Give it time. I would say that on 30% of the claims I have to call someone to get them straightened out. Of that once or twice a year it will take months, letters and multiple phone calls to get resolved. The insurance company is constantly loosing paperwork (I think it's just to delay payment) or just denying the claim even though they have paid the exact same claim in the past. I'm fighting them right now over a reduction in the amount of insulin my daughter gets for her Type 1 diabetes. They said they reduced the quantity so she will use less for her own safety. Then of course they tell you on another piece of paper to follow your doctors orders which they have now made impossible by reducing the insulin she can get. (For those unfamilier with Type 1 diabetes you don't decide how much insulin you need, your body does. It's not a disease where you "take two" in the morning.) It's probably a mistake but pharmaceutical's (90 day mail supplier) dispensing life saving medications should not make these kind of mistakes. Someone who follows their directions could get very ill or die.
If we don't use it for what it was meant to be, why even bother having a union in the first place?
Aren't there petitions and movements in states that want to leave the Union? There is a movement here from downstate IL to separate itself from the Chicago area. Recently, a handful of cities in Cook County floated the idea of joining the next county over, to escape Cook County/Chicago's higher tax rate.
If Progressives are so eager to support "We The People", then they should be the first ones to support those people who want to leave. The main reason those movements to break apart a state fail is because of opposition from the major cities - the blue parts of the state.
I've said this before, but if Conservatives really are brainwashed Koch-brother zombies, and this is all some plan by the elites to divide and conquer us, then it seems like their job is almost done. Will there come a point when Progressives / The Occupy Movement / The protesters who claim to represent the 99% / etc... give up? Admit defeat and move on? Does my analogy of the Japanese solider, marooned on an island for 30 years, only to discover the war was lost a long time ago, make sense?
That being said, there are legitimate roles for the Federal government to play. National defense is the obvious one. Printing money, settling disputes between states, regulating air traffic and highways. All good things.
I'm being a little over-the-top tonight. I am sorry. I'm frustrated at something else (I can't find something I need for class tomorrow, and I'm going to have to buy another one. I hate when that happens. I know it's in this house somewhere.)
I will admit that you do make some good points. I will also admit that, thanks to my few days on here, I've had to pull out and refer to my Catechism a few times.
Quote ChicagoMatt:Even if there is some evil elitist conspiracy to control everything and everyone - apparently I've been selected to be one of the ones that they placate with a decent life.
ChicagoMatt ~ You and me both. The only difference is that I find it hard to enjoy that so called decent life when aware of so many other fine people around me who are being screwed into a lifetime of hardship. Unlike you, I live the teaching that "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me." For me to be able to enjoy my privilege, justice and fairness must first reign for all.
You mean it's your undeveloped social side due to your isolation because you bought into the right wing myth of the isolated individual, `a la Robinson Crusoe.
Perhaps. I literally get uncomfortable around my peers. I don't know what to say, don't know what I should be doing with my hands, affraid I'll do something embarassing, etc... I'm MUCH more comfortable in front of students. I always figured it had something to do with growing up as part of the Internet generation. I like being able to see my thoughts on the screen before I send them out into the world, which you can't do when just conversing with people.
On a lighter note, I think my height also has something to do with it, particularly when talking to women. It's hard, if you're a foot taller than most people, to look down at them and NOT look like you're looking down their shirt, particularly now with the warmer weather and the plunging necklines. I have an irrational fear of offending someone that way. So I do my best to avoid the situation.
Quote ChicagoMatt:If the people of Massachusettes wanted their version of the ACA, that's their problem. (State's Rights argument.) If the really Blue states want to go single payer, and the really red states want to keep the status quo, why does the Federal government have to get involved? Wouldn't the most possible people be pleased by doing things like this at the local level?
ChicagoMatt ~ "Most possible people?" Yeah! I'm sure African American Slaves would have loved to wait for their state to realize that slavery was wrong and set them free. What ever happened to "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers that you do unto me" mentality. Or is that just for show when you show up to pretend to pray in your Church/Cult?
The fact of the matter is the federal government is the most efficient and productive way for We the People to look out for those treated as the least amongst us to afford them the same rights and human dignity that make the United States the potential utopia that most of its citizens aspire for it to be. If we don't use it for what it was meant to be, why even bother having a union in the first place?
