What Mitt Romney Doesn’t Get About Responsibility – Bloomberg

Which would you prefer to believe? That you’re not good enough, not smart enough and doggone it, people just don’t like you? Or that the incumbent Democrat has effectively bought off half the country with food stamps and free health care?

via What Mitt Romney Doesn’t Get About Responsibility – Bloomberg.

Published in: on September 24, 2012 at 11:55 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags:

McCain thinks he deserves health care but you don’t

stop by and tell your representatives how you feel
clipped from www.americansunitedforchange.org

  blog it
Published in: on March 12, 2010 at 8:20 am  Leave a Comment  

Blowhard Christian Soldiers

The only “social responsibility” of a Christian is to live, wherever and with whomever he may be, the life of faith, for his own salvation and as an example to others. If, in so doing, we help to ameliorate or abolish a social evil, that is a good thing – but that is not our goal. If we become desperate when our life and our words fail to convert others to the true Kingdom, that comes from lack of faith. If we would live our faith more deeply, we would need to speak of it less.

Bl. Seraphim Rose

From Letters from Father Seraphim, Nikodemos Orthodox Publication Society, Richfield Springs, NY, 2001. A letter to Thomas Merton. (via my friend Huw)

It occurred to me how ironic it was that political candidates were able to garner millions of dollars in contributions, but we can’t seem to find the money to help the truly needy. The irony was the candidates who claim to represent “Christian values” with $400 hair cuts.

I was thinking about how one church could raise over $300,000 in collections from its members in order to sponsor legislation that would deny the same rights they enjoy from couples for being of the same gender.

I was thinking about how that same, Christian, enthusiasm could have feed, clothed and housed more than a few people.

I was also questioning how many Christian ideals are being expressed in response to the recent disaster in Haiti.

I then wonder how many who would call themselves Christian are against providing health care to those who cannot afford it. Not only do they not want to see anyone else “enriched” from their, Christian labor, they fear health care in too short supply to risk sharing it with others, lest they not get what is theirs.

I cannot hold fault with Christianity as a faith for the way some choose to practice it. That’s the same as hating a football team because of the actions of some of its fans. (Which some seem to have to quarrel with.)

The message I get from Jesus, as portrayed in the Bible, is forgive everyone; love everyone, even your enemies; have compassion for every one and every thing and help everyone when you can. But then I’m not a Biblical scholar. I’ve not even read the Bible. I still think I have a better understanding of Yeshua of Nazareth’s teachings than most who claim to have a personal relationship with him. It makes me think they’ve not read any more of the book than I have.

would you cut off your arm to save your leg?

to get what we got, what do we have to give up? What if that’s not acceptable?
clipped from open.salon.com
scared to death that, because they perceive limited health care benefits pie, it’s they who are going to lose their slice in order to accommodate other’s fair shares
Why do we pay for war, to kill people, to kill our own, and balk to preserve health?
Please add this to your essential reading list today. I thank you. Let’s see how far this bill gets
blog it
Published in: on January 4, 2010 at 4:26 pm  Leave a Comment  

I deserve health care, you don’t

that’s a paraphrase, but given comments from a certain drug-addicted blowhard, an accurate sentiment
clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com
Limbaugh Lauds (Socialist) Medical Care in Hawaii
I received no special treatment.”
in Hawaii, no one gets special treatment, because everyone can get it.
all Members of Congress that have a medical office paid for by taxpayers
Dick Cheney who had socialist pacemakers implanted paid for by the government, and George W who had a government-paid socialist colonoscopy while in office.
Members of Congress over 65 get single-payer socialist medical care from Medicare.
Hawaii
nearly-universal
since 1974.
the costs of everything
the highest in the nation,
health care premiums in Hawaii,
are nearly the lowest and their costs per medicare beneficiary are the lowest in the nation.
Rush does not live in Hawaii and so his costs are not covered
having that “socialist” system for more than 3 decades has not reduced the quality of the care he received.
Rush appears to have survived his encounter with socialist medical care.

If Hawaii-style medical care is good enough for Rush Limbaugh, it is good enough for me.

  blog it
Published in: on January 4, 2010 at 11:04 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,

Win, or go home

Anyone who’s ever watched a football game, seen one team completely dominate the other in total offensive yardage, yet still lose the game, can understand why the current health care bill(s) being debated need to be fixed.

Most legislators, on the other side, understand the purpose of the game is to win – not both sides working together to rack up as many points for each other as they can.

I don’t care what Harry Reid says, that the current legislation, as it’s written, does a lot to fix what’s broken. It does. A little. But too little. It is unacceptable in its current form. Agreeing to implement it is giving up.

“Gee, you guys played a pretty good first half, how about we call it a draw?”

If the other side cheats, uses sneaky, underhanded tricks to sway the game their way, you can’t sit and cry that the ref didn’t call it – you just have to play that much harder.

This isn’t little league – both sides won’t get trophies for just showing up. No one is going to congratulate you on game well-played, cheer you for scoring, no matter the outcome.

To my senators and congressmen: play well, or be traded next year.

Published in: on December 23, 2009 at 1:03 pm  Leave a Comment  

Who says we need reform?

Wife’s premiums went up 55%, co-pays doubled, have 10% “co-insurance”, deductible doubled. Now paying $6k/yr for $8k max payout.

Luckily we’re not required to have ins. Wait, what? Well, at least we’ll have public health care. Oh, about that…

clipped from www.salon.com

Meet your new health insurance company overlords

we still end up with a system that’s based on private insurers that have no incentive whatsoever to control their costs
A system based on private insurers won’t control costs because private insurers barely compete against each other.
you’d think the insurance industry would be subject to the antitrust laws
the Senate bill still keeps Big Insurance safe from competition by preserving its privileged exemption from the antitrust laws.
From the start, opponents of the public option have wanted to portray it as big government preying upon the market, and private insurers as the embodiment of the market. But it’s just the reverse. Private insurers are exempt from competition.
Without some mechanism forcing private insurers to compete, we’re going to end up with a national healthcare system that’s controlled by a handful of very large corporations accountable neither to American voters nor to the market.
  blog it
Published in: on December 11, 2009 at 10:03 am  Leave a Comment  

My insurance company wants to sue my 3-yr-old

In an effort to not have to pay the ER bill I incurred, Captial BlueCross is suggesting I go after my preschooler for the money.

Let me explain. One nice, quiet, peaceful summer evening, as I was putting my then 2-year-old son to bed, he retaliated by sending me to the emergency room.

OK, not exactly, it wasn’t intentional (so he says), but he threw his head back, straight into my mouth, splitting my lip open vertically across my unstraightened teeth.

After the blood stopped gushing, I gathered the courage to examine the inside of my lower lip, discovering it split almost completely through to the other side. Opened up just like, well, a pair of lips.

When I got to the ER, I explained to the admitting/intake clerk what happened – that my son’s head struck my face, splitting my lip open. She shook her head, took notes, gave me a bracelet and told me to have a seat.

As an aside, it occurred to me as I waited that anyone who opposes state-run medical facilities for fear of having to wait to see a doctor has never actually been to an “emergency” room. No, I was not in mortal peril – it was evening, and a weekend, so there would be no GP to consult. Still, I waited most of the evening to see someone.

I eventually did see the triage nurse. He took a look inside my mouth and concluded I would require stitches. When he asked how I came to have this injury, I reiterated the above story. He was amused, but not unsympathetic.

I was then admitted inside, and proceeded to wait further to see another medical professional. An attending nurse prepped the room, pulling out all manner of instruments for suturing deep lacerations. And then I waited some more.

Eventually a doctor’s assistant (I believe – in any case someone capable of attending to my injury and making a qualified examination thereof) came in and said that my lip had mostly healed already (!!). I could have stitches if I wanted, but that itself would be painful, and that area of the mouth heals very quickly (I didn’t think I had waited that long). So off I went back home, with my discharge papers, new bracelet and an ER co-pay bill in my hand.

