>> ^Sniper007:

Seriously, this is the best news I've heard in a LONG time. Freaking shut those schools DOWN, every last one! Public schools in America are some of the worst places to learn.


Where exactly are you getting your information from?

Charter schools seem like a good alternative to public education but most are comparable to institutions that already exist. Furthermore, charter schools dont accommodate many poor and special needs students because of a variety of reasons, one being the lack of a legal requirement mandating attendance in a charter schools. Many undereducated and impoverished parents are not aware of charter schools in their area, consequently, more involved and well off students make up a majority of the student body:
"...parents who have been charged with drug possession, prostitution, and other crimes. These are the types of parents who aren't likely to be researching the best charter schools for their children and filling out all the forms."

Parochial and charter schools would suffer considerably if they were forced to take on the educational responsibilities of the entirety of the US. Sniper007, what do you offer as an alternative to the current system?

I am just commenting on a few cases I know for sure are happening and have been happening for many years. My personal experience and what I see people whom I know are on government assistance doing.

As for proving it with statistics, many of these people on the government subsidies fill out forms improperly or change information on the forms they submit from their landlords to the government. I have also seen this when my grandmother had rental properties, they would ask for them back so they could mail them, instead of having her mail them. One time my mother typed up her response, and the renter who lived next to my grandmother...was asking for a typewriter. Never asked for one before or since, just when that one piece of paperwork had been typed.

So how can one accurately find statistics on how much people deceive or change their living situations to benefit more greatly from the system? Do they have a check box on forms that says "I divorced my wife and refuse to pay child support so she can draw a government subsidized check for rent on my children, and get them into medicaid?"

It's enough that I've seen multiple cases like this over the last 10-15 years.

This bill could help the middle class greatly, because it's impossible to say how it'll get twisted around and massaged to make it work "better" for corporate interests or what loop holes have been overlooked in it's creation and re-examination.

And really middle class is a pretty broad term, a lot of people like to classify themselves as middle class. In this "middle class" range people go from being 10k above the poverty line to pulling down 250k or more. So sure if you're barely above poverty, YOUR middle class will be subsidized. But if you're pushing the upper limits of middle class and spend your time worrying about trying to avoid taxes, YOUR middle class probably won't be sudsidized much if at all.

Middle class is such an ambiguous term, I couldn't even find a definition that meant anything from a discussion standpoint.


>> ^longde:

I'm willing to talk about your anecdotal cases, but please back them up with statistics. How many people are like this, and how much of our budget goes to subsidizing them? I don't think it's much in either case.
It's baseless to say working people were and are getting screwed. This bill for instance, helps the middle class greatly.
The american middle class is much more subsidized than the Tea or Republican parties would have us believe. >> ^Porksandwich:
I have to say that Grayson's proposed bill to allow people to pay into Medicare is interesting. It's not as if the US gov hasn't spent the time and effort into setting up a healthcare network like every other health insurance company has, IE Medicare. So allowing people access to what they have been and still are paying for is not crazy hard to understand. We already spend the money for the agreements they make with the hospitals and providers, so why can't they just allow people to trickle over to Medicare if people choose to? I suspect it has something to do with keeping insurance companies in business.
All I know is for the last two years minimum, the economy has obviously been down. And maybe 3 years ago it was starting to get to those levels. In that same period of time, my insurance premiums jumped up each year. This last year, it went up by nearly 50 percent. I pay out of pocket for it, and if I looked into it I would probably be in the realm of receiving government assistance at this point. But I'm trying to keep it coming out of my own pocket. The silly thing about it all is, I pay these outrageous premiums and I can't afford to get any tests done besides really simple blood tests the doctors want every so often. If I didn't have to cover the premium costs, but could get in on the pricing deals Medicare/other insurance companies had.......I could have the tests done with the money I would have been putting toward premiums. I've had to stop getting treatments in the last couple months for allergies because of the out of pocket costs on top of the new and improved monster premiums (even after I raised my deductible, etc).
Now I know for a fact there are people out there who've been on Medicare/SSI/Medicaid/Welfare/Whatever government program gives out money, who are 50 something years old and have been on it since they were 15. Worked an actual job very little in their lifetime, and have drawn a pretty sizeable check (more than someone would typically draw on unemployment at the lower end). So these people choose not to work at all, have the government cover most of their health care costs, live in a rental property most lower income working stiffs would find quite nice, and still afford to go out to the casinos every week and grab a steak dinner every week or so as they gamble away their government check.
And there are people out there who just want to be able to get treated so they can keep their job/house/whatever. And the government officials can't figure out a way to make it so working people can suffer a little less, but they can provide all of the above for people who don't work at all. It's a pretty fucked up situation, and all these welfare recipients get together and figure out ways to get more government money via divorce, custody, and other legal loop holes other people wouldn't even think of doing. And that's just the legal stuff, then you get into the welfare/medicaid guys who are getting drugs on the government dime and selling em for cash outta their welfare paid for houses.
So if you're not well off job wise, and completely unwilling to be a degenerate milking the system even though you could work......you get fucked.

>> ^jwray:
The sheer amount of time people waste figuring out if they qualify for benefits A through Z and filling out the paper work for each wastes all the time they could have spent finding a job.


Maybe it's different wherever you are, but filing for unemployment here takes approximately 2 minutes. I can't really get a lot of job searching done in that time... If it takes more than 5 minutes, you aren't smart enough for a job that pays a livable wage anyway, and you should probably be looking for a "special needs" home instead.

Of course we need a stronger safety net, but this is a shitty way to construct the safety net. Unemployed people should be paid to to learn vocational skills from general treasury money from a single progressive income tax. Unemployment Taxes, sales taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes, etc are not adequately progressive, and harm the poor. Employers should be free to hire and fire anyone they please for any reason they please with no strings attached. All the restrictions on firing make employers ridiculously circumspect about hiring so that it is actually much harder to get a job and much harder to start a business.

The sheer amount of time people waste figuring out if they qualify for benefits A through Z and filling out the paper work for each one wastes time that could be spent doing something productive. All this shit needs to be consolidated. I'm tired of seeing pages and pages of shit like a $50 tax credit for one-legged zebras on my 1040.

Fuck all the little deductions and pork. Just make annual personal income after taxes = 10k + 0.6*(income before taxes), including capital gains, employer benefits, inheritance, gifts, and absolutely every other source of income in the same pool for that "income before taxes". A 1% annual net worth tax would be fine too.

Subsidies are always rife with waste and contrivances to conform to the letter but not the spirit of the regulation. So instead of giving tax credits to barely efficient cars, just tax fossil fuels themselves. Instead of tax credits for people who bought well-insulated houses, tax the builders in proportion to how shitty their insulation is.

I had some of the same issues with my general profile stuff, try changing the tab and make sure that your browser hasn't filled out half of the "new password" dialog. Then it would make this error. Just delete whatever it has filled in, and not confirmed, and it should save properly.

:eyeroll: Of course there is no racism here. How ridiculous. This is an effort to stamp out voter fraud, and illegal voting - which is rampant in all states. I applaud any effort to clean up our voting system. The Tea Party wants the right objective, but have chosen a poor methodology. A literacy test isn't a good solution.

There is only one proper solution. All voters must present an approved photo identification in order to fill out a ballot. There simple, elegant, and foolproof. No ID - no vote. I reject all the stupid "ooo but that would intimidate voters" bullcrap. If you need proof of ID to drive then there is no reason why you shouldn't need proof of ID to vote. End of story. So kudos to the Tea Party for being on the right track - but literacy testing is a dumb method by which to attain the objective of eliminating voter fraud and illegal voting.

We're certainly building a society that allows dumb people to survive, if not thrive (although maybe not flourish.)

Then again, we do need to fill out the ranks of the proletariat if we're going to have enough backs with which to support our great capitalist society.

Oh, thanks. So what you're saying is that in addition to the cost of your bike that you left out of your budget (whether it's $1,000 or $100,000), you should also be adding in the cost of your waterproof riding gear. Another thing you left out.

Look, I'm not going to argue with you over whether or not most Americans are retards. I agree with that statement, as much as you just love to repeat it.

The fact of the matter is, minimum wage is not a living wage. If you're being paid minimum wage, then you can't support yourself without doing other things to fill in the gaps. Minimum wage is supposed to cover that according to the government but it doesn't.

And regarding your self sufficiency: no one actually needs money to live. I'm sure I could live a long life (barring any health issues) without making any money at all. The point here is that I would have to do other things.

When it was stated above that minimum wage was a living wage, I just wanted to point out that it's not. If you don't agree with me, go and look up "living wage" and educate yourself before you come in to do nothing but egotistically point out how your flawless logic and applied determination can solve all the world's problems. You can't even fill out a budget properly.

And speaking of budgets: I really don't care which stupid fucking political bullshit you adhere to. I don't subscribe to any political party philosophy at all but it doesn't change the fact that if either of us get a minimum wage job anywhere, they're going to take the taxes out before they pay you your check. The manager of McDonald's isn't going to come out of his office and ask, "OK, how many dirt-bike-riding libertarians are working here? Cause I wanna' be sure not to take your taxes out of your check."

DOWN WITH REPRODUCTION!
*licensing for couples considering to the rear of the line, fill out forms a thru l*
....we has seen fat babies...that babys' nit fut-

Health care companies 'alone' have rescinded? That statement indicates there are others who would rescind? Who are they, and why would they?

Furthermore, this little tear jerking video presents no problem that needs to be fixed. It's emotionally charged, but otherwise without sound basis. Perhaps the situation could presented in another light (though it is virtually impossible to contemplate an alternative given the current climate nationwide of fear and loathing being pushed by roughly one half of media outlets).

"The poor insurance companies have to deal with people defrauding them every day by filling out applications and leaving out material, pertinent facts regarding their health. It's a good thing insurance companies can double check with other documents available to them, otherwise they'd have no way to defend against such rife fraud and deception." Same facts, different spin.

But, we can't think that way, because there's an old woman crying in front of us.

