Skip to main content

Lawrence O’Donnell had a guest on his Thursday "The Last Word" show that illustrates a problem with the left. It also illustrates a problem with the very young. To be sure, this problem was created by the baby boomers. The youth, specifically on the left, tend to believe, many times correctly, that their interests are left out of policy. That is what Carl Gibson believes. He believes this specifically as it applies to the Affordable Care Act. For that reason, he has opted to not sign up for the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and instead he will pay the penalty.

Carl Gibson is a well-known young and influential activist. He is the co-founder of US Uncut. He is also a prolific blogger at Huffington Post. He reports for Carl Gibson has a platform. I interviewed him on my Move to Amend Reports radio show a few months ago. I found him to be very engaging, knowledgeable, and convincing. It is for this reason that the article he wrote for (rsn) was so disconcerting.

Carl Gibson laid out his mental path, the argument he made to himself for not signing up for the Affordable Care Act. His argument makes sense only if he is trying to convince himself not to do something he intrinsically knows he should do.

Gibson’s analysis is basically this. He exercises. He eats well. He does not take the flu shot. He meditates. So far in his 26 years of life he has only had the sniffles. His biggest healthcare cost was $6,000 for a surgery in 2011 when he broke his elbow. Even without insurance he was at near break–even as his premiums and deductibles would be close to that. Based on his current earnings, his out of pocket healthcare cost would be 15 percent of his income. In 2013 he was run off the road. A closer clinic refused to see him because he was uninsured. The hospital he drove to for an X-ray, bandage, and sling cost $2,500. He figures he would still be ahead in 2013 opting to be uninsured.

Carl Gibson misses several things. First, he has a propensity for accidents. In my 52 years I have had no accidents requiring hospitalization even as a cyclist for over 12 years. Second, the prices he was quoted as an uninsured person were likely subsidized by all those paying insurance as well as taxes. Third, not taking the flu shot is not a responsible thing to do, especially if one is uninsured. The swine flu is the prevailing strain this year and there have been several flu deaths in the Houston area already and likely throughout the country.

After Carl Gibson laid out the reasons he chose to opt out of Obamacare, he went into the issues Obamacare failed to address. Gibson is absolutely correct that a single payer system would have been the preferred option. It removes profits, executive salaries, and unnecessary overhead simply to pay a bill. He is correct that health insurance companies are nothing but entities created to profit off of the sick. He is correct that political bribery is responsible for a much less than optimal Affordable Care Act.

Lawrence O’Donnell attempted to convince Carl Gibson of his folly by bringing Gov. Howard Dean and Ezra Klein to his show for a pleasant debate. Dean agreed with much of what Gibson said but in effect said this was all that was unattainable at this time. He advised Gibson that he still needed to opt in to Obamacare to ensure he is protected from possible future catastrophe. Ezra Klein was a bit blunt. He said one could do the jerk-ish thing and be a free rider. Ezra however gave Gibson a civics lesson we have failed to teach many of our young. He said:

It is a mistake to think about yourself of having a singular relationship with the healthcare system. To say I am young and that’s my relationship to healthcare is wrong. One day you are going to be old. You sound healthy but one day you are going to be sick. And if every young person, every healthy person starts to game the system, then when they are old, when they are sick, there will be no system there that is affordable to take care of them.
It is really that simple. Ezra Klein called this one right. Klein also made an important point that generally goes unnoticed. In a single payer system, premiums are not age-based and as such the young likely subsidized the old much more than under Obamacare. Under Obamacare premiums for the old can be up to 300 percent of those of the young.

Carl Gibson is a leader. There are many other young leaders that follow him throughout social media. As a leader and an activist it is his responsibility to be fully informed on critical issues that can have material longlasting health and financial effects on those who follow him, those who listen to him, and those who look up to him.

Carl Gibson and other young activists and leaders must stay in the healthcare debate. Obamacare is not the end of making the US healthcare system better for all. It is just the beginning. This country needs Gibson and all the young activists to be a part of demanding policy changes. They must be there continuously at every election if they want to be heard.

The Affordable Care Act and many other policies that affect the poor, the middle class, and specifically the youth would be much better if politicians knew these groups would remain engaged. The plutocracy depends on actions like Gibson’s and others to snuff incremental change because they are confident that absent an outright revolution, they will always get the outcomes they want.

Carl Gibson’s choice of opting out of the Affordable Care Act should be reconsidered for his own good and as an example to others. Moreover, he should be at the forefront to ensure not only that young people sign up, but that they stay engaged and make the Affordable Care Act and other policies more fair for us all going forward.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Premiums could be aged based in a single payer (10+ / 0-)

    system.  There's no one way to do single payer.  But the ACA system is confusing mess at the moment.  Every state is different.  I'm glad for that at the moment because I figure Minnesota at least tries to get it right but it's literally all over the map.  And this is a big hurdle for acceptance.  People don't have a clue if they're being treated fairly.  It's all cobbled together with Medicaid or not Medicaid.  People don't know if it's a poverty program or a program to spread risk or whatever.  

    And the politicians for the most part don't seem to much give a damn.  The COMMITMENT from Democratic politicians to making the ACA WORK just seems to be no where.

    I mean if Chuck Schumer was as COMMITTED to the ACA as he is to AIPAC wouldn't that be something.

    •  Maybe it would be better if they weren't age (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Willa Rogers, ladybug53

      Sure would make me feel better.

      And, honestly -- why are older people 3 times more expensive than young ones?

      I could understand that if the ACA extended to the truly elderly but Medicare does that.  The really expenisve years are already covered by a single payer system.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:25:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  lifestyle choices have but only a modest influence (31+ / 0-)

    on your health care needs, whcih are dominated by genetics, accidents, the environment you live and work in, and other factors that are completely out of your control. This guy should sign up for health care, he is engaging in a behavioral hazard that unfortunately may have very dire consequences.

  •  thank you (17+ / 0-)

    For this post. I still remember watching the vote in Congress in 2010, and it was very suspenseful. Again when the Supreme Court reviewed the law no one expected John Roberts to uphold it. I'm reading the Washington Post book about the ACA, and behind the scenes it was even more of a long shot. And we can thank Joe Lieberman for all the older Americans who don't have a Medicare buy-in as an option. No one is more committed to health care access than Howard Dean, and he is willing to put personal feelings aside and go for the possible.

  •  Short sided, ignorant and proud of it (26+ / 0-)

    reminds me of the people who say there is no global warming because it just snowed.

    I'm not going to vote, that way we'll get better candidates!


    There really is no arguing with some people.

  •  individualism (9+ / 0-)

    Individualism in America is rampant. capitalism with its survival of the fittest mentality  will reinforce an individualism mentality. along with the selfish human ego societal taught individualism will lead to a nation's own self destruction.

    The American empire is in a self destructive mode all the while preaching exceptionalism; liberals and conservatives alike.

    Americans dont like paying for medical insurance for others. medical       care in America is considered a privilege. and a christian nation too boot to consider medical care a privilege.

    Just attended a church today that the guest preacher     slammed obamacare.

  •  When I think about "what is a progressive?" (17+ / 0-)

    At the top of the list I put an emphasis on policies that lift the poor and working poor into a better shot at healthy lifestyles.  The top of the list is not for my own narrow self interests.

    If Mr. Gibson thinks otherwise, then by that yardstick he is no progressive.  

    But then, he likely is already going to profit from Obamacare.  If he gets a serious chronic condition one year, he will be able to get insurance in a following year.  I don't think he knows what has been won.  And he is knowledgeable?

    I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

    by Satya1 on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 01:16:25 PM PST

  •  You can get a "pre-existing condition" anytime (7+ / 0-)

    One of the other reasons why the mandate is important is that the ACA does not allow for discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions. So this guy free rides until he develops MS, or chronic back problems, or any number of chronic conditions that are very expensive to treat. THEN he can just sign up. I am not sure how you can fairly eliminate discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions without some sort of mandate with an associated penalty. The elimination of this kind of discrimination is one of the most popular aspects of the ACA. When you poll about that particular feature, it is favored by overwhelming majorities of people who oppose the ACA.

    Of course, there is also the issue that like social security (that provides disability insurance regardless of age}, a greater proportion of benefits go to the elderly. But I do presume this guy intends to get old someday. Or is his plan to take the black pill when he hits 65?

    •  That one occurred to me also (18+ / 0-)

      I've known people that worked decades in dead end jobs to keep insurance for a chronically sick child.  They never had a hope of getting the burden of "pre-existing condition" off their backs until Obamacare got rolling.

      This guy now has a lot of that risk taken away if ACA stays.  He also likely benefits from the lifetime caps, should he ever need to switch and buy insurance one year.

      He is benefiting by the reduced risk Obamacare brings to all of us and his is completely unaware.

      For a guy who writes articles about minimum wage, he also seems unaware of just how valuable Obamacare can be for the working poor.

      I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

      by Satya1 on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 01:36:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  self-employment (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        virginwoolf, contrariandy, ladybug53

        I've been a freelancer since the 1980s and have seen many of my coworkers have to retreat to a 9-to-5 job they hated just to acquire health insurance for themselves or a family member who suddenly would not be covered by their existing health insurance plan.

        I predict that the ACA will bring a wave of self-employment and entrepreneurism that will make the jobs situation better for many people.

        •  I can recall seeing an academic paper (0+ / 0-)

          on the economic result when people are trapped in their current jobs because of "pre-existing conditions" and it was an eye opener.  People can move on to employ the higher level of skills they've developed and open up their slot to more junior people.  They did some calculations and there was a real economic cost created by this insurance company created horror.

          The paper was at least 20 years ago though and I haven't been able to find it since Obamacare arrived on the scene.

          I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

          by Satya1 on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 05:32:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Oftentimes (4+ / 0-)
      You can get a "pre-existing condition" anytime
      Preexisting is just a matter of insurance company policy.

      “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ... Voltaire

      by RUNDOWN on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 01:44:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Waiting for next open enrollment could be fatal (7+ / 0-)

      If a young person who is healthy other than the occasional motorcycle wreck opts to pay the penalty rather than get insurance finds a lump on April 1, and finds out he has cancer, the "free rider" won't be able to get insurance until Jan. 1, 2015, by which time the tumor might well have metasticized beyond the point where it can be treated. Don't expect to run oncology treatments off your Master Card while you wait for the next open enrollment period.

      •  Then open enrollment all year long (7+ / 0-)

        That was the way ACA was originally designed until the insurance execs the WH hired got hold of it.


        Then give people the option of buying Medicare or Medicaid if they wish, instead of being forced to buy private insurance.

        If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

        by Betty Pinson on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:58:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm for that... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          just as soon as we get a House who is willing to make those adjustments instead of voting to repeal the damn thing 40 times...

          •  The House passed ACA with no restrictions (7+ / 0-)

            It was the WH who put those rules in WRT to enrollment periods.

            We have open enrollment for Medicare and Medicaid.  What's so special about private insurance that they can only accept new patients once a year?  Bullshit, they're just trying to stack the deck and maximize profits.

            LOL, the House passed ACA with a public option, too.

            We need to start holding Obama accountable for the mistakes he's made in the Exec Branch's handling of ACA rulemaking.

            Obama has already unilaterally corrected some mistakes.  He can correct this one too, its his rule.

            We have open enrollment for Medicare and Medicaid.  What's so special about private insurance that they can only accept new patients once a year?  Bullshit, they're just trying to stack the deck and maximize profits.

            I haven't heard whether Obama's trying to blame this mistake on the House, but if he is he's lying.   Let's hope he hasn't said that because he will get caught.

            If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

            by Betty Pinson on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:41:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  You can't allow freeloaders to jump in and out. (0+ / 0-)

          If you want open enrollment, you need to have penalties for late enrollment.  They could be premium penalties or coverage penalties, waiting periods or restrictions on known pre-existing conditions, but all of that opens a whole lot of problems that annual enrollment prevents.  

          Medicare uses annual enrollments for basic coverage and premium penalties for Part D - Drug coverage.   And, even those simple measures can be confusing and surprising to the uninformed.  Best to keep it simple and work to get people better informed.

      •  If you have a motorcycle wreak or anything else (0+ / 0-)

        an ER has to handle, then you will be treated and they can then enroll later. However, in an emergency...they have to treat you.

        Cancer, or something similar is different....and so I agree with you in a way.... but I guarantee under this new program doctors and hospitals are well aware no one can be turned away for any pre existing you might even find competition or advertising to the effect that "We will treat you and then you can sign up...get the gold plan!!"

          They would make much more money treating a brand new, scared cancer patient who will soon be able to get gold level insurance (because they are scared and will want the best insurance) and all the doctor or hospital has to do is simply wait to charge them until that point or just make up the money later in treatment, when they have that good insurance.  It would make much more money than turning said patient away for the simple wait of a few weeks or months knowing that scared patient will eventually have coverage that will be given to someone, that's for sure.

        In the past, the doctors or hospitals had no hope of ever collecting much on uninsured patients because of pre existing condition clauses meant they would never be able to get all they have to do is wait a couple of months.  Doctors and hospitals know they can treat uninsured people while telling them they must sign up in October and then waiting to bill them or treat them and then collect after they get the "good stuff", or that coveted gold level plan, that most healthy people won't have.

        But believe me,  in this capitalist society....everyone will figure out a way to make the very most money out of this program.

  •  ACA was designed to be the end (31+ / 0-)

    by its creators at the Heritage Foundation.  It pours so much MORE money into the health insurance business that there is no way corporate America can ever let go of it now.  It is specifically designed to create the political barrier of vested financial interest against any public option or single payer, ever.

    And we can be sure the "pragmatists" that run the Dem Party will never ever ever cross those financial interests.  We saw them in action when there was nothing to lose politically  taking on the consequences of Wall Street's orgy of greed.  Their answer was to reward Wall Street with even more of our money.  Why should or would this be any different?

    “Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. ” ― Paulo Freire

    by ActivistGuy on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 01:18:04 PM PST

    •  POTUS removed the public option, remember (21+ / 0-)

      I'm really tried of the "not politically possible" meme -- POTUS removed the public option from any debate.  I refuse to defend a Republican plan for "health care" adopted by a Democratic President that complicates individual policies, creates even more profit for a leech of an industry, and does not provide an efficient outcome -- as would a public option, to say nothing of single payer.

      •  I share your frustration with that! (6+ / 0-)

        But we gotta work with what we got.

      •  Because it was not politically possible. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        doroma, wishingwell, ahumbleopinion

        Look at the Dems right now.  When push comes to shove, they revert back into their safe positions, basically leaving the President to push ACA alone.

        That's a valid reason and at this point, it's water over the bridge.

      •  Can we please finally dispense with the fiction... (22+ / 0-)

        ...that the ACA was ever going to pass with the public option? Too many blue dog Dems were opposed to it. The only other option would have been to stick with the PO and watch the whole thing go down in flames. It would have been Hillarycare Part Deux.

        I'm all in favor of the PO but let's not pretend it was ever going to pass. The ACA barely crossed the finish line as it is.

      •  Where do you get that? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wishingwell, Cedwyn, ladybug53

        got a link? Because from what I could gather at the time, it was Joe Lie berman and Max Baucus in the negotiations in the Senate that allowed Public Option to die, not Obama.

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 01:55:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Obama removed single payer from the table (10+ / 0-)

          A huge negotiating mistake. If he had not, perhaps we may have settled on a public option and not just exchanges.  ACA has good things but it is at best a first step in the direction of single payer.

          Single payer will come, if the ACA succeeds, thorugh the "innovation waiver" clause state by state.  At least ACA established we needed to reform healthcare and it left the door unlocked to continue innovation.

          If the ACA fails, because of GOP sabotage or because of implementation issues, single payer will also happen, perhaps even faster and state by state.

          Where do you stand vis à vis single payer?

          Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

          by Shockwave on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:04:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  He removed it from the table because it (12+ / 0-)

            didn't have enough votes to pass.  Duh.  It was no negotiating mistake.

            That we have what we have in ACA was no small miracle.  It was one that was never before accomplished.

            It will take a mountain of effort and fending off the money from industry and political interests to get single payer, or a public option.  No easy task.

            Personally, I am astounded that we got this far.

            In the time it took Adam Lanza to reload, eleven children escaped. What if...

            by Sixty Something on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:45:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The idea of negotiating with an adversary is to... (5+ / 0-)

              ...make everything a concession.  The GOP would have objected to giving free band-aids to babies let alone single payer.  But you need to start from the opposite end.

              DC is dysfunctional, agreed.  For this reason single payer will have to come state by state, like marriage equality, like marihuana legalization.  

              As I say Obamacare is only a first step.  Hopefully it will work well enough in 2014 or the midterms look bleak in Congress and Senate.

