Obamacare: Cutting Liberals' Hours

“In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again.”

- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

“In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again.”

- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

According to Gibbon one of the main reasons for the fall of the roman empire was the rise of christianity with its population being far more focused on the next life rather than caring much about what happened in this one.

Boyce wrote:“In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again.”

- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

EXACTLY.

I continue to be amazed at how few people realize that Obamacare has nothing - nothing - to do with health care (other than the fact that it will eventually ruin it, but that's coincidental). All these "debates" over whether it's good or bad for medicine, whether we can afford it or not, etc., are nothing more than a shell game that the gov is happy to see people play. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

The alpha and omega of Obamacare is the usurpation of freedom. There's a good reason why it's the only major initiative attempted in the past four years - that one act gives them every other agenda item they've wanted for the past 100+ years.

"The alpha and omega of Obamacare is the usurpation of freedom. There's a good reason why it's the only major initiative attempted in the past four years - that one act gives them every other agenda item they've wanted for the past 100+ years."

Here's a good rule of thumb to know that you are on the WRONG side on history and siding with evil - when the nation is strongly divided over a critical issue and you find that you are on the same side as all the old white guys in Mississippi, Alabama,South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Louisiana, etc - You can be sure you're with the bad guys - Let's see- slavery, jim crow, KKK, lynching, segregation,anti-women voting, anti-women equality, anti-gay - can you give me an example in ANY controversy in the last 200 years where in the end it ever turned out that they were the ones who actually favored increased human freedom? - although i remember jessie helms and strom thurmond claiming that they were on the side of FREEDOM against the oppression of the big gubmint - now it's Obama and healthcare that's oppressing humanity - like how Medicare made life miserable for the elderly in america and robbed them of their freedom to die decades before they had to in poverty

or as my granny used to say: " show me your friends and i'll tell you who you are"

johnthomasmacdonald wrote:"Let's see- slavery, jim crow, KKK, lynching, segregation,anti-women voting, anti-women equality, anti-gay

Mostly democrat things, those are, you might notice.

how Medicare made life miserable for the elderly in america and robbed them of their freedom to die decades before they had to in poverty

Medicare killed my mother-in-law. The hospital would not admit her until my wife insisted (hospital got paid crap) and then on the necessary re-admit w/in 30 days as her lungs clotted up, 02 requirements skyrocketing to keep her above a 60% spO2, they refused. We had to rush her to another hospital by ambulance, but by then it was too late. She gasped in a panic as it was too late for the drugs to melt the clots in her lungs. Very treatable had the hospital allowed the second admission, but no. We tried to sue, but it's hard to win a neglect case the attorneys said. You can send flowers to her gravestone, thanks to that wonderful Medicare.

johnthomasmacdonald wrote:
or as my granny used to say: " show me your friends and i'll tell you who you are"

No problem. I have a son who is gay and a 70 year old aunt who has lived with the same woman for 51 years. Some of my best, and longest-known friends are black. I've had many women work for me, and I've worked for them, never thinking twice about the fact that they made more money than I. I've been pro-choice my entire life, believing that there's a big difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion.

I also happen to believe that putting everything in my life - and theirs - under the oversight and authority of the government is a recipe for the destruction of the country as we know it. And guess what - so do most of the people I just listed, including the two gay people.

Your broad-brush statement comparing me to devout racists is offensive.

The Choker wrote:You are illustrations of the classic liberals who have an overriding goal of ...... end of personal freedom in pursuit of your goal.

In case you hadn't noticed, it isn't the Democrats who want go into bedrooms and say who can have sex with who. It's not the Democrats who want to data mine all Internet communications looking for leads to terrorists. It's not the Democrats who want to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. And it goes on. When it comes to personal freedoms the Dems have always been stronger advocates than have the Repubs.

Just to be clear, I personally do not advocate and promote gay relationships and abortions. But neither do I attempt to impose my beliefs on others. It's just my observation through the years that the Republican claim that Dems want to destroy personal freedoms is seriously disingenuous.

jtmarten wrote:What I would really love to see are the special Congressional programs for retirement and healthcare go away. Let those jackwads participate in the programs THEY put in place for US.

They get the same healthcare and retirement programs all Federal employees get, with some variations. For Fed employees it ain't overly generous, but it is good. BTW, the Federal employee retirement fund has a better return than most commercial funds, and lower cost of operation than any commercial fund. And, the cost of operation is not subsidized.

MaxDarkside wrote:

johnthomasmacdonald wrote:"Let's see- slavery, jim crow, KKK, lynching, segregation,anti-women voting, anti-women equality, anti-gay

Mostly democrat things, those are, you might notice.

how Medicare made life miserable for the elderly in america and robbed them of their freedom to die decades before they had to in poverty

Medicare killed my mother-in-law. The hospital would not admit her until my wife insisted (hospital got paid crap) and then on the necessary re-admit w/in 30 days as her lungs clotted up, 02 requirements skyrocketing to keep her above a 60% spO2, they refused. We had to rush her to another hospital by ambulance, but by then it was too late. She gasped in a panic as it was too late for the drugs to melt the clots in her lungs. Very treatable had the hospital allowed the second admission, but no. We tried to sue, but it's hard to win a neglect case the attorneys said. You can send flowers to her gravestone, thanks to that wonderful Medicare.

Hi Max,

I am so sorry about your mother-in-law.

