The only sin in dealing with His Earness is not being tough enough.

Taxocrats rejoice. This latest crop of "new" Republicans is too cowardly and too weak to be effective.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

he needs to speak like this more on *known* open mikes.

*talks

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by gwiz665.

Also *quality *doublepromote

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, April 15th, 2011 3:37pm PDT - doublepromote requested by gwiz665.

Gotta wonder how unknown the mic actually was, but yeah it'd be nice to see him speak like this more often... and the follow through.

They didn't propose to cut enough, IMO. Though really they need to start with defense spending and work from there.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

That's one thing we can agree on, my Libertarian leaning friend. Get the troops out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Germany, South Korea, Okinawa, Pine Gap ... the list goes on. >> ^blankfist:

They didn't propose to cut enough, IMO. Though really they need to start with defense spending and work from there.

I call BULLSH*T this is unknown speaking...

Listen to laugh gag he does at 1:27... This is a large room with dozens of people. He would have to assume someone could record with a phone and there probably was media setup with mics.

It may not have been a televised speech or interview, but it is basically a speech to supporters or some type of media.

Bill Clinton was sort of the same way, he came across as a lot more intelligent when he was speaking off the cuff, and not some speech written by somebody else.

um, he's talking about healthcare like he actually got a proper healthcare bill passed, what a scumbag. He also refers to it as "his" healthcare bill, maybe he thinks if he pretends to speak with pride about it, people will believe it is good simply because of his super personality.

I wish the PM in Canada would come across even a fraction as open/candid as Obama often does.>> ^dag:

he needs to speak like this more on known open mikes.

*Psst!*

Mike is the guy who lives in the apartment upstairs. Mic is short for microphone.

Can you try responding to the video next time? Especially the last minute.>> ^quantumushroom:

The only sin in dealing with His Earness is not being tough enough.
Taxocrats rejoice. This latest crop of "new" Republicans is too cowardly and too weak to be effective.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

What about "open Mike"? What's up with that guy?>> ^xxovercastxx:

Psst!
Mike is the guy who lives in the apartment upstairs. Mic is short for microphone.

Anyone ever see that episode of the West Wing where President Bartlett "accidentally" let rip when there was an open mike?

I think we just had that happen for real.

>> ^dag:

What about "open Mike"? What's up with that guy?>> ^xxovercastxx:
Psst!
Mike is the guy who lives in the apartment upstairs. Mic is short for microphone.



You really don't want to know.

You gotta be brain damaged if you think that health care bill would have passed without Obama pushing congress. He worked his ass off, and like he said, paid a lot for it politically. He has earned the right to call it his.

Also I agree with the above who want to start with cutting defense. Stop the wars, then we can start cutting other programs if necessary.

>> ^MaxWilder:

You gotta be brain damaged if you think that health care bill would have passed without Obama pushing congress. He worked his ass off, and like he said, paid a lot for it politically. He has earned the right to call it his.
Also I agree with the above who want to start with cutting defense. Stop the wars, then we can start cutting other programs if necessary.


So you believe that Big Pharma and Big Insurance Just lobbied Obama? That's bullshit...this bill was always gonna pass as long as it supported the bottom line which it did. He can call it his if he wants to...thats just him cozying up to more corporations.

@Yogi

Exactly

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

Why would I debate the particulars of this socialist bu11sh!t? Ears is the same inexperienced, clueless N00B from yesterday and the day before.

So as the atheist announces arguing over the particulars of deities is irrelevant, so I proclaim arguing the details of a phony "right" to health care that has never existed in America is also irrelevant.

USA is going broke, and of the two parties, one won't go far enough in trying to stop it, and the other that believes Government is the True God will attempt to raise taxes, their only solution to every problem and the equivalent of demolishing coastal homes to protect them from being destroyed by tsunamis.



In reply to this comment by RedSky:
Can you try responding to the video next time? Especially the last minute.>> ^quantumushroom:

The only sin in dealing with His Earness is not being tough enough.
Taxocrats rejoice. This latest crop of "new" Republicans is too cowardly and too weak to be effective.