              Strangely enough, many on the right recognize that if Obamacare fails the solution is single payer.

              Yes, the ACA was a victory in DC.  Obama was able to pass a law that was implemented by Repug Romney in Massachusetts and originally proposed by the Heritage Foundation.  

              It behooves the insurance companies and big pharma to do everything they can to make the ACA work.  But IMO they don't get it.


              Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

              by Shockwave on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:02:00 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Agree. Single payer is the solution. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Public Option could have got us there faster, but would not pass in Congress.  

                ACA is the vehicle that will take us there.  Patience.  It takes a very long time for the "people" to accept change.  

                In essence, ACA takes care of the uninsured at a reasonable cost that they can afford.  When this runs smoothly, you can bet that a lot of people are going to say, why not me?  Why not my state?

                In the time it took Adam Lanza to reload, eleven children escaped. What if...

                by Sixty Something on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 04:22:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Obama sold out before it got to the Senate (9+ / 0-)

              Obama promised the American Hospital Assn. that he would kill the PO.   AHA is a bunch of idiots anyway who thought they couldn't survive financially with a PO, even though they get rich on Medicare.  

              tupid gits, AHA and Obama.

              If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

              by Betty Pinson on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:06:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Betty, surely you jest. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Obama promised the American Hospital Assn. that he would kill the PO.

                In the time it took Adam Lanza to reload, eleven children escaped. What if...

                by Sixty Something on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 04:14:10 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Link (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  orestes1963, cybrestrike


                  Daschle bragged about it in his book. I always love posting this link. It's a great educational tool.

                  If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

                  by Betty Pinson on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 07:46:32 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's not what I got from reading the link (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Jeff Simpson

                    Maybe I missed it but I didn't read Daschle "bragging" but commenting on the need to make a deal.

                    I don't care for the deal either but bargains were made to get the damn thing passed--something that had been tried since 1916.

                    Why does no one see that the real enemy to the ACA was the lack of initiative from the Republican party? Had they wanted it they would have twisted reluctant Dems into prezels getting it. They could have claimed it as their own victory and stole the poltical football from Dems.

                    Is not else curious about his?

                    •  Dems controlled Congress & the WH (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      GOP intransigence wasn't a factor.   The biggest polluter of the process was billions spent by the health care, pharma and medical equipment industries to buy Democrats.  

                      DLC/ThirdWay/OFA really had to scramble to find enough rotating villains in the Senate to kill all the good provisions in ACA.  Lots of money was spent, many post-Congressional careers were built.  

                      If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

                      by Betty Pinson on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 09:35:58 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The Republican minority has no trouble finding (0+ / 0-)

                        ways to get things done in the Senate with the filibuster and now with the power of the subpeona they can have their way in the House. I just wish they would find something more useful  to do with this power than menace Obama.

                        Promenant Republicans like Bruce Bartlett and Mike Lofgren who wrote:"The Party is Over-How the Republicans wnet crazy and the Democrats Became Useless and the Middle Class Got Shafted" ,have enough to
                        say about their own kind. It's too bad they wait until they leave office to "tell-all".

                        The forces against Obama and the Democrats are strong enough to cancel out any hope of getting any real reform in health care or fianance. Its not like they are fighiting them to improve matters for the American people. Its just a slimy power play.

                        My disappontment in the Democrats can't begin to equal the disgust I feel about the Republicans. We need to resist giving the GOP the satisfaction of weakening the Democrats out of our own spite and disappontment over The Affordable Health Care Act.
                        That would be suicidal and enough damage was done in 2010 to know how stupid that idea was.

                        Besides, if it is anything like the Agriculture Department, it will evolve into something much better over time thanks to pilot programs and more Progressive Democrats replacing the old guard.

                        •  Republicans are beyond hope (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          But there's nothing I can do about them.  I can influence Democrats, though.

                          And if Dems get busy and deal positively with filibuster abuse and other rules changes, it will be easier to hold the GOP publicly accountable on important bills.  But Dems have to want to do that, they have to be willing to alienate their corporate sponsors who prefer a locked up Congress.

                          If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

                          by Betty Pinson on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 11:57:01 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  And yes, Obama sold out on the PO early on (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      It's all right there.

                      Sorry, he lied, along with quite a few other Dems.  

                      We will remember.

                      If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

                      by Betty Pinson on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 09:37:39 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I am not that fixated on Obama (0+ / 0-)

                        I wanted Howard Dean and took Obama by default.
                        Sometimes you have to "use what you got", as my granny would say.

                        •  Been doing that (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          and we're now holding the line trying to protect Social Security and Medicare from cuts from this same POTUS.

                          I'm very ready for a new Dem in the WH and new Dem leadership in the House and Senate.

                          The neolib leadership has had their chance.  They haven't produced much in the way of results and its time for them to move on to their corporate rewards.

                          If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

                          by Betty Pinson on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 11:53:05 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

          •  Single Payer is not Public Option. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            doroma, wishingwell, Cedwyn, Jeff Simpson

            The statement was

            POTUS removed the public option, remember
            And I do remember and POTUS was NOT the one that removed it.
            •  Of course I know. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Johnny Q

              You are right to point that out.  Still, where do you stand regarding single payer?

              Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

              by Shockwave on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:03:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It is what I've worked toward for forty years (7+ / 0-)

                and ACA delivers a slice of it, AKA Medicaid expansion.
                I would like to see the Medicaid threshold raised to 250% of the poverty line and opened as a buy-in from there up, pro-rata, eventually squeezing the 4P insurance companies out of the market.
                And thanks for asking.
                I happen to live in the Insurance Capitol, Connecticut, and many people here work in that infernal business, over 1 million work in the Health insurance business nationwide. Healthcare insurance touches about 1/6 of the GDP. An abrupt change from the old 4P model to a National Health model (the English version, which would be my ideal choice) would put those 1 million people and those 150+ VERY profitable companies out of business. In 2008, that was a suicidal position to take.
                It's still not a very good idea.
                A gradual transition from the old model is the responsible (and doable) method, which is why I see expanding a very efficient, smooth working, popular system incrementally until it covers everyone as the way to go.
                Public Option, as it was conceived at the time, would have been something like that, although probably a new agency rather than an expansion.
                The Purity Brigade with such luminaries as Jane Hamsher were so adamantly opposed to anything less than National Health and hanging the insurance execs from the lamp posts on Asylum Street, that she teamed up with Grover fu(king Norquist to drive public opinion, Left and Right, against it.
                That strengthened the hand of Lie berman and Baucus and so Public Option died.

                If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                by CwV on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:22:37 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  PO was the path to single payer (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Shockwave, CwV, Johnny Q, cybrestrike

              Look out, you're arguing with the HCR crowd here at DKos.

              If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

              by Betty Pinson on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:08:13 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Single payer was never an option. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Shockwave, CwV, Justanothernyer, Cedwyn

            Obamacare involves blowing up the (vastly unpopular) individual market, and even this is proving to be extremely unpopular and controversial. Single-payer would require blowing up the much more popular employer market. It was never seriously considered as an option in 2009-2010.

        •  CwV (0+ / 0-)

          you should not get ALL of your news from DKos. The truth does not always lie within these boundaries. Shocking, I know.

          •  For news on health care reform (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Try the Kaiser Family Foundation, Commonwealth Fund and Health Affairs, for starters.  For MSM, add the NYT.  

            Those are the sources used by Dkos diarists who write about health care reform.  Yeah, it puts most conservatives to sleep.

            If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

            by Betty Pinson on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:10:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  At the time, I was no where near dKos. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            And even now, this is not my only news source. Not by a long shot.
            At the time I was in regular correspondence with a couple of friends that worked in DC, one as a House aide and the other at DoD. I read everything from the Nation to Politico and from Bush's first term to Obama's second year, was deep into BuzzFlash which, in it's day was an excellent aggregator of news with lots of member input (It was trolled out of existence by the Purity Brigade).
            I agree that this is not the ONLY news source and for those that use it that way, I can only say, expand your bookmarks folder.

            If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

            by CwV on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:39:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Greed and stupidity (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Johnny Q

        Don't worry, we'll get the PO or a Medicare buy in.  It's our tax money, we can tell them how we want it spent.

        If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

        by Betty Pinson on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:00:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Congress, similarly, banned single payer advocates (10+ / 0-)

        from hearings as well.  This was a full court press by Democrats for a corporate/Republican law.

        Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

        by The Dead Man on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 04:49:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  okay, don't defend it, just buy it (0+ / 0-)

        You know the old saying about cutting off your nose to spite your face?  Well, we don't want to be calling you FishGuyNoselessDave.

    •  So the Heritage Foundation (6+ / 0-)

      wanted subsidies for the lower income? An end to preexisting conditions? An expansion of Medicare? How about free preventive care?

      Because that to me would seem really really odd but then again I've never seen the actual Heritage Foundation plan so maybe they all went crazy or something and actually proposed all those things.

      Der Weg ist das Ziel

      by duhban on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 01:37:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why the questions if you don't know... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        quill, Laconic Lib

        what you're talking about?

        Because that to me would seem really really odd but then again I've never seen the actual Heritage Foundation plan so maybe they all went crazy or something and actually proposed all those things.

        'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

        by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 01:54:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's why they are questions. (5+ / 0-)

          Some people ask questions for an answer.  Others ask them to be irritating.  Say, didn't your comment consist of a question?  Which color was it?

          If Hobby Lobby is against contraception, why does it buy its inventory from China, the country that limits the number of children by law?

          by Inland on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:28:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Inland, I'm sure you can see that drache was... (0+ / 0-)

            asking rhetorical questions, based on the second part of his comment.

            'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

            by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:32:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So you knew the answer to your question? (3+ / 0-)
              Why the questions if you don't know what you're talking about?
              Your answer to your own question is " for rhetorical purposes", and apparently you think that the rhetorical point being made is that only a doof would think the heritage foundation was ever in favor of expanding Medicaid to an additional..where are we at now, four million families.  

              Seems like a pretty valid rhetorical point to me.  Don't you agree?

              If Hobby Lobby is against contraception, why does it buy its inventory from China, the country that limits the number of children by law?

              by Inland on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:46:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I can't believe you are backing a zombie troll. nt (0+ / 0-)

                'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

                by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:08:27 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Prove it or stop the name calling eh? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  •  I'm glad you asked... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    drache was a banned user (since reinstated because of the changeover to DK4 I'm led to believe). He was banned after a long history of antagonistic behaviour and generally trollish behaviour. It was a well deserved banning. So, what is the link between drache and duhban?
                    His cat. And not just his cat. Specifically the name of the cat “duhban”.
                    introducing: (38+ / 0-)

                    That's my kitty, Duhban (duh-ven) about a year ago. I have been meaning to introduce him to the group.
                    More pictures to follow once I am done putting my hard drive back together.
                    A song about life
                    Why aren't you more like Gandhi? Why aren't I?
                    by drache on Wed May 27, 2009 at 01:20:04 PM PDT

                    In this thread (1) drache discussed the Gaelic origins of the name “duhban”. I think everyone can agree that outside of History and Language diaries linguistics is rarely discussed and Gaelic even less so. This is important because 'duhban' is a misspelling (2) and doesn't even mean what he thinks it means!
                    And here is the link (3) between drache and duhban, where duhban pleads his case for reinstatement after a (prescient) banning by elfling...

                    (1) (2) (3) (4)

                    4 Posted by duhban on 05 Sep, 2012 05:37 AM

                    Originially as I understand it 'Duhban' was supposed to mean 'shadow' or 'dark' or something like that. I actually do not speak any form of Gaelic but when I got my cat I was looking into my roots in Ireland/Scotland so I looked up a funny name for my cat online given that he's a black cat I figured I'd name him after the word for darkness or shadow or something close. Looking though current online dictionaries I can't find the exact word (which is probably why one should never trust the internet lol) the closest I could find was 'dubh' which according to an irish online dictionary means 'black' (4) I do apologize I didn't even consider for one second that it could be considered to be a joke or being coy. It was just what I (apparently rather ignorantly) named my black cat as a joke that seems to be more on me

                    NB.: the misspelling of 'dubhan' by drache and duhban. This cannot be a coincidence, the same misspelling and misunderstanding of an obscure word.

                    At this point I'll make a side note mentioning duhban's claim to be somewhat fluent in German. Do I need to draw a picture using German spelling?

                    'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

                    by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 04:56:29 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Why do you presume it's obscure? (2+ / 0-)

                      This is what perplexes me. 1.) Mr. Overdrive was totally familiar with it  and 2.) it gets 122,000 hits on Google.

                      A lot of people adore Gaelic, yes, even outside of Linguistics. My close girlfriend and a good male friend both have taken it upon themselves to learn to speak Gaelic. This is just not that unusual in some generations or places. For example, the two friends I reference are both college-educated (in two separate disciplines -- creative writing and psychology), both in their mid-thirties, both in the California Bay Area, and both big fans of the Hobbit and D&D and bands like Dead Can Dance.

                      Some of us nerdy, gothy folks cut our teeth on this kind of stuff, so it may be a very generational and cultural distinction to see it as obscure, as you and others seem to.

                      And German? That's common. I speak a bit of German (not well -- three years in middle school, mandatory, was perhaps my worst subject though). About 1.5 million other Americans ALSO speak German -- and that's not counting those who dabble in it, like I do:

                      I'm de-lurking from work to state this, personally, although I've been lurking (work, work, work, bother and rubbish).

                      My thought is that this is very, very tenuous and some of the things being stated as proof-positive seem like generational, cultural, and slightly provincial modes of thought.

                      Back to work... groan...

                      Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

                      by mahakali overdrive on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 05:33:28 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  And with that an ad hom circle gives a final jerk. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  "It's a lousy policy because the Heritage Foundation thought it up!"

                  "Well, not all of it, like Medicaid expansion"

                  "Says the zombie troll!"

                  Why is it that the supposed zombie troll managed to add more to the conversation than you?  Yeah, I am looking for an answer.  I've got one of my own, but I'd like to hear yours.

                  If Hobby Lobby is against contraception, why does it buy its inventory from China, the country that limits the number of children by law?

                  by Inland on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:24:28 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  At what point are you going to grow up (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  and stop thread jacking every fucking diary with your creepy obsession with duhban?

                  •  About the same time that you acknowledge... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Lost and Found, kharma

                    that duhban is a sock/zombie of drache.

                    'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

                    by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 05:51:01 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Do you promise? (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Inland, Drewid

                      I'm dead serious, I will unequivocally state that duhban is a zombie if you will just stop bringing it into places where it's completely off topic.

                      Here's the thing, I'm not the one that needs to be convinced.  If he's a zombie I have no problem with a banning but that's not my call, enforcing those rules are the exclusive providence of the site admins.  Whether they act on it or not if their prerogative, in the meantime just let it go.

      •  I think they supported a limited mandate (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        One that would only apply to catastrophic coverage. This was considered a moderate option then, but today even this would probably be considered "COMMUNISM! MARXISM! ISLAMISM! SHARIA LAW! FASCISM!" and whatever slur they could throw.

        Other Republicans, like a group of moderate senators in 1994-95, did back a plan very similar to Obamacare. Never mind that Nixon proposed it himself.

    •  do you know that the pragmatists who run the (15+ / 0-)

      Dem Party in Vermont have implemented single payer, thanks to the ACA?  so that alone belies your hyperbole that the ACA will prevent "any public option or single payer, ever."

      Me, I've got single payer thanks to the ACA, because thanks to expansion of Medi-Cal under ACA, I'm now eligible for Medi-Cal. It's not "Medicare for anyone who wants it," but it's a step in the right direction.  probably will be eligible until I'm old enough to qualify for Medicaid, too.  

      Seems speculative, to put it politely, to suggest that if it wasn't for the ACA the insurance companies would "let go." sigh...

      Change rarely happens suddenly right away, although there are "tipping points," where after a lot of incremental changes and real activism, it seems like change comes fast. I know that's disappointing to many, but it's the truth of the human condition.

      •  Really good points! Nt (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        doroma, jennifer poole, Cedwyn

        While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

        by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:09:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Vermont is an interesting example. (4+ / 0-)

        The state has decided to try to implement a single-payer system. It's proven to be difficult, even as most of the required reforms have passed through the legislature. Next legislative session (2015-16) the state plans to figure out how to pay for it, which should be the hardest part. If all goes as planned, Vermont will request a waiver in 2017 (when those become available) and implement the system then.

