when opinion's are posted.

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So was electing a black president.

He's just as white as he is black

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Wait, I thought Obama was Socialist? Or was it Communist? Maoist? A Nazi? What is it?

Didn't I tell you guys months ago that when you fling about these sorts of ridiculous labels that the intelligent among us will just tune you out?

So, is President Obama a statist or not? BTW all of the above are forms of statism.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

This is a big step towards the complete polarization and paralysis of the US.

Perhaps. But I think the Republicans made that step well before the passage of this legislation. From the unprecedented use of filibusters in the Senate on even the most routine legislation ...



... to the abuse of Senate holds on Obama's nominations:

Of the 200 or so Obama nominations pending, some 75 have gotten through committee but were being held up for various reasons in the Senate, administration officials and Congressional staff members said. During their last gasps of official business after the health care vote on Thursday morning, senators cleared 35 nominees by unanimous consent — far short of the 60 that administration officials had been hoping to get through by the end of the year.

This unbridled partisanship and Republican obstructionism degenerated to the point where Republican Senators were putting blanket holds on all pending Obama nominations. The Republicans have made a political calculation that by being the "Party of NO" they can portray President Obama and the Democrats as being "ineffective" ... and thereby regain control of Congress in the mid-term elections when anti-incumbency and frustration with Congress is at its traditional high point. Even though President Obama repeatedly reached out to them (much to the chagrin of many in his own party) the only response he got was Republican talking points and further obstructionism. And they almost were successful in killing healthcare reform IMO because he spent way too much time and effort trying to woo Republicans who were never going to support him anyway. They just passed a Senate bill that is fundamentally a plan based on exchanges with private insurance ... just what the Republicans were advocating as an alternative when the Clinton Administration was pushing for a more government oriented approach for healthcare reform. But now all of a sudden they are against it? GTFOOH!! The Republicans have demonstrated with their clear and consistent actions that if Obama proposed legislation that recognized that "2+2=4" they would steadfastly oppose it. So I hope he will learn this lesson and remember to "dance with the one that brought you". He needs to spend more time and energy keeping that coalition that elected him together than worrying about winning Republican support that's never going to materialize anyway.

OAW

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The polarization of the US has nothing to do with policies or ideologies and everything to do with presentation, marketing, and political tribalism: Less Wrong: The Two-Party Swindle.

Thanks, nonhuman. This is a good article. Sums it up pretty well.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

Dunno, I would think so, I haven't talked to her in a few weeks. This bill just may of saved her life!!! How novel

If she can afford to pay for her regimen of chemotherapy out of pocket, she's not the target of this bill. If she cannot afford to pay for her chemotherapy and is literally being turned away from medication necessary for her survival, Medicaid has already failed her as much as anyone else.

She may have failed herself in many respects as well not only in her lifestyle, but in not availing herself of the wealth of opportunities found by appealing to relatives, churches, the American Cancer Society, close friends, coworkers, and yes even the drug companies themselves (in a big way). For all I know, Astra Zeneca has been leaving messages on her voicemail and she's too busy sending iHearts to all her friends on Facebook to answer the phone. See, this is the fundamental problem I have with exploiting friends as anecdotes for an argument on the internet.

For example;

• Did you ask your coworker if she wanted to overhaul the entire US healthcare system for her regimen of chemotherapy? A healthcare system by the way, that enjoys among the best cancer survival rates in the world?
• Did you ask her who she felt was responsible for paying her medical expenses?
• Did you ask her how it is a country mired in debt can afford her medical expenses when she can't?

It's difficult to sound diplomatic in the written word stevesnj so please don't take this the wrong way, but I don't care to dance around the heart-tugging anecdotes of posters' coworkers. There are horror stories on both sides of this issue and a wealth of anecdotes to keep the rage stoked for decades including those involving the failure rate of chemotherapy. The only truth in any of this at the end of the day is that sickness and disease sucks.

Here's an anecdote from a doctor of Oncology with 20 years' experience; "No one I ever saw with a cancer and no insurance could afford the cost of the chemotherapy out of pocket - but no one I saw was abandoned for inability to pay."

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Thanks, nonhuman. This is a good article. Sums it up pretty well.

So is this the fashionable way to marginalize dissent and disagreement these days?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So is this the fashionable way to marginalize dissent and disagreement these days?

I can't speak for anyone else, but the only thing I'm interested in marginalizing is talking points and what passes for intelligent thought in our political arena as it currently stands. Dissent and disagreement are essential parts of any remotely democratic form of government.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If she can afford to pay for her regimen of chemotherapy out of pocket, she's not the target of this bill. If she cannot afford to pay for her chemotherapy and is literally being turned away from medication necessary for her survival, Medicaid has already failed her as much as anyone else.

She may have failed herself in many respects as well not only in her lifestyle, but in not availing herself of the wealth of opportunities found by appealing to relatives, churches, the American Cancer Society, close friends, coworkers, and yes even the drug companies themselves (in a big way). For all I know, Astra Zeneca has been leaving messages on her voicemail and she's too busy sending iHearts to all her friends on Facebook to answer the phone. See, this is the fundamental problem I have with exploiting friends as anecdotes for an argument on the internet.

For example;

• Did you ask your coworker if she wanted to overhaul the entire US healthcare system for her regimen of chemotherapy? A healthcare system by the way, that enjoys among the best cancer survival rates in the world?
• Did you ask her who she felt was responsible for paying her medical expenses?
• Did you ask her how it is a country mired in debt can afford her medical expenses when she can't?

It's difficult to sound diplomatic in the written word stevesnj so please don't take this the wrong way, but I don't care to dance around the heart-tugging anecdotes of posters' coworkers. There are horror stories on both sides of this issue and a wealth of anecdotes to keep the rage stoked for decades including those involving the failure rate of chemotherapy. The only truth in any of this at the end of the day is that sickness and disease sucks.

Here's an anecdote from a doctor of Oncology with 20 years' experience; "No one I ever saw with a cancer and no insurance could afford the cost of the chemotherapy out of pocket - but no one I saw was abandoned for inability to pay."

You may have missed it when he said she had to take out a mortgage in order to pay for the therapy.

[Chongo]

Al Sharpton ion where this will take us.
YouTube - Al Sharpton Claims American Public Voted for Socialism When Electing Obama

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So is this the fashionable way to marginalize dissent and disagreement these days?

I'm not one to keep up with what's fashionable, so I can't answer that question.

Though, I would ask, what does it marginalize? And who is being marginalized? Do you feel marginalized because of an article that is primarily about group dynamics? The article doesn't take a 'side' per se, rather points out what constitutes a side—which is not much (see many examples in the article).

There are reasons for dissent and disagreement in society today, though in the grand scheme of things, it rarely deserves the rhetoric being thrown about like it currently is in the US political spectrum. The conflict between the two parties is good for those parties (mainly going into elections), but if you look to that system to actually accomplish something reasonable, tangible and thought out, you will quickly become disillusioned.

You can carry on with the way things are, or you can approach it from another angle. I'm leaning towards the latter.

(I just burnt dinner writing this, so I have bigger problems right now...)

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There are horror stories on both sides of this issue....

Please share an opposing "horror story"...

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Al Sharpton Claims American Public Voted for Socialism When Electing Obama[/url]

Well, duh! And then people contradict this by complaining that the "will of the people was ignored".

[Big Mac]

So you agree with Sharpton?