There's a reason our forefathers were so adamant about keeping church & state separate.
The majority opinion in the case (I believe written by Kennedy) pointed out that the Founding Fathers hired someone to do an invocation over their meeting just two days after drafting the first amendment. They clearly didn't think it crossed the line.
Government endorsed prayer makes all who believe otherwise second class citizens in however small a way. Although it may not be that small.
There is a difference between "endorsed" and "allowed" or "tolerated". The Supreme Court case was very clear that you can't be preachy or put anyone else down. All that is required is tolerance, like adults should be able to do.
It is entirely possible that one day the rich will be able to genetically modify themselves and their offspring to some sort of physical perfection. And, since something like that would presumably take a long time to become affordable to the masses, the rich would have a head start on everyone else.
I just finished teaching "The Time Machine". If you know that novella, you know where this is going....
They put politics before the well being of the nation always.
Calling out politicians on putting politics first seems like pointing out the obvious. I think Republicans just assume that all politicians are in it for themselves, from both sides of the aisle, so at least vote for the politician that promises a smaller government. Kind of a "lesser of two evils" mindset. There is no "good" in it at all.
ACA, for example, was a Republican - Mitt Romney's, Richard Nixon's, the Heritage Foundation's - plan. Infrastructure jobs\stimulus programs were implemented on a grand scale by Eisenhouer.
If the people of Massachusettes wanted their version of the ACA, that's their problem. (State's Rights argument.) If the really Blue states want to go single payer, and the really red states want to keep the status quo, why does the Federal government have to get involved? Wouldn't the most possible people be pleased by doing things like this at the local level?
Or, another way of looking at it - even if this law was good for the citizens of, say, Mississippi, wouldn't the fact that it originated in Washington lead to resentment and people fighting against it?
It makes me think of something I heard during some protests by students in Iran a few years back. They interviewed an Iranian student, and he said that even though the US had the resources to help them achieve their goals, once they saw those American jets over their airspace, they would hate it.
You have to remember the huge parts of this country - the "brainwashed masses" as some Progressive claim - HATE Washington and anything that originates there, no matter how beneficial it might be for them.
That is the world you were born into. We are trying to change the world (actually just the US) to the one we were born into.
Fair enough. But do you see how, if this world I was born into has been fairly good to me, I might not want it to change? Even if there is some evil elitist conspiracy to control everything and everyone - apparently I've been selected to be one of the ones that they placate with a decent life.
Alice, I hope I'm not offending you. I don't mean anything to be taken personally. I thought I was making some good points. But yes, we do seem to be going in circles. I'm not here to change anyone's mind, because we all know that's not going to happen.
What about if 80,000 plus people show up for a rally like that in North Carolina for Moral Mondays and no media shows up? What if 200 tea partiers show up and all the media is there? What does that mean?
I did see a story about the Moral Mondays thing. I think it was on either Dateline or 20/20. I did not see any wide shots of the crowd. But I don't doubt it was that big. When the media shows up for a Tea Party rally, when it's the national media at least, it seems to me that they show up to mock it, just like they do Sarah Palin.
That's actually true. Well, not to keep the government from functioning, but to keep the government from making any radical changes. It still needs to "function". But we would probably disagree on what it means to "function" when it comes to the government.
That's why I dislike when reporters use the term "least productive" or "do nothing" Congress with a negative tone. For people who aren't disgruntled with the way things are going for them, government doing nothing is actually a good thing.
Their purpose is to keep government from functioning and implementation of simple, common sense solutions to problems. They put politics before the well being of the nation always. They know most people aren't aware that the executive branch is less powerful than Congress and rightly think that everyone will fallaciously blame the president for everything that happens so they don't want him getting any credit for any solutions. ACA, for example, was a Republican - Mitt Romney's, Richard Nixon's, the Heritage Foundation's - plan. Infrastructure jobs\stimulus programs were implemented on a grand scale by Eisenhouer.
There is a long tradition of this in the Republican Party. In 1994, for example, the Republican National Committee issued a warning to all Republican members of Congress that they were to vote against Bill Clinton's "midnight basketball" crime bill or they would be denied any RNC funds in the coming election. Thus all Republican lawmakers, then as now, vote in lockstep according to instructions from the party leadership. Their purpose then was identified as not allowing a good idea by Bill Clinton or the Democrats to get through because they didn't want him or Democrats to get credit for any good ideas.