        We need to keep in mind that Vermont is a tiny wealthy homogenous state with a strong progressive tradition, and it already has the country's second-lowest rate of uninsured residents. If their plan ends up succeeding there, some other states might take a look at it. Even then, single-payer is probably off the table in states with any type of GOP influence in the state government. And in larger states, it will be infinitely harder to get it through. And in states with ballot initiatives, the insurers would likely spend millions in order to defeat it. Still, it is a good starting point. And an example of states being "laboratories of democracy". Let's not forget, too, that Vermont already did something crazy batshit insane once - in 2000, following the state supreme court's ruling, it decided to provide same-sex couples with civil union benefits, stopping short of the marriage term but still triggering a furious backlash - the "take back Vermont! movement". Let's just think how that ended up, thirteen years on.

      •  Medi-Cal? In Vermont? (0+ / 0-)

        Didn't Vermont pass Single Payer PRIOR to passage of ObamaCare?

        all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

        by 4kedtongue on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 09:15:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  So all the people that can't get insured (6+ / 0-)

      and might die because of lack of insurance don't matter to you.

      You'd prefer the system fail and they just get sick and die due to lack of health insurance, since that is the alternative to what we have now I suppose.

      There are unfortunately elements on the left that are just as bad as the redstaters - they think "I've got mine" so "political points" are more important than peoples' lives.

      I'm sorry, things like this really make me upset. Yeah it's really fun to say "corporatism, banksters, wall street, Heritage" etc but there's real people involved.

      When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

      by PhillyJeff on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:37:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Klein: (7+ / 0-)

    "He said one could do the jerk-ish thing and be a free rider."

    I would put it differently. Gibson is a jerk.

    As is anyone who would pay something for nothing, rather than something for something.

  •  The arrogance of Gibson's argument is only (12+ / 0-)

    trumped by its ignorance. "I eat healthy and only get sniffles!"

    Here's a hearty Fuck you to Gibson for being deeply offensive to everyone younger than 26 who died from some sort of cancer. If only they lived healthy like you!

    The dumb/asshole combination. So pretty.

    •  Yeah, this guy is being rather ignorant. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Little, doroma

      And stupid.  And EW is right about this flu.  A couple of cases here in Chicago already of H1N1.

      And let's hope he doesn't get his car jacked or someone tries to mug him for is Ipad.


    •  He meditates too. Don't forget that... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Nod the zero impact that will have on his health.

      President Obama has the amazing ability to humiliate his biggest critics, on the right and the left.

      by NoFortunateSon on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 04:00:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  well... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        There are some studies that suggest meditation can help many maladies, specifically in the areas of pain management and stress. This is not to say that I would choose only meditation if I fell off a ladder and broke a few bones, but to suggest that it will have zero impact on your health is most likely incorrect.

        This is not to say I agree with Gibson's position, but it is probably typical of many "healthy" individuals in that age range. I generally have been a proponent of the "single payer" system, but my biggest fear is from statements like yours (what works and what doesn't work.)

        I don't want to be mandated that I have to have certain treatments for certain illnesses (cancer or diabetes, for example.) I feel that the medical industry is tied too close to our government, and that in a single payer system in this country, choices might no longer be choices.

  •  Diary-"Why Isn't On-Line Activism More Effective?" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman

    Every movement has people that are mainly motivated by their sense of "specialness" and defiance that gets in the way of getting stuff done and ends up sabotaging the group.

    Also, activists often take their own lives.

    I can't say any of this stuff applies to him, but there are people like this undermining any group from inside.

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 01:23:25 PM PST

  •  Watch your step kid... and don't ever fuck up (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MsGrin, jds1978

    or let anyone else accidentally fuck you up... or have kids, or ???

    A hungry man is not a free man ~ Adlai Stevenson

    by Max Runk on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 01:23:54 PM PST

  •  I read the article and I dont't see where he... (7+ / 0-)

    ...says that he opts out because Obamacare ins not single payer.  He opts out because he is taking a gamble of premiums (and co-pays).

    I believe that the final destination IS single payer and the path leads through the ACA "innovation waiver" in 2017.  It will be difficult IMO because the ACA will create a whole ecosystem of people who will make money from it.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 01:25:53 PM PST

    •  You cannot have actually read the whole (0+ / 0-)


    •  He correctly understands (13+ / 0-)

      that ACA was designed to bleed young people to cover those with more medical expenses, and at the same time it doesn't cover his own health care needs. People can preach to the guy all they want, but there's something fundamentally unfair/unjust about that. It would be different if it would allow him to get actual health care (not just insurance he can't afford). This is a real problem that progressives need to deal with.

      •  That is correct (10+ / 0-)

        I'm struggling with the ACA, myself. I'm covered through my employer, but gf is not covered. We're young and otherwise healthy except (and this is a big exception) for gf's heart problems, which have essentially disabled her.

        We are trying to get her on disability, and that will help. But when we looked at her options through the site, a bronze plan was still almost $200/month.

        I am going to have a very hard time swallowing that until she qualifies for disability, which I predict will be a long and painful process. I am already stretched thin as the sole breadwinner of the house.

        I like a lot of the ACA, but we do have to accept that there are flaws in it. Not fatal flaws, but flaws that have to be addressed in an honest way.

        P.S. I am not a crackpot.

        by BoiseBlue on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:15:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And these flaws probably would be (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          doroma, Willinois, ladybug53

          addressed if we had honest brokers in the House willing to fix these things instead of trying to repeal the damn thing 40+ times.

          That's where we need to start.

        •  The cost to cover your gf is $200 (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Chi, jes2, ladybug53

          a month, her actual medical coverage for a disabling heart condition would probably exceed $2400 per year.  $2400 in our medical system doesn't cover very much, Mr Gibson's broken elbow cost $6,000 for one event.  

          I think there is a conflation of at least distinct issues, all important here, and I hope you will allow my thoughts on this, BB:

          1.  The true cost for your dear gf coverage would be more than the $200 per month plus out of pocket, if you had to pay for medical premiums out of pocket, pre-ACA.  In the past, before ACA, the cost would have been much higher, if she could get any coverage at all, because of her pre-existing condition. $2400 is, therefore, relative to actual projected costs for her medical care, inexpensive.  

          2.  But $2400 a year is high for those who are burdened by our economic system that allows and encourages non-livable wages.  If your company allowed coverage for you gf, would you pay for it?  Would it be less than $50 a week to add her to your employer subsidized policy?  How much less would that be - most employers subsidize the true cost for their employee health insurance premiums - as a work benefit, you don't actually pay the real premium - usually +1 or +family coverage is subsidized at a lower rate than the employee.  

          3.  Does your employer cover same sex married spouses?  If you were allowed to marry and chose to marry, would they cover her?  Is part of the problem that you live in a state that actively discriminates and does not uphold marriage equity?  

          We live in a society where the cost for medical care is managed by corporations, and this is, I think, a threat to our national good.  My concern about folks like Mr Gibson is that they inadvertently also make the case for young people opting out of Social Security and Medicare, ideas continuously proposed by the far right - if all goes right, you can, theoretically save and invest your money as a hedge against old age poverty and infirmity - and it works for some, but not for most.  Even for the 1% who thought they had it gamed in the 1920s and lost everything in the 1929 crash.  This is cold comfort to you and to your gf as you try to survive through these hard times.  I know that, and I am sorry that these multiple societal problems and injustices are being so keenly felt by you and by your beloved.  I hope that another "government solution" Social Security Disability will provide some help to you.  

          I wish you the best, and sorry that this is all so terribly hard.  

          "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of the United States of America -9.75 -6.87

          by Uncle Moji on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:04:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Answers (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tardis10, Chi, MPociask, orestes1963, ladybug53
            1.  The true cost for your dear gf coverage would be more than the $200 per month plus out of pocket, if you had to pay for medical premiums out of pocket, pre-ACA.  In the past, before ACA, the cost would have been much higher, if she could get any coverage at all, because of her pre-existing condition. $2400 is, therefore, relative to actual projected costs for her medical care, inexpensive.

            I understand that. However, it's not relatively inexpensive. Her checkups right now cost $60/quarter, and her meds are $12/month (thanks to help from the prescribing doctor). That doesn't equal $2400/year.

            The problem we're facing is that she can't get better care because of lack of insurance.

            2.  But $2400 a year is high for those who are burdened by our economic system that allows and encourages non-livable wages.  If your company allowed coverage for you gf, would you pay for it?  Would it be less than $50 a week to add her to your employer subsidized policy?  How much less would that be - most employers subsidize the true cost for their employee health insurance premiums - as a work benefit, you don't actually pay the real premium - usually +1 or +family coverage is subsidized at a lower rate than the employee.  

            3.  Does your employer cover same sex married spouses?  If you were allowed to marry and chose to marry, would they cover her?  Is part of the problem that you live in a state that actively discriminates and does not uphold marriage equity?  

            No, my employer does not offer same-sex benefits to employees in states where marriage is not legal. If it did, she would be covered because it would cost me $50/month (I am lucky to have a generous benefit package). That said, even if I did live in a state where it was covered, as you point out, covering someone else on insurance isn't cheap, either. My last job paid 100% of our premiums, but to add a spouse it jumped to $250/month.

            The point being, consider that she's not my girlfriend. Let's say she still lives alone and is only barely employed. She still wouldn't be able to afford the premiums. That's what people are missing in this conversation.

            My brother is in the same boat. A recent college grad, he's drowning in student loan debt and can't find a decent job. He lives in a studio apartment and pays less in rent than he would have to in premiums for insurance.

            This is a serious problem for twentie-somethings. They already got the short end of the stick when they graduated into this economy.

            To be clear: I support the ACA. I think that in spite of its flaws it is a good stepping stone.

            But we're not doing ourselves any favors by pretending that it solved the health care problem. It helped a lot of people. It did nothing meaningful for a lot of other people.

            P.S. I am not a crackpot.

            by BoiseBlue on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:46:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hi Bb, sorry to respond so late (0+ / 0-)

              But you should know this, if your gf was not your gf and was barely employed and living alone, she would qualify for Medicaid, which would be free (it was for me in Massachusetts under "Romneycare" much to Mr Romney's dismay).  I know, because at one point in my life this was true for me.  It's also why I supported the Medicare/Medicaid expansion, because it was a godsend, because I got very sick, and I paid not a penny to be alive.

              I agree that ACA is not perfect.  Frankly, neither is Medicare, I support a nationalized health care system, not even the single payer one that is likened to Medicare - I support one where the whole medical establishment is government funded and employed - no private for profit health care system, because I believe health care is a human right that should never be subjected to the private greed of individuals or corporations.

              We have a horrible confluence of bad national policies that do not guarantee free public education through graduate school (how many more doctors would we have? or nurses? or NPs or PAs?), that allow unlivable and unsustainable wages, that allowed the deregulation of the insurance and banking industries that caused speculation and a collapse of our economy and saw the disappearance of decent jobs at good wages.  This is the huge hurdle that faces us as a nation, and as progressives.  My issue with Mr Gibson is that he can afford his premiums and chooses not to. This is clearly not the case with you or with your gf.  

              Again, I wish you well.  I hold you in great respect and am sorry things are as truly difficult for you as they are.

              "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of the United States of America -9.75 -6.87

              by Uncle Moji on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 01:39:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  A couple of problems (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          1.  You aren't married.  If you were, you might have more options.  

          And 2.  You aren't married so does she qualify for Medicaid on her own? I'm assuming here she doesn't work.

          I don't know the rules in your state, and I agree that your marital status shouldn't matter, but we don't have a perfect system.

        •  doesn't she qualify for Medicaid or a subsidy? (0+ / 0-)
      •  And what's your proposal? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenbell, doroma

        Assuming that he doesn't die young, he will live many decades and see many changes in health, and accordingly many changes in the health care services he requires.

        Nobody is 26 forever.

        There are young people who need a lot of health care because of illness or accident. There are also young people who have a baby with intensive health care needs.

        Odds are that he'll get his fair share of the insurance pie over the course of his life--probably more later, rather than sooner, but still a fair share. He's had more accidents requiring medical treatment than I've ever had; if that continues, he might get more than his fair share.

        If he keeps eating his veggies and ends up as a robustly healthy elderly person who doesn't need to use his fair share of medical care, then that's a cause for celebration.

        •  How do people pay for it? (12+ / 0-)

          We're talking about people in their twenties here, who graduated college into a terrible economy and saddled with historic amounts of student loan debt, and everyone here seems to think that dropping $200/month should be no problem.

          It is a problem. Can't we just accept that? Or do we ignore it and hope it goes away?

          P.S. I am not a crackpot.

          by BoiseBlue on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:31:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think anyone is saying that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            there aren't problems with the law.  Of course there are but they require legislative fixes.

            •  the point is, people are lambasting this guy (6+ / 0-)

              for something that makes sense to most people his age.

              Why beat up on him about it? I don't understand that. This is reality for a lot of people.

              P.S. I am not a crackpot.

              by BoiseBlue on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:00:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  But in reality, it really doesn't make sense to me (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Minnesota Deb

                because there are clear risks on the table that he cannot mitigate so I have to disagree with that.  And his circumstance is certainly not yours in that he is willingly choosing not to pay due for wanting to take a stand for SP.  You are saying that you cannot afford to pay and the subsidy option or medicare option would normally kick in.

                I'm assuming that your situation falls thru those option cracks and that is why the law needs to be fixed.  

              •  It starts to seem as if zero is too expensive (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Minnesota Deb

                When I'm reading through these arguments, there are so many scenarios in which there would be a cost to a young person when it's possible that they may not be able to afford it.  It begins to seem as if there is a true misunderstanding of what it means to participate in a single payer or a socialist, or multipayer system.  

                In any system, young people are the part of the risk pool that are less likely to need care that exceeds their cost.  And... there are other parts of the risk pool, in any system, that end up needing more care than they pay into the pool.  

                This is not legislation I would have crafted, but it has features that will lead to some more progressive ends.  

                It's hard to see how someone can't understand the structure of an insurance pool.  


                by otto on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 06:39:35 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  The most successful part of ACA (4+ / 0-)

          is the expansion of medicaid. The income eligibility for single people was ridiculously low (or not available at all in some states). It needs to be expanded yet again to reach more young working people who can't realistically afford to pay for insurance that doesn't cover their primary medical needs.

  •  Correct me if I'm wrong . . . (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Little, MsGrin, wishingwell, Matt Z, otto

    But the ACA was originally entitled the "The CARL GIBSON Affordable Care Act."  Wasn't it?

    "One of the boss' hangers-on sometimes comes to call, at times you least expect. Tryin' to bully you, strongarm you, inspire you with fear--it has the opposite effect."--Bob Dylan, "Floater"

    by oldmaestro on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 01:26:17 PM PST

  •  When Leftists Shift Into RWNJ/Glenn Beck Mode (7+ / 0-)

    That's why Glenn Beck is so useful - when someone starts spouting Beck's talking points, it's time for an intervention.

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 01:27:12 PM PST

  •  Opting Out of ACA Because It's not Single Payer .. (11+ / 0-)

    is dangerous incredibly stupid and Gibson's position should not pass for informed opinion.

    "A famous person once said, 'You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.' But as I once said, "If you don't teach them to read, you can fool them whenever you like." – Max Headroom

    by midnight lurker on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 01:30:03 PM PST

  •  He appears to not even know what single-payer (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    True North, doroma, Phoenix Woman, askew


    The entire reason single payer healthcare - in which one payer, the taxpayer, pays for healthcare...
    That it not the, or even a, definition of single-payer health care.
  •  opting out (4+ / 0-)

    You know, we are all "invincible" when we are young, until that tragic something happens to show us we are not invincible. I am thankful every day that I have had health insurance almost all of my life, but I have never taken that for granted. I see myself paying for those emergency room visits by the young and invincible who are in the room next to mine explaining they have no health insurance - so "too bad" for the hospital which cannot collect payment. I have a grandson who is 19 years old, healthy as can be until he fell into a pond while out in a canoe. He developed a staph infection that almost killed him. He thought he was invincible too - he is a cross country runner. He has vowed never to take anything for granted again. Fortunately, he was still on his father's health insurance - but even so has to pay $5,000 out of pocket and he is a college student. Carl had better beware of the bad karma coming his way for his attitude about opting out of the ACA - what goes around usually comes around!

    •  So he had insurance (9+ / 0-)

      but still had to pay $5,000, which is more than anyone can reasonably afford at age 19. If he goes to college he may be saddled with huge student loan debt plus major medical debt that may be over his head for years. That sounds like a broken system that isn't designed to work for him. You're not really making the case that being forced into the private insurance system is a good thing for young people.

    •  Has Carl no family? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I'm glad that your grandson was still on his parents' insurance when he got so sick. If he hadn't been, I bet that his parents and grandparents would have willingly borne the cost to see him treated.

      Is there no one in Carl's family who would willingly go bankrupt to pay for his uninsured medical care, if he should need intensive health care services? If he's all on his own, it will just be his own bankruptcy. Otherwise, he's engaging the Bank of Mom and Dad to financially back his decision to go bare.

      •  insurance (0+ / 0-)

        As a matter of fact, parents can't afford to help him, but guess what - grandparents will try to pick up some of the burden as we want to see him graduate from college. Long story.

        •  Good points (0+ / 0-)

          Even if parents can't afford to help much, they'll want to do all they are able to, and so will grandparents. It's that love thing.

          Someone else here at dKos pointed out that it is kind for younger people without insurance to sign up for it--because there are often people in their family willing to bankrupt themselves to help a young person who desperately needs medical care but is uninsured.

  •  Young people are supposed to take one for the team (11+ / 0-)

    As a relatively young person with asthma, ACA was not designed to meet my health care needs. I can't afford insurance right now, and I definitely can't afford insurance for an unlikely accident that may never happen plus uncovered monthly medical expenses like asthma inhalers. Young people are supposed to sign up to "make the system solvent" which is a way of saying they're supposed to pay in while getting little out.

    That would be fine if it weren't part of a bigger pattern. The social safety net is generationally one sided. Social Security and Medicare remain sacred cows while spending for everyone else like student aid, food stamps, and and jobs programs were dramatically cut. And we never seem to get around to dealing with the student loan debt crisis or climate change.

    Frankly, it's hypocritical for the Me Generation to ask young people to take one for the team when the idea that "we're all in this together" is consistently forgotten when it's time to spend money on priorities for young people. We have a political culture based on pandering to the age group that votes in the highest numbers, which is those over 50. The result is a politically and economically unsustainable safety net that's too heavily lopsided toward older voters.
    You can't convince young people to take one for the team and believe in the social contract when the social contract keeps running out of funds when it's time to address their needs. Those who are worried about young people not signing up need to stop giving condescending lectures and spend more time advocating that the social safety net be expanded for those who haven't reached retirement age.

    •  We take care of kids and the old (7+ / 0-)

      And young adults are supposed to go to work and earn while they are for the most part able bodied.  

      My sister got MS at 26.  She probably cost her insurance company well over a million dollars before she died.  She also collected Social Security disability until she died as well as being fortunate to have a long term disability coverage from her employer.  

      But even that doesn't include the costs that extended family incur when someone is disabled and needs care.  That is usually a parent or a spouse.  For my sister it was my parents caring for her 24/7 into their late 60's because that's what parents do.

      You don't get a free ride your entire life.  You have to start paying in so if you're lucky you do get to collect on the back end.  If you are young you are already indebted to whoever probably paid most of the cost of your expenses during your first 18 or so years of life.  When do you think you break even on that if you don't start contributing?

      •  That's a nice thought (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk, BoiseBlue, AlexDrew, Chi, MPociask, mkor7

        about young people going to work and supporting the rest of society. It certainly worked that way for previous generations. The current young generation are graduating college with unprecedented levels of debt and no job prospects. Those lucky enough to get low wage service sector jobs are hit with regressive payroll taxes.

        This idealized economy you're thinking of that previous generations experienced won't happen until money is found for another jobs stimulus program and a resolution to the student debt crisis. Of course, money could have been spent on those priorities if Obama and Congress had reached a grand bargain that increased social spending, as Obama proposed. But you know how it is, social security is sacred and everyone else can wait in line.

        •  If you believe a cut to SS would have (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          greenbell, Minnesota Deb, lurkyloo

          resulted in a jobs stimulus program and a resolution to the problem of student debt,I have some prime ocean front property in AZ. to sell.
          Stop falling for all this intergenerational nonsense. Some SS recipient living large on 16K a year (& paying for Medicare/healthcare out of that) isn't the problem.  

          "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

          by tardis10 on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 05:23:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Let's not go down the lane of (8+ / 0-)

      old folk vs. young folk.   I don't view this as young folk taking anything for the team.

      Generally speaking, the odds are greater that young people will be more healthier and less likely to need nothing more than wellness care under ACA.  That was the basis for making the system sustain itself.

      Of course there are always exceptions to that rule and you happen to fall into one of those situations.  

      I assumed that you have checked into the plans and none covers your asthma needs.

      I don't know what bitter pill you took this morning but you don't speak for me.  I personally don't prescribe to the me, me, me meme and I don't prescribe to the ageism screed either.

      •  but it is. just as much as it is rich vs poor (0+ / 0-)

        one has and the other needs. Those who have put their own self interest first.

      •  Not sure it is as much young v old (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I think the stance that Gibson is taking is: healthy living vs. not healthy living. That might go along with the youth argument, but it is certainly not the same.

        With the youth argument, it assumes that one day you will get old and then you will jump in to take advantage of the system. I think we can all agree that is a selfish path and one that most ethically-inclined people would not follow.

        However, if his argument is that he is taking care of himself and he believes that the majority of Americans are at risk for diabetes and cancer due to their lifestyles (bad diet, alcohol, smoking, lack of exercise), then he has what I believe to be a valid point.

        In that case, his issue might be that there is no reward for taking care yourself. Rather people who "live it up" get a free ride on his dime. That does not address the people that "do everything right", but still get chronic diseases. At least that argument does bring the point that we should consider health care more than just "disease-care."

      •  Reading this again (0+ / 0-)

        I realized you're accusing me of ageism, which is the defensive response I expect whenever these issues are discussed. No, there's nothing ageist about what I wrote. I'm observing political realities. A large portion of the Democratic Party establishment spent years focusing on the most likely voters, and that meant those over 50. It's why Hillary and others spent years talking about "prescription drugs for seniors" instead of universal health care. The safety net is one sided. Recognizing those realities isn't any more ageist than denying them.

        People who want young people to make the system solvent are acting in their own self interest. Gibson is acting in his own self interest by not joining. There's plenty of "me, me, me" thinking going around on all sides of this issue. No one is morally superior.

    •  As a relatively young person with asthma (7+ / 0-)

      you can now get insurance. You probably couldn't before.

      You should look in to what is offered for you. You might find it more affordable than you think and you might find that some of your options substantially discount the cost of your inhalers. Good insurance companies know that a couple of inhalers can prevent an ER visit costing thousands.

      Good luck to you.

      Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

      by elfling on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:20:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If the social safety net were expanded (7+ / 0-)

      it would be paid for by taxes.  Taxes are the pooling of money from all citizens to achieve group purchasing rates.  That way the costs that a smaller number of people end up benefiting from (like food stamps, etc) are spread out over the entire population.  We all pay for the fire department, but only a few have houses that catch on fire.  

      The ACA is essentially the same thing but it doesn't do it thru taxes.  Without a huge group of people representing all the risk levels all paying in, there really is no insurance.  You can't only have the high risk individuals participating.  The math simply won't work.  

      Besides, consider having to purchase health insurance, auto insurance and paying taxes to be the cost of living in a civilization build on the labor and ideas of countless generations that came before you.  

      I understand your resentment that it seems the social contract runs out of money when it's time to address your needs.  That is a huge problem and comes from the stupid fashion of "austerity".  The global "we" have a huge transformation to go thru to develop a system of economy that is sustainable and focused on thriving of all people.  The ACA is such a tiny step that it seems meaningless in the grand scheme of things.  However, it really will help many individuals who would otherwise be significantly harmed or killed without it.  There really are people younger than you who would not have a chance at life under the soon to be behind us system.  It's not all about old people.  And it truly is amazing how fast old age and/or infirmity come.  

      I was wise enough to never grow up while fooling most people into believing I had. - Margaret Mead

      by fayea on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:07:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, it's not the same as taxes. (0+ / 0-)

        A progressive tax system should tax those who are most able to pay and be spent in a fair way as determined by elected representatives. Forcing lower middle class people into buying insurance taxes those who don't have the ability to pay. And it adds the injustice that getting actual health care will still be financially out of reach for some of them. A health care system based on actual taxes would be a tremendous improvement.

    •  No. (13+ / 0-)
      Young people are supposed to take one for the team.
      Young people are a part of the team.  When young people get old, someone else who is a part of the team will "take one for the team".  One generation provides for the next.

      That's the way it works.  Otherwise, it's dog eat dog.  I don't think we want to live in a world like that.

      In the time it took Adam Lanza to reload, eleven children escaped. What if...

      by Sixty Something on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:07:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes and as a 50+ something (5+ / 0-)

        never married and no kids person, my taxes pay for young people's education although I never had kids to benefit from it.  

        That goes for my property taxes too.  We all are part of this team.

        •  You do gain financially from that (0+ / 0-)

          In addition to your point about it being something that is done as a member of the community, it is also a financial benefit to homeowners to support the public school systems in their regions.  One of the main pieces of information about a home for sale is that school district it is in.  The more financially stable a school district, the more likely it is to be one that draws home buyers to your area.  


          by otto on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 06:30:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Single Payer =\= Free (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dem Beans

      If you can't afford the PPACA, how can you afford Single Payer?

      President Obama has the amazing ability to humiliate his biggest critics, on the right and the left.

      by NoFortunateSon on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 04:02:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm 53 (4+ / 0-)

      All of my working life I've paid for my parents/grandparents generations.  It never occurred to me to bitch about it.

      And before I hear any more bleating about 'the team', look up the ACA rates for people over 50 who don't get much, if any, of a subsidy.  They'll shock you. Those who are over 50 but below Medicare eligibility aren't getting any special favors so let's put this particular nitpick to rest.

      Your problem isn't dividing up meager resources, which is what they want us to fight about.  It's about getting the rich and corporations to pay into the social contract.  You shouldn't want to cut Social Security and Medicare, you should want a fair tax system and a fair system of wages.  These are the things to advocate for, not verbally beating up on your elders.

      If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." - John F. Kennedy

      by Dem Beans on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 05:02:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I eat healthy, I exercise (10+ / 0-)

    and only really got the sniffles (sometimes bronchitis) because of my "asthma" diagnosed in 1990.  I did, however, manage to hold onto my insurance (not an easy thing.)  Good thing because then my heart stopped and I could easily have been the responsibility of society had I not taken what steps I could before that happened.  Yeah, that genetic heart condition was misdiagnosed, but I wasn't willing to "take a chance" that I would not have any health problems if I could possibly hang onto insurance.  Mr. Gibson needs to get a clue here.  I gave up a lot to hang onto that insurance and am alive because of it, he has a tremendous opportunity to get insurance for a reasonable rate because, as John Lennon said, "life is what happens to you when you are making other plans."

    Oh, and now, my insurance costs have gone down by 50% and the fact that I need surgery next March is not a looming financial catastrophe for me.  

    Honestly, what a selfish, short sighted jerk.

    The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion. Molly Ivins

    by MufsMom on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 01:42:13 PM PST

  •  Gaming the system (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    citizenx, orestes1963, BoiseBlue, Chi, MPociask

    Basically, Gibson has opted for his own version of catastrophic coverage, self-insuring for smaller things, knowing that he can more or less overnight pay up and be covered going forward, thanks to the elimination of the "previous conditions" test.

    This is perfectly rational and legal and, IMO, moral to boot. Or at least as moral as anyone timing deductible expenses to take advantage of the tax code, or a high earner declining to voluntarily increase tax payments even though he thinks that people in his income bracket ought to be taxed more heavily. I.e., there is no moral obligation I can see to spend more than you are legally obligated to. Gibson is acting in clear accordance with what the current dispensation incentivizes.

    •  accidental injury? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      So you fall off a roof and break your neck?  Guess what?  Too late to become insured.  Lose your home, lose your savings, lose your livelihood.  Go back and be a ward of your parents until they die.  Game the system?  Idiots!

      •  How will having insurance (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BoiseBlue, Sparhawk, Chi

        affect the consequences of that kind of injury at age 26? Odds are that you own no home, nor have anything substantial in the way of savings.  You may still lose your livelihood, but that has nothing to do with insurance. You may owe something for the emergency room, but you can sign up for a gold policy from your iPhone while you wait for the ambulance. And next week you can sign up for SS disability and Medicaid.

        •  wrong (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fayea, middleagedhousewife, Chi

          There are designated sign up periods for ACA.  You cannot get a policy except during those times.  You have a hospital stay of months, the accident happens outside that window, you will incur debt that could be hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Then you become a ward of the state?  Real forethought!

          •  Enrollment (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            You are correct as regards ACA exchange enrollment. But my understanding is that I may now go to any company selling insurance in my state and buy one of their plans directly. Since there is no pre-existing condition qualification, I believe they would have to sign me up right away.

            I really don't want to push this too far. But I stand by my original comment that Gibson is acting reasonably rationally by playing reasonable odds under the set-up now in force.

            •  Clarification (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tardis10, Chi, MPociask

              Instant research shows me that what I wrote is true for NJ, where my insurance is based, and where there is no enrollment period restriction. It gets a little more complicated state by state.

               In five states (Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont), individual market insurers are required to guarantee issue all products to all residents. A sixth state, Washington, requires guaranteed issue to individuals who achieve a minimum score on the state's health status questionnaire.
               In five other states (DC, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Virginia), a Blue Cross Blue Shield carrier has been designated as the issuer of last resort, meaning it will issue coverage to all who apply, regardless of their health status.
            •  Ha (0+ / 0-)

              You can't be turned down for pre-existing conditions, but  you'd better believe the insurance companies have other reasons lined up to reject you.  Like maybe credit history?  I'm sure there are other loopholes I haven't even thought of  yet.

              You'd better do some research on your grand plan.

            •  No. He is gambling on his remaining healthy. (0+ / 0-)

              In the time it took Adam Lanza to reload, eleven children escaped. What if...

              by Sixty Something on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:10:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  You can only sign up during open enrollment (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          middleagedhousewife, caryltoo

          Not typically while waiting for the ambulance or sitting in the ER lobby.

          Anyone who chooses the penalty instead is not necessarily wrong or irrational. If you look at the penalty as being an option to buy insurance next year, it's a pretty good deal. It depends often on one's personal situation.

          That said, when one is in one's early 20's, one should consider not only one's personal finances but also how one's family, loved ones, and friends may react to your own medical catastrophe. Parents are often not OK with letting their youngsters twist in the wind and go without needed medical care.

          Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

          by elfling on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:24:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Not a good game he's playing. (3+ / 0-)

      He doesn't cover the points for accidents or injuries due to crime (of course he can reduce his risks, but then he wouldn't be getting out much...)

    •  Overnight payment (0+ / 0-)

      As I understand the system, enrollment will only be open (henceforth) from Oct. 1 to Dec. 31. I have no idea how quickly you can get it in force--possibly January 1.

      It probably isn't a good idea to bank on signing up for health insurance en route to the hospital.

  •  sophomoric logic (5+ / 0-)

    I suppose wise Mr. Gibson thinks he should drive an auto without insurance because he has so few accidents.  How do you tell the stupid kids it only takes one person running a red light to make you a paraplegic?  How do you make the young fools realize that when you "play the odds" with your insurance, you always have the chance of losing everything.  Insurance is self protection.  Gambling is a losing proposition.  Absolutely foolhardy and stupid behavior!

  •  Many young people will think this way (0+ / 0-)

    I always wondered if the "penalty" was more of a way to get the younger generation accustomed and prepared for any "single payer" payroll deductions in the future.

    “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ... Voltaire

    by RUNDOWN on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 01:46:45 PM PST

  •  Nothing like being lectured to by a bunch (10+ / 0-)

    of self-righteous quislings.  Gibson's comments highlight a Hobson's choice many young and poor people face under Obamacare:  whether to relinquish a sizable portion of their income to the insurance industry or run the risk of being uninsured.  For too many people living on the edge (no assets, no job security, underemployed, etc.), the latter decision will be more appealing.  And then they get to be lectured to by overprivileged assholes like Klein because they refuse to eat their cake.  

    •  Perhaps you would diary this ? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Or maybe Willinois would be game to give it a try, as he/she made similar comments in posts above.

      I think you both are giving voice to issues that aren't discussed enough (here or anywhere).

       I'm sure that I'm looking at issues through the prism of my 58 years and middle-class life, despite the fact that I consider myself very progressive.

      In any event, thanks for expanding those horizons a little by your comments.

    •  And before the ACA, they had the (9+ / 0-)

      same choices, except that if they develop a pre existing condition, they now can actually get insurance.

      Unless Mr. Gibson can live in a bubble for the next 10-15 years, the odds are high that he will need some sort of health services that may go beyond what he would cover under a deductible.  

      Personally, if Mr. Gibson wants to opt out, it's no skin off my bones, but in the position he is in, to advocate in doing so is rather very irresponsible because just eating right and exercising may not be enough for some young folk with conditions they have yet to know about.

      As many in this diary has already attested to.

      As for young folk who are in poor financial condition, that's what the medicaid option was for, except you have most of the states refusing it to gum up the works.

    •  When you pay for health insurance (4+ / 0-)

      thru the ACA or otherwise, you are not only paying the insurance industry.  I agree that their CEO's are doing way too heavy feeding at the trough, as are many others.  But, keep in mind, you are also contributing to keeping the door of your hospital open, the lights on, the OR tables ready, drugs well stocked in the pharmacy, doctors available to diagnose and treat you, nurses to care for you, janitors to keep the place clean.  It all waits for you to have whatever mishap might befall you.  It is unrealistic to think you can have all that ready and waiting for you without having to contribute to its existence.  I realize too much of our health care dollars are going to private profiteers and I wholly endorse reining that in.  But there really is a core of something wonderful there when you need it.   Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.  

      I was wise enough to never grow up while fooling most people into believing I had. - Margaret Mead

      by fayea on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:17:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't disagree with you in principle (0+ / 0-)

        but I take issue with the very same people who whined about how we couldn't do any better when the legislation was being drafted now taking umbrage at someone exercising his rights under the very law that they touted.  Wiser men (and women, although none are on this panel)would have been more prescient when the bill was being drafted.  

  •  I'd have taken this (10+ / 0-)

    piece seriously if it were not the latest iteration of "if it weren't for the boomers, our country would be great."  I'm a boomer -- I haven't had fucking insurance for over 10 years.  What exactly did I do to make your life miserable?

    I don't think all youth are stupid eejits, nor my parents' generation the greatest.  I'm a bit tired of the boomers as being the last resort for blame for all things evil.

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 01:49:09 PM PST

    •  I am a baby boomer too. I am talking in the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doroma, middleagedhousewife

      aggregate. The piece I wrote on millennials make it clearer. It is not a personal attack but something our generation allowed to happen. Take a look at it and tell me what you think. I discuss it with my millennial daughter, her friends and my baby  boomer friends. I would love your input after reading.

      •  In the aggregate, Egberto, (5+ / 0-)

        99% of us have been screwed.  It would seem that you concur, since in your piece you say "it is a Plutocracy that have sucked the life out of the middle class" and "[w]e live under an unfettered  form of capitalism where those that work hard, those that produce our goods and services are nothing but pawns to a Plutocracy that could not even make it on their own."  

        Unless you are trying to insinuate that the Baby Boomers' interests align with those of the Plutocracy (and I don't think you are), it would have been apropos to make a class argument rather than a generational one.  After all, the position we find ourselves in is not one that any particular segment "allowed to happen," but is one that was perpetrated upon us by cunning and monied elite.

        •  Wouldn't you say our generation (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          not you specifically, bought into Reagan's policies. Only staunch Liberals were really against. Hell the man was the father of Reagan Democrats. Those were our folks.

          Again this in not an indictment on individuals but what our generation really did. We allowed the growth of the Plutocracy with a tacit buy in to supply side economics.

          Do you see it differently?

          •  Let's remember (5+ / 0-)

            before we place the blame for Reagan on boomers that members of the WWII generation voted overwhelmingly for him.

            I'm a boomer and was 20 when Reagan was first elected.  I didn't vote for him and I don't know anyone who did.  Young people (who are now boomers) thought he was an old idiot.

            Also, as a boomer you should know that Reagan raised our SS payroll taxes and raised our retirement age.  I'm sorry if we appear greedy and grasping to you  but it's because we've already taken one hit that's affected most of our working lives. I'm not going to quietly give up more of these benefits before I even qualify for them.  I've already given up quite a bit when my retirement eligibility age was raised.

            Do you see it differently?

            If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." - John F. Kennedy

            by Dem Beans on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 05:16:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, I do. (0+ / 0-)

            My entire state went for Carter in Reagan's '80 election, Egberto, so it's hard for me to see it as a generational problem.  Nevertheless, I went scouting for the national statistics and it would seem that it was the generation before the Baby Boomers (which was then the largest voting cohort) who were most swayed by Reagan.  In the '76 election, the vote in that cohort was evenly split between Ford and Carter, but in '80 Reagan won that cohort 54-37.  Besides, Reagan was not a Boomer, Egberto.

    •  Hm, well, that wasn't my (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doroma, middleagedhousewife

      take on the piece, but I'm not a baby boomer. There was one reference to baby boomers, a link to another article by the diarist, which I've only partly read. Maybe it would have been better if he left that out.

      Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

      by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:18:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think it's mostly a reaction to this meme (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, MPociask

      that the younger generation sucks and we owe so much to the boomers.

      Our generation wasn't around during the Reagan/Bush revolution. But we get blasted like we're lazy ungrateful spoiled idiots who don't contribute anything useful to society.

      It makes us say "um, guys remember what happened when you were in charge?"

      When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

      by PhillyJeff on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:39:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Propensity for Accidents (5+ / 0-)

    That made me smile. He really doesn't get that that he appears to be an accident waiting to happen. I'm almost 50 and my only hospital visit was 12 hours to deliver a baby (back when they could throw you out quickly) and the most a doctor has ever done for me is prescribe antibiotics. Still I would not be without insurance 'cause you never know. Insurance is the one product that I am happy not to get my money's worth out of. I'd rather subsidize other people's medical issues than have them myself.

  •  Young & Healthy (6+ / 0-)

    When I was 18, I worked for a company that paid for health insurance after an employee had been employed 6 months.  So I decided to wait to sign up.  What could happen to young & healthy me in 6 months?  You will not be surprised to learn that I ended up in the hospital for a couple of days & had to pay for everything out of pocket.  It seems that Mr. Gibson thinks he's smarter than all of us, but even he cannot predict when a health calamity will strike.  His I'm-in-it-for-myself attitude seems rather Bushian to me.

  •  Mr. Gibson is obviously ignoring the 4-million (10+ / 0-)

    Americans who received single-payer healthcare because of Obamacare.

  •  Have only had influenza three times (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    in my 75 years. I NEVER, as in NEVER miss a shot. I sure hope Gibson has occasion to write a diary about how much he enjoys his waltz with the virus. I hope he will then thank me for reducing HIS risk by getting MY yearly inoculation. Being as he operates as a self-adsorbed ass, I believe a little party with whooping cough or polio won't alter his view. Hence, the rest of us are required by his selfishness to get our shots.  

    •  I got my first shot in about 15 years this year. (0+ / 0-)

      Hey, got to start somewhere. I think in previous years there have been some confusing messages about whether everyone should get the shots.

      Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

      by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:10:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Speaking of pertussis... (0+ / 0-)
      ATLANTA - A government study offers a new theory on why the whooping cough vaccine doesn't seem to be working as well as expected.

      The research suggests that while the vaccine may keep people from getting sick, it doesn't prevent them from spreading whooping cough - also known as pertussis - to others.

      Good to know that while you will feel fine, you'll be the "typhoid Mary" to the rest of us. We thank you for your unselfishness.

      So much for herd immunity

  •  It's in his bests interests to sign up for the ACA (0+ / 0-)

    On that we agree. It is stupid to go uninsured if one can afford coverage. By age 16 I had already had a complex surgery that cost my parents' insurance company around $30,000. And that is probably on the cheaper side for many surgeries, although this was a little while ago.

    But I'm still not clear how this one single example illustrates some kind of inherent problem with "the left" or with the "very young" -- those are gratuitous shots, not supported by the content of the piece. I don't see any support for the idea that this man is an indicator of a broader trend of eschewing the ACA due to its flaws. Maybe this is happening, I just don't see that idea supported in the piece.

    "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

    by Lost Left Coaster on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:03:15 PM PST

    •  He wouldn't buy insurance with or w/o ACA (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Minnesota Deb, SingularExistence

      He's using ACA as a cover for his own idiocy and selfishness. I know people in their 20s, 30s, and even 40s, who have not ever bought insurance, even though they could easily afford it. Why? Because they're basically cheap and short-sighted. The guy just doesn't want to spend the money; he never did. And this year he's decided to put the blame on ACA. People like him are going to cause rates to skyrocket next year if only the people who need insurance now are the ones buying it.

  •  Even the healthy get hurt. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Minnesota Deb

    Aimee Copeland, a 25-year-old graduate student from Georgia, tragically lost both arms at the elbow and her left leg, as well as her right foot, after contracting necrotizing fasciitis during a zip-line accident in May 2012.

    Read more:

  •  Against One's Own Interest (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue jersey mom, Minnesota Deb, fayea

    You see this all the time from the people on the far right.  They continually vote/act against their own self interest.  They refuse to sign up because they hate everything Obama or they believe it is government run health care (which it is not of course) which they won't accept out of principle.  

    The same is true of Mr. Gibson who refuses to sign up out of principle.  His principle being he will not sign up for anything but government run health care, letting the good be the enemy of the perfect.

    In both cases they are acting against their own self interest, which is truly baffling to me.

    "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?"

    by Doctor Who on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:05:13 PM PST

    •  I have quite a few very liberal friends (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Minnesota Deb

      Who are not going to sign up because they don't want to spend the money.

      They'd rather pay the fine and if they get sick they figure they won't get rejected anyway.

      Have a friend who makes way more than I do, in her 50's and she told me that the 300 dollar premium she was quoted was way too expensive and I'm like "that seems low to me"

      I mean the people I know are people who even worked for the campaign, argued for the ACA with conservatives.

      I grew up liberal but the liberal was to both personal and government. Meaning you believe the gov't can help people and you can too.

      It's strange for me to run into people who are liberal up till it's going to cost them something.

  •  Klein's point is one (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, emal, Cedwyn

    I've tried to make to some people, not only about the health care system but about other parts of our social welfare system. It seems obvious to me, but many people don't want to accept it.

    Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

    by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:05:27 PM PST

  •  generational divide (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, Minnesota Deb, lurkyloo

    The Republicans would love to create a generational divide of the young and old over the ACA.  This Me-Generation kid is buying right into it.  Kid, don't tell me that the Boomers are trying to steal from you.  I am 66, and have paid private insurance every day of my life.  I had a pre-existing condition, and consequently had insurance companies trying to dump me by raising my limits every year to the point I was paying as much for my insurance as a family of 8.  We paid already.  The Boomers are going on Medicare.  The ACA, on the other hand, is designed to help the uninsured and uninsurable, not the Boomers.  I don't need and can't use the ACA.  But I see plenty of people who desperately need it.  Gibson could be one of those people some day.  He is too stupid to see that.

  •  I am a boomer, and I am one of the healthiest (13+ / 0-)

    people around. I have probably paid tens of thousands more in medical insurance than I have received from the system. However, that is the nature of the system. It is insurance, not a defined benefit. I walk to work. If I were hit by a bus and did not have insurance, I could be bankrupt.

    •  Yup (5+ / 0-)

      methinks that this kid doesn't understand what "insurance" is about.  Its about insurance against really expensive stuff, just like liability insurance for your car. I have never needed the liability coverage that my state requires on my car, but I will be damn happy I have it if I ever T-bone a Lamborghini.

      Most years, health insurance won't pay for itself, but it is a safety net to prevent bankruptcy if something big happens.

      "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

      by Empty Vessel on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:24:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree, and I'm mostly healthy (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emal, orestes1963

      But, seriously, this guy is in his twenties. I don't understand why people here think the only rational option for him is to buy insurance.

      Even the bronze plans are expensive, and they're not great, either. How many twentie-somethings do people here know who can afford and extra $200/month for something that they probably won't use?

      Yes, it's best if they have it in case they need it. It's a gamble, but one I would have had to take in my twenties.

      P.S. I am not a crackpot.

      by BoiseBlue on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:46:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly, like I have paid so much money for auto (2+ / 0-)

      and home insurance over the years...yet I had one auto accident in 30 yrs ...but I paid so much money for these policies that I almost never use but so what..that is what insurance is for..just in case.

      Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at

      by wishingwell on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:07:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Carl should at least consider an ACA Catastrophic (4+ / 0-)

    policy through the exchange.

    These policies are lower cost than the "metal" plans in the exchanges with little coverage until you hit the max deductible.  He would be eligible for this as he is under 30 and his lowest cost metal plan is more than 9.5% of income.

    Essentially, Carl is "self insuring" without Catastrophic coverage.

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:16:48 PM PST

  •  Ya know.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, Minnesota Deb

    This just goes to show, you can be a young intelligent activist for good causes and still be a stupid fool.
    Accidents happen, so does any age and to anyone.
    And if/when something happens to some of these people, we'll be the ones on the paying end for their young, arrogant, irresponsible smugness.
    Just shaking my head, stupid, stupid, stupid....
    Wish we had single payer, though I'm sure there are millions who'd find fault with that.

    I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

    by Lilyvt on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:18:13 PM PST

  •  rational markets (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TJ, BoiseBlue, Sparhawk, orestes1963

    For someone like me, with no savings, no retirement, no equity, and no possible room in my paycheck to paycheck budget for anything else at all, it makes no conomic sense whatsoever for me to pay money for a policy that will NEVER provide me with any actual healthcare.  I don't have $10,000 a year laying around for deductibles.  If i had to be hospitalized, we would lose our home do to inability to pay, and having an obamacare policy would NOT change that.  There is no rational economic scenario that ends up with me not paying every month for absolutely no actual benefits.  I would be happy to pay into a system that would actually provide me with healthcare.  The ACA is not it.

    "Attempting to debate with a person who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead." -Thomas Paine. "It's a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent." - Miss Gayle

    by MissGayle on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:21:51 PM PST

    •  The ACA certainly was it. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Justanothernyer, ybruti
      For someone like me, with no savings, no retirement, no equity, and no possible room in my paycheck to paycheck budget for anything else at all, it makes no conomic sense whatsoever for me to pay money for a policy that will NEVER provide me with any actual healthcare
      Actually, the expansion of Medicaid was supposed to cover people who have nothing.  The ACA included a mandatory expansion of Medicaid, but the supreme court made it optional on a state by state basis.  So you were going to pay into a system that would actually provide you with healthcare.

       If you live in a state where Medicaid expansion was rejected, then the political system has already answered about your druthers, which is No.  

      If Hobby Lobby is against contraception, why does it buy its inventory from China, the country that limits the number of children by law?

      by Inland on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:57:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Miss Gayle, are you eligible for the subsidies to (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tardis10, lurkyloo

      help pay for the premiums if you get Obamacare. And remember all preventative testing like the yearly mammogram, a colonoscopy, OBGYN annual exam and pap smear involve no deductible or copay and are covered 100 pct on all policies.

      Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at

      by wishingwell on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:02:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obamacare and insurance policies now because (0+ / 0-)

      of ACA, there are maximums included and once you meet the deductible, the costs to you go way down. Sure the deductibles are very high and often unaffordable, but I think fewer people will lose their homes and entire savings because of the  maximums will have to cover the cost 100 pct after a certain amount.  

      So having insurance is still better than now if you are afraid of losing your home

      Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at

      by wishingwell on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:05:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Now, my understanding is that the ACA (0+ / 0-)

      covers 10 basic health care needs, including wellness checks that is supposed to be free.  So you would be getting actual, real healthcare.  

      That's for starters.

      Second, even if you don't have insurance now, you still wouldn't have ten grand to pay for anything else if you needed major care, so I'm not following your point with that.  

      To say that you would be paying for no care under the ACA is certainly just not true.  Miss 979981...

    •  As someone with a paid off mortgage (0+ / 0-)

      my advice to you is that if you cannot afford health insurance and you have a home -- you have a home you cannot afford and that is your problem not the cost of health insurance.  

      I mean is the problem that young people can't afford health insurance or is it really that their priorities are unrealistic?  

      I mean if people invested as much in health insurance as they do in their cell phone data plan we'd cover a bunch more folks.

  •  I'm doing the same thing. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Having looked at the insurance options available, it makes much more financial sense for me to pay the penalty.  The insurance is all too expensive and I only see the doctor and the dentist once a year.  Makes no sense to spend thousands of dollars to cover two office visits.

    •  I'm skipping fire insurance. (3+ / 0-)

      I figure, I've never had any real fire damage, so makes no sense to continue to pay premiums for nothing.

      If Hobby Lobby is against contraception, why does it buy its inventory from China, the country that limits the number of children by law?

      by Inland on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:58:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If you see the doctor and dentist once a year, I (0+ / 0-)

      guess you just have to keep hoping that you do not need a root canal, or the doctor does not want you to have a cat scan, MRI  or other testing all of that can cost a lot.

      We are amazed how expensive my husband;'s blood tests are that he has about 3 times a year...several hundred dollars the cost of MRIs..and we once spent close to 2000 on a root canal if you count the crown that is needed following the procedure. And I have my first root canal in my early 20s too.

      Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at

      by wishingwell on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:00:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The $2000 for a root canal... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        is much cheaper than one year of insurance premiums.

        •  But with dental insurance, I only paid about 20 (0+ / 0-)

          pct of that cost.  

          By the way, even if you decide not to get medical insurance, consider buying dental insurance. Dental insurance is very affordable , quite low cost and we have found it is worth it.  Checkups and cleanings once a year covered at 100 pct and xrays covered too plus 80 pct of all dental work covered. I think crowns, dentures, implants and such are covered at 50pct. But almost all dental plans cover checkups and cleanings which makes dental insurance not only affordable but well worth it.

          There are a number of dental plans that can be purchased..only fault we have with dental insurance is that it only covers about 1000 to 1500 dollars per year but except for emergencies, dentist works out a treatment plan for us as to when to have certain procedures done.  Ie I needed an emergency root canal but the crown could wait a few months due to my insurance coverage only covering the root canal and we had to wait till January for the next yr plan to kick in and start over.

          Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at

          by wishingwell on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 06:04:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Do the pre-existing conditions rules... (0+ / 0-)

            apply to dental insurance?  I ask because my younger has really bad teeth due to years of neglect.  It would cost a fortune to have them fixed.

            •  I do not think so, even years ago, I do not think (0+ / 0-)

              that is the case like it is with medical. But I will research that further.  Also, there are ads on TV where you can buy dental insurance from various companies if you do not have employer based dental insurance. That is something relatively new that I noticed in the past 2 years.

              And I think through ACA, there are some dental insurance plans to choose from but others can probably verify that better than I.

              Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at

              by wishingwell on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 08:47:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I would be shocked if pre existing conditions (0+ / 0-)

              applies to any dental or vision plan as it never did before. And now with ACA and pre existing conditions no longer in effect, I have serious doubts that dental and vision plans would have it.  

              We also needed a lot of work done but that was due to a health issue I have where my immune system takes a beating and thus I get infections. I am very good about my dental hygiene and care but my health causes me to have more dental problems. My husband also needed a lot of dental work and pre existing conditons were never an issue.

              Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at

              by wishingwell on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 08:50:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  And hopefully, you won't (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      need to, but if, actually scratch that, when you do, I hope you have the bank to pay for it all yourself.

  •  Why are the GOP, and idiots, discouraging young (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yahzi, wishingwell, Minnesota Deb, ybruti

    people from signing up for “Obamacare”?

    Well, in the case of the Republicans it’s easy. If a sufficient portion of healthy young people fail to enroll, then the pool of insured will be skewed and premiums will rise – which of course would make a lot of American voters very angry.

    In short: the Republicans are scared to death of the Affordable Care Act being experienced as a success. They have bet everything, absolutely everything, on Obamacare’s failure.

    As for the idiots? I guarantee you this: if “Obamacare” fails, that will NOT lead to single-payer healthcare. Rather it will be the death-knell of heavy government involvement in social legislation for decades to come. In other words, you have to be a seriously stupid progressive to be yearning for the “failure of Obamacare”.

    “The meaning of life is to find it.”

    by ArcticStones on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:24:13 PM PST

  •  Even a doctor can't predict future health; (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    all Gibson is doing is observing that he's been healthy in the past and assuming that past performance indicates future performance, which is stupid on a medical and financial basis.

    BTW, a relative of mine came down with the flu, sick unto death for a week.  Why didn't he get a flu shot?  Well, he's never had the flu before, so he figured he wasn't likely to get it, so why spend the thirty bucks?

    If Hobby Lobby is against contraception, why does it buy its inventory from China, the country that limits the number of children by law?

    by Inland on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:24:36 PM PST

    •  Even a doctor can't predict future health (0+ / 0-)

      tho, some of those docs believe they can...

      BTW, a relative of mine came down with the flu, sick unto death for a week.  Why didn't he get a flu shot?  Well, he's never had the flu before, so he figured he wasn't likely to get it, so why spend the thirty bucks?

      Well, at least he avoided one of the many side effects of the flu vaccine:

      Finnish researchers unveiled new data Thursday to link the Pandemrix flu vaccine to a higher risk of the sleeping disorder narcolepsy in adults.

      The new research, conducted by Finland's National Institute for Health and Welfare, found that Pandemrix-vaccinated adults between the ages of 20 and 64 had a three-to-five times higher risk of contracting the disease than non-vaccinated people.

      Plus, luckily he didn't get a bad batch, but I am sure this never happens here:
      ITALY - The Italian Ministry of Health announced the recall of 2.3 million doses of the Inflexal V flu vaccine. "Potential danger" to health was claimed for the recall. The Ministry of Health has stated that no dose was put into circulation.
      I think I'll take my chances with Vitamin D and a healthy diet (and will pass on an "influenza" shot.)
  •  Carl Gibson is still young enough (5+ / 0-)

    and inexperienced enough to believe that he is invincible. Let's hope that his awakening is not too painful.

    At all times, day by day, we have to continue fighting for freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom from fear, and freedom from want—for these are things that must be gained in peace as well as in war. - Eleanor Roosevelt

    by SoCalSal on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:25:31 PM PST

  •  Personal choice. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AverageJoe42, MPociask

    I think the ACA is a step in the right direction for most of the people, though I disagree with the mandate that requires any purchase from a private business.  Had they just raised taxes and given everyone a 100% deduction on the amount paid for insurance...   I too, would prefer single payer.  I have not been to any doctor for almost 30 years, and I would rather die than to have a strange Dr. touch me.  That's just my personal issue.  Regardless of my anti-doctor beliefs, I went on the site to sign up.  I found that my premium would be about 12% of my gross income, which is exactly how much I am putting into my retirement account.  I had to weigh my options, to save for my retirement or pay for insurance that I will NEVER use.  My retirement won.  If you want me to sign some kind of pledge, that I will never use medical care, I will.  So, if you want to wish me dead, so be it.  I think the fine I will pay for not having insurance will help pay for others that do not have it.  

    •  No one is wishing anyone dead. (0+ / 0-)

      Well, besides that first poster who was breaking the rules.  You are unique.  And you aren't exactly really young either.  But if you have got along this long without a Dr., then I'm thinking that you are doing some thangs to maintain your quality of life that most people don't or can't do.  I can dig that.  You are probably more risk averse than the Mr. Gibsons of the world, but I do hope that you never come across the need to have to use emergency care in any circumstance.

      •  Thank you. (0+ / 0-)

        I refuse to take the "religious" exemption for the IRS fine.  That would be a lie.  I have encouraged friends and family to sign up through  I am almost 60 and about 20 years away from retirement since the "crash" in 2008.   I think there are more people in my situation that have to make a choice on where to invest their money.  Many that do not qualify for subsidies do not have money left for insurance.  Those that are still making it paycheck to paycheck, will have to choose what to leave out of their budget.  Car payment, mortgage, vacation, savings, etc.  Hopefully, this will be a small percentage of people that are stuck between too much income for subsidies and not enough income to add another expense of 12%.  

    •  ...personal choices are just that... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...heaven forbid you ever get sick or seriously hurt. I'd paid into for-profit-health-insurance for 28 years...never used it...found a lump in my throat...cancer...over $600,000 later in health costs...I was glad I had my insurance. Still had to shell out over $30,000 myself.

      I signed up for ObamaCare...will pay $91 less per month for my health insurance...and will never have to shell out $30,000 in a single year for medical care.

      I am proof, ObamaCare helps tons of folks (I was one of the 4.7 million who lost my insurance due to it being a crap policy). I have better insurance now and will not have to go broke if something else crops up...

      Welcome from the DK Partners & Mentors Team. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Knowledge Base or from the New Diarists Resources Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

      Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences. -7.38; -3.44

      by paradise50 on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 05:39:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you. (0+ / 0-)

        I am happy that you are saving money and getting better coverage.  I truly hope you will be in a huge majority.  Unfortunately, there is a percentage of people that have too much income for the subsidies, but not enough for another 12% (or 18% of after tax) income.  At my age, in Texas, the quoted $540 per month.  (+50% if you smoke).  I have a choice of living close to bankruptcy by paying for insurance that I will not use, or saving for retirement and gambling I won't be in an accident that puts me in a coma and unable to refuse medical care that will bankrupt me.  

  •  I was a very healthy college athlete when I was (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10, virginwoolf

    hospitalized for almost a week when my appendix burst and I had an infection and needed emergency surgery. Up  until that point in my life, I only needed antibiotics from a doctor for a sinus infection, had some colds, flu, and so on. I I had never been hospitalized for anything.  It is a good thing I was covered by my parents' insurance.  

    I also had my own insurance , even when quite young and living on my own after college, and one big reason was my gynecological problems often required one day surgeries and various treatments that were very expensive and insurance covered those costs.

    Granted back in the 70s and 80s, policies were not that expensive and healthcare costs were much lower.

    Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at

    by wishingwell on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:38:51 PM PST

  •  it isn't just the young who are angry - i have (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, Chi

    friends JUST below medicare that are angry about having to pay for contraceptives for young people - they could "opt out" of that coverage with their previous screw cross policy that was cancelled (because, i imagine, it didn't meet government minimum standards).

    i've tried to point out that covering EVERYTHING works if everyone is covered - they will face age related illnesses that the young won't have and vice versa.

    what saddens me is how effective the republican hit job on the aca has been - and what have the dems and the "left" been doing about it?  


    until we realize that we are our own worst enemy at times, nothing will change - incrementally or momumentally.

    the "purists" blame everything on the dems because they don't get immediate satisfaction on everything they want right now.  that is a real problem because, in the political world, NOTHING happens "right now" - it is always a tug of war... sometimes one side gains, sometimes that same side is pulled further away from the line.

    i'm glad dr. dean and ezra klein called him out - but, unfortunately, with the younger generation of frustrati, they are simply going to blame the "old people" (anyone older than them who disagrees with them REGARDLESS of why those disagreements exist - like lifetime experience).

    this kid is going to learn the hard way when he finds himself in real trouble after another accident or sudden illness... but, then, he will pay a hefty price.

    EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

    by edrie on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:40:52 PM PST

    •  They aren't paying for contraceptives (0+ / 0-)

      That's as reasonable as someone being better that I get coverage for epilepsy, but they don't!  It is simply defined as a required benefit in an insurance policy.  As soon as they start scalpeling out which things can be covered in policies for women, and which can be covered in policies for men, they'll start breaking it down by percentages just in order to weed out as many coverable medical issues as possible.  


      by otto on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 06:22:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  yep - said that til i'm blue in the face - but the (0+ / 0-)

        good news is that my friend FINALLY gave up trying to get through (reasons for last minute were legitimate, not just "delaying" - needed additional documentation as naturalized citizen).

        she contacted her broker and she and hubby are covered at a lower rate with a subsidy AND lower deductible.  funny thing about that - the republicans and wsj were ... duh ... wrong!

        EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

        by edrie on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 07:57:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  "Carl Gibson is a leader." (0+ / 0-)

    No, he's a f*cking idiot.

  •  If GOP'ers have a right to buy junk insurance (7+ / 0-)

    why don't intelligent taxpayers have a right to buy single payer directly from the government?

    Where are our rights?  Why is it illegal to allow taxpayers to buy our health insurance from Medicare or Medicaid?

    The current private system in ACA admittedly has a limited shelf life.  Giving billions in taxpayer funds to subsidize private insurance via ACA is a temporary solution.  Anyone  who has spent time studying health care reform knows the current model isn't sustainable for the long term.

    Do the smart thing and stop making it illegal for taxpayers to buy Medicare coverage.  

    If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

    by Betty Pinson on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:47:26 PM PST

  •  Lucky Carl Gibson. Not everyone is that lucky. (3+ / 0-)

    When I was 17, I fell down allfight of concrete stairs to a concrete floor--the result of rubber-soled saddle shoes (Catholic school) and wet stairs; not my fault). I spent 4 months or so in a back brace. I was lucky enough not to need surgery. Got hit by a hockey stick in the small of the back (college PT) and still didn't need surgery--I got to take swimming all year as less likely to cause further damage to my back.   In 75, I developed fuirther problems with my ankles (a congenital defect no one  apparently noticed till I was 26) exacerbated my back issues--this time I ended up doing physical therapy three times a week.  Real fun.

    I had health insurance back then.   I also had it when I developed chronic UTIs and felt like I was living on antibiotics--and I was on the Pill, which can be expensive. But a few years later I didn't and it was NOT GOOD. It can happen to anyone. He's gaming the odds, and sooner or later he'll need major care for something.  And he'll be screwed.

    I'm 64.  I cared for my father the last 18 months of his life. It was difficult.  I suffered a lot of stress-related illness which was covered my my husband's Tricare.  Got the 2009 version of swine flu (I had it first timea round as the Hong KOng flu at age 19 in 68, and again in 76=7--after a fluy shot) and was sick as a dog for 2 months.   DOc said I didn't need a flu shot. He was wrong.  The effects of that flu lasted 6 months because it went into bronchitis. I was't hospitalized, just  too exhausted even to go to the grocery store (same as in 76-7, but I went to work at a public school anyeay.

    Carl, it can happen to you.   Andyou're part of the problem, not the solution. I want Medicare for all, but if we didn't have Tricare, we'd be be scrimping to afford insurance.

    The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

    by irishwitch on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 02:51:17 PM PST

  •  It's a gamble (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, emal, Minnesota Deb, Matt Z

    My wife and I are both 59 and except for her pregnancies we have never really used the insurance that much. I go to the Dr about once a year for a checkup, am very healthy and sure I pay a lot more in premiums than I have ever spent.
    My wife goes more than me with a few minor health issues but I still bet we pay more in premiums than we get back.
    Still I was without insurance about 20 year ago between jobs for a few months and I was nervous as hell every time I drove somewhere.

  •  affordable care is not affordable (7+ / 0-)

    problem with ACA and the marketplace is that for the lower middle class who haven't had insurance because of the price of still isn't affordable....$300-$500 a month is still expensive for most lower middle class!!! We were expecting "affordable" prices!!!! When you are already maxed out with bills....that price just isn't going to work!!!

    •  Subsidies are helping lower income folks to afford (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doroma, middleagedhousewife, askew, rsmpdx

      the premiums. I do understand the deductibles are high but the premiums, through ACA, are helping the lower income folks. We have a  lot of people who signed up successful for healthcare at the website and their plans were subsidized and affordable.

      I have not been hearing of people with low incomes paying 500 a month, most receive a subisidy based on their income unless one is upper middle class or I guess the higher range of middle middle class.

      Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at

      by wishingwell on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:11:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The ACA made it less affordable (0+ / 0-)

      Minnesota had an exchange before the ACA. I priced plans just before the ACA went into effect. It raised premiums $50 a month.

      Some people have short memories

      by lenzy1000 on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 05:51:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good luck with that (7+ / 0-)

    I was also a healthy 26-year-old--until I wasn't. MS diagnosis that costs $12,000 a year in meds and another couple grand for the annual MRI, and I have a very mild case. He should thank this flawed law for the ban on pre-existing conditions clause, otherwise he might not be so flippant about his decision. I lived in fear of job loss/insurance loss for years because who could afford the meds that have kept my case manageable for the past twelve years.

  •  One day your are going to be old, yeah (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    But, too, one day you're maybe gonna have kids. And you aren't going to be all that old when it happens. Aside from the issue of issue, the rest of it's a roulette. People with good, healthy habits still get cancer, still can have very expensive accidents. Maybe you will, maybe you won't.

    Good to remember, too, that the Spanish flu pandemic hit the young and healthy the hardest. Some combination of less immunity and over-strong immune reactions.

    I bet he doesn't have the same objections to paying for car insurance even if he doesn't make claims against it. (Though in his case, it sounds like he maybe does use it.)

    Mark Twain: It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

    by Land of Enchantment on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:16:59 PM PST

    •  1918 (0+ / 0-)

      From my readings on the subject of the "Spanish Influenza epidemic", soldiers had a higher rate of illness by over 7:1 when compared to civilians overall.

      Immunity could have been a factor, but there are other theories still being considered. We do know that the illness that took place at Fort Dix was the AVictoria flu, not the Swine flu (for which they were vaccinated.)

  •  Opt out of Social Security and Medicare (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Justanothernyer, lurkyloo

    opt out of paying taxes for public schools you do not use that teach curricula you do not agree with, opt out of paying for a federal highway system you never drive on, opt out of paying for police or fire protection because you have a gun and a fire extinguisher...Let those who plan to use those, pay for them.  

    Fair enough.  

