Tag Archives: equality

Health Care Confusion

8 Oct

I repeatedly voted for ObamaCare or “Affordable” Health Care Act or whatever you call it.  Having no real idea what the law said/meant.  I thought free health care for everyone was an excellent idea.  I was under the impression everyone who had health insurance would get more from it–no co-pays, no discrimination.  All the women groups and gay groups said how awesome it would be.  I thought either government or employers had to cover every person–and (this sounds so silly now) I thought it would be at no charge to individuals (me).  I was thinking of Canada’s Health System.

parade 2

I should have researched:

-Firstly, I had/have no idea about the ins and outs of the law

-I don’t understand insurance jargon such as “deducatable.”  Am I extraordinarily stupid–or does anyone?

-I don’t know where to look to find easy to read, non-politically motivated, actual info–that pertains to my situation.

-I don’t want to have to spend a disproportionate amount of time researching and signing up for insurance–or a lot of money.

Leslie Knope

My Situation:

-I work part-time and no longer qualify for health insurance through my ‘under 50 employees small business’ job.

-I go to school part-time so I do not qualify for a student insurance plan.

-I make too much money (how is this even possible?!) for Medicaid.

-I applied for the Medicaid-rejects, state-run (so called cheaper-option) insurance and it would be $128/mo!  For catastrophic-only.

-The insurance companies in my area offer $100/mo min policies for me.  For just catastophic.

hit by train 1

I guess I am Also “Willfully Uninsured”:

-I have no pre-exsisting conditions

-I have no chronic (or other) health concerns/conditions.

-I never go to the doctor–unless I’m injured AT work real bad, dentist, or glasses (neither EVER covered).

-I have in fact, gone to the emergency room once (at 22 y.o.) and of course couldn’t afford the bill–but I paid it back in full.  By myself.  Slowly.  Because I am a responsible citizen–so I in no way expect society to cover any accident I may have.

egg sx bruise

Questions:

-What is the absolute cheapest insurance I can get?

-Which company offers the max insurance benefits to cheapest rate ratio?

-When I do pay a (high by my standards) monthly insurance fee, and don’t end up having any accident or health concern–where does that money go???

-How much is the tax for NOT having insurance?

-When do they start charging tax for being non-insured?

2012 Spring 084

 

Partisan Politics are Stupid

13 Dec

I don’t understand how a country founded on the premise of wanting individual rights could so blindly follow the hard.  We could get a lot more accomplished if each party fought less with each other and tried to gain progress.  And it really makes me crazy when congress gets paid all this money, gets all these benefits, has a lot of holidays and vacation, and sick-leave that the American people are wanting for, then they can not make decisions.  It seems they send a lot more time trying to block so-and-sos idea because that person is part of the opposing party, then trying to advocate change for the better.

When I hear the republicans thought one way, until our Democratic president tried to do that exact same thing, then they voted against that thing they had formerly supported–just to make him look bad. . .  Well, it infuriated me.  That is why I just try to disengage politics.  I think anyone who gets that far has to be crooked.  Once you get campaign money and owe somebody something, you can no longer have ethics and ideals.  It’s too bad.  And not what our forefathers intended.

Aren’t politicians supposed to represent what regular citizens want.  Uphold the values of the majority of people in the country.  Do things that benefit most people.  I think most people are moderate, and lie somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum.  Without hype and lack of education, I think we would have a lot less extremism in this country.  It’s really ashame people do not think for themselves, and instead let the lobbiests with monetary interests drive their opinions.  And while we’re on that subject–how is lobbying democratic?  Isn’t that called buying votes or pandering?  I know if I sent cookies to the vet school admissions board, it would be seen as bribery and inappropriate.  They certainly couldn’t accept my gift.  And they definitely would not admit me because I sent them such goodies!

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/08/22/24-policies-that-republicans-supported-before-they-were-against-them/

Why Gay Marriage is Not a Threat to Marriage [not by me]

17 Jan
By Steve Chapman
Nov 5, 2006

It used to be thought that women had no business voting. But when women got the vote, men didn’t suddenly decide their once-exclusive prerogative was worthless. Blacks were once barred from owning property. When the laws changed, whites didn’t suddenly give up buying in favor of renting.

Admitting an excluded group to an institution doesn’t necessarily weaken the institution. When the subject is matrimony, however, self-styled defenders of marriage say that if it isn’t restricted, it will promptly wither and die. They think allowing gays to wed would soon cause heterosexuals to abandon marriage, start propagating offspring out of wedlock and slide into degeneracy.

American treatment of homosexuality has come a long way. Though many people view it as a sin, it’s no longer a crime. Gays and lesbians can now live their lives openly.

Changes like these were unimaginable 50 years ago, but they haven’t led to a collapse of the social order. Yet we are told that allowing homosexuals to join in legally sanctioned unions will reduce Western civilization to a smoking ruin.

That’s one of the chief rationales for efforts to block same-sex marriage. On Tuesday, eight states are offering ballot initiatives against it, and most, if not all, are expected to pass.

Supporters of these bans warn that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would damage it beyond repair. Maggie Gallagher, head of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, writes that gay marriage would grossly shortchange the needs of children “in order to further adult interests in sexual freedom.”

Now, it will come as a shock to heterosexual couples that marriage can further sexual freedom. But never mind that. As it happens, sodomy laws have been struck down by the Supreme Court. Gays are already at liberty to have commitment-free trysts with members of Congress, evangelical pastors and anyone else they choose. Unfettered sex is already abundantly available to gays who want it.

What same-sex marriage offers, by contrast, is a safe harbor for those who prefer responsible monogamy to free love. It’s not a rejection of the values of traditional marriage — it’s an affirmation.

Gallagher and others say conventional marriage serves to reconcile “the erotic, social, sexual and financial needs of men and women with the needs of their partner and their children.” Funny — that’s also what gay marriage does. It provides a durable framework in which two people can commit themselves to an exclusive sexual relationship while assuring a stable environment for their children.

Gallagher insists that youngsters are better off in a home with both a mother and a father. But thanks in part to liberal divorce laws — which conservatives are not mobilizing to repeal — many children are already deprived of the model family.

Some kids are already being brought up by same-sex partners. Conservatives think children of straight couples are better off if their parents are married. So how can children of gay couples be better off if their parents are not?

The argument that gay marriage will increase family instability by pushing heterosexuals away from marriage is ingenious but unfounded. In this realm, as Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. said, a page of history is worth a volume of logic. Some European countries have allowed gays to enter into registered partnerships (which closely resemble marriage) for years, and the results are reassuring.

M.V. Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, looked at the data from Scandinavia and the Netherlands and found, “Divorce rates have not risen since the passage of partnership laws, and marriage rates have remained stable or actually increased.” It’s true that out-of-wedlock births have risen — but they were rising long before this change, and, reports Badgett, they rose just as fast in the countries that don’t sanction same-sex unions.

William Eskridge Jr. and Darren Spedale document the same patterns in their new book, “Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse?” And they note that “children in Denmark and Sweden (and the Netherlands) are much more likely to be raised by their parents than American children.” If banning gay marriage is supposed to help American kids, it isn’t working.

There are lots of things that could be done in this country to encourage marriage, prevent divorce and improve the well-being of children. Keeping same-sex couples from the altar is not one of them.