I am perplexed as to why you see Medicare as the villain when it seems the hospital was negligent unless I am missing something.

Also, in my previous post on single payer, I quoted an emergency room physician who said during his years of practicing medicine that he had never experienced medicare refusing admission for any of his patients whereas this had happened when they had private insurance.

So even if your mother-in-law had had a different insurance policy, that might not have been a protection against the hospital's negligence.

Sadly, that attorney was right about your chances of winning a lawsuit. When I feel an elderly relative was the victim of hospital malpractice several years ago that had nothing to do with insurance coverage, I researched the possibility of doing this but discovered that the chances of anyone elderly winning a case was slim and none.

No matter what, what you described sounded like a horrible situation and again, I am so sorry for your loss.

49er

lorraineg57 wrote:My husband is a small business owner (family owned business). We pay $1300 a MONTH for healthcare for our family alone. Small business can not afford to offer healthcare to employees with the rates that the insurance companies charge. Hubby was speaking to another small business owner who stated that he can not afford to offer healthcare to his employees either.

Will you agree that Uncle Sam has as much, if not vastly more, bargaining power than small businesses when it comes to buying products and services? I sure hope you do. Well, I'll let you in on a little secret. Uncle doesn't buy health insurance any cheaper than your husband does.

The BCBS health plan I subscribe to as a retired Fed employee, enrollment code 105, Standard Family Plan, costs a total of $1354.36 per month for 2013. You can see the charts at http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/index.asp. Health care costs are getting to be a serious problem for this country. Obama care is at least one attempt to bring them under control and make health care affordable for most everyone. The last seventy years, since the inception of health insurance as an employee benefit, has demonstrated that private industry can't, or won't, do it on its own.

idamtnboy wrote:

The Choker wrote:You are illustrations of the classic liberals who have an overriding goal of ...... end of personal freedom in pursuit of your goal.

In case you hadn't noticed, it isn't the Democrats who want go into bedrooms and say who can have sex with who. It's not the Democrats who want to data mine all Internet communications looking for leads to terrorists. It's not the Democrats who want to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. And it goes on. When it comes to personal freedoms the Dems have always been stronger advocates than have the Repubs.

Just to be clear, I personally do not advocate and promote gay relationships and abortions. But neither do I attempt to impose my beliefs on others. It's just my observation through the years that the Republican claim that Dems want to destroy personal freedoms is seriously disingenuous.

Sorry, address your "lesser of two evils" argument elsewhere. I am not a Republican and did not vote for Bush or Romney.

I do support any adult gays in whatever voluntary relationships they wish to engage in.

When it comes to personal freedoms the Dems have always been stronger advocates than have the Repubs.

Neither are advocates of personal freedom, especially personal economic freedom. To the contrary both parties are destroying our personal freedom, witness,

Need a reminder?

idamtnboy wrote: Will you agree that Uncle Sam has as much, if not vastly more, bargaining power than small businesses when it comes to buying products and services? I sure hope you do. Well, I'll let you in on a little secret. Uncle doesn't buy health insurance any cheaper than your husband does.

Thanks for another example of government incompetence.

Boyce wrote:“In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again.”

- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

There is nothing in Gibbon's book that even remotely resembles this purported quotation. I don't understand why these things circulate so persistently over the network of right wing websites and e-mailings. The Decline and Fall is, after all, on line and searchable. The usual clue that a quotation has been fabricated is that you can find the same words attributed to multiple authors.

Setting aside the source, I don't believe the argument. Freedom and security are not inevitably in opposition, and to hope for access to medical care is different from asking to be given "a comfortable life." Advances in medicine have put us in a position in which all but the wealthiest face the possibility that they will need medical care beyond their ability to pay. This was much less true even 50 years ago, and it mattered less, since there was so much less that medical treatment could accomplish. Artificial joints, replacement heart valves, chemotherapy, cataract surgery: all the things we've come to depend on are new and costly. Not so long ago we limped, we died, we bought a dog. Having a doctor often meant only being informed what was happening to you. It is the great progress in medicine, most of it during our lifetimes, that has led to the escalating cost of medical care and the issue of how to pay. We should feel blessed to have this problem.

As someone who has now twice had cancer, I know at first hand how expensive a top tier disease can be, and I look all the time at other people's medical bills in the course of my work. None of us can count on being able to pay out of pocket for the care we may require. Insurance is obviously the answer, but the scattershot approach that has grown up in the U.S. leaves gaps that no amount of prudence and responsibility can fill. In particular, it offers no answer to the problem of covering pre-existing conditions. As a result of legislation, those who always work in jobs that provide good benefits are covered as they move from job to job, but anyone who leaves that cocoon can be out of luck permanently, together with his dependents. A gap in continuity of coverage can't be fixed. There is no health insurance equivalent to whole life or irrevocable term life insurance that would allow a prudent young person to guaranty his future insurability.

Which brings us back to freedom. What could be less free than being tethered to a job you don't want? As it stands, someone with a chronically ill child, for example, can't realistically say to his employer "take this job and shove it" and strike out as an entrepreneur. At best, he can try to find a new job within the COBRA time limits. The need for health insurance has become a drag on individual freedom. A prudent plan that uncouples the availability of insurance at standard rates from employment status will enhance individual autonomy in today's healthcare environment. I believe that I will be more free than I am today when I can make economic decisions knowing that my family and I can find insurance despite our medical histories.