    If Mr Gibson will promise never to use an emergency room that is subsidized by the rest of us and exists because we subsidize them, if he promises that if he breaks another elbow or has another car accident that he will not use what he has not paid for, for the rest of his life into his dotage, then I support his position.  But he won't make that promise, because he assumes he has, and should have, a right to emergency medical care even when he is uninsured but won't contribute his wages to ensure that the medical facility exists to await his and our visit.  

    No one ever thinks they will be sick or poor or homeless until they are sick and poor and homeless.  We support each other as a society, the healthy aid the sick, the rich the poor, and those who can afford a roof and heat ensure that no one else is cold and without shelter.  This is a societal bargain we make as progressives.    

    "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of the United States of America -9.75 -6.87

    by Uncle Moji on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:20:21 PM PST

  •  Young people are not invincible (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ybruti, limae

    But you'll have a devil of a time convincing some of them.

    In hopes it will help, I offer a story.  One of my employees (26 years old) had insurance through her husband's job.  Great.

    She was diagnosed with MS at about the same time she decided to divorce him.  She couldn't afford to divorce him because one infusion to treat MS was over $10,000 and she definitely needed more than one.

    If she had left, because it would be a pre-existing condition, she would not have been able to get insured.  

    Many things happen to young people too.  She certainly never saw it coming.

  •  DLC funder WalMart gets single payer for employees (0+ / 0-)

    Why should WalMart's employees get taxpayer provided health care at no cost to WalMart if a taxpayer can't buy into the same program?

    If cutting Social Security & Medicare benefits for low income seniors is what Democrats do after they win a budget standoff, I'd hate to see what they do after they lose one.

    by Betty Pinson on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:29:04 PM PST

  •  Healthcare Economics Affects Everyone (6+ / 0-)

    Uncompensated care is paid by increased insurance rates, higher local, state and federal taxes.

    Taxpayers invested in Mr. Gibson's education (primary and secondary) with no expectations of personal gain.

    It's generations helping each other out.  We are all in this together.

  •  uninsured are subsidized by the insured - huh?!?!? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Johnny Q, MPociask

    It has always been our experience that the rates for the uninsured, who are paying cash, are VERY much higher than what the insurance company pays the Dr. & hospital for the exact same service to the insured customer.

    Got any more info on the "insured subsidize service to the uninsured"??? or is that just for the indigent uninsured?


    "real" work : a job where you wash your hands BEFORE you use the bathroom...

    by chimene on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:44:16 PM PST

  •  and also, what are you supposed to do when your (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    state has an alleged plan, so you CAN'T use the federal system, but the state's plan (Oregon) consists of telling you to go see a private insurance agent! (The husband has tried and they just say, "go use your state plan," with no care that the state plan is UNUSABLE!)

    Oregon's plan is totally screwed up, my husband has tried it several times, you CANNOT apply on-line, you HAVE to fill out paper forms, but of course the deadline for the paper forms was not well-publicized and is long since passed, and on-line or on the phone, all you get is "go see a private insurance agent"!

    MAYBE??? the Oregon program will be working by next year's enrollment window, maybe not? In any case, we're out of luck for ANOTHER year!

    "real" work : a job where you wash your hands BEFORE you use the bathroom...

    by chimene on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:48:48 PM PST

    •  I have no patience with these problems (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Johnny Q

      If Democrats go down to defeat in 2014, it's going to be incompetence that does them in and they're going to deserve to lose.  Meanwhile, everyone in Congress and the White House is on vacation as if they deserve one.

  •  I would have opted out of coverage too, then (0+ / 0-)

    When I was in my 20's I did as much as I could to push the risk envelope and I felt physically invincible.  Actually, I was until I hit 55.  

    Then, I discovered I had diabetes and had to learn a lot.  It was in fact, a shock.

    I think if I was 26 today, I would probably be tempted to opt out of the ACA coverage, but on the other hand I would hope I would be smart enough to see ahead.  

    By that age we all know a little bit about mortality.  We have seen someone in our circle of acquaintance, or their parents die of cancer or some horrible accident.  We should be able to connect the dots.  

    It is possible to remain unaware.  People who have had to suffer incredible hospital costs while undergoing some massive crisis like head trauma after an accident or a heart attack don't tend to talk about it much.  So we may never really find out about it unless we are really paying attention.

    There are a few things that you really get as you become older.  Healthcare and mortality is one of those areas.

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:50:16 PM PST

  •  I'm thinking of dropping my health insurance. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm 53 and I got the first health care policy I ever had in 2006. It cost me $120 per month for 100% coverage, with a $2500 deductible. My premium went up every year intil it became $324 this year, with my deductible having been raised to $3500. I got a notice recently that my premium will be $374 next year with the same $3500 deductible.

    I'm pissed off. I argued and wrote here against the idea of the mandate because I believed it was a terrible (and unconstitutional) idea. It was a miserable compromise for single payer. Now it is a political football. Med corps win. The TWO parties waffle and game and take money from everywhere but the People, and the People get stiffed.

    Making the perfect the enemy of the good is bad enough. This was nowhere near perfect, yet is still a serious enemy of the good. I have to believe it was an honest mistake in an attempt to do good. Otherwise it was orchestrated, and that is too sick a thought to want to have to contemplate.

    This President, for all the decent good he has aspired to, and accomplished, has compromised so far for the Right that he has become as much held in contempt as the Right. Why can't he do the right thing on all matters, instead of select, relatively easy matters?

    In any case, it makes my especially angry to think that I have to think about compromising doing what I believe is in my best interests for the sake of saving this lame policy''s, and this lame President's legacy... especially when it looks like the attempt to bring uninsured people into the FOR-PROFIT insurance model is not lowering costs, and may be making doctors re-think their career choices. While I have long thought that doctors are generally over-paid, they deserve much more of what the med equpment/pharm/insurance executives are sucking out of our foundering economy than what they get... as do we the People!

    I could give up my insurance, take a chance, save over $4000 a year going forward (if I don't get sick or seriously injured) and that looks awful tempting right now! I don't own very much, and I am struggling to make my monthly nut.

    "Have a good time... all the time." -Viv Savage

    by The House on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 03:58:13 PM PST

  •  Obamacare is just the beginning.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbell, rsmpdx

    That is what people must keep in mind.  The focus should not be on what has gone wrong and will go wrong in the future.  All things can be fixed and will be.

    As a retired health professional whose work was in hospital settings, I have seen many young people who thought they were invincible.  There are cancers that seem to strike the young, there are mental problems that seem to arise in young adulthood, and there are those horrific accidents that happen to other people.

    There is the dismay my generation has with the attitude "why should I support older people, that's not fair."  When I entered the workforce in 1952, it never entered my mind that my soc. sec. was "paying" for a retired person.  I looked upon it as something I would enjoy when my time came.

    The ACA (Obamacare) is not only for the good of our people as a whole; millions more of us will have medical insurance protection, but it is good for our country.

    The CBO estimates our deficit will be lowered by its implements in 10 years, and it will reduce our GDP for health care, which is now the highest of any nation on earth.  Support your country.  Sign up for the ACA.

  •  Gibson is right. (0+ / 0-)

    Obamacare is a Republican policy, a Third Way, neo-liberal giveaway to multinational corporations. Frak them.

  •  Sort of dumb... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Sorry. But opting out doesn't bring us closer to single-payer.  And, there will always be a cross subsidy up until the second that he needs health care.  If his elbow were crushed rather than broken, the costs would have been years and years of salary.  He lucked out.  His refusal makes no political nor economic sense.    It took us 100 years to get this far.  
    Remember, the powers that be are ALL insured and protected by prior legislation.  Yep.  They get insurance even with pre existing conditions because of GOP written ERISA.  They aren't walking around without insurance.  Nary a one of them.  No one at FOX news.  No one at the conservative think tanks.  No one in church hierarchies.  No one.  They got it. And they are using you for political points.  

  •  It's his money (0+ / 0-)

    Everybody is going to make up his or her own mind about what to do.

    From what I've read, the compression of the "age band ratios" results in the young paying 20-40% more than they would otherwise.  BUT, on the other hand, that doesn't take into account the value of the expanded essential benefits under the ACA, specifically, maternity care and prescription drugs.

    So anyway, forget about maternity care for the moment.  Forget about the fact that many of the young are eligible for subsidies because the job market sucks and they are early in their careers. Let's say this 26 year old can get a gold plan policy for 270 a month under the ACA.  Assume he could have gotten it for $54-108/mo cheaper if the age band ratios were 5:1 instead of 3:1 maximum.

    Is paying $648-$1296 more a year a reason to take the risk of going without insurance? That wouldn't be my judgment. Even a short hospital admission with a couple diagnostic tests, say for chest pain or a bad headache, without even being sick, can easily run five or six thousand dollars.

    But this guy is going to do what he wants; he will wise up eventually.

    •  Your privilege is showing. (0+ / 0-)

      What about the people who can't afford to pay $648-$1298 a year?

      •  What Gibson said (0+ / 0-)

        Maybe I misread this diary, but to me "opting out" means that Charles Gibson could afford to pay it, but is saying no.  

        I went back and read Mr. Gibson's article on RSN, and there he discloses that he is making 30k a year, has bills including rent, a car loan, groceries, gas, heat, and phone bills, but no student loans.  

        He decided that the most affordable health plans for him would be $150 a month, with deductibles between $2000 and $5000.  Although he doesn't discus it in his article, he would be eligible for a subsidy.

        He says he has a hard time saving even $100 a month -- but his real reason for rejecting health insurance is that his health care expenses would most likely not exceed his deductible.  In other words, he is most likely going to be self-insured anyway, he thinks, so what is the sense of paying the $150 per month premium?

        Still, he doesn't flat out say he can't afford health insurance.  He doesn't say that if the premiums were $90 a month, he would buy the insurance.  He doesn't invite any discussion of ways he could cut expenses to find the money for health insurance.  Yet, there would be no point to his doing his financial cost/benefit analysis, if he simply couldn't afford it, period.  So I think he knows that if he really wanted to, he could find a way.

        As I said, it is his money, and he will do what he wants, and take his chances.

        Yes, there are those who can't afford health insurance, and who don't qualify for Medicaid.  Even if the ACA works according to design, as I understand it there are still going to be something like 30 million left who are uninsured, who simply can't afford health insurance, period.  What's your plan to take care of their needs?

    •  the young also gain insurability for life (0+ / 0-)

      The opponents like to focus on the micro issues but the purpose of ACA is the macro issues.  It's not all about the current year, it's about the long-term.   It's not about whether you're young and healthy this year, it's about having access to high-quality, comprehensive, unlimited, affordable health insurance guaranteed until you're eligible for Medicare regardless of your advancing age and/or your declining health.   The young and healthy will pay a little more in premium to support a program that guarantees that they will have access to good affordable health insurance for life.

      It's like the micro argument some slimy sophist just made on Morning Joe against increasing the minimum wage.  He said a small employer could hire 2 workers for $7.50 versus one worker for $15.  First, he hasn't hired 2 workers because the economy is depressed due to inadequate consumer demand.  Second, if consumer demand increases and he need 2 workers he will need to hire them at the going rate.  Third, the micro argument ignores the macro fact that workers earning $15 will have more to spend and that increased demand will expand the economy and create jobs, unlike the loot that the 1% hides in the Cayman Islands.

  •  Carl Gibson (0+ / 0-)

    I read his article on RSN and was quite annoyed by it (and was surprised it went viral later--who reads RSN?). The comments were interesting. He got NO support. Everyone who commented said he was making a foolish decision (and yes, he does seem a bit accident prone!) My own thought was that if you are going to live in the real world and not a utopian fantasy world, sooner or later you are going to really care about your credit rating. If you opt out of insurance and then get stuck with a bill you can't pay---well, there goes that one. Not a chance anyone's mom or dad would like to see their kid taking.

  •  This might miss the larger issue of health. (0+ / 0-)

    A conservative either has platinum coverage through his employer or is such a rugged individual that he is willing to gamble on going naked. The ACA takes an approach (somewhat like the rest of the world) that there is a common good and everyone should pull together to make things better. You have two conflicting ideals: either make the country better or it's every man for himself.

  •  A note for Mr. Gibson (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Please inform Mr. Gibson that my husband had a stroke at age 30 and incurred hundreds of thousands in medical bills.

    Fortunately, he had good health insurance from his employer at the time. Otherwise, we'd be bankrupt.

    The young are not invulnerable just because they think they are.

  •  I don't get the title of this journal (0+ / 0-)

    Is this Gibson dude opting out because he does not want any health care coverage or because it is not single payer?  Sounds more like the former.

    With that said either reason is bad thinking. Opting out totally is risky and in many ways irresponsible.  Opting because it is not single payer is trying to get your way by holding your breath.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Riane Eisler

    by noofsh on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 05:17:52 PM PST

    •  His reasoning is that it's too expensive (0+ / 0-)

      He has done some simple math to discover what his maximum cost to least reward would be, and he's figured that it's too expensive given that he will not need as much care.  

      That's already bad reasoning.  He also seems to be unhappy with the idea that he is overpaying compared to his age and income.  That's still more bad reasoning.  

      His wish is to have a Medicare buy in, but he has not looked at the pricing for something like that.  That's what it seems like, anyway.  To my understanding, the current cost is somewhere around 500/month for a Medicare buy in.  

      Further bad reasoning is that he would probably be subsidizing the older people to a larger degree in a single payer system in which cost was spread more equally across the pool.  


      by otto on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 06:16:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Daily Kos is becoming the Daily Vaccine (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MPociask, orestes1963

    "Third, not taking the flu shot is not a responsible thing to do, especially if one is uninsured. The swine flu is the prevailing strain this year and there have been several flu deaths in the Houston area already and likely throughout the country."

    A blanket statement like this is false.

    There is so much we are simply do not know about the human immune system to think that an influenza vaccination has no complications, side effects, or for that matter, is even effective.

    The influenza vaccine does not provide any protection from the common cold or the standard flu. It only targets a few strains of influenza.

    From four months ago:

    Preventing seasonal sniffles may be more complicated than researchers suspected. A vaccine that protects piglets from one common influenza virus also makes them more vulnerable to a rarer flu strain, researchers report today in Science Translational Medicine.
    This study is a few years old and is based primarily on studies only including "healthy individuals" - which is what was claimed by this individual, but I have not seen any new study that differentiates from its findings:
    Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission. WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies.
    At one point in the country, influenza shots were only recommended for the elderly or those in a weakened condition. At some point ($$$), it was extended to children and all adults (without any evidence to suggest it was beneficial.)

    To suggest someone should "get a fatal flu" simply because they (a healthy individual) does not trust whether the influenza vaccine is safe is an abhorrent comment.

    If an individual wants to get a vaccination, then they should have every right to receive one (or a 1000, if that is their wish.) However, that does not give you the right to demand that everyone follow your course.

    •  No (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, lurkyloo, begone, virginwoolf

      I don't want kids attending school with my kid if they don't get the appropriate vaccinations.  Try your experiment in a closed environment.


      by otto on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 06:12:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes! (0+ / 0-)


        I posted this to another response:

        ATLANTA - A government study offers a new theory on why the whooping cough vaccine doesn't seem to be working as well as expected. The research suggests that while the vaccine may keep people from getting sick, it doesn't prevent them from spreading whooping cough - also known as pertussis - to others.
        Based on this study, your kid can get the pertussis vaccine and probably not get sick. However, he can be a carrier for a few months. This might be a worse situation since we no longer will be able to identify who is the carrier of the disease.

        The standard argument is always, "then get everybody vaccinated." But, what about the ones that cannot get the vaccine due to compromised immune systems? (An argument that is typically used by vaccine proponents.) We no longer are able to identify who is a carrier!

        Now, your initial response was that you did not want your kid attending the same school as someone unvaccinated. Well, if your kid is vaccinated, then why would you be worrying?

        It might be that the whooping cough has been mutating over the last few decades and there are different strains that are not in the vaccine your child receives.

        In the California outbreak, the vast majority (81%) of people that came down with whooping cough were fully vaccinated. The rest of the individuals were either partially vaccinated (12%) or not, or in the undetermined category (which too many times gets lumped in with unvaccinated.) Those last two groups accounted for less than 7%.

        Sadly, the vaccine does not work (based on one study, it only worked 24% of the time for children between the age of 8 to 12) and it wears off quickly (a length of time that nobody seems to be able to determine.)  

        Again, you want to give your kids a vaccination, fine. But, try your vaccination experiment in a closed environment.

    •  Plenty of diaries on vaccines. (0+ / 0-)

      If you want to write another, I'm sure it'll get attention.

