2014 Health Insurance Premiums - Ouch!

[crown1]

We will not default on our debt. This administration governs by panic via crisis after crisis. They plan that the population will push for anything, to end uncertainty. Read Saul Alinsky.

Once the unbelievable expense of Obamacare drains even our ability to borrow yet more trillions, I don't see how we will avoid default -- but that isn't now. That will happen once it's too late to go back.

--- Laurie

P.S. Perry is right. Whoever you heard that canard from, Rainwood, you need to ask for concrete examples. Obamacare has no roots in Republican proposals -- I remember those days too, and the Rep. party was as much against Hillarycare as they are this mess, if not more so. Ditto the populace. Vague declarations are a basic in politics on both sides because most people accept them as truth without asking for specifics; in this case there aren't any.

During the Hillarycare debacle, Jay Rockefeller (D-Va) declared, "We're gonna give 'em socialized medicine whether they want it or not." I've always remembered that -- this is what's become of our representative government?[/quot

I also remember the Clinton's plan and people's disgust of it, on that we can agree. I do want to point out for sake of clarity that Jay Rockefeller does not represent the state of Virginia. He represents the state of West Virginia.

 

[JewelFreak]

You're right. I apologize, it is W.V. I shoulda got my own facts straight!

--- Laurie

 

[Smith1942]

This is such an interesting debate and everyone has such intelligent points to make. However, it is exceedingly complex and I don't pretend to begin to understand all the ins and outs. The point about the US funding research, new procedures and drug bills for the rest of the world is certainly intriguing.

Justginger, thanks for laying out the Australian system. I've often heard how good it is. You say that most anyone is ever liable for is 20% of the final bill, is that correct? However, 20% of a final bill can be astronomical. The actual cost of, say, quadruple heart bypass surgery would be about half a million pounds in the UK or about a million dollars in the US, so similar. Not that anyone pays anything in the UK since the government covers it all, but that's the actual market cost if we were buying a heart operation like a commercial product.

So, 20% of a million dollars....you're left with a 200k bill. So, in Australia, even if you are insured and you have terrible luck with sky-high medical bills (transplant, months in hospital, we're talking worst-case scenario) you still have to pay 20% of a five- or six-figure bill, is that correct? Perhaps I misunderstood and there is a cap each year on what you pay?

One of the comforts of my plan is that the annual out-of-pocket maximum is, I think, 10k. Every plan I saw had that cap. I'm not sure if that cap is a federal law or a Massachusetts law resulting from RomneyCare. Either way, I'm pretty glad I live in Massachusetts.

Circe - how terrible for you to have had a miscarriage while in a foreign country. Terrible wherever, of course, but how awful be away from home at a time like that.

Other posters were talking about the physical states of different hospitals in different countries. They seem to vary widely wherever you are. The hospital in my home town in the UK is particularly awful. My friend miscarried at eight months and I could not believe how horrid her room was. At least she had a room to herself, which she only got because, of course, most of the other women on the maternity ward had healthy noisy babies. But her room had no windows, and was small but very tall, so it was like sitting on the bottom of a box. And the walls were painted sickly green, with fluorescent lighting. It was easily one of the most depressing cell-like rooms I've ever been in.

BUT. I had the pleasure of having my gallbladder removed at Massachusetts General Hospital in 2010. Talk about a bait and switch. When I had gone for the ultrasounds and other tests before the op, it was at the gleaming Yawkey Center at MGH. The facility was like a five-star hotel. So spacious, huge windows, hushed silence...lovely. So imagine my shock when I entered the surgical unit at the Wang Center at MGH on the Day of Doom. It was so horrible I freaked out. Just like the oldest NHS hospitals, it was wards with beds separated by curtains, and here's the kicker.....the beds were so close together there was not even a chair for your companion - in my case, my husband. They insist that someone bring you in and take you home, and then there's not even a bedside chair for them. My husband was trying to visit with me, and he just had to kind of stand by the bed awkwardly.

The recovery area was the same - someone throwing up in the bed next to me, no chair for my husband to sit and be with me, it was exactly like the worst NHS wards I've seen, except this was MGH, one of the best hospitals in the world. Cramped, fluoro lighting, everything grey.

The journey on the gurney was an eye-opener too. On the way to the op I was wheeled in my bed all the way. We went through miles and miles of dimly-lit deserted backstreet corridors, with boxes and other refuse piled up - it was horrid.

I've also spent time in the MGH Breast Center. It's SMALL. You check-in, but then your husband or companion can't go in with you. The centre is behind some frosted glass, and your companion has to wait outside. My visit took six hours that day with all the tests I was having, and your partner can't support you because they're not allowed in. You change into a gown and sit in the waiting area, which has room for no more than about 10 women. The center then extends backwards and is quite large, with all the machines and testing rooms, but you have to go through the processes by yourself, including all the waiting. The lockers don't lock, so you change, put your clothes in the unlockable locker, and then walk around in your gown with your handbag, hoping that no one nicks your clothes.

I've also visited a friend in MGH who was in there for a stroke. She had a very nice private room.