Honestly, the solution is not external intervention of any kind, she needs internal intervention. That is to say, the woman should do everything in her power to disclose all of her previous medical conditions. Right away, she could challenge the insurance company to search through her medical history so if there was some history which would deny her future coverage, they'd either have to say so immediately or forever hold their peace. That way she'd know where she stood into the future, and could take other actions if the insurance company chose not to cover.

Unless, in this specific case she already did do something along those lines, then the insurance company should be sued for fraud, or breach of contract, or whatever. Remedies already exist for every problem that exists. No need for 'new laws' (if there ever was such a thing) or greater regulation or elimination of private insurance on the basis of the facts presented in this video.

>> ^8777:
I just filled out an application for a fatwa on the director of this video. Does anyone have the address?


You have no authority to pronounce a fatwa. Fill out a fatwa on yourself, for denying and suppressing your natural inclinations towards admiring the female form in all its fleshy splendor! 'Lil skin never hurt anyone.

^ Those surveys are of people who are fully covered! Great for them! What about everybody else?

You don’t get those numbers if the population isn’t right along with it. But – for your edification…

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-10-15-health-poll1.htm

There you go. Poll conducted by Keiser, USA Today, and ABC (no conservatives here) which says that 70% of the UNINSURED are satisfied with their health care. Total population is 88% satisfied. That's as high or higher than the satisfaction rates of people participating in public systems...

You, Winstonfiled_Pennypacker(P), make me sick… closed minded, short sighted, cold hearted piece of human filth, selfish prick, no compassion for anybody but yourself, fear change, fool, selfish bastard...

Its tolerant, patient, open-minded perspectives such as yours that make the neolib movement what it is today. Its always nice to meet folks so accepting of other ideas and points of view. Shine on you crazy diamond.

I would be happy to pay… I would be happy to pay… I would be happy to pay…

Then do so. No one is stopping you. Volunteer at your community clinic. Donate money to your local health care providers. Or if you find that unacceptable, there are forms you can fill out to donate as much as you want to the Federal government so they can spend your money for you. That's the great thing about the conservative approach. You are free to do whatever you want with your time, money, and talent.

The neolib problem is that when they say “I would be happy to pay” they don’t really mean it. They really mean that they want government to pay so they don't have to volunteer time or money. They also mean that they want government to make everyone else do the same thing. But just because there are people that need help does NOT mean that there needs to be a federal program in place to help them. Federal solutions are slow, inefficient, ineffective, indirect, and far more expensive than private alternatives.

But if we look at all the empirical evidence from around the world, we could have universal coverage that would actually cost less, and you STILL would oppose it.

1. No one has supplied any evidence that public health care would be cheaper – in fact the Democrat CBO proved that it won’t save a penny. 2. I oppose it not from fear, but from principle. Government intrusion into private freedom is unnecessary for the reasons I listed above – but more importantly they represent a reduction in human freedom. I will oppose that every time I can because freedom is far more precious and rare than health care.

Why is it that the US is the only industrialized country without universal healthcare?

What a crock. Almost everyone in the USA is a Christian. Does that mean you should be one too? This 'we should do it because they're doing it' mentality is total baloney, and it really is hard to believe it's coming out of the mouth of a self-avowed atheist 'free thinker'. Let's just say I reject this argument for the logical fallacy it is and leave it at that. I will never accept the premise that America should use socialism & fascist methodologies just because other countries do. What a stupid suggestion.

To offer a few anecdotes of an American living in the U.K., I have been to see my doctor a few times already for bronchitis or other mild illnesses without any issues or hassles beyond paying 7 pounds per prescription. There are no stupid forms to fill out, no dicking around with the insurance company, its just go in, see a doc and leave. As a young person, I cannot hope to afford decent medical insurance on my salary back in the US, so its up to my parents to supply it.

Another anecdote of a scenario I would likely not have seen in the United States:

I was crossing the road when I saw a bicyclist lightly hit by a car making a left turn. Although knocked down, the bicyclist appeared uninjured. After checking himself and his bike over, he shook the driver's hand and went on his merry way.

If he had manifested any injuries later, he could be confident that NHS would take care of him. In the US, the cyclist would have needed to obtain the insurance information of the driver which would most likely start a chain of events to which only lawyers benefit.

It makes me sad that people buy all the B.S. from health insurers as they only hurt themselves and their communities.


Oh and one final F.U. to American insurance companies: I once had a friend take me to the hospital late one night because I was vomiting blood and unable to walk/move. Even though I was rather expensively insured, my claim was denied because my illness was ultimately not life threatening. I guess I should have known better, stupid me. $4000, I can only imagine what the cost would have been had I called an ambulance.

I have been in front of judges who say that they will always side with the police, because "why would they jeapordize their career to nail you with a small infraction".
In my expirance , cops always lie, no matter how small the case is. They fill out there reports after the altercation and always write them in their favor, which makes a lot of sense. Why tell the truth if it makes you look bad?
I love the fact that these pigs are so stupid as to not see that they are on tape. Or, they are just arrogant, power happy, dumbfucks that are gonna bring all the other pigs down with them.

"I'm not encouraging American's NOT to fill out the census"...you just did by saying that, and you know it. Fox is irresponsible and a threat to national security.