Originally Posted by Deb C

Back in the 1990s, it was moderate Republicans who thought it was a great idea to require everyone to buy health insurance while regulating insurance companies. Remember the Heirtage Foundation?

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010
Republican Origins of Democratic Health Care Provision

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/v...ourceID=004182

In 2006, Mitt Romney signed an insurance mandate in Massachusetts while regulating insurance companies.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards proposed a mandate with regulations, along with a public option. Barack Obama was for the same, but claimed that mandates were unnecessary, and analogous to requiring the homeless to buy houses.

In 2010, a Democratic Congress passed the original Republican plan from the 1990s, over overwhelming Republican opposition, after the White House cut a deal to ditch the public option. Even though it was the Republicans, who proposed them in the first place.

Well there you go, today's GOP even hates what yesterday's GOP proposed. So the chances of something more are???

Bueller? Bueller?

I'm trying to sell you a clue ... for free!

Originally Posted by Deb C

Whew, this could get long.

More on the admirable Obama in regards to war and militarism.


“Obama, Iran and preventive war,” Glenn Greenwald, salon.com, March 5, 2012 http://www.salon.com/2012/03/05/obama_iran_and_preventive_war/singleton/


“Under Obama, an emerging global apparatus for drone killing,” Greg Miller, Washington Post, December 27, 2011 http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/under-obama-an-emerging-global-apparatus-for-drone-killing/2011/12/13/gIQANPdILP_story.htmlEx-CIA

Official Slams Obama’s ‘Indiscriminate’ Use of Drones http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/06/06-2

Could Obama Be Impeached for Waging War in Libya Without Approval of Congress? http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/20/glenn_greenwald_could_obama_be_impeached

US more unpopular in the Arab world than under Bush: A new poll confirms prior ones: anti-American sentiment is now at dangerously – even unprecedentedly – high levels http://www.salon.com/2011/07/13/arabs/singleton/

Air strikes in Yemen kill 45 suspected Qaeda militants http://news.yahoo.com/yemen-air-raids-kill-10-suspected-qaeda-militants-063148843.html

“Ordered a cruise missile and cluster bomb attack in Yemen that killed women and children, suppressed the civilian casualties, and then imprisoned a journalist who revealed the truth” http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/obamas_personal_role_in_a_journalists_imprisonment/singleton/

Broke promise to reject the Military Commissions Act: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/178/develop-an-alternative-to-president-bushs-militar/

“Continuing policy of maintaining thousands of troops at over a thousand military bases around the world” http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MA12Df01.html

Obama has opened three new military bases in Honduras http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/world/americas/us-turns-its-focus-on-drug-smuggling-in-honduras.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1

2,500 US Marines to be stationed in Australia http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57325630/obama-u.s-to-expand-military-in-australia/?tag=stackObama’s

New War in Uganda http://spectator.org/archives/2011/10/31/obamas-new-war-in-uganda

Obama says 100 combat-equipped troops will help in hunt for Lord’s Resistance Army’s wanted leader Joseph Kony. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa...712102972.html

As troops pull out of Iraq, Obama plans more combat forces elsewhere in the Middle East http://www.salon.com/2011/10/31/what...ire/singleton/

A look at US Presence in Iraq After (Some) Troops Leave http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/a-look-at-us-presence-in-iraq-after-troops-leave/

Obama Quietly Renews U.S. Embargo on Cuba http://news.yahoo.com/obama-quietly-...190536530.html

US sold bunker-busting bombs to Israel: report http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...9e5edb171b2.e1

US Resumes Arms Sales to Bahrain. Less than three months after including Bahrain on a list of human rights offenders requiring the United Nations’ attention, the Obama administration seems to have changed its mind http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011...es-weapon-sale

Obama cozies up to Central Asian dictator: The exigencies of the Afghan war lead the administration to ask for military aid to Uzbekistan http://www.salon.com/2011/09/17/uzbekistan_afghistan/

New American Ally in Somalia: ‘Butcher’ Warlord: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/new-american-ally-in-somalia-butcher-warlord/

(Also check out Jeremy Scahill’s extensive piece on U.S. history in Somalia): http://www.thenation.com/article/163210/blowback-somalia

We're out of Iraq and we're winding down in Afghanistan. We sent no combat troops or combat aircraft to Libya and so far, we've stayed out of Syria and keep the Israelis from nuking Iran. Those are ALL big deals.

I guess we need a George Bush every once in a while to show those lacking discernment what the real deal is when it comes to unhinged foreign policy.

Originally Posted by Deb C

...Obama is Bush, just in democratic clothing.

Someone would have to have been in a coma for 13 years or a complete idiot to believe that.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Silly boy, I'm not his critic, I only expose his corporate and Republican ways. I guess those pesky little bubble poppers of exposing his sheep's clothing could be seen by his admirers as being a critic.

Blindness makes excuses for a president who is taking the empirical path. And, it makes us feel better for voting for him. Which I didn't do.

You're not a critic; you're a mouthpiece for a propaganda machine that tells only half truths as well as Faux News.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I guess I see those who are his apologists, which keeps him unaccountable, as even a bigger problem. As Roosevelt said, "Keep me accountable!." As I see it, many on the Left have fallen down on the job.

"the job"
Is that what you see yourself doing?

Originally Posted by playwrite

You're conflating the cost of insurance with the cost of medical care. The public option doesn't solve the latter; it's just another insurance option - one that is provided by the govt.

One that is provided at cost, without paying CEO money (as a public option is run by public employees who, even at max salary, aren't pulling close to what a CEO makes).

Originally Posted by playwrite

On the insurance side the MLR means only 15% of a premium payment dollar under a group plan (20% under individual plans) can go to paperwork, advertisement, profit etc. Anything more and the difference has to be rebated to an insurance company's premium payers. That has NEVER been a requirement until now. Just how will insurance companies make unseemly profits under that federal requirement?

Well, first off, let's go with "cooking the books", and that'll be easy. Also, insurance companies make money based not on providing services, but on not providing them. Right out the door, denying claims as "unnecessary" is a great option. It's not like the federal government is going to have time to go through every single claim, so you just decline certain items under a certain dollar amount in every claim, put the cost back on the people to the tune you want it to and viola! What makes that an even better option is that people are more likely just to pay a couple hundred bucks outta pocket rather than go to court over it. Plus, state courts don't enforce federal law, so a judgement would probably stick.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You will note that when Debs talks about increased profits for the insurance companies, she never goes into much detail about it. Basically,the insurers are making more profit because there are more people being covered, period. There's nothing more sinister about it that what the current system has been for decades - long before Obama was even born (I'm pretty sure underneath it all, Debs is also "a birther" - she just believes his foreign birth was a conspiracy to enslave us to insurance companies rather than take our guns away).

I wasn't refering to increased profits as much as "nothing changing". They'll make the same amount of money, they'll just make it more annoying for the average consumer. That's more or less the long and the short of it. Overall, it'll do nothing other than be moderately annoying every time you want to use you're insurance.

It's just inept lawmaking specifically designed to create an unenforcable law.

Originally Posted by playwrite

A number of credible economist (the non-whiners without an agenda) have actually predicted the high possibility of insurers going out of business as a result of being unprofitable due to the MLR requirement. That would greatly accelerate the possible evolving of the public option in state and regional exchanges. Still just a possibility but a whole hell of a lot more likely than anything emerging from the whining by Debs and friends.

So it's going to delay the inevitable? If health insurance was a maimed animal, Obamacare wants to watch it suffer to death? Why suffer the nuisance period?

Originally Posted by Deb C

I guess I see those who are his apologists, which keeps him unaccountable, as even a bigger problem. As Roosevelt said, "Keep me accountable!." As I see it, many on the Left have fallen down on the job.

At this point we need remember that the Hard Right has its own idea of 'accountability', namely that all people have the God-given duty to make whatever sacrifices are necessary for the enrichment and pampering of elites who by some magic will create a paradise on Earth so long as most of us accept a new form of peonage. Surely you can recognize that 'paradise' as no less a sham than the serfdom of medieval times.

We must protect our civil liberties even at the expense of tolerating some current injustice and bad policy -- including economic hardships. We can hope for the best from Barack Obama and recognize that if he falls short of your dream he is infinitely better than the nightmare that the Hard Right has to offer -- one of repression, deprivation even to the point of hunger, and wars for profit and the expansion of a vile new world. The best that can happen from such a war is the defeat, occupation, and dismemberment of a political order gone amok as happened to Germany in 1945.

Unless you can escape such a system you are the sort of person most likely to be tortured in some fascist dungeon and either executed summarily or after some farcical trial or shipped off to some 'labor' camp where you are worked to death while being allotted rations that will cause you to starve even if you toil as demanded in a futile effort to stave off death by a few days. But even if you escape some fascist America you will have to be careful to avoid fellow Americans who might be agents who combine the efficiency of the FBI with the ruthlessness of the Gestapo or NKVD. You could be assassinated even in a country as seemingly isolated as Mongolia or Ethiopia. Hiding in some hunter-gatherer village in the Amazon Basin? There might be a drone that destroys the village so that it can incinerate or blast you. Such applies to me, too.

Don't fool yourself. America has a Dark Side in its heritage. Slavery. Jim Crow. The Klan. McCarthyism. The overthrows of Arbenz, Mossadegh, and Allende on behalf of corporate interests. Gunboat diplomacy to enforce debts. My Lai. Military overkill from the Philippine Insurrection to contemporary Iraq and Afghanistan through the incineration of Dresden and Tokyo with conventional weapons and two cities in Japan with nukes. This is a Crisis Era, and one can expect the unprecedented to occur in a Crisis Era. After all, people in the American colonies had enjoyed good relations with the British Crown for nearly a century and a half before 1770, no nation had ever rifted over slavery since the time of Spartacus; in the last one a disappearance of 86% of the valuation of the stock market was new, Germany had no heritage of mad despotism, and gentleman's agreement to not each the colonies of the others had prevented huge colonial wars unlike the that of the Pacific Theater of WWII. This is a 4T, and a 4T can unleash the Dark Side in any nation's history.


It is hard to imagine a fascist America having a madman like Hitler -- but it doesn't take madness to make a regime deadly. All that one needs for consummate danger of murder on the Nazi scale is an elite with the ability to do overkill and the readiness to destroy anything or anyone that gets in its way.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Someone would have to have been in a coma for 13 years or a complete idiot to believe that.

Sorry, but Obama the Spineless may only be a lackluster version of GWB, but what has he changed in foreign policy, and, other than the notable, but a 1st term ACA, where is the domestic leadership?

Gitmo is still open, drone strikes are still supported, DHS s still huge and, frankly, overbearing, and we are still talking about austerity as if it's the only correct fiscal option. So what are the changes? Where is the new beginning? Obama has now won the last race he'll ever run. It's time to take a firm stand if one will ever be taken. No more apologies.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Had an interesting discussion last night with five other docs from my med school class.
The consensus was that Obamacare will result in a two-tiered system, with the wealthy paying out-of-pocket for whatever kind of care they want, and those with insurance (public or private) receiving a more restricted level of care.

So the .1% gets Cadillac care, and the 99.9% don't. Why is this a new concept? They do that today.

In spite of all of the evidence, some still choose to turn a blind eye to the downward spiral of our country and those who are leading us off the cliff. I'm absolutely amazed at what we Americans tolerate from a president, or our government for that matter.

It is apparent that my shining a bright light on the continued destructive empirical policies, has touched some raw nerves. But I will continue to post the inconvenient truths no matter how many nasty comments are made about me as a person. As Rhett Butler said, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"

"[American leaders] are perhaps not so much immoral as they are amoral. It's not that they take pleasure in causing so much death and suffering. It's that they just don't care ... the same that could be said about a sociopath. As long as the death and suffering advance the agenda of the empire, as long as the right people and the right corporations gain wealth and power and privilege and prestige, as long as the death and suffering aren't happening to them or people close to them ... then they just don't care about it happening to other people, including the American soldiers whom they throw into wars and who come home-the ones who make it back alive-with Agent Orange or Gulf War Syndrome eating away at their bodies. American leaders would not be in the positions they hold if they were bothered by such things."

William Blum. Killing Hope

Originally Posted by Chas'88

They made a film about that, you'd probably find it funny, Copperhead, given what I know of you. It's a good example of a Farcical dystopian society, actually.


~Chas'88

Great movie. Idiocracy is a fine bit of satire, but it’s still a piece of fiction.

Would it terrify you to know that real life is far worse?

Originally Posted by Deb C

In spite of all of the evidence, some still choose to turn a blind eye to the downward spiral of our country and those who are leading us off the cliff. I'm absolutely amazed at what we Americans tolerate from a president, or our government for that matter.

Maybe you just need to be not so amazed. A little disillusionment might be good for you, strange to say. To expect very much from Americans seems just a bit naive; just a bit!

It is apparent that my shining a bright light on the continued destructive empirical policies, has touched some raw nerves. But I will continue to post the inconvenient truths no matter how many nasty comments are made about me as a person. As Rhett Butler said, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"

I think you have to be more strategic. Blaming Obama for us not having single-payer health care is not strategic. He can be blamed for drones, or at least for those unleashed during his admin. But if you want to change health care, you have to look at congress. You have to be "empirical" to a degree, in order to know who is driving what off which cliff, and whom to target for what.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Sorry, but Obama the Spineless may only be a lackluster version of GWB, but what has he changed in foreign policy, and, other than the notable, but a 1st term ACA, where is the domestic leadership?

