I think Mike and Jeanne both were mistaken, and the majority of people don't "expect the town to handle it", most want to be left alone and their rights and personal budgets protected. I myself expect nothing from this town, nothing at all, not even roads. I have a life to live and don't want to spend it doing something I hate, which is dealing with government. The only dealings I have with government are when they intrude on my rights which government has banned and turned into a privilege now. Read the declaration of independance and see the purpose of government, it isn't what this town hall thinks it is that is for damn sure, they actually make the atrocities listed in the declaration look minor and tame.
And Mike Naughton, every word you write shows more or you tyrannical core values to the whole town. Thank you for that!
And Mike N, it is indisputable how your thought process were formed and I wish you would look outside your government blinders and honor freedom and liberty so maybe your kids and grand kids will be free someday instead of tax slaves like us. See the video below.
Yup everyone has to buy insurance under the law (or be covered by a public program), just like they have to pay into Medicare etc. Otherwise they get a "free ride" if they get sick. That's why it is called insurance... Healthy people pay in so that when they become sick people they get covered. And so there is enough money in the pot to cover other sick people.
And it is not free. They pay for it, not just you. And if they are low income there are subsidies, just as under the system before "Obamacare" but now it is extended to all low wage workers.
And yes you get to have an opinion. No one said you didn't of course.But you do seem a bit defensive for someone who feels entitled to call the health care law a "piece of crap" created by "suckarses" in Congress.
Yes I did read your post and I have no idea what you are talking about. You keep complaining that Congress voted for a national health plan (which you call "the crap") that does not apply to them. Well it does not apply to most people - over 85% of the population - who already have coverage. That includes the members of Congress. The plan is designed to extend coverage to those who do not have it. That's the whole point!
Well I am not sure I entirely agree that single payer is automatically more affordable for low income people just because it eliminates insurance.
The current national health care plan (and the Massachusetts plan it is based on) caps the cost of insurance for most low income people at a percentage of their income.. It does this through a system of subsidies. Single payer essentially does the same thing but eliminates the insurance industry. Your payments for health care are essentially a payroll tax..There is not a huge difference as the chief justice of the Supreme Court recently ruled.
Now the current system may in the end be more expensive for low income people than the single payer approach. It all depends on the financing. But single payer is not automatically affordable just because it eliminates insurance. We shall see what happens in Vermont., which is experimenting with single payer.
Also because single payer is essentially a flat tax that replaces EVERYONE'S insurance payments, you will get quite a few people who therefore pay more. It also, like the current national plan, imposes a mandate on business including small business. (Although I suspect a lot of large corporations would save money) Finally, it takes the biggest problem the government currently has - how to finance health care-and massively increases it.
So single payer, while again it has some huge pluses, hardly avoids the extreme complaints and attacks we have seen with "Obamacare.". Not saying this because I oppose single payer but I do feel it is often portrayed as a bit of a magic wand.
Single payer isn't perfect, but it eliminates the incentive for trying to shift the burden of paying onto someone else (because there is no "someone else"). People don't buy insurance, which eliminates the (I agree) hypothetical problem described in the article.
It does NOT solve all problems, or even all big problems -- most especially, the rising costs of health care or the increasing demand for more expensive care -- but it solves the problem of people not being able to afford health insurance, which is what the article was about.
"It (the new national health care law) still is putting the low end income folks in a bind." Well actually it is providing insurance for millions of them who did not have it.
"And yes it says some, BUT some is still too many. "Yes the policy has to be perfect or we should do nothing for the uninsured.
"Evidently you don't have to PAY for your insurance by the sounds." Huh?I'm on Medicare, pay monthly for some of part B, for some of prescription drug plan, there are deductibles and copays. Have been paying for private health insurance and into Medicare most of my life. It is a chunk of change for all of us.
" If the plan is so great why don't the folks that voted it in HAVE to have it?" Well actually they do. About 85 percent of the population keeps the coverage they have been getting in the past under "Obamacare."
"Because they say it is unfair to THEM. If that isn't a Suck BUTT what is?? " You got me there, man. Just saying,
Mark 2 Don't you know that the Golden One is the greatest thing since sliced bread. When it hits them where it hurts they MAY wake up. But I doubt it. Besides I don't like entering into an intelligent argument with unarmed folks. Which includes most of the folks on here. There is the right way, their way and the wrong way. Wonder how many are getting a free ride???????? IMHO ED
Rob: very good point. What these people call "Obamacare" has been in effect in Massachusetts since around 2008 and the world has not come to an end, although certainly there have been problems that need to be addressed.
There are certainly legitimate criticisms of the new national health care law, problems that need to be fixed. It would be nice to have a normal conversation about these issues But that is obviously impossible with the Fox News/Tea Party Crowd. The law which provides health coverage to millions of uninsured people, is just an excuse for more rhetoric. Any problem, real or imagined, becomes an opportunity for venting about "suck arses" in Washington.
I would point out the core of "Obamacare," the individual mandate, was originally proposed by a conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, as an alternative to the Clinton Health Care Plan (1993-94). It was initially supported mostly by Republicans like Newt Gingrich. It was first implemented in Massachusetts under a Republican Governor, Mitt Romney. Liberals like Obama did not initially support the individual mandate but endorsed the concept it in 2009 to get bipartisan support. But Republicans abruptly moved the goal posts and attacked it with the rhetoric we are seeing now on this cork board.
The vicious and means spirited attack on a relatively conservative national health proposal is a key reason for the growth of the tea party movement.
What is the problem with Obamacare here in Mass? We in Mass seem to have the not so watered down version of Obamacare and I don't see the business world in Mass shuttering their doors at a massive rate.
Obama care is a big expensive piece of crap. It was jammed down our throats and other areas. Time to wake up and realize your chosen one is a dip shit and out of control. And the ass clowns he's working with and in charge of in Washington don't have our collective best interest at heart. Just saying. Some people should just stay community organizers and not become president.
Jeff S. It still is putting the low end income folks in a bind. And yes it says some, BUT some is still too many. Evidently you don't have to PAY for your insurance by the sounds. If the plan is so great why don't the folks that voted it in HAVE to have it? Because they say it is unfair to THEM. If that isn't a Suck BUTT what is?? Gee my post is almost as long as yours...ED
"Yup. Obamacare shows some of its TRUE colors. What a piece of crap being forced on the poor folks again. Another reason to vote for Gomez. There are enough suck-arses in Washington already.. If you don't understand my post Read The Recorder today. "
What is this latest anti-government rant, of course brought to you courtesy of montaguema.net, all about?
Well I just read the article and all it says is that SOME employers required to offer coverage under the new national health care law MIGHT wind up offering "unaffordable" coverage for SOME people making $21,000 a year. According to Ron Polluck of Families USA, an advocacy group that lobbies for such people, "The new law is a big step in the right direction, but is not perfect."
Obviously there is a problem here that needs to be fixed but does it really warrant the rhetoric about the "suck arses" in Washington" forcing a "piece of crap" down the throats of poor people. And apparently this is a reason why we should vote for Gomez, the Senatorial candidate of the Grand Old Foam At the Mouth Against "Obamacare" Party.
And while we are at it, Mike Naughton: why is this an argument for single payer health care? I mean there are good things about single payer but it has negatives too and is hardly a magic wand that solves all problems.
Yup. Obamacare shows some of its TRUE colors. What a piece of crap being forced on the poor folks again. Another reason to vote for Gomez. There are enough suck-arses in Washington already.. If you don't understand my post Read The Recorder today. Just saying.. ED
I know a lot of people here in town who just won't come on this site to voice their opinions because (A) they feel it's a waste of time , (B) don't want to be attacked by a bunch of liberal name calling narrow minded people. So while you think the usuall liberal talking heads on this site have the pulse of the average joe tax payer in this town, think again. Birds of a feather will always flock together.
Mr. N It's too bad there are a number of folks on here that are no better than Mr. Bry. They would rather P&M than go vote or heaven forbid, run for town meeting member. It's so much EASIER to sit and blame every body else for their lack of REAL interest on what goes on in the 5 villages that make up your fine town.. Too bad actually.. No it's SAD... ED
I appreciate your efforts to clarify your thinking, but I'm still not getting it.
"... your first paragraph hints to that as government is pure force and coercion at gunpoint." Say what? I never said anything like that. Where did that come from?
"Did I say that the town has a right to tax? No I didn't." Well,what you said was, "Cut the property tax in half and no tax for job producing farms, watch property values skyrocket AND protect farmland!" If the town has no right to tax, why suggest cutting that tax in half -- why not just end it? And what's with this "protect farmland"? Who's "protecting" it? "Protecting" it from what? Under your system, I would have thought the farmer was protecting their own farmland, just as averyone else is protecting their own property. Is there some kind of collective protection going on here? Why single out farmers? Are they somehow more deserving of protection than industrialists? Or merchants? I'm really having trouble with the details here.
"Why does a good percentage of your writings to folks on here that you disagree with use straw man arguments rather that staying on point?" Umm ... is this a case of projection? ;-)
"The town has a second set of books with the assets listed that are on the bond market making money and not a dime goes to the town budget. The town is a for profit business/corporation and the CAFR returns go to bond investors." Please show me one shred of evidence that this is not hallucinatory nonsense.
"The town hall had no right enacting schemes by international organizations on a ballot here to vote on and are null and void to me." "Town hall" didn't do anything -- the voters, chosen by the citizens at large (those who cared enough to come to the polls) met at the high school and made the decisions. That sounds to me like the sort of democracy that you want, except you don't agree with their decisions. So what's going to happen in your little utopia of free people when (not if) people disagree? Especially when people agree at first, and commitments are made, and then people change their minds? I think that's one of the most basic flaws of your system -- you seem to think that people can opt in or out of any decisions affecting them on a minute-by-minute basis, but you could barely run a stone-age agrarian society that way, to say nothing of a modern society.
Enough. The way I see it, the plain fact is that we live in a town where if people care they can have a say in how things are run, and if they don't choose to make the effort then we can blame a lot of things but the real blame is the people themselves, because all the opportunities are there, but just because there are opportunities doesn't mean you don't have to make any effort to take advantage of them, just like almost everything else in life. You're living here, and nobody is holding a gun to your head to make you stay here, and you have the same opportunities as everyone else to get involved, but instead you choose to complain and suggest alternatives that don't make any sense to me. That's your choice, but you're not going to get me on board with what you've offered so far.