      If Hobby Lobby is against contraception, why does it buy its inventory from China, the country that limits the number of children by law?

      by Inland on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 03:31:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gibson doesn't understand his own risk. (0+ / 0-)

    He's measuring his premium plus out of pocket risk to his small dollar risk and finding it pretty much a wash.  Of course, it is; that's why the insurers structure it that way, it roughly corresponds to the average actuarial risk up to the Annual Out of Pocket Maximum.  

    What you really need to insure is your less-likely large dollar risk, the risk that could bankrupt you for life.  I hope you don't skip insuring your house because a fire is unlikely.  Do you just worry about the amount of your deductible or the replacement value of your house?  Wouldn't you feel like a fool if your house burned down and you had decided not to insure it because a fire was unlikely?  Insuring your small dollar risk just gets you in the large risk pool.  The risk of a large loss shouldn't be ignored just because it's less likely.  Betting that nothing will happen to you and yours is a bad bet with potentially devastating consequences.

    Insurance is expensive because healthcare is expensive; without deductibles and coinsurance, insurance would be even more expensive.  Because of the different coinsurance percentages (the amount of a loss you pay out-of-pocket), the premium for Bronze (40%) is less expensive than Silver (30%) which is less expensive than Gold (20%) which is less expensive than Platinum (10%).  But, even Bronze has an Out-of-Pocket Maximum.  Buying No Insurance is less expensive than Bronze but the risk is foolish and unacceptable.

    •  Healthcare is expensive because of insurance (0+ / 0-)

      People with comprehensive health insurance plans subsidized by their employer or, increasingly in 2014, the government don't appreciate the true costs of monthly premiums and inflated medical bills. These subsidies allow hospitals and providers to charge more, knowing someone other than the patient is paying.

      Commercials for Get Covered Illinois warn us that a broken leg can cost $18,000 out of pocket. Why??? Knee surgery costs around $8,000 and that's a more sophisticated procedure. In many cases, hospitals are insulated from actual competition. Surgical costs are rarely advertised, unless you're going to Oklahoma.

      And health insurance would be more affordable if it truly focused on major medical events-- heart disease, cancer, stroke, etc. Premiums for 2014 jumped 50-100% for young folks now forced to carry insurance for maternity, fertility, pediatric dental & orthodontics, and mental health. If they weren't buying it before, they certainly aren't buying it now.

  •  You go to hospital.... (0+ / 0-)

    As you know you go to hospital with the ACA you have---not the ACA you might want or wish to have at a later time.

  •  "To be sure, this problem was created by the baby (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Willa Rogers


    Excuse the hell out of me but since the WWII Baby Boomers were the largest generation in the history of this country to pay into SS and Medicare, and we still are paying because we can't retire - but we did not CREATE the current economic issues.

    Reagan and Bush and the Republicans and the endless state of war that the Republicans love have taken our taxes, and taken our life savings, and taken what our parents worked for  and left to us,and taken our homes, and taken our jobs and put it all in the pockets of the tiniest percentage of population ever in the history of this country to control over 50% of our economy.

    Shame or the diarist for parroting a Repocon talking point on this site.

    Damn the damnable not their victims.

  •  Found out I am epileptic when I was 21 nt (0+ / 0-)


    by otto on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 06:19:31 PM PST

  •  Civil Disobedience...something we have forgotten (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    This to me speaks of a form of Civil Disobedience.  If he pays the penalty and refuses to sigh up then he is making a statement that he will not comply with a law that is unfair to the poor and middle-class un/under-insured.

    It is amazing to read the price of premiums, the amount of the deductibles and how a family that is cut to the bone would manage to pay these prices/fees/deductibles.

    The only one winning with the ACA is the Insurance Industry.  I support this act of Civil Disobedience.

    Don't meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    by Whitewitch on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 06:41:48 PM PST

    •  uh.... as one of those who could not get insurance (0+ / 0-)

      The poor and the sick benefit from this. Sure, single-payer would be better. I would like medicare for everyone. But that's not in the cards yet. I would wager, however, that in a decade, we'll have a de facto single-payer system just because at some point, we'll be allowed to opt into Medicare.

  •  Why do so many people on the left seem to think (3+ / 0-)

    the politics on Healthcare stopped with the passage of the ACA? Civil Rights took many laws, court cases, and constitutional amendments before it was realized. Now that ACA has passed and found to be constitutional it will be much easier for a future Democratic Congress and President to open MediCare to everyone (in fact if you charged 2% over cost it could be done by reconciliation, no filibuster possible).

    Stop making the perfect the enemy of the good (or at least better).  

    -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power" (with snark of course)! Follow on Twitter @dopper0189

    by dopper0189 on Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 07:17:05 PM PST

    •  Because for many of them... (0+ / 0-)

      Politics is what it was all about.  If they actually gave a shit about delivering health care to people they wouldn't have supported the ACA in the first place, since it deals with insurance not care.

      I've come to the conclusion that a lot of people who called themselves progressives are simply just partisan.  They think the ACA was a political "win" for the Party, so now they're done with it.

  •  I don't get it....does Gibson seriously believe (0+ / 0-)

    that single payer would be free???

    I want single payer too.... actually I want a more socialistic society altogether, but I am not under the delusion that it would be free or cheap.  I will gladly pay the amount it would require in taxes and so would he, if we move in that direction.

    So what is his problem?  If his beef is the money, what he is advocating for would cost him the same or even more.

  •  And it's cheaper to pay premiums than to support (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lurkyloo, begone

    your grandparents.

    Before Medicare, grandparents and elderly parents MOVED IN with their youngsters. My grandparents were barely married a year when great-gramps moved in with them, and they paid for his medical care until he died.

    Now it could be youngsters like this one would just let Gramps die sick and alone. I doubt it though. And it's simply cheaper, much cheaper, to pay a couple hundred for your own insurance knowing that some of it, not a lot, but some is going to pay for insurance for your parents and grandparents. I think this is actually a pretty good deal for young people. I know my kids would much rather pay a few extra bucks a week than have me move in with them. :)

  •  Single payer is irrelevant to Gibson's argument (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    He's just being a cheapskate and rolling the dice. There are always some who take that approach. Many of them escape scot-free, others suffer calamitous consequences.

    But whether he opts out or not, because of Obamacare almost every American now has the option to have heath-care coverage, even those who have pre-existing conditions or not enough money to pay the full premiums. Gibson's little pseudo-rebellion doesn't change that fact.

    Hopefully, as the penalty increases over time, opting out will become unattractive to the cheapskates.

  •  There's something unclear about Gov. Dean's (0+ / 0-)


    Dean agreed with much of what Gibson said but in effect said this was all that was unattainable at this time.
    I would think Gov. Dean would be saying what is in the ACA is what is attainable at this time.
  •  My driving record is spotless. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Why can't I use the same logic with auto insurance ?

    No issues, no tickets in the past 15 years.  Carl Gibson will one day, walk up to his car and find someone has backed into it, and caused $4,000 in damages.  Or, someone has hit him while he was sitting at a red light, and put him into the hospital.  Or, one day, while reading a book he gets a really, really bad headache, and finds himself on the floor wondering what just hit him.

    Carl Gibson is basically a spoiled brat who does not understand the basic principal of insurance.  

    " With religion you can't get just a little pregnant"

    by EarTo44 on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 03:14:02 AM PST

    •  The simple reason is (0+ / 0-)

      that your state auto regs do not permit it.  ACA allows Gobson to opt out, so if he does he is just exercising a right under the law.  He is not a scofflaw, as the person who chooses not to insure their car would be.  It's pretty simple.

  •  I can't speak to the rest, but this much is wrong: (0+ / 0-)
    Second, the prices he was quoted as an uninsured person were likely subsidized by all those paying insurance as well as taxes.
    On the contrary, the uninsured are billed much more than insurers+copay for the same service.  The article's $2500 for an x-ray, bandage and sling is several times the fair price by just about any measure (cost to the provider, or charge to insurers, or charges to an out-of-pocket payer -- say an uninsured tourist -- in a European country).

    The truth is that the uninsured who pay subsidize the system (including the costs of the uninsured who can't pay and have to be written off -- not that these people get off scotfree, unless by "scotfree" you mean going bankrupt or having their credit rating destroyed).

  •  I certainly can't support Gibson (0+ / 0-)

    He is , as someone correctly has already noted, a clown.  While he pretends to have a social conscience, he is unwilling to make a sacrifice for the benefit of society in general, to raise the quality of American civilization right now.  Not in some time in the unforseeable future, but right now.    Hi looks at other people who need insurance, and says:  'hey, look at me.  I'm still young and healthy, and you aren't! '  just like the plutocrat, he shouts ' I got mine, Jack.'  

     Gibson is a poseur smoking clove cigarettes in the boys room.  I bet he did, too.  If he lived in other western democracies, he wouldn't have a choice about having a social conscience, he would pay his taxes and think nothing about it.  Or maybe he would some smug libertarian type, a Rand Paul, and complain about high taxes.  

    Young people paying to support the older is the only way universal coverage will ever work, single payer or greedy insurance companies.  REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. Get it, kid?  It's the 20th century's contribution to civilization.  Them that have a whole lot give a little to those who don't have enough, and everyone is better for it.

    I apologize to the reader for lapsing into a rant.  However, it is the only response I can muster.  Its not as if i havent encountered these sorts before.  They're called jerks!

    Planning a vacation or convention in Arizona? Come to Palm Springs instead! Same desert weather, none of the smog, traffic and bigotry.

    by grey skies turning to blue on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 04:23:29 AM PST

  •  Can we please stop blaming Baby Boomers?!? (0+ / 0-)

    Why do people insist on blaming baby Boomers for all the world's ills? WE are not the ones who have made it a tough go for the younger generation. WE are actually getting screwed along with everyone else. Boomer age people are being laid off in droves, with little opportunity to get hired anywhere else, we're losing pensions, etc. and still not quite retirement age.
    The blame in the above link seems to be that we told kids to be optimistic, that you can do anything you want if you work hard enough, seems hardly a valid criticism. It's the same thing EVERY generation has told their kids.
    The real blame is ignorance and greed, as well as age bias. Companies are greedy enough that the believe saving money by cutting pensions is good. They also cast off those of us with experience and wisdom in favor of younger folks who have little knowledge and who the companies figure will be less costly regarding health care.
    And it's not Boomers doing the hiring and making decisions in companies over the last decade - it's those in their 30's and 40's, people who have grown up to think older folks are "icky" and "Sha, why would I hire someone as old as my mother!" They also think they can save their company money by hiring younger people to work for free under "internships" which are nothing more than slave labor.
    We're all getting screwed in this country. But before we start blaming those of a certain age, let's remember it is a mind-set of the right wing that has brought us all these lousy policies - and that mind-set knows no age. Greedy, selfish conservatives and libertarians thing money is all and the ONLY reason for a company's existence. And as long as that money flows to the top, all is well.
    Boomers? We tried doing the right thing. Now we're getting screwed and being blamed for the plight of those younger than we. Just stop it already.

    Isn’t it ironic to think that man might determine his own future by something so seemingly trivial as the choice of an insect spray. ~ Rachel Carson, Silent Spring ~

    by MA Liberal on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 04:52:36 AM PST

  •  Meant to Gibson (0+ / 0-)

    He admits he had an accident that gave him an injury, but one he figured he could afford.
    But what if that accident had been much worse? Suppose that accident, instead of leaving him with a minor injury, had given him major injuries requiring long hospitalization and rehab? How would he have paid for it then?
    What an ignoramus.

    Isn’t it ironic to think that man might determine his own future by something so seemingly trivial as the choice of an insect spray. ~ Rachel Carson, Silent Spring ~

    by MA Liberal on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 04:54:30 AM PST

  •  Great post, weird tip jar. (0+ / 0-)

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Mon Dec 30, 2013 at 05:13:07 AM PST

  •  Carl Gibson is an idiot and a fool (0+ / 0-)

    For two reasons at least.

    First, for failing to get a flu shot when all science shows its benefit.  I hate science deniers - they should all STFU.

    Second, for missing the main point of insurance.  If he wakes up tomorrow with some rare form of cancer (as my 2 year old daughter did) he will die.

    The reason is that the ER does not treat complicated diseases, only emergencies.  When my daughter had a rare childhood cancer insurance enabled me to select the best treatment and save her.  In my case that was only possible by traveling hundreds of miles to Boston which was the closest hospital offering such advanced treatments.

    Every year my family spends FAR more on insurance than the value we receive from it.  This is merely the expected way insurance works.  I'll be sad when I start getting good value from my insurance premium because it will mean somebody really got sick.

  •  Yes, but ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Caoimhin Laochdha

    The problem young people face is limited income and other pressing expenses such as education debt, children, etc.

    So the "half-reformed" system of mandatory but not quite (for them) affordable insurance really doesn't seem to be a great deal.

    And what pundits need to understand is that, overall, people of Gibson's generation are downwardly mobile compared to their parents and have fewer choices.

    Granted, if you roll that forward 40 years it is that more important to have health insurance, but if you are, for example, a young parent, you are going to put food on the table for your kids before you worry about a future that far off.

    What older, wiser people need to do is convince these people that when they are 60 things will be better, and why.

    Otherwise, to be frank, you have sold them on a plan with obvious short-comings when they would be inclined to seek a better solution.

    In other words, Egberto, you need to sell the "Occupy" kids on the idea of "Hope" and "Change".

    Really. Take two.

  •  Anger Translator (0+ / 0-)

    Obama needs to hire “Luther” for one speech:

    -- Obama “Greetings, this is a wonderful day in America”

    -- Luther “Yo yo yo, idiots, listen up”

    -- Obama “Now, it has come to my attention that some young people are dissatisfied with the compromises we made to get the Affordable Healthcare Act passed”

    -- Luther “Okay, dammit, Obamacare ain’t perfect, we all know that, but you know damned well what we went through to get THIS far”

     -- Obama “It is our belief that as the Affordable Healthcare Act is fully implemented, that we will see individual States, ah,  using creative strategies to meet the needs of their citizens”

    -- Luther “Yeah, listen up; we designed Obamacare to let the States go Single Payer in 2017; Oregon and Vermont are chomping at the bit to be the first.   Don’t F*ck this up before they even get out o’ the gate !”  

    --Obama “Calm down a little, Luther, there’s no need for profanity”

    --Luther “Bring it down a notch, Luther; why you always got to blow your mouth off?

Andrew Lazarus, Sylv, Phoenix Woman, jennifer poole, melvynny, emal, donna in evanston, eeff, suswa, elfling, dpeifer1949, afox, kalihikane, Chitown Charlie, fumie, Cedwyn, artebella, fluffy, wader, edrie, annan, wdrath, ybruti, Curt Matlock, KayCeSF, sebastianguy99, vcmvo2, historys mysteries, Bluesee, marina, ichibon, chimene, sc kitty, PSzymeczek, Pam from Calif, where4art, danthesasman, sunbro, kaliope, Rusty in PA, begone, Born in NOLA, Nance, FishGuyDave, dopper0189, Dvalkure, koNko, Wildthumb, BB10, Little, tegrat, tgypsy, puakev, LillithMc, Matt Z, flumptytail, mommyof3, deepeco, davehouck, leonard145b, TomP, Outside the Echo Chamber, JDWolverton, Sixty Something, VL Baker, Ocelopotamus, RandomNonviolence, smartdemmg, Gemina13, Mayfly, WearyIdealist, watercarrier4diogenes, lissablack, fayea, maggiejean, enemy of the people, MufsMom, Satya1, greengemini, virginwoolf, manucpa, Leslie in KY, histOries Marko, SweetMartha, Larsstephens, herbanreleaf, vtgal, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, smileycreek, serendipityisabitch, klompendanser, ItsSimpleSimon, NYWheeler, cocinero, Onomastic, annieli, Mike08, I love OCD, ban nock, slowbutsure, Seitanist, marleycat, IllanoyGal, Muskegon Critic, BarackStarObama, smoothnmellow, RfrancisR, midnight lurker, Grandma Susie, peregrine kate, Joe Jackson, ratcityreprobate, SoCalSal, joanbrooker, caryltoo, jaebone, Laurel in CA, Sister Inspired Revolver of Freedom, joelgp, Chrislove, We Won, Citizenpower, lurkyloo, ahumbleopinion, Yahzi, dandy lion, This old man, doroma, Glen The Plumber, Marjmar, GoGoGoEverton, DamselleFly, Late Again, alice kleeman, BadKitties, duhban, Kombema, skepticalcitizen, Gardener in PA, Dodgerdog1, eagleray, Miss Bianca, ginimck, Tea Party Necropsy, CJB2012, Pinche Gringo

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site