Gitmo is still open, drone strikes are still supported, DHS s still huge and, frankly, overbearing, and we are still talking about austerity as if it's the only correct fiscal option. So what are the changes? Where is the new beginning? Obama has now won the last race he'll ever run. It's time to take a firm stand if one will ever be taken. No more apologies.

It doesn't matter what Obama does, and it hasn't mattered since Nov.3, 2010.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Maybe you just need to be not so amazed. A little disillusionment might be good for you, strange to say. To expect very much from Americans seems just a bit naive; just a bit!


I think you have to be more strategic. Blaming Obama for us not having single-payer health care is not strategic. He can be blamed for drones, or at least for those unleashed during his admin. But if you want to change health care, you have to look at congress. You have to be "empirical" to a degree, in order to know who is driving what off which cliff, and whom to target for what.

Eric, I'm not blaming Obama, as much as I am pointing to his presidency as not much different than the past one. Lesser evil is still evil. As I have indicated many times, it's the dirty rotten system. And Obama, in spite of some who say he is a victim of the Republicans, is part of that badly broken system. He wouldn't be president if he wasn't.

My problem with apologists, is that they see him as someone who is trying to make things better. This is BS of course. He is as much a corporate puppet as others who depend on their poisonous food called campaign contributions.

I may post much about Obama, not because I see him as the problem, but because he is part of the problem. What I experience too often in this forum from liberals, is that they give him every excuse in the book for what he does; even giving our healthcare to the insurance industry. It's just one step closer to privatization and more profits for the CEOs. OBAMA IS NOT A VICTIM.

If those who defended his wayward ways, instead of making excuses, like a child protecting his/her alcoholic parent, would admit that he is part of the system that's selling us a broken product, then there could be hope.

I'm not so naive as you suggest. I'm just saying that we are knee deep in alligators, and most are still thinking that just because it's alligators, and not a crocodiles, everything is just peachy. Someday as we look back over the ruins of America, we will regret that we thought that those amphibians were different.

Originally Posted by Kepi

One that is provided at cost, without paying CEO money (as a public option is run by public employees who, even at max salary, aren't pulling close to what a CEO makes).

That's correct; I would not argue with that.

I'm just making the point that the cost of insurance is not the same thing as the cost of provided health care. The public option does not deal with the latter. Single payer would by allowing for negotiated costs with the govt having a very strong hand in those negotiations; some might have a problem with the "one shoe fits all" outcomes, however. Nationalizing the entire health care system would bring even more control over costs, but it may have an impact on the quality of care provided as more talented people seek other professions where getting rich is more likely - anyone who believes most doctors aren't in it for the money, well, they've never spoken to a typical med student.

Originally Posted by Kepi

... Also, insurance companies make money based not on providing services, but on not providing them. Right out the door, denying claims as "unnecessary" is a great option...

Again, with the MLR, they can only use 15% of the premium dollar (for group insurance; 20% for individual insurance) for non-health costs (e.g. paperwork, customer service, advertisement, profits, salaries); if they spend more than that, they have to rebate the premium payer. If they deny coverage, then they are excluding health costs and that may result in their having to rebate some of the premium.

That is on top of all the federal and state insurance regulations and regulators that they will have to run the gauntlet to show why they are not covering a condition or why they should still be allowed to operate. Given the attention to the issue, those regulators are not going to be in the mood for insures not covering. Do you think banks have not been lending because they don't want to? Banks regulators have been making bank lending officers' lives miserable since 2008 (to make up for what happen before); the same will be true of insurers with the insurance regulators.

Originally Posted by Kepi

...So it's going to delay the inevitable? If health insurance was a maimed animal, Obamacare wants to watch it suffer to death? Why suffer the nuisance period?

Because there is no choice - not in our lifetimes.

Debs could set herself on fire on the Capital steps tomorrow and except for a bump in the 24-hour news cycle, it will not make a difference. Sorry, but by far, most martyrs are forgotten and made no difference whatsoever.
For the rest of us, at some point, you act like a grown-up and start dealing with what is possible. Either move on to some other issue (e.g. gun control, immigration) or get down in the weeds of Obamacare and figure out ways to make a positive difference (e.g. expansion of Medicaid, setting the stage for a public option in one of the state/regional exchanges).

Oh, I guess the third choice is whining about what will never be on an Internet chat room and believe that you are actual doing something.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Had an interesting discussion last night with five other docs from my med school class.
The consensus was that Obamacare will result in a two-tiered system, with the wealthy paying out-of-pocket for whatever kind of care they want, and those with insurance (public or private) receiving a more restricted level of care.

And under what health care system would that NOT be the case???

Armed guards out in front of doctor's offices to stop the rich from entering with their Black Cards??? [In this country, we only do that for women seeking reproductive choice, young lady.]

That discussion with the five doctors should disabuse anyone from believing health providers have a lock on common sense.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Sorry, but Obama the Spineless may only be a lackluster version of GWB, but what has he changed in foreign policy, and, other than the notable, but a 1st term ACA, where is the domestic leadership?

Gitmo is still open, drone strikes are still supported, DHS s still huge and, frankly, overbearing, and we are still talking about austerity as if it's the only correct fiscal option. So what are the changes? Where is the new beginning? Obama has now won the last race he'll ever run. It's time to take a firm stand if one will ever be taken. No more apologies.

One only needs to watch Lindsey Graham and John McCain this past weekend to get a milquetoast idea of what a Bush/Cheney and the hard-on neoCons would be doing right now if back in power again.

I'm pretty sure that mass forgetfulness is one reason why we have to suffer these mindless cowboys about every decade or two.

Originally Posted by Deb C

In spite of all of the evidence, some still choose to turn a blind eye to the downward spiral of our country and those who are leading us off the cliff. I'm absolutely amazed at what we Americans tolerate from a president, or our government for that matter.

It is apparent that my shining a bright light on the continued destructive empirical policies, has touched some raw nerves. But I will continue to post the inconvenient truths no matter how many nasty comments are made about me as a person. As Rhett Butler said, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"

Well, of course you don't give a damn.

That's almost by definition the modus operandi of the completely clueless.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Great movie. Idiocracy is a fine bit of satire, but it’s still a piece of fiction.

Would it terrify you to know that real life is far worse?

Funny, coming from a guy who still believes in fractional reserve lending and that hyperinflation and bond vigilantes are right around the next corner for the last 5 years.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Eric, I'm not blaming Obama, as much as I am pointing to his presidency as not much different than the past one. Lesser evil is still evil. As I have indicated many times, it's the dirty rotten system. And Obama, in spite of some who say he is a victim of the Republicans, is part of that badly broken system. He wouldn't be president if he wasn't.

My problem with apologists, is that they see him as someone who is trying to make things better. This is BS of course. He is as much a corporate puppet as others who depend on their poisonous food called campaign contributions.

I may post much about Obama, not because I see him as the problem, but because he is part of the problem. What I experience too often in this forum from liberals, is that they give him every excuse in the book for what he does; even giving our healthcare to the insurance industry. It's just one step closer to privatization and more profits for the CEOs. OBAMA IS NOT A VICTIM.

If those who defended his wayward ways, instead of making excuses, like a child protecting his/her alcoholic parent, would admit that he is part of the system that's selling us a broken product, then there could be hope.

I'm not so naive as you suggest. I'm just saying that we are knee deep in alligators, and most are still thinking that just because it's alligators, and not a crocodiles, everything is just peachy. Someday as we look back over the ruins of America, we will regret that we thought that those amphibians were different.

Slothfulness is evil. And it is slothful to just blame everything on Obama AS YOU CONSTANTLY DO.

Take healthcare for example. The majority of people employed get employer-backed health insurance. Now they may poll that the want universal health care that will be cheaper, but start asking them the specifics about their willingness to trade their current health insurance for a large central govt run one. Sit back and watch the fireworks go off at town hall meetings as we did in 2010.

Moreover, tell them that their premiums or taxes are going to go up so the big central got can also provide health care coverage to those who are not employed - by far, they are the ones walking around without any insurance right now. Tell the young studs who are now whining about their $90 per year Obamacare penalty that their payroll taxes will instead be going up every paycheck, regardless of where they work, considerably and without option, to help pay for the new big central govt health program. Tell the health care providers that they will soon be subjected to income caps coming out of the new central govt health care program. Like I said, watch the fireworks go off.

To sit there and not take into account these fundamental FACTS of American life and instead blame the whole thing on Obama being a corporatist is not only dumb, it's slothful, … and spreading this horse dung around willy-nilly and believing your doing God’s work IS evil.