Out of the last 17 presidents (including Obama) since WW2, there have been 8 Dems, and 9 Repubs. All the Democrats lowered the national debt/GDP ratio, while all of the Republicans increased it. This guise that the Republicans are trying to cut spending is bullshit, when they're the ones who got us here in the first place.

http://gawker.com/#!5792515/overheard-obamas-private-conversation-with-donors

Here's some information about the circumstances where this was recorded.


>> ^joedirt:

I call BULLSH T this is unknown speaking...
Listen to laugh gag he does at 1:27... This is a large room with dozens of people. He would have to assume someone could record with a phone and there probably was media setup with mics.
It may not have been a televised speech or interview, but it is basically a speech to supporters or some type of media.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Psst!
Mike is the guy who lives in the apartment upstairs. Mic is short for microphone.


Actually, "Mike" is a perfectly acceptable shortening of 'microphone'.

"mic" is the acronym for "Men In Chartreuse", which was the astoundingly less-successful second sequel to "Men in Black".

>> ^MaxWilder:

You gotta be brain damaged if you think that health care bill would have passed without Obama pushing congress. He worked his ass off, and like he said, paid a lot for it politically. He has earned the right to call it his.

You gotta be REALLY brain damaged to think there was any health care bill passed.

No health care bill was ever passed. There was a giant health insurance bill that mandates everyone pay corporations with nothing in return. That passed.

Tell me again about improved health care.

>> ^Retroboy:

Actually, "Mike" is a perfectly acceptable shortening of 'microphone'.

It's one of those things that's become acceptable through repetition.

>> ^dag:

That's one thing we can agree on, my Libertarian leaning friend. Get the troops out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Germany, South Korea, Okinawa, Pine Gap ... the list goes on. >> ^blankfist:
They didn't propose to cut enough, IMO. Though really they need to start with defense spending and work from there.



Troops already ARE moving out of Germany :-) That causes lots of problems btw, whole cities heavily depend on providing infrastructure for US forces. We're getting real "ghost towns" (i.e. neighborhoods) because huge areas and numbers of houses etc. were hired out to US government via xx-year contracts. Some cities have hundreds of empty apartments (still hired by US gov while uninhabited) while affordable places for students etc. are lacking.

Nevertheless i'm a fan of US pull out of troops, never understood why they're here in the first place after WW2 and later the cold war were over. Plus: it must cost the US gov a SHITLOAD of money providing for the tenthousands of troops in Germany alone.

>> ^joedirt:

>> ^MaxWilder:
You gotta be brain damaged if you think that health care bill would have passed without Obama pushing congress. He worked his ass off, and like he said, paid a lot for it politically. He has earned the right to call it his.
You gotta be REALLY brain damaged to think there was any health care bill passed.
No health care bill was ever passed. There was a giant health insurance bill that mandates everyone pay corporations with nothing in return. That passed.
Tell me again about improved health care.


Sigh. Fine. I will tell you about improved health care.

1. An end to pre-existing conditions causing denial of coverage.
2. An end to recissions.
3. An end to lifetime benefit caps, and annual caps end in 2014.
4. Rebates to help close the prescription drug "donut hole".
5. Tax rebates for businesses with under 50 employees to offset the costs.
6. Children covered by parents insurance until age 27.
7. Preventative care without copay.
8. Greater transparency in insurance overhead.
9. Appeals process for coverage denials.
10. New procedures to root out fraud and waste.
11. Medicare expansion to rural areas.
12. New standards for non-profit organization efficiency.

... and many, many more.

I'm not saying it's the best. I'm not saying we shouldn't keep fighting for better. But this is a serious improvement over what has been going on lately.

Dude, you are so full of shit it's coming out your keyboard.>> ^quantumushroom:

Why would I debate the particulars of this socialist bu11sh!t? Ears is the same inexperienced, clueless N00B from yesterday and the day before.
So as the atheist announces arguing over the particulars of deities is irrelevant, so I proclaim arguing the details of a phony "right" to health care that has never existed in America is also irrelevant.
USA is going broke, and of the two parties, one won't go far enough in trying to stop it, and the other that believes Government is the True God will attempt to raise taxes, their only solution to every problem and the equivalent of demolishing coastal homes to protect them from being destroyed by tsunamis.