In addition, I accompanied a friend to the MGH Psychiatric Unit. Again, it wasn't very nicely decorated, everything dark green and dark grey. But, it was very spacious, and it was the place where outpatients have appointments with their psychiatrist, it wasn't the psychiatric ward. So really it was just like a large, spacious doctor's office.

This is my experience of MGH and one NHS hospital - I'd never been in hospital in the UK, only visited others. But I've had excellent care on the NHS, including prompt and thorough care and excellent follow-up of something serious, thus avoiding a hospital stay and some other bad consequences.

The point of my last few paragraphs is that...hospitals vary. They even vary within the hospitals themselves, given my friend's lovely private room at MGH contrasted with the awful surgical Wang unit at the same hospital.

 

[Sparklelu]

As someone who has experienced a catastrophic illness twice in our family history in the same calendar year I will tell you those out of pocket maximums are BS. We have BCBSFL and EmpireBC through DH retirement. Theoretically our OOP should not exceed $ 40,000 My sons neurosurgery cost us OOP $37,000 because the neuro in Tallahassee hosp was not a participating provider, he was the ONLY neuro in a BCBSFL hospital ! He charged $ 55,000 for DS spinal fusion surgery. We negotiated a lowered fee. Then he developed a staph infection in his donor site that put him in 72 hours of isolation and BCBSFL would not pay the upcharge for a private room!!!
We had to foot that bill.

My Breast Cancer cost my family 38,000 in OOP.
The chemo itself would have been covered had I done it next door in an out patient center, but instead I went to the oncologist office and insurance paid 80%, but 20% of a 6,000 visit adds up. Especially when your visits are every 3 weeks for 10 months.


Insurance companies are out for profit and unless some serious reform is done with insurance companies it will not get better.
I do believe our health care system is broken, but the ACA in my opinion will not fix it.
Also someone mentioned the horror of having someone nagging for insurance info in the ER, well that experience is not reserved for those without insurance. The billing clerk in the Oncologist hovered like a hawk each treatment, as I was being hooked up to the red death juice with her hand out for my co pay!!

 

[Smith1942]

Elisateach, that is incredible. So you paid $75k out of pocket even though you were insured? See, I have told my husband that that kind of thing absolutely can and does happen, and he won't believe me.

ETA: Did you question the insurer's refusal to pay the upcharge for the private room? Since it was medically necessary in order not to infect others, how could they have refused? I don't know what it's like in other states, but in Mass there is some recourse through the Department of Insurance. Basically it's illegal to sell someone a policy covering healthcare and then refuse to pay for necessary care, at least I think so. I guess you never find out completely until you are in that situation.

 

[justginger]

Smith, to the best of my knowledge, yes - you are liable for 20% of your total bills if you do not carry private health cover. The likelihood of racking up a million dollar bill here is rather low though. First - as noted earlier, medical costs here (including prescriptions) are a fraction of what they are elsewhere. Second, when you have affordable healthcare options from day dot, you don't let problems exacerbate until you need a quadruple bypass. You are seen early, receive affordable medication, and disaster is generally averted. Of course there are true accidents, like life flighting from a rural location, but those are very rare. You rack up a $200k bill, you can pay it off. In a place where the average house is nearly 3 times that, people refinance their home and bear minimal long term financial damage. It certainly won't bankrupt you. And if you WERE in a financial position that it would, you'd be within qualification of Medicaid, which IS capped at a much lower rate.

 

[justginger]

I WAS WRONG, Smith. Upon more digging, the quotes I provided are based on "out of hospital" care. All in hospital expenses, within a public hospital, is covered entirely by Medicare.

Bonus.

 

[movie zombie]

additionally, justginger, my AU in-laws tell me that their healthcare system is not what it used to be.....which was apparently a lot better than what they have now meaning a lot less out of pocket expense.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Wow. There are some pretty harsh words here against wealthy folks. I certainly wouldn't call myself super-wealthy, but I can appreciate that I have the ability to pay my bills every month. Having said that, it seems odd to me to hear people say that they have no compassion/sympathy for the wealthy and yet that's exactly what they expect the wealthy to have - compassion and sympathy. Sounds hypocritical to me. It sounds so easy to say that if you make more, you pay more - until you're the one who's actually paying more. When my husband and I started our business we lived in an apartment and traveled every business day of every week (returning home only on weekends). We worked long, hard hours to get where we're at. We both grew up very poor, so we feel extremely blessed to be in our position now. How are we supposed to feel when our taxes go up, or our health insurance premiums rise significantly, etc.? Like I said before, it sucks and no matter who you are, or how much money you make, when you're money is being taken away, it sucks. It sounds awfully bitter to say that since so-and-so drives a Mercedes, that they should foot the health insurance bill. I get that our health care system is broken (and our government too), but I do not believe that ObabmaCare is the answer.

I am not wealthy, but I do agreed with your post... What people fail to understand is that the wealthy must work hard for their money too, plus they are paying most of the taxes in this country.

 

[msop04]

Wow. There are some pretty harsh words here against wealthy folks. I certainly wouldn't call myself super-wealthy, but I can appreciate that I have the ability to pay my bills every month.

... it seems odd to me to hear people say that they have no compassion/sympathy for the wealthy and yet that's exactly what they expect the wealthy to have - compassion and sympathy. Sounds hypocritical to me. It sounds so easy to say that if you make more, you pay more - until you're the one who's actually paying more.

...It sounds awfully bitter to say that since so-and-so drives a Mercedes, that they should foot the health insurance bill. I get that our health care system is broken (and our government too), but I do not believe that ObamaCare is the answer.

I agree with you, momhappy... to be successful by hard work and determination was once the American dream. Now, it seems it's evil to want success and to make money. My husband started his own business recently, so I can sort of understand what you mean, as we will claim a large loss this year (and quite possibly for the next several years if things don't get a little busier).

One of my favorite quotes is from Thomas Sowell, an American economist and political/social theorist -- I think it says a lot...
"Since this is an era when many people are concerned with 'fairness' and 'social justice,' what is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?"

 

[Gypsy]

If you are not a citizen of the US and do not pay federal/state income taxes, you should not share the right to vote. It is a clear conflict of interests.

AFAIK, only US citizens are allowed to vote in federal elections. Even a green card doesn't give you that right, only full citizenship.

Yes, you are correct -- I should be more clear. I feel that it is a conflict of interests to allow those who choose not to work (whether it be due to laziness or not willing to "lower oneself" to work a lesser paying job -- NOT due to TRUE disability) and/or accept welfare from the government to vote in any elections (federal or local). These people do not pay income taxes. I feel it is a conflict of interests for them to vote at any level, since it all starts locally. It's no secret that these people will vote for whichever party or representative promises to or has a record of giving them more free stuff -- at taxpayer's expense.

I feel it's wrong to give voting power to those who do have not contributed.

What about stay at home parents? Does their lifestyle choice result in them being disenfranchised?

Not for me.

Voting and working are two different things. And I don't think working should be a per-requisite for voting. But that's a great way to disenfranchise a whole LOT of women.

 

[Sparklelu]

Elisateach, that is incredible. So you paid $75k out of pocket even though you were insured? See, I have told my husband that that kind of thing absolutely can and does happen, and he won't believe me.

ETA: Did you question the insurer's refusal to pay the upcharge for the private room? Since it was medically necessary in order not to infect others, how could they have refused? I don't know what it's like in other states, but in Mass there is some recourse through the Department of Insurance. Basically it's illegal to sell someone a policy covering healthcare and then refuse to pay for necessary care, at least I think so. I guess you never find out completely until you are in that situation.

Yes it can happen and it does. I can tell you of several times the families of insured gravely ill children have literally lost their homes financing a treatment. Why do you think folks have fundraisers for sick folks all the time?
Insurance companies try every trick in the book to not cover an expense

Yes we challenged and only has success with the hosp negotiating the bill with us.
Our latest battle? DS had 4 impacted wisdom teeth removed by an oral surgeon, BCBSFL told the billing/insurance clerk in the dentist office that it would be covered in full, when the bill claim came to them they denied it. When the office called BCBSFL THEY SAID.... On tape... Oh yeah we said we would cover but that's wrong we don't cover!!!
I'm out 3500. We are fighting that one

 

[Gypsy]

I suspect most people participating in this discussion aren't likely to change their views, but thought I'd mention a few interesting facts that seemed to have been missed.

The Affordable Care Act is NOT something crafted by the Democrats under Obama but is actually resurrected Republican legislation from the 1990's go-round on health care. It was a compromise proposed by the Republicans in an effort to head off the movement for a single payer type of health care system. The Democrats thought it didn't go far enough so chose not to proceed with it. The Democrats revived it because of its Republican lineage to finally get something passed. But by then, the Repubs had swung so far to the right, they didn't even recognize their own work product. The GOP seems to have forgotten that part of the legislative history.

Part of the problem with health care and insurance in the U.S. is the multitude of plans and the cost of having to administer all of that. Ask any doctor who runs his or her own practice about how many admin staff it takes to handle all the various insurance programs and their details, quirks, and blind spots. It's often more than the health care side of the staff. All the various insurance companies have comparable numbers of staff to handle all the different providers and their codes and quirks and mistakes. Until you've had a serious illness (my husband has been dealing with cancer for almost 20 years), you have no idea what a hassle it is for everyone on the insurance side - providers, insurance companies and patients. It's almost been a full-time job for my DH sometimes to sort through the medical bills and figure out what's going on. Lots of mistakes get made on all sides and we deal with top-notch medical providers and have a good insurance program. It's been an eye-opening nightmare.

Prescription drugs cost more in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world because every other developed country in the West has a single payer system where the government can negotiate a better rate. The pharmaceutical companies have to agree or lose an entire country as a market. That's why drugs cost less in Canada. The U.S. doesn't have that system so no one has the bargaining strength to get those same rates. The biggest insurers get a break, but not as much, and the smaller insurers probably don't get much. Who pays the most? The uninsured (either because they don't have insurance or because their insurance doesn't cover the drug). Because we don't have a government negotiating better rates for us, U.S. patients and their insurers pay the vast majority of the R & D for every drug introduced. The same thing applies to medical procedures, devices and equipment.

So if you're mad that your premiums are going up and your coverage is going down, blame it on the crazy patchwork quilt of health care that we've managed to cobble together where most of it is profit-driven and no one has to negotiate for or substantiate their costs. No one in the rest of the world envies how we handle payment for health care in this country. No one. They're probably glad we have a system that makes us bear the vast majority of the cost for every medical development or new drug on the planet. It certainly makes health care cheaper for everyone outside the U.S.

