It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Here’s a question for pundits and politicians outraged over people whose individual insurance plans are being canceled because they don’t meet the new health law’s standards. Have you forgotten what a nightmare this branch of health insurance was before?
To jog your memories, I dug out an article on the subject I did back in 2008. Its title: "On Their Own: Far From a Remedy, Insurance for Individuals is a World of Pain".
It featured the stories of:
The Georgia real estate agent whose group health plan was folding and who couldn’t find replacement insurance unless it excluded coverage of her $1,700-a-month rheumatoid arthritis medication, without which she would quickly become disabled.
The Arizona small business owner who could only find insurance if it excluded coverage of anti-rejection drugs he was taking for a successful liver transplant he’d had years before.
The Virginia early retiree who discovered he was uninsurable at any price because of his diabetes, despite the fact that he kept it under perfect control.
The Indiana lawyer whose longtime insurance company, following standard industry practice, deliberately shrunk his plan’s risk pool to drive his premium up to more than $4,200—a month!—and him out of the plan.
The article also featured the resuts of a survey we did, which found that 76 percent of uninsured respondents said they couldn't afford an individual plan. And the ones who were "lucky" enough to have this type of coverage didn't like it very much because it was more expensive and had more limited coverage than health plans available through an employer.
originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus
You really need to watch the video.
originally posted by: theNLBS
this is another episode where we expect some serious heat from the political jug-heads out there,
originally posted by: XxNightAngelusxX
This video violates ATS's guidelines verbally and with imagery.
originally posted by: XxNightAngelusxX
We know that our potential vastly surpasses our current position...
The primary reason -- playing a video or listening to a podcast is a user choice. Imbedding inappropriate images or typing vulgarities preempts the user's choice to see such things.
Consider: the talented engineers who designed and oversaw the construction of the Saturn V rocket did so primarily with slide rules. Where is there such a large collection of comparable talent today? The closest you're going to come are the engineers at Google -- I've met several, they're no rocket scientists.
originally posted by: masqua
a reply to: XxNightAngelusxX
Let me put it as simply as possible:
A country that, within its very halls of power (such as the Congress, Senate and Supreme Court) does not respect the findings of the world's scientists and would prefer to ignore them because it is more profitable or convenient, is on a path to irrelevance.
And those who overwhelmingly vote to sustain such a system... well...
It’s that the law’s complex system of insurance regulation is a way of concealing from voters what Obamacare really is: a huge redistribution of wealth from the young and healthy to the old and unhealthy.
ok Above, let's take a deep breath shall we?
Remember, there are somewhere around 70 members of Congress who are concurrently members of DSA(Democratic Socialists of America), so if you thought they weren't trying deliberately to import as much socialism as they can, I think you would be mistaken and quite possibly naïve.
Llewellyn said there are no members of Congress who are members of the DSA and he rolls his eyes at claims that President Barack Obama is a socialist.
"We have a banner that says ‘Obama is not a socialist, but we are,’ " Llewellyn said.
Our ruling (Politifact)
Sovereign Citizens United believes it has evidence that shows the Congressional Progressive Caucus thinks like socialists and is under the thumb of the Democratic Socialists of America. The evidence is rather flimsy and, in some cases, bogus. The DSA doesn’t boast on its website that it created the caucus, as the sovereign group claims.
Like PolitiFact Oregon, we give this claim our lowest rating, Pants on Fire.
The S-word is overwhelmingly considered a toxic label in American politics. Yet, it is used more frequently these days, most often as a way to demonize liberal politicians.
Socialism is the idea of the government controlling the entire means of production of goods and services for its citizens. That contrasts with liberalism in American politics -- the idea that the government should offer a wide array of programs to help citizens.
: a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Ergo, ACA is redistribution of wealth because in order to pay for the subsisdes AND the administrative costs of the program government has to get it from the taxpayer's pocket. Ergo it is Redistribution of wealth from those who are able to those who are not(remember Marx?).