Another example of political leanings being based on experience. Every time I've had to "deal with" my insurance company, it's been fairly simple. I give a copay at the doctor, and a few months later I get a bill for the post-insurance difference. They do all of the work.
But I'm also relatively young and haven't had any true emergencies.
The only slight hiccup I've had with insurance was due to my own ignorance/confusion about how to add a new child to my insurance. Turns out it's done automatically. I waited on the phone for about 10 minutes to find that out.
Your insurance, I presume, is from your employer as part of your compensation and not badly affected by the ACA. A single payer system would be very beneficial to American employers and American business in general enabling them to compete with foreign counterparts. It would've, for example, made the auto industry bail out of 2009 unnecessary.
whose only purpose for occupying those seats is keeping government from functioning at all.
That's actually true. Well, not to keep the government from functioning, but to keep the government from making any radical changes. It still needs to "function". But we would probably disagree on what it means to "function" when it comes to the government.
That's why I dislike when reporters use the term "least productive" or "do nothing" Congress with a negative tone. For people who aren't disgruntled with the way things are going for them, government doing nothing is actually a good thing.
A very well-thought-out and well-written article Thom, but you're kind of giving fire to the Republican mantra that "government can't do anything right" with your DMV story. During the debates about the ACA, the DMV (here we call it a Secretary of State's office) was used by right-wingers as an example of what government-run healthcare would be like. They would show long lines full of disgruntled people at the DMV, with captions like, "Imagine this was your doctor's office" or "are these the people you want in charge of your health"? I know they were being hyperbolic and ignoring the role that insurance companies play in healthcare, but it worked.
Imagine how many people would support single-payer healthcare if they had GOOD experiences at the DMV, one of the few places many Americans have direct contact with the government.
The only thing the government is doing wrong - in Texas and NC - is making it too hard to vote. Driver's liscences should be hard to get or they should be only for who can prove beyond reasonable doubt who they are but voting shouldn't be hard, the burden of proof should be on who is challenging the identity of the would be voter. Driving is a privilege for those proven competent to operate a potentially dangerous motor vehicle and knowledgeable of the rules of driving and without impairment, exclusivity is essential. Voting is the most basic of rights. Exclusivity in that aspect is detrimental to democracy.
The rare instances, a small handful nationwide in each election, in which voter fraud occurs, in which someone inelligible to vote attempts to vote or succeeds in voting, skew election results far less than barring the hundreds and thousands in each state from voting who have a legitimate right to vote other than they don't have an ID and found barriers to getting one too great. Voting is not like an Olympic Gold Medal, something that has to be earned by overcoming immense challenges - or something that has to be earned at all - it is a basic birthright of every American. To make it into something that can only be attained through great difficulty is to rob someone of that right.
If Republicans are not trying to deny people the right to vote but are only concerned about supposed voter fraud and about the true identities of those attempting to vote why are they against "Motor/Voter" laws where an individual is automatically registered to vote when they get a driver's liscence or state ID? Of coures, it's because they are trying to keep the voting population down.
When I was a Teamster in the '70s and in the Teamster reform movement we ran a slate of candidates in our local elections. Our crooked local officials always tried to keep the members from voting. They would schedule an election on a work day, publicize it only minimally, on notices for the election they wouldn't indicate the time, date or location the voting was to happen, etc.. They would do whatever they could to keep turnout as anemic as possible. Then their lackeys would all show up to vote and they would win. A similar goal seems to be being pursued by the Republicans with their strategies.
Thom's story was not about government inefficiency. If anything, some workers at the DMV were too efficient. Most Americans are, in fact, in favor of a single payer healthcare system. 85% of the citizens of Canada enthusiastically approve of their single payer system and prefer it to the system of the U.S. The only thing wrong with the ads our Republicans ran about government run healthcare was that they were based on falsehood..
Anyone whose has dealt with a health insurance company will want the government to take over every phase of their life.
Another example of political leanings being based on experience. Every time I've had to "deal with" my insurance company, it's been fairly simple. I give a copay at the doctor, and a few months later I get a bill for the post-insurance difference. They do all of the work.