To the point of this story, I did tell the attending doctor(‘s assistant) the same story about how my lip came to be that way.

Months go by, and I get the Explanation of Benefits from CBC. They’re denying payment, because they’ve come to believe that the injury was the result of an auto accident (?). They suggest filing a claim against my auto policy.

The part of my brain that believes conspiracy theories wondered if they were trying to weasel out of paying – “clearly the nature of your injuries suggests they were sustained in an automobile accident” – but having a wife who works in the health care field, I understand how someone could write down the wrong code on a form, and my injury could be misclassified. I call to clear up the confusion.

The clerk I spoke with was more than pleasant. He, like everyone, was amused at my retelling of how my son came to bust me in the mouth. He said he would make the proper notations, and that would be it.

Always be wary when someone in that position says something like that.

I’ve just now gotten a letter – a form to fill out, actually – an “Other Party Liability Report.” My “contract contains a Subrogation provision that includes the right of recovery for benefits provided when a third party has first payment responsibility.” In other words, tell us who’s responsible, so we can go after them for the money.

They want to know if it was (again) the result of an auto accident, or was work-related. Under “Section 2 – Complete this section if another person or party was responsible for the injury/illness,” it asks, “has or will the person file a claim against the responsible person or the insurance company?” Then it asks for their insurance information – uncuriously, it’s the same as mine. It then asks if I’ve retained an attorney.

No, I wasn’t planning on suing someone with the same last name who lives at the same address, who’s on my insurance policy. Yes, I know forms like these often get kicked out automatically by “the system” and that they’re usually applicable, but considering everyone involved should know by now how it happened, I shouldn’t have to explain it again.

Published in: on November 4, 2009 at 3:01 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,

Define “pre-existing”

John 1 (Americans 0):

(via crosswalk.com)

ı In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4 in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.

I can have been in multiple auto accidents – causing all of them through my own faults – have had my driving privilege revoked (temporarily), and still be able to purchase (government mandated) auto insurance (albeit at a higher cost).

I can purchase a home in southern California and many agencies would still sell me flood, mudslide and fire insurance, though it would be more costly than for someone in, say, Montana.

The point is, I could get it.

How does, “sorry, you had that before you got here,” only apply when you’re paying for medical care?

If I’m a woman and I’ve had a C-section or been the victim of domestic abuse, or if I was born with a congenital health issue and turn 18 and am no longer covered under my parents’ plan, under all the circumstances I can find myself unable to acquire health insurance. They just won’t sell it to me.

Or, having an insurance policy, if I change jobs and get a new employer-sponsored health plan or my current employer changes providers, or again am the above woman, I can, legally, be denied payment for necessary treatments.

Sometimes we need to pay for conditions we already have. And if we’re paying for “just in case,” we expect the case to be paid for, should the time arise.

Without payment there is no treatment. Without treatment, there is severe illness and death. And we allow this to go on.

The idea that something could have existed in some form before it became manifest is a debate for theologians, philosophers and quantum physicists. Not politicians and lobbyists. And if more insurers employed more theologians and philosophers, there wouldn’t be much of a debate at all.

Word.

Published in: on November 3, 2009 at 11:06 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags:

Vote already, dammit! This is why “reform” will never happen.

Kidney stones are passed easier than health care reform. This is why I can’t stand the Democrats. They’re trying to compromise, and the Republicans want only capitulation. They want [i]nothing[/] done that doesn’t heap more profit on private insurers.
clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com

Mike Enzi, one of three Republicans ostensibly negotiating health care reform as part of the Senate’s “Gang of Six,” told a Wyoming town hall crowd that he had no plans to compromise with Democrats and was merely trying to extract concessions.

He assured conservatives that his presence was delaying health care reform.

“If I hadn’t been involved in this process as long as I have and to the depth as I have, you would already have national health care,” he said.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, said that he would support passing health care with a simple majority if it became clear the GOP wasn’t serious.
  blog it
Published in: on October 14, 2009 at 12:11 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags:
%d bloggers like this: