Subscribe Renew your subscription Build your own classified ad.
Sign upLog inContact us
Advanced search

Gaia

Gaia's picture

User information

Your hometown
Contoocook

History

Member for
3 years 14 weeks
Most recent comments by Gaia
heh
By Gaia - 04/17/2012 - 8:50 pm

IB was first touted by a republican administration? Kinda like the individual mandate for health care? Why does this not surprise me? "I was for it before I was against it...."
Gaia's picture
Log in
to vote
3
I agree
By Gaia - 04/10/2012 - 12:37 pm

But the legislature chose not to apply the regulation to self-insured groups. That's the point. Leaving it up to each state does not guarantee the universal coverage that people are hoping for.
Gaia's picture
Log in
to vote
1
It's not a complaint, per se. More of an observation.
By Gaia - 04/10/2012 - 12:35 pm

The point is that the average 18 year old today has far bigger economic challenges than the 18 year old of 20-25 years ago. Far higher expenses, and average income has not kept up with those expenses in any way whatsoever.

It sounds funny, but the ACA actually helps young people succeed in their struggle toward independence. It temporarily takes one big economic hurdle off the table so they can tackle the rest of them - housing and every day living expenses on an entry-level salary. (Or no salary at the moment because of the unemployment rate for that age group. ) The hope is that by the time they hit 26, the other issues are under control because they've managed to work themselves into a position where they have benefits and can afford their housing and other living expenses.

It's transitional assistance.

It's also one of the solutions you're asking people to scribble down. A solution exists already. Don't take it away.
Gaia's picture
Log in
to vote
1
I don't know how long ago you
By Gaia - 04/09/2012 - 11:35 am

I don't know how long ago you were 18.... but even 15 or 20 years ago, things were different.
A college education cost much less then, compared to average income.
Jobs were easier to come by for an 18 year old. (You've noticed the unemployment rate for young adults, right?)
Health insurance after you got a job was far less expensive compared to income.
Housing was less expensive compared to income.

Today's youth have it much tougher financially than we did. There aren't a lot of entry-level jobs that pay enough to allow an 18 year-old to live on their own these days. The cost of everything has gone up fast than income. 22 year olds are also leaving college already 10s of thousands in debt.

Allowing them to stay on parent's insurance has a huge impact for a very tiny cost. For most families it doesn't even cost them anything extra in premiums. They've got a family plan that covers employee, spouse and all children for one rate. Dropping the 18 year old from the coverage doesn't save the employee any money, unless it's a single parent and he/she is the only child.
Gaia's picture
Log in
to vote
5
They have the power, but will the exercise it?
By Gaia - 04/09/2012 - 11:32 am

In NH, all private insurance had to cover the young adults. However, the State of NH is self-insured, so state employees did not get the benefit until the Affordable Care Act was passed.
Gaia's picture
Log in
to vote
3
Gallup says 21%, and holding
By Gaia - 04/06/2012 - 10:38 am

Gallup says 21%, and holding steady for the past 3 years.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/Conservatives-Remain-Largest-Ideologic...

The thing I find interesting about this poll is that it's only measuring the way people label themselves. There's no standard definition of "conservative" and "liberal" used in this poll, so I think we have to be careful about how we interpret the results. I'm not saying that the population's beliefs on specific issues necessarily differ from these polls. I'm just saying that the poll doesn't prove how people would vote or what their answers might be to specific questions about economics or social issues.

And I bet that if you asked 10 different people for their definitions of Liberal and Conservative, you'd get 5 different answers for each.

Oh, and when that liberal walks into a room of 9 other people.... it might be true that only one other person thinks the way he does ALL of the time.... but when he picks a specific issue, like same sex marriage, or abortion rights or "right to work," he may find that 4 or 5 others think the same way he does. Don't forget about that huge block of self-described "moderates." I don't think you can assume "if they're not liberal, they're conservative."

See Gallup's poll on same sex marriage: http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Le...
Gaia's picture
Log in
to vote
5
Being "on Medicaid" is not
By Gaia - 04/06/2012 - 9:25 am

Being "on Medicaid" is not necessarily the same as "rec ieving Medicaid benefits." The state is only losing money if those dead people have actually racked up claims after dying.

This reminds me of some of the on-line dating services. "See your matches for free!" they say. Yep, you get to look at their profiles and their pictures, but if you want to actually communicate with them you have to pay a fee. You can't find out whether they're legit until you pay.

So LexisNexis does a free audit, but won't let the state see the details to see if they're legitimate, unless the state pays for it. I wonder how much it will cost to get the actual data, and will the benefit be worth the cost?
Gaia's picture
Log in
to vote
7
From what I've seen, Mr. Hunt
By Gaia - 04/03/2012 - 11:51 am

From what I've seen, Mr. Hunt (aka Blackdruid) is about as liberal as they come. As a co-liberal, I agree with his letter wholeheartedly. Parents should be responsible for their children. Why would you assume otherwise?
Gaia's picture
Log in
to vote
1
The state already requires
By Gaia - 04/03/2012 - 11:46 am

The state already requires that a parent name the absent parent(s) of their children in order to get state assistance. That's what the Division of Child Suport Enforcement does - goes after the absent parent and garnishes their wages if necessary.
Gaia's picture
Log in
to vote
0
I wasn't clear in my post,
By Gaia - 03/27/2012 - 10:22 pm

I wasn't clear in my post, but I wasn't thinking so much about the outcome of the Supreme Court case. I was thinking more about all the candidates who have pledge to "repeal Obamacare" even after it survives the Supreme Court.
Gaia's picture
Log in
to vote
2
It's no longer a bill. It's a
By Gaia - 03/27/2012 - 12:15 pm

It's no longer a bill. It's a law.

I agree it doesn't go far enough in the price control area, but that doesn't mean the whole thing is defective. Instead of throwing out the current law, we should add the provisions needed to lower costs.
Gaia's picture
Log in
to vote
2
How many adults in this
By Gaia - 03/27/2012 - 12:12 pm

How many adults in this country do you know who have NEVER needed to see a doctor or go to an emergency room?

The point is that everyone eventually uses health care. You have a choice as to whether to by a car, but you don't have a choice about whether to get cancer or get hit by a bus while crossing the street.

As long as we require hospitals to treat people who can't (or won't) pay, then requiring everyone to have insurance is the best way to make sure that those who are consuming health care are also paying for it.

If you are against the individual mandate, but don't want your own insurance premiums to pay for other people's health care, then you have to allow hospitals to refuse to treat people that they believe (THEY BELIEVE) will not pay their bills.

In the long run, which approach is in the best interest of all citizens of the country?
Gaia's picture
Log in
to vote
2
Don't miss this
Customer service: