Crap!! U.S. life span shorter

spike

New Member
The "BS" COBRA is actually a neat system. You want to continue your coverage? Pay for it.

A neat system indeed. Can't work anymore? You're insurance now costs 4-5 times as much. Effing brilliant. :laugh:

Let's see....$800./ month for, what is it now, 18 months

vs

a $20,000. (100,000, 250,000, 500,000) medical bill.

You really do need to take an accounting class.

Drain our funds with BS COBRA or get Medi-Cal for free. My accounting makes more sense.

Since you've ignored the other points here even after I reminded you I guess you concede those?
 

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
Drain our funds with BS COBRA or get Medi-Cal for free. My accounting makes more sense.

You seriously think Medi-Cal is free?

As an aside, the ex-wife (when we were still married) got on Medi-Cal, and I figured since she was getting it, I might as well apply too. But I was told I couldn't get it because we had no kids and she was not pregnant.
 

spike

New Member
Don't know if it will cost anything actually. She just applied a couple days ago. I'm pretty sure it's much less than $800+/month.

How much did your ex-wife pay for it?

I didn't bother applying myself as the qualifications are pretty strict and sometimes arbitrary.

Like Medicare for instance there's some 24 month waiting period unless you have Lou Gehrig's disease then you can qualify immediately. Why Lou Gehrig's disease only and not cancer, Aids, spinal meningitis, etc? Who knows.
 

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
Every taxpayer pays for it. Instead of you writing a check to Blue Cross or something, it's taken out of your paycheck before you see it, without it being itemized as "this much is for Medi-Cal, this much is for funding anti-smoking ads, this much is for buying electricity at way-above-market rates, etc."

So not only am I paying for my own health insurance through my employer, I'm also paying for a portion of your girlfriend's insurance through my taxes. You're paying for a portion of it through your taxes, too.
 

markjs

Banned
Here's a radical concept! How about if the government gave people the option, assuming they are financially solvent at least to a certain extent, of not paying into the public system. So essentially those in the lowest income brackets have to pay in, primarily because in the event of emergency, they are the most likely to need goverment assisted aid, but those in higher brackets have a choice. Those who did opt out would have to have comprehensive private coverage in place. The catch being, that if someone had opted to not pay the tax, and then for some reason they, or someone dependant on them become seriously ill and have no resources other than to turn to the government for aid, they be politely told; you didn't pay in, so no services are available to you, here are a list of local churches to go beg from, good luck.
 

markjs

Banned
Here's a radical concept! How about if the government gave people the option, assuming they are financially solvent at least to a certain extent, of not paying into the public system. So essentially those in the lowest income brackets have to pay in, primarily because in the event of emergency, they are the most likely to need goverment assisted aid, but those in higher brackets have a choice. Those who did opt out would have to have comprehensive private coverage in place. The catch being, that if someone had opted to not pay the tax, and then for some reason they, or someone dependant on them become seriously ill and have no resources other than to turn to the government for aid, they be politely told; you didn't pay in, so no services are available to you, here are a list of local churches to go beg from, good luck.

The more I think on this, the more I think it could really be a good idea. One may make the argument, that nobody would pay into the system, but then that's ok, because those who refuse are never eligeable to benefit from it, therefore, it doesn't need to be as large, since only those willing to support it can partake in it should the need arise.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
How about if the government gave people the option,

NO! It's not their job. If you want to live in a marxist system, go live in one. Quit trying to screw up what we have here.

A neat system indeed. Can't work anymore? You're insurance now costs 4-5 times as much. Effing brilliant.

The insurance costs EXACTLY what it did the day you left work. Didn't know you were making so much did you? You ought to see the other taxes & fees that are paid on your behalf. If your employer didn't have to play them you could get a raise & pay for your own insurance instead of making me pay for it.
 

markjs

Banned
Freedom to choose = Unamerican.....Um....OK, if you say so....

Seems all you do is whine incessantly about the current system in which you do pay taxes, for medical care for those who cannot afford it, so I offer you a way to opt out, and that is marxist? I don't see you even trying to make a sensible argument here.

I really get the feeling, if some republican came up with some miracle solution to this problem, that worked for everyone, you'd be quick to embrace it, yet if a democrat came up with the same miracle solution, you'd be just as quick to denounce it, solely on the basis of who's idea it was. I on the other hand would welcome an answer to the dillemma, no matter who came up with it, and if it was a republican, who had the plan and the means to implement it, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
You are free to choose. However, since the government is not in the insurance business nor the medical business, they aren't one of your options.
 

markjs

Banned
You are free to choose. However, since the government is not in the insurance business nor the medical business, they aren't one of your options.

The goverment does actually cover a lot of needy peoples medical existance? Are you actually in denial of reality itself?

I just offered a way for people who are unwilling to pay for goverment services that are avaialble to them in the event of such need, to opt out. Since you and I both know that government sponsored aid to the disabled and neediest people isn't going away, no matter how much you wish it would, what would you then propose?
 

markjs

Banned
Prime example: The JTPA (Job Training Partnership Act), a republican implemented program that funds businesses to hire the unemployed and covers a part of their wages while they train for permanent employment. One of the best and most effective employment programs the government has ever devised. Had I been of age to vote for the guys who enacted that, I'd never have considered what party they belong to, I'd just have happily voted for them, no because of loyalty, but because they were right, and they offered a solution.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
The goverment does actually cover a lot of needy peoples medical existance? Are you actually in denial of reality itself?

It shouldn't. It, by Constitution, can't. The more people allow themself to suck from the government teet, the worse off we'll be.

Helping grammy & Uncle Bob, the retard, were lovely ideas. Now SyPhillus & her 12 kids from 12 sperm donors use that & don't name the "daddy" cause that'd "be uncool".

Instead of getting Tom getting off his fat lazy ass & getting a job, he became a speedfreak & wants the rest of us to pay his way. He says he has a disease. Yea, well, tough shit. Get on with life. Don't cop out.

The more we allow, or demand, the government to do, the weaker we become, as individuals & as a society. Selfpreservation or nothing.
 

markjs

Banned
So I suppose when someone becaomes disabled, or for some reason unable to work, we should just eauthanize them huh? Or a retired person outlives their retirement money, perhaps because the cost of living skyrockets, well then they should live on the street homeless and beg, or be euthanized?

"Compassionate conservative" is clearly an oxymoron.
 

markjs

Banned
It shouldn't. It, by Constitution, can't. The more people allow themself to suck from the government teet, the worse off we'll be.

Helping grammy & Uncle Bob, the retard, were lovely ideas. Now SyPhillus & her 12 kids from 12 sperm donors use that & don't name the "daddy" cause that'd "be uncool".

Instead of getting Tom getting off his fat lazy ass & getting a job, he became a speedfreak & wants the rest of us to pay his way. He says he has a disease. Yea, well, tough shit. Get on with life. Don't cop out.

The more we allow, or demand, the government to do, the weaker we become, as individuals & as a society. Selfpreservation or nothing.

This also shows what little you really actually know about this stuff. In my, very liberal state, a woman who is eligeable for AFDC (Aid to Families With Dependant Children), has two years of time to use the system, and that is a lifetime limit. She also must be enrolled in the Work First program where she can train for work, or get established carreer wise with continued state aid for medical and such to see her though till she is self sufficient. Every effort is made to get the father's identity, and they will pursue him anywhere in the nation to see he pays support. If he doesn't his drivers license is suspended and he can be jailed. But that's it, two years, and no more, EVER. After the two years, DSHS (Department of Social and Health Services), will continue to collect child support from the deabeat dad, til the child is 18. If she is still in need after that, she can still recieve food stamps to feed the kid, but the money and medical are done for good.

In the case of a person who is finacially indigent who needs drug/alcohol treatment, there is ADATSA (Alcohol and Drug Abuse Treatment and Support Act), and a person who applies and is accepted to the program has to be evaluated by a chemical dependeny specialist first. The state then pays for treatment (at a much reduced rate), and the applicant gets up to a whopping $339 for rent after inpatient and $39 monthly for personal expenses, food stamps, and mecial coupons. The program is 3 months, can be extended to six if need be, and that is the limit during a two year period. Basically the only place in this state one can afford to live on that stipend is in a recovery house sharing a bedrom. If that isn't incentive to get a job I am not sure what is.

If someone becomes disabled, they must apply for Social Security disability, and or SSI. There is a program called GAX, that they may be eligeable for while they are waiting a judgement from the Social Security Administration. The have to be evaluated regularly to remain eligeable. Once Social Security, deems them disabled, a back settlement of money, starting from the date of their application, is issued, and DSHS gets their money back from the federal goverment. The disabled person gets the balance.

So, I really don't see where this is any big "handout" where there is any real incentive, or for that matter ability to milk the system and continue doing so. The welfare state you are imagining, really doesn't exist, at least here in my very liberal state. People are given plenty of assistance and incentive to get on their feet and be self supporting.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
This also shows what little you really actually know about this stuff.

It shows how little you know of the reality of the system. I live around many people who are actually getting government "assistance". Have been for years.

Food Stamps,
$12.- $80./month subsidized rent
Free school books (students of public shools here get charged)
free or reduced utilities
some actually get a cash stipend
These people go to the "food bank" on a regular basis.

However, all these people have cell phones.
All these people have cable or satelite TV.
All these people have one or more automobile.
Almost all these people have a large screen TV.

All these people have one or more children-ALL out of wedlock & with various men.

You make huge assumptions about what I think. You seem to believe that since I find the system repulsive & corrupt that I have no sympathy for the plight of the working man. That I don't wish people who have earned their way a little needed assistance. The people who are going through a "hard time" should be helped. First, though, they need to make changes in their life. Downsize. Turn off the unneeded ammenities. Do away with waste. Spend the savings you earned. That's what it is for. When there are NO MORE OPTIONS-NONE, then ask your family & friends to help. It is their job more than mine.
If you are in a situation where you are fucked by your own actions & decisions(drugs, booze, self afflicted problems), don't you dare ask for public help. You wouldn't accept help before you got to the point you are now & you ignored our laws & pleas to stop you activity, you sure as shit shouldn't get it afterwards. You made your mess-you clean it up.

All that said, it is not the place of government to provide you with basic necessities. It's not its place to provide non-needed assistance either. There are plenty of private organizations to do these things. Start at you moms house & work down the list.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
You make huge assumptions about what I think.

very good point.

and would also apply in those situations where, say, someone disagrees with anything that dumbya, er, dubya, says/does, and they are assigned complete + flaming liberal status.
 

chcr

Too cute for words
very good point.

and would also apply in those situations where, say, someone disagrees with anything that dumbya, er, dubya, says/does, and they are assigned complete + flaming liberal status.

What? When has that ever happened? ;)
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Disagreeing with Dubya is not a liberal offense.

Never agreeing with him is.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
but only if "never agreeing" is prejudicial. one could easily not agree with bush on damned nearly everything - and many of those things from a more conservative perspective - and not be "guilty of the offense of being a liberal" in the manner that the stereotype has grown here.
 
Top