This.

 

[monarch64]

If you are not a citizen of the US and do not pay federal/state income taxes, you should not share the right to vote. It is a clear conflict of interests.

AFAIK, only US citizens are allowed to vote in federal elections. Even a green card doesn't give you that right, only full citizenship.

Yes, you are correct -- I should be more clear. I feel that it is a conflict of interests to allow those who choose not to work (whether it be due to laziness or not willing to "lower oneself" to work a lesser paying job -- NOT due to TRUE disability) and/or accept welfare from the government to vote in any elections (federal or local). These people do not pay income taxes. I feel it is a conflict of interests for them to vote at any level, since it all starts locally. It's no secret that these people will vote for whichever party or representative promises to or has a record of giving them more free stuff -- at taxpayer's expense.

I feel it's wrong to give voting power to those who do have not contributed.

What about stay at home parents? Does their lifestyle choice result in them being disenfranchised?

Not for me.

Voting and working are two different things. And I don't think working should be a per-requisite for voting. But that's a great way to disenfranchise a whole LOT of women.

This comment rubbed me the wrong way, too, and I never got around to responding. I thought surely MSOP04 was just forgetting that stay at home parents existed.

 

[TooPatient]

If you are not a citizen of the US and do not pay federal/state income taxes, you should not share the right to vote. It is a clear conflict of interests.

AFAIK, only US citizens are allowed to vote in federal elections. Even a green card doesn't give you that right, only full citizenship.

Yes, you are correct -- I should be more clear. I feel that it is a conflict of interests to allow those who choose not to work (whether it be due to laziness or not willing to "lower oneself" to work a lesser paying job -- NOT due to TRUE disability) and/or accept welfare from the government to vote in any elections (federal or local). These people do not pay income taxes. I feel it is a conflict of interests for them to vote at any level, since it all starts locally. It's no secret that these people will vote for whichever party or representative promises to or has a record of giving them more free stuff -- at taxpayer's expense.

I feel it's wrong to give voting power to those who do have not contributed.

What about stay at home parents? Does their lifestyle choice result in them being disenfranchised?

Not for me.

Voting and working are two different things. And I don't think working should be a per-requisite for voting. But that's a great way to disenfranchise a whole LOT of women.

This comment rubbed me the wrong way, too, and I never got around to responding. I thought surely MSOP04 was just forgetting that stay at home parents existed.

I think what msop was referring to is not the stay at home parents or retired people. I think she means physically able people who choose to refuse work and collect welfare (and other programs) instead. My cousin has been collecting welfare since she had her first kid at 17. She has a house (not an apartment, but a regular house) paid in full for her plus all sorts of other extras (checks, full time nanny, food stamps, free health care, gas coupons, cell phone, etc). She is physically able to work but chooses not to. Not because she wants to stay home and bond with her kids but because when she had a job she got a raise and ended up losing all the "free" stuff.

That sort of thing is very wrong.

Stay at home parents should actually fall in the same category (if you're looking to compare people) as working people. Being with your kids and taking care of them is NOT the same thing as choosing to not work.

 

[ksinger]

If you are not a citizen of the US and do not pay federal/state income taxes, you should not share the right to vote. It is a clear conflict of interests.

AFAIK, only US citizens are allowed to vote in federal elections. Even a green card doesn't give you that right, only full citizenship.

Yes, you are correct -- I should be more clear. I feel that it is a conflict of interests to allow those who choose not to work (whether it be due to laziness or not willing to "lower oneself" to work a lesser paying job -- NOT due to TRUE disability) and/or accept welfare from the government to vote in any elections (federal or local). These people do not pay income taxes. I feel it is a conflict of interests for them to vote at any level, since it all starts locally. It's no secret that these people will vote for whichever party or representative promises to or has a record of giving them more free stuff -- at taxpayer's expense.

I feel it's wrong to give voting power to those who do have not contributed.

What about stay at home parents? Does their lifestyle choice result in them being disenfranchised?

Not for me.

Voting and working are two different things. And I don't think working should be a per-requisite for voting. But that's a great way to disenfranchise a whole LOT of women.

This comment rubbed me the wrong way, too, and I never got around to responding. I thought surely MSOP04 was just forgetting that stay at home parents existed.

Paying income taxes is the only thing that gets you the vote? Seriously? What, we're going to go back to parsing "worthiness" again? Who is fit to vote and who is not? Levels of cititzenship? Geesh, we've ALREADY BEEN DOWN THAT ROAD. Why don't we just repeal the 19th and 20th century and go back to land-owning white dudes being the only ones who can vote.

 

[Gypsy]

If you are not a citizen of the US and do not pay federal/state income taxes, you should not share the right to vote. It is a clear conflict of interests.

AFAIK, only US citizens are allowed to vote in federal elections. Even a green card doesn't give you that right, only full citizenship.

Yes, you are correct -- I should be more clear. I feel that it is a conflict of interests to allow those who choose not to work (whether it be due to laziness or not willing to "lower oneself" to work a lesser paying job -- NOT due to TRUE disability) and/or accept welfare from the government to vote in any elections (federal or local). These people do not pay income taxes. I feel it is a conflict of interests for them to vote at any level, since it all starts locally. It's no secret that these people will vote for whichever party or representative promises to or has a record of giving them more free stuff -- at taxpayer's expense.

I feel it's wrong to give voting power to those who do have not contributed.

What about stay at home parents? Does their lifestyle choice result in them being disenfranchised?

Not for me.

Voting and working are two different things. And I don't think working should be a per-requisite for voting. But that's a great way to disenfranchise a whole LOT of women.

This comment rubbed me the wrong way, too, and I never got around to responding. I thought surely MSOP04 was just forgetting that stay at home parents existed.

I think what msop was referring to is not the stay at home parents or retired people. I think she means physically able people who choose to refuse work and collect welfare (and other programs) instead. My cousin has been collecting welfare since she had her first kid at 17. She has a house (not an apartment, but a regular house) paid in full for her plus all sorts of other extras (checks, full time nanny, food stamps, free health care, gas coupons, cell phone, etc). She is physically able to work but chooses not to. Not because she wants to stay home and bond with her kids but because when she had a job she got a raise and ended up losing all the "free" stuff.

That sort of thing is very wrong.

Stay at home parents should actually fall in the same category (if you're looking to compare people) as working people. Being with your kids and taking care of them is NOT the same thing as choosing to not work.

OK but. You realize that's nearly impossible to legislate, right?

It's like goldilocks. One definition is too narrow, one definition is too broad. And by the time you've finally found one that's just right you've pissed off a bunch of bears that just want the whole thing over and done with.

Who is a 'working person'. Is a person is who rightfully on disability allowed to vote? And who decides what is a 'rightful' disability. I took a year off, and was on disability for largely emotional/mental issues. There was nothing physically wrong with me. And there is a LARGE majority of people (especially in our insane government) would would say that I was a freeloader, and able to work. But I sincerely wasn't, and I needed that year.

It's not something that is POSSIBLE.

The whole point of the vote is that is is a right you CAN'T restrict in that way. You can't and you don't get to decide who is 'entitled' to vote. Because voting is like breathing in our laws. You get to do it, period. With three exceptions: 1) you are not an adult so have you not reach the age (federally defined) to majority. 2) you are a convicted felon and part of what you give up is your right to vote. 3) You are not a citizen. Only citizens get to vote.

It's that broad for a reason. It is such a fundamental right that you haven' go around imposing restrictions like: you have to be able to read, you have to be able to speak english, you have to be a certain skin color or certain sex. NO, the reason those restrictions were struck down by the Supreme Court is because you can't fetter the right to vote based on the concept that some people are more qualified or more entitled to vote than others. If you are a citizen, over a certain age, and you are not a convicted felon you get to vote. PERIOD.

And that is exactly how it should be.

Saying you have to be a productive member of society, by ANYONE's definition no matter how liberal that definition is, disenfranchises people of their fundemental rights.

And I'm sorry, that's not okay under ANY circumstance to me-- short of felonies.

You can't even step on that road, because what's at the bottom is terrible. And it's a short trip. You start on that road, next you'll have people saying that the poor shouldn't be allowed to have children. And that unless you have worked for so many years you have to be sterilized. Cause that's where that logic leads. Once you impinge on one fundamental right, voting, you open the door to doing the same for others. The logic there is: People who don't work don't get to vote. And they shouldn't be allowed to add children to the burden the rest of us have, so they should be sterilized too.

Is that really a society you want to live in? And no, that is not hyperbole. The in early part of the 20th century people were routinely sterilized because they were criminals, or they were poor, or they were stupid. Basically because they weren't "qualified" or "entitled" to have kids by someone else's definition.

That's not right. And I'm sorry but that's where this kind of logic leads. EVERYONE, who is not a felon, gets to vote. And that's how it should be. You don't want the poor leaching off of society? Stop making it easy for corporations to take jobs overseas. Raise the minimum wage so that working is more profitable than welfare. Give people free healthcare so that when they are sick they can get the help they need, and their health doesn't get so bad that they can't work. That's the solution. Not taking away people's right to vote.

 

[ksinger]

If you are not a citizen of the US and do not pay federal/state income taxes, you should not share the right to vote. It is a clear conflict of interests.

AFAIK, only US citizens are allowed to vote in federal elections. Even a green card doesn't give you that right, only full citizenship.

Yes, you are correct -- I should be more clear. I feel that it is a conflict of interests to allow those who choose not to work (whether it be due to laziness or not willing to "lower oneself" to work a lesser paying job -- NOT due to TRUE disability) and/or accept welfare from the government to vote in any elections (federal or local). These people do not pay income taxes. I feel it is a conflict of interests for them to vote at any level, since it all starts locally. It's no secret that these people will vote for whichever party or representative promises to or has a record of giving them more free stuff -- at taxpayer's expense.

I feel it's wrong to give voting power to those who do have not contributed.

What about stay at home parents? Does their lifestyle choice result in them being disenfranchised?

Not for me.

Voting and working are two different things. And I don't think working should be a per-requisite for voting. But that's a great way to disenfranchise a whole LOT of women.

This comment rubbed me the wrong way, too, and I never got around to responding. I thought surely MSOP04 was just forgetting that stay at home parents existed.

I think what msop was referring to is not the stay at home parents or retired people. I think she means physically able people who choose to refuse work and collect welfare (and other programs) instead. My cousin has been collecting welfare since she had her first kid at 17. She has a house (not an apartment, but a regular house) paid in full for her plus all sorts of other extras (checks, full time nanny, food stamps, free health care, gas coupons, cell phone, etc). She is physically able to work but chooses not to. Not because she wants to stay home and bond with her kids but because when she had a job she got a raise and ended up losing all the "free" stuff.

That sort of thing is very wrong.

Stay at home parents should actually fall in the same category (if you're looking to compare people) as working people. Being with your kids and taking care of them is NOT the same thing as choosing to not work.

OK but. You realize that's nearly impossible to legislate, right?

It's like goldilocks. One definition is too narrow, one definition is too broad. And by the time you've finally found one that's just right you've pissed off a bunch of bears that just want the whole thing over and done with.

Who is a 'working person'. Is a person is who rightfully on disability allowed to vote? And who decides what is a 'rightful' disability. I took a year off, and was on disability for largely emotional/mental issues. There was nothing physically wrong with me. And there is a LARGE majority of people (especially in our insane government) would would say that I was a freeloader, and able to work. But I sincerely wasn't, and I needed that year.

It's not something that is POSSIBLE.

The whole point of the vote is that is is a right you CAN'T restrict in that way. You can't and you don't get to decide who is 'entitled' to vote. Because voting is like breathing in our laws. You get to do it, period. With three exceptions: 1) you are not an adult so have you not reach the age (federally defined) to majority. 2) you are a convicted felon and part of what you give up is your right to vote. 3) You are not a citizen. Only citizens get to vote.

It's that broad for a reason. It is such a fundamental right that you haven' go around imposing restrictions like: you have to be able to read, you have to be able to speak english, you have to be a certain skin color. NO, the reason those restrictions were struck down by the Supreme Court is because you can't fetter the right to vote based on the concept that some people are more qualified or more entitled to vote than others. If you are a citizen, over a certain age, and you are not a convicted felon you get to vote. PERIOD.

And that is exactly how it should be.

Saying you have to be a productive member of society, by ANYONE's definition no matter how liberal that definition is, disenfranchises people of their fundemental rights.

And I'm sorry, that's not okay under ANY circumstance to me-- short of felonies.

Eloquent as always. I was simply hyperventilating. The fact that we are even seriously discussing this, fills this wife of an American history and government teacher, with serious despair for our future. It's a good thing he tends to more optimism that I do...

 

[msop04]

Yes, you are correct -- I should be more clear. I feel that it is a conflict of interests to allow those who choose not to work (whether it be due to laziness or not willing to "lower oneself" to work a lesser paying job -- NOT due to TRUE disability) and/or accept welfare from the government to vote in any elections (federal or local). These people do not pay income taxes. I feel it is a conflict of interests for them to vote at any level, since it all starts locally. It's no secret that these people will vote for whichever party or representative promises to or has a record of giving them more free stuff -- at taxpayer's expense.

I feel it's wrong to give voting power to those who do have not contributed.

What about stay at home parents? Does their lifestyle choice result in them being disenfranchised?

Not for me.

Voting and working are two different things. And I don't think working should be a per-requisite for voting. But that's a great way to disenfranchise a whole LOT of women.

Being a SAH mom and being a SAH mom accepting welfare are not the same. I believe that women (or men) who accept welfare and do not work due to the reasons bolded above should not vote, as it's a clear conflict of interests. Most stay at home parents do so because they can afford to (or can't afford to pay for child care, as they might feel that they are "working to pay for child care"). It's a choice, that's fine... just don't ask for welfare for years and continue to have children that you clearly cannot afford. I am not against short-term aid, as it would be ridiculous to think that people will never need it at some point.

I happen to have a huge problem with those who abuse the system and live off of the government for years -- generations even -- and get to continue to vote for whoever promises to bring them more money for doing more of the same -- not contributing to anything except the population. The government also pays for their meds, including birth control (ANY FORM almost!)... but do they take it?? Nope. More kids means a bigger check -- that's their American Way. I've witnessed numerous mothers forego their children's antibiotics or breathing treatments (at $0.50-$3) because it was "too expensive," and in the same motion hand me their lipstick, sodas, and cigarettes to be rung up.

There is not a whole lot of incentive in this country to work. Why work when the government will pay for everything. Many of those on welfare programs live much better than those who are actually trying their best to better themselves and refusing to give into this mentality. If something is not done to better monitor this type of government fraud, there may come a time when a large portion of the people who do work and pay for this foolishness will adopt the same mentality. Then, who will pay for it all??

I work in healthcare and see this on a daily basis... so I may be "overexposed" to this type of activity. Everyone doesn't have to share the same opinion, this just happens to be mine from my own IRL experience.

 

[makhro82]

Wow. There are some pretty harsh words here against wealthy folks. I certainly wouldn't call myself super-wealthy, but I can appreciate that I have the ability to pay my bills every month.

... it seems odd to me to hear people say that they have no compassion/sympathy for the wealthy and yet that's exactly what they expect the wealthy to have - compassion and sympathy. Sounds hypocritical to me. It sounds so easy to say that if you make more, you pay more - until you're the one who's actually paying more.

...It sounds awfully bitter to say that since so-and-so drives a Mercedes, that they should foot the health insurance bill. I get that our health care system is broken (and our government too), but I do not believe that ObamaCare is the answer.

I agree with you, momhappy... to be successful by hard work and determination was once the American dream. Now, it seems it's evil to want success and to make money. My husband started his own business recently, so I can sort of understand what you mean, as we will claim a large loss this year (and quite possibly for the next several years if things don't get a little busier).

One of my favorite quotes is from Thomas Sowell, an American economist and political/social theorist -- I think it says a lot...
"Since this is an era when many people are concerned with 'fairness' and 'social justice,' what is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?"

No this is they myth of the American dream because if it were true there would be a lot more wealthy people. I don't believe that I "deserve" what someone else has worked hard for. I don't begrudge anyone for being able to afford the finer things in life. I do have a problem with people literally dying or being bankrupted due to lack of coverage or crazy OOP cost. There are so many places that make it work but Americans have always been taught to be so selfish and greedy and they don't mind obtaining or increasing their wealth on the backs of others...

 

[momhappy]

Wow. There are some pretty harsh words here against wealthy folks. I certainly wouldn't call myself super-wealthy, but I can appreciate that I have the ability to pay my bills every month.

... it seems odd to me to hear people say that they have no compassion/sympathy for the wealthy and yet that's exactly what they expect the wealthy to have - compassion and sympathy. Sounds hypocritical to me. It sounds so easy to say that if you make more, you pay more - until you're the one who's actually paying more.

...It sounds awfully bitter to say that since so-and-so drives a Mercedes, that they should foot the health insurance bill. I get that our health care system is broken (and our government too), but I do not believe that ObamaCare is the answer.

I agree with you, momhappy... to be successful by hard work and determination was once the American dream. Now, it seems it's evil to want success and to make money. My husband started his own business recently, so I can sort of understand what you mean, as we will claim a large loss this year (and quite possibly for the next several years if things don't get a little busier).

One of my favorite quotes is from Thomas Sowell, an American economist and political/social theorist -- I think it says a lot...
"Since this is an era when many people are concerned with 'fairness' and 'social justice,' what is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?"

Yes, you fulfill the "American Dream," work your a** off, and then you're judged for it based on the kind of car you drive....
I wish you and your husband the best of luck on the new business - it's not easy, but I hope that you succeed

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="TooPatient|1380837050|
I think what msop was referring to is not the stay at home parents or retired people. I think she means physically able people who choose to refuse work and collect welfare (and other programs) instead. My cousin has been collecting welfare since she had her first kid at 17. She has a house (not an apartment, but a regular house) paid in full for her plus all sorts of other extras (checks, full time nanny, food stamps, free health care, gas coupons, cell phone, etc). She is physically able to work but chooses not to. Not because she wants to stay home and bond with her kids but because when she had a job she got a raise and ended up losing all the "free" stuff.

That sort of thing is very wrong.

Stay at home parents should actually fall in the same category (if you're looking to compare people) as working people. Being with your kids and taking care of them is NOT the same thing as choosing to not work.[/quote]


Hey, why work when you can get everything for FREE!...Yup, $17 trillion and counting.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="Gypsy|1380837963|

The whole point of the vote is that is is a right you CAN'T restrict in that way. You can't and you don't get to decide who is 'entitled' to vote. Because voting is like breathing in our laws. You get to do it, period. With three exceptions: 1) you are not an adult so have you not reach the age (federally defined) to majority. 2) you are a convicted felon and part of what you give up is your right to vote. 3) You are not a citizen. Only citizens get to vote.

[/quote]

 

[msop04]

No this is they myth of the American dream because if it were true there would be a lot more wealthy people. I don't believe that I "deserve" what someone else has worked hard for. I don't begrudge anyone for being able to afford the finer things in life. I do have a problem with people literally dying or being bankrupted due to lack of coverage or crazy OOP cost. There are so many places that make it work but Americans have always been taught to be so selfish and greedy and they don't mind obtaining or increasing their wealth on the backs of others...

Maybe America will figure out how to make it work... maybe not, since us Americans are so greedy. If it's greed to not feel ashamed of what I've earned, then just call me Gordon Gecko.

We should all be very ashamed of earning what we've worked so hard to have...

Ummm... no. Not in a million years will I feel that way... no one should. Everyone is not meant to be wealthy, nor is everyone meant to be poor... but everyone has the freedom to do his/her best and to try. That is the American Dream.

 

[vintagelover229]

I think there is a difference between wealthy and SUPER wealthy. Like those who earn tens of thousands of dollars off of interest in just a few hours-to the point where they could give away 90% of their wealth and still live far more comfortably than many of us would ever dare to dream.

A million dollars doesn't go as far as it used to. I'm talking about the mulch-billionares and even (hundreds) millionaires. Sure they worked hard for their money (and I'm not saying they should have to give it away or share it) but how many of those people are rich bc of slave labor or ripping off the little guys (hedge fund fraud comes to mind) and still walk away with their huge bonuses while not giving their employees raises/etc?

 

[msop04]

Yes, you fulfill the "American Dream," work your a** off, and then you're judged for it based on the kind of car you drive....
I wish you and your husband the best of luck on the new business - it's not easy, but I hope that you succeed

Thanks, momhappy! Me too!!

 

[makhro82]

No this is they myth of the American dream because if it were true there would be a lot more wealthy people. I don't believe that I "deserve" what someone else has worked hard for. I don't begrudge anyone for being able to afford the finer things in life. I do have a problem with people literally dying or being bankrupted due to lack of coverage or crazy OOP cost. There are so many places that make it work but Americans have always been taught to be so selfish and greedy and they don't mind obtaining or increasing their wealth on the backs of others...

Maybe America will figure out how to make it work... maybe not, since us Americans are so greedy. If it's greed to not feel ashamed of what I've earned, then just call me Gordon Gecko.

We should all be very ashamed of earning what we've worked so hard to have...

Ummm... no. Not in a million years will I feel that way... no one should. Everyone is not meant to be wealthy, nor is everyone meant to be poor... but everyone has the freedom to do his/her best and to try. That is the American Dream.

I don't think it is greedy to have things that you have worked hard for nor should someone feel ashamed about it. The fact is that we can and should do better. Not everyone can get far just by "trying" that's the point.

I remember sitting in my freshman English class and someone telling me I was admitted to my college because of Affirmative-Action. Why? Because I'm Black? Because I am woman? Or could it have been my competitive test scores or attending a top prep school? Or when I schedule appointments with my clients over the phone and I turn out to be "different" than they expected and they move their business to another adviser. I *try* very hard but there are just some things that you can't always overcome such as gender, race, sex, class, income, etc. No everyone is not meant to be wealthy but no child in America should be going hungry. No person should be uninsured. And believe it or not everyone does not have the freedom to try. Your America seems to be a lot different than mine.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="Gypsy|1380837963|

You can't even step on that road, because what's at the bottom is terrible. And it's a short trip. You start on that road, next you'll have people saying that the poor shouldn't be allowed to have children. And that unless you have worked for so many years you have to be sterilized. Cause that's where that logic leads. Once you impinge on one fundamental right, voting, you open the door to doing the same for others. The logic there is: People who don't work don't get to vote. And they shouldn't be allowed to add children to the burden the rest of us have, so they should be sterilized too.

Is that really a society you want to live in? And no, that is not hyperbole. The in early part of the 20th century people were routinely sterilized because they were criminals, or they were poor, or they were stupid. Basically because they weren't "qualified" or "entitled" to have kids by someone else's definition.

[/quote]
no, but this is wrong too. Him and octo mom should marry each other.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-fathered-30-kids-needs-break-child-support-140439765.html

 

[msop04]

I think what msop was referring to is not the stay at home parents or retired people. I think she means physically able people who choose to refuse work and collect welfare (and other programs) instead. My cousin has been collecting welfare since she had her first kid at 17. She has a house (not an apartment, but a regular house) paid in full for her plus all sorts of other extras (checks, full time nanny, food stamps, free health care, gas coupons, cell phone, etc). She is physically able to work but chooses not to. Not because she wants to stay home and bond with her kids but because when she had a job she got a raise and ended up losing all the "free" stuff.

That sort of thing is very wrong.

Stay at home parents should actually fall in the same category (if you're looking to compare people) as working people. Being with your kids and taking care of them is NOT the same thing as choosing to not work.

Thanks TooPatient... this is exactly what I was referring to. Although I tried to be clear, evidently I didn't come across so clearly to everyone.

 

[justginger]

Where does this pervasive thought that if you work hard, you succeed - and if you're poor it's because you haven't worked hard, come from? There are millions of people in the States who have worked hard, 2 jobs, night shifts, their whole bloody lives and still struggle to get their children a new pair of shoes. They didn't have parents to pay their way through a skyrocketing tertiary education system, so what, they aren't contributing enough to deserve access to medical care?

There are not two clearly defined populations: those who work and deserve everything vs those who don't do anything, and thus do not. The great majority of the real world falls in other categories. At the end of the day, many individuals are, by default, in their category due to their 'lot in life.' If we're going with these two categories, and nothing else in between - it takes extreme intervention to cause a child born in the ghetto to reach acceptable levels of 'worth' as defined in this thread, and extreme intervention to cause a silver-spooned trust fund baby to NOT fall into that same level of worth. Why is that trust fund baby able to pay lawyers to scheme up tax loopholes to fraudulently retain tens of thousands of dollars, to fund his Mediterranean holidays of debauchery...but the ghetto girl can't consider going to the ER with a terrible UTI for fear of the bill? Her janitorial job doesn't offer health care, she doesn't make enough to pay the skyrocketing premiums of insurance companies (the executives of which are parents to those trust fund babies currently drinking their weight in Dom in Cannes), so the alternative is to what? Drink lots of cranberry juice and hope her kidney function isn't irreversibly damaged due to the scarring she'll suffer?

Life is not black and white, the deserving vs the non. I fear for humanity without empathy.