Anyone who writes about health care issues in this country and outraged over (or worse, doesn't have a clue about) this, completely lacks any credibility of health care issues in this country.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rss_ezra-klein

Florida rejects Medicaid expansion, leaves 1 million uninsured


It seemed like a watershed moment for the Affordable Care Act when Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R), a staunch Obamacare opponent, embraced the Medicaid expansion in February.

“While the federal government is committed to paying 100 percent of the costs, I cannot deny Floridians who need access to health care,” Scott told reporters at a press conference.

Scott wouldn’t be the one to “deny Floridians” a part of the health care law—but the Florida legislature had other plans. Lawmakers adjourned Friday after passing a budget that does not include funding for a Medicaid expansion. Unless the Republican-controlled legislature comes back for a special session later this year—which some Democrats are calling for—Florida will not expand Medicaid in 2014.

In Florida, where one in five non-elderly residents lack insurance coverage, the consequences are especially large: An estimated 1.3 million Floridians were expected to gain coverage through the the Medicaid expansion. About a quarter of those people—Floridians earning between 100 and 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Line—would still be eligible for tax subsidies on the health insurance exchange.

Florida now joins 24 other states that have either decided against expanding Medicaid, or are leaning in that direction, according to analysts at Avalere Health. One caveat: They created this map just prior to the Florida legislature’s adjournment and might now consider Florida in the “will not expand” category.

This isn’t a phenomenon reserved to Florida. In Ohio, Gov. John Kasich (R) is having trouble moving the Medicaid expansion he supported through the state’s Republican controlled-legislature. Similar fights are playing out in Arizona and Michigan, where Republican governors find themselves in the relatively odd position of trying to sell Obamacare to state legislators of their own party.

In a way, this is a bit surprising. No one ever expected to hear Scott extoll the benefits of President Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment. That being said, the Medicaid expansion is a really big deal for state budgets—the budget that Scott is charged with overseeing. If his state had participated in the Medicaid expansion, the Urban Institute estimated it would bring $66 billion of federal funds into the state over the course of a decade.

That same burden doesn’t rest so heavy on state legislators. States and hospitals tend to cover much of the country’s uncompensated care and unpaid medical bills. Meanwhile, state legislators have faced intense pressure over this vote. In Ohio, my colleague Sandhya Somashekar reported on one group that went door-to-door collecting signatures from voters pledging to thwart reelection efforts should lawmakers there vote to expand Medicaid.

While there’s an outside chance that Florida could pass a Medicaid expansion through a special session, at the moment it’s not going anywhere—despite the governor’s endorsement.

Correction: The headline on this post initially said 1.3 million Floridians would not gain health insurance under the Florida decision. About a quarter of those people would still have access to subsidized, private health insurance coverage under the health exchange.

So, are you here to discuss what is really going on in the real world, or are you here just to blow crap out of your rear end?

It's not a health care issue. It's just a health insurance flim-flam put in place of health care concerns, themselves generated to create a campaign for increasing control over the lives of the people. Nobody arguing for this scam really cares about the poor, they care about extracting the last bits of wealth from the carcass of the middle class.

It's interesting that in the US people have long thought themselves as middle class because they own a house and an automobile. But it is probably more accurate to say the US serfs simply had a higher standard of living than the European serf for a time. There are a lot more serfs (as opposed to shiftless urban peasants) than the historical norm, but nothing has really changed yet.

The unwashed serfs will never become bourgousie, and it is the Northeastern landed class that sets the values that everyone is supposed to follow. But the great trick is that most Americans believe themselves to be in a better financial class than they really are. As long as they believe this fiction, unrest is kept at bay.

And so people believe that their mortgage gives them a ticket out of serfdom, when it is really a symbol of their ties to the land at the will of their lord. No serf ever really owns anything, not even the clothes on their back. And if you don't believe this is so, try to accomplish anything without the permission of your betters.

"Slothfulness is evil."

No, it is a cardinal virtue. Nobody is slothful unless they are being compelled to do something against their will. It is the master who invented, and his sycophants who promote, the term sloth for a lack of desire to work in a slave. Its cousin is "rascality".

Maybe at some point people will question the Calvinist values regime.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah, you're right. I've seen the light now.
Obamacare is going to turn out just great.

Not for 1 million Floridians, but it might if people who spend their time and energy bashing Obamacare would instead get their head on straight and actually work on something that could make a difference.

The problem is that while Obamacare bashing and cynicism in general is meaningless, it’s just comes too easy for some folks.