In reply to this comment by RedSky:
Can you try responding to the video next time? Especially the last minute.>> ^quantumushroom:
The only sin in dealing with His Earness is not being tough enough.
Taxocrats rejoice. This latest crop of "new" Republicans is too cowardly and too weak to be effective.

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^joedirt:
>> ^MaxWilder:
You gotta be brain damaged if you think that health care bill would have passed without Obama pushing congress. He worked his ass off, and like he said, paid a lot for it politically. He has earned the right to call it his.
You gotta be REALLY brain damaged to think there was any health care bill passed.
No health care bill was ever passed. There was a giant health insurance bill that mandates everyone pay corporations with nothing in return. That passed.
Tell me again about improved health care.

Sigh. Fine. I will tell you about improved health care.
1. An end to pre-existing conditions causing denial of coverage.
2. An end to recissions.
3. An end to lifetime benefit caps, and annual caps end in 2014.
4. Rebates to help close the prescription drug "donut hole".
5. Tax rebates for businesses with under 50 employees to offset the costs.
6. Children covered by parents insurance until age 27.
7. Preventative care without copay.
8. Greater transparency in insurance overhead.
9. Appeals process for coverage denials.
10. New procedures to root out fraud and waste.
11. Medicare expansion to rural areas.
12. New standards for non-profit organization efficiency.
... and many, many more.
I'm not saying it's the best. I'm not saying we shouldn't keep fighting for better. But this is a serious improvement over what has been going on lately.


I'll grant you improvements. But it merely shows what a failed democracy we live in because this is not what the American people wanted or supported in a large majority before and even after the bullshit propaganda campaign.

For attempting to make things better Obama gets a "Good for you" other than that it's like Bill Clinton for me...just because you're better than the Bush that came before you doesn't mean you're any good.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^joedirt:
>> ^MaxWilder:
You gotta be brain damaged if you think that health care bill would have passed without Obama pushing congress. He worked his ass off, and like he said, paid a lot for it politically. He has earned the right to call it his.
You gotta be REALLY brain damaged to think there was any health care bill passed.
No health care bill was ever passed. There was a giant health insurance bill that mandates everyone pay corporations with nothing in return. That passed.
Tell me again about improved health care.

Sigh. Fine. I will tell you about improved health care.
1. An end to pre-existing conditions causing denial of coverage.
2. An end to recissions.
3. An end to lifetime benefit caps, and annual caps end in 2014.
4. Rebates to help close the prescription drug "donut hole".
5. Tax rebates for businesses with under 50 employees to offset the costs.
6. Children covered by parents insurance until age 27.
7. Preventative care without copay.
8. Greater transparency in insurance overhead.
9. Appeals process for coverage denials.
10. New procedures to root out fraud and waste.
11. Medicare expansion to rural areas.
12. New standards for non-profit organization efficiency.
... and many, many more.
I'm not saying it's the best. I'm not saying we shouldn't keep fighting for better. But this is a serious improvement over what has been going on lately.

I'll grant you improvements. But it merely shows what a failed democracy we live in because this is not what the American people wanted or supported in a large majority before and even after the bullshit propaganda campaign.
For attempting to make things better Obama gets a "Good for you" other than that it's like Bill Clinton for me...just because you're better than the Bush that came before you doesn't mean you're any good.


I quite agree. Obama is a disappointment in many ways. But let's be honest. The health care "debate" served to highlight what a bunch of morons we live among. As long as there are so many gullible idiots that believe in death panels and the "horrible" universal health care plans in almost every other civilized country, we can't expect much better. Obama was overhyped. We only get the leadership we deserve. And we don't deserve much. In my humble opinion, we were damn lucky to get anything positive out of the whole fiasco.

@MaxWilder

You seem to be falling for the 'well if it's the lesser of two evils i'll take it' mentality. Firstly, the people did not want this - they voted in Obama under the premise he would provide real reform, this is not real reform because it does not deal with the core issue of huge overall expenditure on healthcare by Americans for very little result. Instead it forces most people to take it or face large fines, and as far as the pre-existing legislation issue goes, there are loopholes, who do you think wrote the bill?

It's a no brainer, do we want everyone to have access to healthcare or not? If no, then consider yourself partially liable for the 20,000 odd deaths that will result from the passing of this legislation per year (as opposed to to a public plan) - congratulations I hope that feels good sitting there on your shoulder. If yes, then this legislation fails, because millions still wont have access to healthcare under these changes.

The lobbyists spent huge sums of money to get what they wanted, and they were successful.

I amuses me that everyone thinks that they know what is right and that their opinion is the correct one.

I wish we had a public option. I think it is the best and most fair course -- spread the costs over the whole population and pay for it with a tax, instead of insurance premiums on the ones who can afford it. This just makes sense.

But who said that Americans are rational? I have so many conservative relatives who pop a vein over paying taxes and creating a social safety net. They are quick to sup at the public trough, but god forbid somebody get food stamps. "Those people don't work hard, I work hard, I deserve it, they don't."

I don't agree with their point of view, but believe you me, they hold it strongly. They believe that they are correct.

The lobbyists play into that. Fox News twists the story to play up that aspect. But it is landing on fertile soil, those manipulations.




>> ^ghark:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/MaxWilder" title="member since November 7th, 2007" class="profilelink">MaxWilder
You seem to be falling for the 'well if it's the lesser of two evils i'll take it' mentality. Firstly, the people did not want this - they voted in Obama under the premise he would provide real reform, this is not real reform because it does not deal with the core issue of huge overall expenditure on healthcare by Americans for very little result. Instead it forces most people to take it or face large fines, and as far as the pre-existing legislation issue goes, there are loopholes, who do you think wrote the bill?
It's a no brainer, do we want everyone to have access to healthcare or not? If no, then consider yourself partially liable for the 20,000 odd deaths that will result from the passing of this legislation per year (as opposed to to a public plan) - congratulations I hope that feels good sitting there on your shoulder. If yes, then this legislation fails, because millions still wont have access to healthcare under these changes.
The lobbyists spent huge sums of money to get what they wanted, and they were successful.

Wait, wait, wait. Who says revoking the bill will ADD another trillion in debt? Where does that figure come from, who came up with it, and why the fuck should I believe it?

>> ^ghark:

MaxWilder
You seem to be falling for the 'well if it's the lesser of two evils i'll take it' mentality. Firstly, the people did not want this - they voted in Obama under the premise he would provide real reform, this is not real reform because it does not deal with the core issue of huge overall expenditure on healthcare by Americans for very little result. Instead it forces most people to take it or face large fines, and as far as the pre-existing legislation issue goes, there are loopholes, who do you think wrote the bill?
It's a no brainer, do we want everyone to have access to healthcare or not? If no, then consider yourself partially liable for the 20,000 odd deaths that will result from the passing of this legislation per year (as opposed to to a public plan) - congratulations I hope that feels good sitting there on your shoulder. If yes, then this legislation fails, because millions still wont have access to healthcare under these changes.
The lobbyists spent huge sums of money to get what they wanted, and they were successful.


And you seem to be falling for the "if it's not perfect let's stomp our feet and hold our breath until it is" mentality. You're not going to get your way overnight, and there are real people who are really suffering who will really be helped by this legislation.

If you want to campaign for a single-payer universal health plan, I will support it. But if I have the choice between 'marginal improvement' and 'continue the downward spiral', you're damn right I will take the lesser of two evils.

Like I said before, Obama (like any other human being) simply isn't capable of providing real reform while there are so many morons with their heads up their asses in the general public, not to mention congress.

I'm 100% on board with @MaxWilder. @Yogi, and @ghark seem to be falling into the same trap the tea party is falling in. By using your ideological base to hold your party hostage, you make your party less electable with the centrists. Right now, the centrists run this country, and Obama is our CEO.

To paraphrase Obama, "if we were to start from scratch, single-payer is the way to go, but we aren't starting from scratch." I agree, and in fact almost everybody agrees, there is little in this bill to effectively control costs. This bill is more about the moral imperative, not the financial one. It makes healthcare obtainable for more people, and it ensures that the people paying for coverage receive it. That is, it focuses more on the "quality and availability of care" problem, than the "cost of care" problem.

There is a very good reason for this. The cost issue is trickier to deal with.

On one hand you have the single payer direction. How do you do that? Presumably you just start offering medicare for everybody, which in effect means raising taxes substantially to pay for it. Remember, we just got out of a recession. Politically, nobody can stomach more taxes. Granted, in theory, everyone should receive a commensurate pay raise for the insurance they were previously receiving. If you thought that was going to happen... well... I think I've got a bridge that can get over that ocean for you...

On the other hand, you have the public option. In effect, that's making medicare optional for everyone. Well, if you talk to anyone in the medical industry, they'll tell you that medicare under-compensates. They don't cover the cost of care, and doctors are forced to subsidize that care by over charging patients with private insurance. Many doctors stop accepting medicare for exactly this reason. This puts you in a pickle. You can either A) force doctors to accept medicare, or B) reduce the availability of care to medicare subscribers. Of course, this is a false choice. Option A causes doctors to operate at a loss, which discourages entry into the medical profession more generally, and results in consequence B. Government price controls result in supply-demand imbalances. This is well documented.

If you really want to control costs, the best (maybe only) way is to lower the barriers to entry to the medical profession. Becoming a doctor should be a less costly endeavor, and doctors shouldn't be the only ones providing care. Nurses and technicians can do much of what is currently on the doctor's plate. Routine prescription renewals, diagnoses of common illnesses, and basic preventative tests could all be handled by people that didn't spend ten years and hundreds of thousands of dollars becoming a practicing doctor. Also, the creation of medical schools should be heavily subsidized. If you increase the number of care providers, the costs will come down.

The other aspects of costs are lawsuits, and medical technology (e.g. pharma, medtronic, etc). Dealing with lawsuits is hard, but one way to do it is to push liability to the people actually providing the care (like those nurses and techs, not the deep pockets), and make sure that the person getting the care understands the risks involved and signs waivers. That is where the dems are weakest because of their close ties to the ABA. With medical technology, we've got bigger problems that really have to do with overhauling our deeply flawed system of intellectual property in this country (and protectionist tendencies surrounding it). I agree, it's ridiculous that titanium screws cost 8k just because they go in your spine, or that 10 cents worth of pills can cost $600, but dealing with that is another whole TL;DR.

"Whenever government gets involved, processes and products cost less and become more efficient."

You believe this, right? What are you going to do about the 60 billion lost to Medicare EVERY year in fraud, waste and abuse? Obama's solution was to set up a "fraud hotline".


>> ^acidSpine:

Dude, you are so full of shit it's coming out your keyboard.>>

>> ^quantumushroom:

Why would I debate the particulars of this socialist bu11sh!t? Ears is the same inexperienced, clueless N00B from yesterday and the day before.
So as the atheist announces arguing over the particulars of deities is irrelevant, so I proclaim arguing the details of a phony "right" to health care that has never existed in America is also irrelevant.
USA is going broke, and of the two parties, one won't go far enough in trying to stop it, and the other that believes Government is the True God will attempt to raise taxes, their only solution to every problem and the equivalent of demolishing coastal homes to protect them from being destroyed by tsunamis.

In reply to this comment by RedSky:
Can you try responding to the video next time? Especially the last minute.>> ^quantumushroom:
The only sin in dealing with His Earness is not being tough enough.
Taxocrats rejoice. This latest crop of "new" Republicans is too cowardly and too weak to be effective.



You know how you make people not listen to a fricken word you say? Name calling, emotion laden catch words, and zero logical thought.

'Socialist', 'Ears', 'clueless', 'NOOB', 'True God'

Have a look at the comment below yours as to the actual FACTS about spending between your precious right wing compared to the left.

*sigh*

@bmacs27
You haven't done enough homework son, many many countries offer government run healthcare for the majority of citizens, and the percentage of GPD they spend on healthcare is far lower than America's. The cost in America is out of control because of the insurance companies and other factors. You also assume I support a particular party.

Here are a couple of facts for you
- there are currently around 50 million uninsured in America
- the cost of healthcare in America (by GDP) is the highest in the world (and is rising)

The current system doesn't work, unless you're above a certain level of income where you can afford the premiums for a good insurance plan. As already stated, 50 million people fall below this line for income or other reasons. Your argument is based on the assumption that taxes will need to go up to cover a government plan - which is a complete logic fail because the overall expenditure on HC will go down per person.

@MaxWilder Ahh I see - so you support a government run plan, but lack a spine when it comes to actually expecting anything from congress/the senate.

@bareboards2 Opinion that at least for me is based on what works in countries other than America. The only thing stopping a government plan being introduced there is the plutocracy in place, the problem with the people you talk about exists, but the vocal part of it comes from the top down.

@ghark - Please explain how, exactly, is a "spine" going to help convert an entrenched industry to something universal and efficient? Would it help if I ran around insulting people for being weak willed? It would be *very* easy for me to oppose an imperfect health plan. I'm not currently sick. But there a *lot* of people out there who need their health coverage to survive, and the more of those people we can cover, the better. If you oppose a plan to cover those people, you will not be lauded for "holding out for something better", you will be blamed for causing the problem. And *nothing* will get done.

People like me are not the problem. It's the idiots who believe in death panels who are holding this country back.

And expecting good things from congress? Not gonna happen while we hold on to the two party system. And to change that means election reform. That's where we really should be focusing our attention.

Quote fail... @ghark

How old are you son?

I understand that total cost on HC will drop under a single-payer system. I want a single-payer system. What you don't seem to understand is who will likely reap the benefits of a sudden switch to single-payer. If you don't think taxes will need to go up to cover a government plan, you must not understand physics. Of course they will. Right now the bulk of healthcare costs are paid for in the private sector. A single-payer plan moves that to the public sector. Either taxes or deficits (hopefully taxes) will cover that change in the government balance sheet.

Sure, in a perfect world companies would just increase your salary in-line with what they were previously for your healthcare. Over the long run, they would, as labor markets will demand it. Of course in the short term they won't. Corporations will just stop paying the redundant benefit. You'll be left with higher taxes, and the same pay. During a recession, that's a really bad idea. Exxon's profits will soar, because the cost of their labor will drop. Your take won't though.

Also, a more esoteric point for the true wonks: if you think Aetna's approximately 5% margins are the problem, then I suggest you look at Medtronic's 20% margins.

Don't call me son.

Om mother falcon.

@MaxWilder yep completely agree

@bmacs27 So you also agree that a single payer system is best, ok then. When is the best time to switch? My age? I'm 16/F/Cali

Maybe since you can now cover a child under healthcare until 27 we should change the legal drinking age to 27 as well. How about claiming them as an exemption on taxes until 27 and being considered underage inregards to sexual relationships until 27 as well.

>> ^ghark:
<broken quote>

Do you think a single-payer system would have made it through congress?

Assuming your (realistic) answer is "no", should those wanting single-payer vote down every alternative that isn't single-payer even if it's an improvement over the previous system?

You do understand that insurance premiums are being paid, don't you?

This isn't a freebie giveaway. It is allowing loving parents to protect their children.

What the hell is wrong with you?



>> ^My_design:

Maybe since you can now cover a child under healthcare until 27 we should change the legal drinking age to 27 as well. How about claiming them as an exemption on taxes until 27 and being considered underage inregards to sexual relationships until 27 as well.

This is the exact problem with thinking today, we don't allow kids to grow up. We have mothers calling in to their child's employer because he dared to give a negative review. We have employees that feel they are entitled to the same pay rate as their manager because they work 40 hours a week. Loving parents protecting their child?! Your child is 27! He/she isn't a child they're an adult! If they have a handicap that prevents them from being able to work and provide for themselves then they should be able to retain coverage. Outside of that the best and only reason I could see paying $3600 a year per enrolled "Adult/Child" would be if the current uninsured medical expenses for 19-27 year olds drastically outweighed the costs for the new program. But I haven't seen any statistics relating to that. Yes 30% of 19-27 year old adults do not have insurance. But how much is that fact costing us each year and how much would it cost us each year if we insured each and every one of them?
The $3600 is a government estimate for 2013, and since the government does their estimating with chickens pecking at player pianos I sincerely doubt the costs will be in line.

If the premiums are being paid anyway why don't the parents just pay for their kids insurance?
I fully expect that if Obamacare goes into effect that I will lose my employer provided insurance. If by some act of God I do not lose my coverage then I fully expect that my rates will drastically increase and my family coverage plan will become even more expensive as people load on their precious 22 year old "kids" to the program. So this means that my family will pay even more for my daughters insurance because someone else can't put a foot of common sense up their kids ass.

>> ^bareboards2:

You do understand that insurance premiums are being paid, don't you?
This isn't a freebie giveaway. It is allowing loving parents to protect their children.
What the hell is wrong with you?

>> ^My_design:
Maybe since you can now cover a child under healthcare until 27 we should change the legal drinking age to 27 as well. How about claiming them as an exemption on taxes until 27 and being considered underage inregards to sexual relationships until 27 as well.

>> ^My_design:

This is the exact problem with thinking today, we don't allow kids to grow up. We have mothers calling in to their child's employer because he dared to give a negative review. We have employees that feel they are entitled to the same pay rate as their manager because they work 40 hours a week. Loving parents protecting their child?! Your child is 27! He/she isn't a child they're an adult! If they have a handicap that prevents them from being able to work and provide for themselves then they should be able to retain coverage. Outside of that the best and only reason I could see paying $3600 a year per enrolled "Adult/Child" would be if the current uninsured medical expenses for 19-27 year olds drastically outweighed the costs for the new program. But I haven't seen any statistics relating to that. Yes 30% of 19-27 year old adults do not have insurance. But how much is that fact costing us each year and how much would it cost us each year if we insured each and every one of them?
The $3600 is a government estimate for 2013, and since the government does their estimating with chickens pecking at player pianos I sincerely doubt the costs will be in line.
If the premiums are being paid anyway why don't the parents just pay for their kids insurance?
I fully expect that if Obamacare goes into effect that I will lose my employer provided insurance. If by some act of God I do not lose my coverage then I fully expect that my rates will drastically increase and my family coverage plan will become even more expensive as people load on their precious 22 year old "kids" to the program. So this means that my family will pay even more for my daughters insurance because someone else can't put a foot of common sense up their kids ass.
>> ^bareboards2:
You do understand that insurance premiums are being paid, don't you?
This isn't a freebie giveaway. It is allowing loving parents to protect their children.
What the hell is wrong with you?

>> ^My_design:
Maybe since you can now cover a child under healthcare until 27 we should change the legal drinking age to 27 as well. How about claiming them as an exemption on taxes until 27 and being considered underage inregards to sexual relationships until 27 as well.




You think allowing family members to be covered by your health insurance is coddling?? Are you also expecting families to kick their college graduates out of the house upon graduation? How about giving them a few years to find a good job with benefits before you disown them? Seems a bit more humane. Those jobs aren't as easy to find as they used to be.

You also said you expect to lose your coverage due to "Obamacare". Really? I'd love to hear how you figure that will happen.

@ghark, sorry to spout off like that. The best time to begin implementing a single payer system is yesterday. However, it should be a gradual progression towards it, so that markets have time to adjust and there isn't a sudden disruption in necessary medical services. This legislation is at least moving us in that direction, and, better yet, it's law. You weren't alive when Hillarycare bit the dust ushering in almost two decades of dogmatic rightwing rule. We'll give you a pass on calling us names.