But I'm also relatively young and haven't had any true emergencies.
The only slight hiccup I've had with insurance was due to my own ignorance/confusion about how to add a new child to my insurance. Turns out it's done automatically. I waited on the phone for about 10 minutes to find that out.
Thom, Canada's Conservative party (read neo-liberal) is copying the Republicans. Bringing in legislation, Bill C-23, to make it more difficult to vote and using the same propaganda as the reason for its being needed 'eliminate voter fraud'. Even though we have virtually no cases of voter fraud. Voter turnout results are the same here, a lower voter turn out improves the right's chances of winning. I don't know the current situation in the UK, but Thatcher (Reagan's good friend) tried the same thing there.
Matt says to Thom: "...you're kind of giving fire to the Republican mantra that 'government can't do anything right' with your DMV story." And I hate to burst your bubble, but Thom has done nothing of the sort. As a majority on this forum know full well, these tea-brained little fascists have seen to it our Congress is full of their recruits, whose only purpose for occupying those seats is keeping government from functioning at all. - Aliceinwonderland
OK Chuck, that might well be true. I've no reason to doubt it. As many on this forum are aware, the version of American history we were taught is pretty homogenized. But I still stand by everything I said in that first paragraph. - AIW
Chuck, I'm glad it's been fun for you. Not so much for me, however. I get very tired of debating in circles with someone who keeps repeating the same old talking points over and over again, that I've responded to already several times. Gets kinda boring after awhile... - AIW
Give it time. I would say that on 30% of the claims I have to call someone to get them straightened out. Of that once or twice a year it will take months, letters and multiple phone calls to get resolved. The insurance company is constantly loosing paperwork (I think it's just to delay payment) or just denying the claim even though they have paid the exact same claim in the past. I'm fighting them right now over a reduction in the amount of insulin my daughter gets for her Type 1 diabetes. They said they reduced the quantity so she will use less for her own safety. Then of course they tell you on another piece of paper to follow your doctors orders which they have now made impossible by reducing the insulin she can get. (For those unfamilier with Type 1 diabetes you don't decide how much insulin you need, your body does. It's not a disease where you "take two" in the morning.) It's probably a mistake but pharmaceutical's (90 day mail supplier) dispensing life saving medications should not make these kind of mistakes. Someone who follows their directions could get very ill or die.
Aren't there petitions and movements in states that want to leave the Union? There is a movement here from downstate IL to separate itself from the Chicago area. Recently, a handful of cities in Cook County floated the idea of joining the next county over, to escape Cook County/Chicago's higher tax rate.
If Progressives are so eager to support "We The People", then they should be the first ones to support those people who want to leave. The main reason those movements to break apart a state fail is because of opposition from the major cities - the blue parts of the state.
I've said this before, but if Conservatives really are brainwashed Koch-brother zombies, and this is all some plan by the elites to divide and conquer us, then it seems like their job is almost done. Will there come a point when Progressives / The Occupy Movement / The protesters who claim to represent the 99% / etc... give up? Admit defeat and move on? Does my analogy of the Japanese solider, marooned on an island for 30 years, only to discover the war was lost a long time ago, make sense?
That being said, there are legitimate roles for the Federal government to play. National defense is the obvious one. Printing money, settling disputes between states, regulating air traffic and highways. All good things.
I'm being a little over-the-top tonight. I am sorry. I'm frustrated at something else (I can't find something I need for class tomorrow, and I'm going to have to buy another one. I hate when that happens. I know it's in this house somewhere.)
I will admit that you do make some good points. I will also admit that, thanks to my few days on here, I've had to pull out and refer to my Catechism a few times.
They're not making "their" money on my nickle! I've bailed from that racket. There ARE alternatives. - AIW
ChicagoMatt ~ You and me both. The only difference is that I find it hard to enjoy that so called decent life when aware of so many other fine people around me who are being screwed into a lifetime of hardship. Unlike you, I live the teaching that "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me." For me to be able to enjoy my privilege, justice and fairness must first reign for all.
Printer companies follow the crack-dealer model. The first hit is cheap (the printer). It's when you come back that they make their money (the ink).
Perhaps. I literally get uncomfortable around my peers. I don't know what to say, don't know what I should be doing with my hands, affraid I'll do something embarassing, etc... I'm MUCH more comfortable in front of students. I always figured it had something to do with growing up as part of the Internet generation. I like being able to see my thoughts on the screen before I send them out into the world, which you can't do when just conversing with people.
On a lighter note, I think my height also has something to do with it, particularly when talking to women. It's hard, if you're a foot taller than most people, to look down at them and NOT look like you're looking down their shirt, particularly now with the warmer weather and the plunging necklines. I have an irrational fear of offending someone that way. So I do my best to avoid the situation.
ChicagoMatt ~ "Most possible people?" Yeah! I'm sure African American Slaves would have loved to wait for their state to realize that slavery was wrong and set them free. What ever happened to "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers that you do unto me" mentality. Or is that just for show when you show up to pretend to pray in your Church/Cult?
The fact of the matter is the federal government is the most efficient and productive way for We the People to look out for those treated as the least amongst us to afford them the same rights and human dignity that make the United States the potential utopia that most of its citizens aspire for it to be. If we don't use it for what it was meant to be, why even bother having a union in the first place?
The majority opinion in the case (I believe written by Kennedy) pointed out that the Founding Fathers hired someone to do an invocation over their meeting just two days after drafting the first amendment. They clearly didn't think it crossed the line.
There is a difference between "endorsed" and "allowed" or "tolerated". The Supreme Court case was very clear that you can't be preachy or put anyone else down. All that is required is tolerance, like adults should be able to do.
It is entirely possible that one day the rich will be able to genetically modify themselves and their offspring to some sort of physical perfection. And, since something like that would presumably take a long time to become affordable to the masses, the rich would have a head start on everyone else.
I just finished teaching "The Time Machine". If you know that novella, you know where this is going....
Calling out politicians on putting politics first seems like pointing out the obvious. I think Republicans just assume that all politicians are in it for themselves, from both sides of the aisle, so at least vote for the politician that promises a smaller government. Kind of a "lesser of two evils" mindset. There is no "good" in it at all.
If the people of Massachusettes wanted their version of the ACA, that's their problem. (State's Rights argument.) If the really Blue states want to go single payer, and the really red states want to keep the status quo, why does the Federal government have to get involved? Wouldn't the most possible people be pleased by doing things like this at the local level?
Or, another way of looking at it - even if this law was good for the citizens of, say, Mississippi, wouldn't the fact that it originated in Washington lead to resentment and people fighting against it?
It makes me think of something I heard during some protests by students in Iran a few years back. They interviewed an Iranian student, and he said that even though the US had the resources to help them achieve their goals, once they saw those American jets over their airspace, they would hate it.
You have to remember the huge parts of this country - the "brainwashed masses" as some Progressive claim - HATE Washington and anything that originates there, no matter how beneficial it might be for them.
Alice, I hope I'm not offending you. I don't mean anything to be taken personally. I thought I was making some good points. But yes, we do seem to be going in circles. I'm not here to change anyone's mind, because we all know that's not going to happen.
I did see a story about the Moral Mondays thing. I think it was on either Dateline or 20/20. I did not see any wide shots of the crowd. But I don't doubt it was that big. When the media shows up for a Tea Party rally, when it's the national media at least, it seems to me that they show up to mock it, just like they do Sarah Palin.
Government endorsed prayer makes all who believe otherwise second class citizens in however small a way. Although it may not be that small.
Their purpose is to keep government from functioning and implementation of simple, common sense solutions to problems. They put politics before the well being of the nation always. They know most people aren't aware that the executive branch is less powerful than Congress and rightly think that everyone will fallaciously blame the president for everything that happens so they don't want him getting any credit for any solutions. ACA, for example, was a Republican - Mitt Romney's, Richard Nixon's, the Heritage Foundation's - plan. Infrastructure jobs\stimulus programs were implemented on a grand scale by Eisenhouer.
There is a long tradition of this in the Republican Party. In 1994, for example, the Republican National Committee issued a warning to all Republican members of Congress that they were to vote against Bill Clinton's "midnight basketball" crime bill or they would be denied any RNC funds in the coming election. Thus all Republican lawmakers, then as now, vote in lockstep according to instructions from the party leadership. Their purpose then was identified as not allowing a good idea by Bill Clinton or the Democrats to get through because they didn't want him or Democrats to get credit for any good ideas.
Your insurance, I presume, is from your employer as part of your compensation and not badly affected by the ACA. A single payer system would be very beneficial to American employers and American business in general enabling them to compete with foreign counterparts. It would've, for example, made the auto industry bail out of 2009 unnecessary.
That's actually true. Well, not to keep the government from functioning, but to keep the government from making any radical changes. It still needs to "function". But we would probably disagree on what it means to "function" when it comes to the government.
That's why I dislike when reporters use the term "least productive" or "do nothing" Congress with a negative tone. For people who aren't disgruntled with the way things are going for them, government doing nothing is actually a good thing.
The only thing the government is doing wrong - in Texas and NC - is making it too hard to vote. Driver's liscences should be hard to get or they should be only for who can prove beyond reasonable doubt who they are but voting shouldn't be hard, the burden of proof should be on who is challenging the identity of the would be voter. Driving is a privilege for those proven competent to operate a potentially dangerous motor vehicle and knowledgeable of the rules of driving and without impairment, exclusivity is essential. Voting is the most basic of rights. Exclusivity in that aspect is detrimental to democracy.
The rare instances, a small handful nationwide in each election, in which voter fraud occurs, in which someone inelligible to vote attempts to vote or succeeds in voting, skew election results far less than barring the hundreds and thousands in each state from voting who have a legitimate right to vote other than they don't have an ID and found barriers to getting one too great. Voting is not like an Olympic Gold Medal, something that has to be earned by overcoming immense challenges - or something that has to be earned at all - it is a basic birthright of every American. To make it into something that can only be attained through great difficulty is to rob someone of that right.
If Republicans are not trying to deny people the right to vote but are only concerned about supposed voter fraud and about the true identities of those attempting to vote why are they against "Motor/Voter" laws where an individual is automatically registered to vote when they get a driver's liscence or state ID? Of coures, it's because they are trying to keep the voting population down.
When I was a Teamster in the '70s and in the Teamster reform movement we ran a slate of candidates in our local elections. Our crooked local officials always tried to keep the members from voting. They would schedule an election on a work day, publicize it only minimally, on notices for the election they wouldn't indicate the time, date or location the voting was to happen, etc.. They would do whatever they could to keep turnout as anemic as possible. Then their lackeys would all show up to vote and they would win. A similar goal seems to be being pursued by the Republicans with their strategies.
Thom's story was not about government inefficiency. If anything, some workers at the DMV were too efficient. Most Americans are, in fact, in favor of a single payer healthcare system. 85% of the citizens of Canada enthusiastically approve of their single payer system and prefer it to the system of the U.S. The only thing wrong with the ads our Republicans ran about government run healthcare was that they were based on falsehood..
But I'm also relatively young and haven't had any true emergencies.
The only slight hiccup I've had with insurance was due to my own ignorance/confusion about how to add a new child to my insurance. Turns out it's done automatically. I waited on the phone for about 10 minutes to find that out.
Thom, Canada's Conservative party (read neo-liberal) is copying the Republicans. Bringing in legislation, Bill C-23, to make it more difficult to vote and using the same propaganda as the reason for its being needed 'eliminate voter fraud'. Even though we have virtually no cases of voter fraud. Voter turnout results are the same here, a lower voter turn out improves the right's chances of winning. I don't know the current situation in the UK, but Thatcher (Reagan's good friend) tried the same thing there.
Matt says to Thom: "...you're kind of giving fire to the Republican mantra that 'government can't do anything right' with your DMV story." And I hate to burst your bubble, but Thom has done nothing of the sort. As a majority on this forum know full well, these tea-brained little fascists have seen to it our Congress is full of their recruits, whose only purpose for occupying those seats is keeping government from functioning at all. - Aliceinwonderland
Should have brought a dozen donuts the first time :)
OK Chuck, that might well be true. I've no reason to doubt it. As many on this forum are aware, the version of American history we were taught is pretty homogenized. But I still stand by everything I said in that first paragraph. - AIW
Chuck, I'm glad it's been fun for you. Not so much for me, however. I get very tired of debating in circles with someone who keeps repeating the same old talking points over and over again, that I've responded to already several times. Gets kinda boring after awhile... - AIW