forced insurance

Republicans in the Senate on Thursday unveiled their plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act — also known as Obamacare. The long-awaited plan marks a big step towards achieving one of the Republican party’s major goals.

The Senate proposal is broadly similar to the bill passed by House Republicans last month, with a few notable differences. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has been criticized for drafting the bill in secret with just a dozen Republican Senate colleagues, says the proposal — which he calls a discussion draft — will stabilize insurance markets, strengthen Medicaid and cut costs to consumers.

“We agreed on the need to free Americans from Obamacare’s mandates. And policies contained in the discussion draft will repeal the individual mandates so Americans are no longer forced to buy insurance they don’t need or can’t afford,” McConnell said.

The plan gets rid of those mandates. Instead, it entices people to voluntarily buy a policy by offering them tax credits based on age and income to help pay premiums.

CHART: Who Wins, Who Loses With Senate Health Care Bill

Graphic: NPR

Here’s What GOP Bill Would (And Wouldn’t) Change For Women’s Health Care - NPR

The republican war on women continues unabated into its 6th decade. When will republican women ever learn? What empathy genes of republican women are mutated.

The Affordable Care Act changed women’s health care in some big ways: It stopped insurance companies from charging women extra, forced insurers to cover maternity care and contraceptives and allowed many women to get those contraceptives (as well as a variety of preventive services, like Pap smears and mammograms) at zero cost.

Now Republicans have the opportunity to repeal that law, also known as Obamacare. But not all will be lost, at least not yet, as not all Obamacare gains will go away. 

The Affordable Care Act changed women’s health care in some big ways: It stopped insurance companies from charging women extra, forced insurers to cover maternity care and contraceptives and allowed many women to get those contraceptives (as well as a variety of preventive services, like Pap smears and mammograms) at zero cost.

Now Republicans have the opportunity to repeal that law, also known as Obamacare. But that doesn’t mean all those things will go away. In fact, many will remain.

Confused? Here’s a rundown of what we know so far.

Here’s What GOP Bill Would (And Wouldn’t) Change For Women’s Heath Care

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

An Internist's Perspective - Why RepubliCare is Scary

People often forget that “ObamaCare” has a real name. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) often gets demonized by people referring to it as “ObamaCare” or even as the “Affordable Care Act”.

They neglect, what I as a physician, feel is the most profound part of the bill - the PATIENT PROTECTION part. The PPACA established critical and innovative standards, forcing our insurance system to be accountable to patients. I’ll be the first to admit the health exchanges were not entirely successful and that there is lots of work to be done in that realm. However, focusing on the failure of the health exchanges delegitimizes the astounding protections the PPACA has created for patients.

For the first time, insurance companies were required to adhere to essential health benefits. For the first time, all health plans had to offer a critical number of services including women’s health screenings, mental health services, addiction services and more.

Furthermore, the PPACA, through placing actuarial value on different health plans, standardized what percentage of a patient’s care each insurance plan had to pay for. For example, if you paid your monthly premiums, your insurance company couldn’t also force you to pay more than 30% of the cost of the medical bill through high deductibles and copays.

RepubliCare’s goal is to slowly chisel away all these protections. Let’s forget the defunding of Planned Parenthood, a proposal so outlandish it warrants its own thesis. RepubliCare isn’t just bad for women, it’s bad for ALL patients.

While RepubliCare claims it keeps essential health benefits in place, the truth is more sinister. The proposed GOP bill would repeal the “actuarial value” placed on insurance plans by the PPACA. This means that a plan could theoretically meet all the essential health benefits required by the ACA, but then if you get your substance abuse treatment at your local clinic, your insurance company could decide to make you pay for 90% of it out of pocket.

Under the PPACA, the Medicaid expansion allowed millions of low income Americans to access insurance and care for the first time. RepubliCare strikes against that expansion, aiming to roll it back, and also roll back how much money the federal government gives to states to cover Medicaid expenses. Currently in the US, more than 70 MILLION people rely on Medicaid for essential health services.

These are OUR patients. These are the sick and the vulnerable. these are the people who need and deserve access to care. We, as a system, lose if we fail to provide essential primary care services to those who need it.

Yes, our system is broken. No, repealing taxes and giving insurance companies more freedoms is not the answer.

reuters.com
Trump may halt insurer payments to force Democrats to table on healthcare
U.S. President Donald Trump told The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday that he might consider withholding billions of dollars of Obamacare payments to health insurers to force Democrats back to the negotiating table on healthcare.

U.S. President Donald Trump told The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday that he might consider withholding billions of dollars of Obamacare payments to health insurers to force Democrats back to the negotiating table on healthcare.

Insurers and major medical groups have warned that not funding the payments, called cost-sharing reduction subsidies, which help cover out-of-pocket medical expenses for low-income Americans, could wreak havoc in the individual insurance markets. Trump told The Wall Street Journal that by withholding the payments, Democrats will call him to negotiate.

…yeah, not only is this wrong for purposefully sabatoging the health insurance markets, thereby inevitably screwing people over, it’s also stupid politics:

1) Any agreement you’re gonna make with Democrats is probably gonna get Republicans mad at you. Do you really think you’re gonna get enough Democrats on board to make up the loss Republicans?

2) When you’re President, you get the blame for everything. If shit implodes, it’s gonna be on you, especially since you got a majority party in control and even attempted a bill and failed.

anonymous asked:

I'm the guy with the insurance and migraine question, I use goodrx for my T so if it came to that I'd mostly be okay. I wound up going and the nurse said since the migraines were documented b4 so they wouldn't file them as a side effect. Sadly we haven't found a med that works. On the ACA thing, a federal judge out of Texas said forcing insurance company's to cover trans people was against freedom of religion. Mostly because the suit filers combined gender change and abortion coverages. ~D

Ohhhh Texas 😓
Well, at least there’s some good news. And I hope you find something that actually works For you soon!!

T

2

November 29th 1781: Zong massacre

On this day in 1781, hundreds of captured Africans were killed aboard the British slave ship Zong. The ship had left the African coast on September 6th carrying 470 slaves, which was far more than the ship could accommodate, but Captain Luke Collingwood insisted on taking more people to maximise his profits from selling them as slaves. The horrific, cramped conditions aboard the ship led to rapidly spreading disease and malnutrition, which claimed the lives of fifty slaves and seventeen crew members. In order to prevent further deaths and to allow himself to collect insurance money on the lost slave property, Collingwood decided to throw 132 sick and dying captives overboard, beginning on November 29th. Ten of the kidnapped Africans threw themselves to their deaths in an act of defiance against Collingwood’s barbarity. Upon the Zong’s arrival in Jamaica, the ship’s owner filed an insurance claim of £4,000 for the loss of the human cargo, asserting that the ship lacked the water supplies to sustain the full crew and captives. This claim was refuted, however, as it was soon discovered that the ship had 420 gallons of water aboard. Despite the weakness of the ship owner’s claim, a Jamaican court in 1782 ruled in their favour, forcing the insurers to pay out. The insurers appealed the court’s decision, and the ensuing legal battle soon acquired a moral element, as it enflamed the growing abolitionist movement in Great Britain. The high publicity around the case, and the fact that abolitionists like Olaudah Equiano and Granville Sharp used it to further the anti-slavery cause, led to a second trial in Britain ruling in favour of the insurers. However, prevailing inhumane attitudes towards the plight of the kidnapped Africans prevented criminal charges from being brought against those responsible for the massacre. Britain’s Solicitor General flippantly rebuffed the case, claiming that as slaves are legal property, the incident is akin to as if wood had been thrown overboard. The tragic deaths of hundreds of captured Africans, and the injustice of their murderers’ reprieve, did, however, strengthen the abolitionist movement. The Zong massacre provides one the darkest symbols of the horrific Middle Passage, and paved the way for the eventual abolition of slavery across the British Empire in 1833.

Gynecomastia=What Many Trans Men Have

It’s nothing but discrimination that the medical industry handles cases of gynecomastia in cis men which requires surgery, and the results of estrogen-fueled puberty in trans men which requires surgery, as different from each other.

Surgeons won’t code trans men’s double mastectomies as gynecomastia. Dr. Medalie claims it’s insurance fraud, on his website. Why?

The practical reality of it is the same. Both the trans and the cis men  experience a sense of anxiety, discontent, dissatisfaction, with their chests and both of them have a medical necessity to surgically alter their chests. Why is whatever caused their chest development even part of the discussion?

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think cancer patients are forced to use different insurance codes based on varying factors that caused their cancer. I don’t think there’s any other medical issues that work this way. I could be wrong. But it reeks of discrimination.

And even if it’s not, the fact that most insurance companies don’t recognize trans healthcare as a medical necessity, is discrimination either way.

anonymous asked:

What would you say did Obama do wrong?

The fact that drone strikes have exponentially increased since he took office; which were estimated to kill 50 normal civilians per suspected terrorist. The Obama administration had a pattern of blocking any investigation having to do with the lawfulness of his drone program too.

He also renewed the patriot act.

He signed the National Defense Authorization Act (which includes the indefinite detention clause) which refuses a person’s right to due process. Basically if someone is suspected of being associated with groups that are hostile to the U.S, they aren’t allowed to contest those allegations made against them because under the NDAA they have no right to know about those allegations.

His administration has doubled down on adding federal regulations which not only raise the cost of doing business, they take away from consumers’ pockets and disproportionally affect the lower class.

His spending/addition to the federal debt.

He lied about Americans being able to keep their health insurance even after Obamacare was passed. Many people who had individual health insurance were forced to cancel theirs, sometimes even paying more as a result of their replacement insurance. There are a lot of bad sides to Obamacare that some people don’t want to acknowledge such as hours being cut for employees, healthcare premiums going up, and being fined for not having insurance or an exemption. He’s made a lot of unilateral changes to Obamacare without consulting congress too.

The Iran Nuclear deal.

Obama and his administration have a record of scrubbing records of people with terrorist ties. One of his former DHS employees admitted that he was forced to modify or even delete records of individuals that were tied to Muslim terrorist groups.

Those are the ones I can think of at the top of my head. 

  • Anarchy is peace- getting along in your daily lives without killing anyone or anyone forcing you to do anything. People helping each other after a disaster, or any collaborative effort. Chaos is authoritarian- War, bombs, weaponized drones, and cops in riot gear gassing, pepper spraying, beating and arresting peaceful protesters. Giving bicycle riders traffic tickets, but allowing cancer causing diesel trucks with 0 emission standards. Cops using the bike lane as a parking lot. Police being the new kkk, Forcing everyone to get insurance for hyper inflated gouging medical prices.
huffingtonpost.com
New healthcare rule would ban anti-trans discrimination in health insurance
The Obama administration is making a major push for transgender rights by prohibiting health insurance companies and medical providers from discriminating against patients because of their gender identities.

The availability and quality of transgender-related healthcare might soon be changing for the better, thank to a possible new Obamacare rule. 

Under a newly proposed regulation from the Department of Health and Human Services, health insurance providers would no longer be allowed to exclude transition-related care from their plans. In addition, trans people would have the right to make civil rights claims against healthcare providers who denied them coverage or care because they’re trans. 

The new rules don’t force insurers to cover any specific treatment – including gender confirmation surgery – but do require them to demonstrate their coverage policies aren’t designed to discriminate against people because of their gender identity. For example, insurers and medical providers wouldn’t be allowed to refuse ovarian cancer treatments to a patient who identifies as a man. The rules also provide patients a legal recourse if they believe they aren’t being treated equally.

These stronger protections for transgender people apply to all federal health programs operated by the Department of Health and Human Services, such as Medicare and Medicaid; all insurance companies that sell policies on the Obamacare exchanges or cover Medicare or Medicaid patients; and any hospital or doctor who receives payments for treating Medicare and Medicaid patients.

Healthcare is a human right, and that includes healthcare related to identity, gender and transition. Let’s get this done. 

dannygflash20  asked:

I'm voting for Bernie, but i mean if Hillary wins the nomination I'm still voting for her. Idk I'm just finding a lot of Bernie supporters trashing her but i mean she's still way better for America than anyone on the right. She has flaws but I don't think we should act like she would be a disaster. I think she would be a lot like Obama is now.

Well, I guess I disagree with you on this one. It’s not so much that Hillary Clinton is terrible, but I personally really dislike voting out of fear of the Republicans as opposed to voting for a candidate who has a comprehensive message I believe in. She has flaws, serious flaws in both policy and character. When I look at her policies I see a watered down version of Obama and when I look at Obama’s policies I see a watered down version of what American left leaning politics should be. 

Take Obamacare for example, 17 million people have insurance now and we can no longer discriminate based on “pre-existing conditions”. That is meaningful progress. What’s unfortunate is that progress came in the form of legislation that forces Americans to buy health insurance. It forces American’s to buy private health insurance. There are a lot of ways to justify that on paper, but it’s a lot harder to justify it to a family who makes $30,000 a year and just took on $5K a year bill they didn’t have before. It’s a lot harder to justify to a retiree who has their co-pays double. Combine that with the fact that the Obama administration let health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and other interests help write the legislation, it just starts to look a lot worse than it might otherwise. (Not saying there aren’t legitimate reasons for everything above, but at the same time, we still pay more for health care than any industrialized nation, and if you ask me it’s simply because our health care flows through private channels which take profit off the top).

This is just one example of the federal governments continued insistence on putting the interests of corporate America over the interests of the American people. I’m not even getting into her foreign policy, which I think is a continuation of interventionist policy which created ISIS and will only lead to more destabilization in the region. Bernie Sanders has long been against American intervention in the Middle East and I think if we had listened to him the problems we face today would be much smaller. Just go look at Hillary Clinton’s “take down Assad and ISIS, establish a no fly zone, and get safe zones in Syria for refugees”. Compare that to Jeb Bushs’s policy and the only difference is Clinton uses the buzzword “broad coalition” when talking foreign policy and Bush uses the buzzword “American leadership”. 

Hillary Clinton made more money from 12 speeches on Wall St. than most Americans make in their lifetimes. Her largest campaign contributions are from big banks and major corporations, she has a Super Pac, the media favors her heavily, and the Democratic Party establishment is doing whatever they can to support her. I simply don’t trust she will provide meaningful change, I don’t even trust that she realizes how necessary meaningful change really is. In my opinion the most interesting thing of the 2016 election is the Populist/Establishment divide. We have people like Donald Trump saying “hedge fund managers need to be taxed more, our trade deals are a disaster and killing our jobs, citizens united is a joke, and we should have never been in the Middle East”. Those are all positions held by Bernie Sanders, but opposed by establishment politicians on both sides. Donald Trump’s populism comes with a lot of stupid policy and dangerous race baiting, sexism, and dangerous rhetoric. It just shows how divided this country is and that Americans need real solutions before it gets worse.

I think Bernie Sanders, far more than Hillary Clinton, represents those real solutions. Hillary Clinton represents the Democratic party establishment, which in my opinion is not much different than the Republican party establishment. There are key social issues used to divide us, such as abortion, and Hillary is certainly better on guns, immigration, and various other areas of policy. That said, I really truly do believe that she is SIGNIFICANTLY worse than Obama. She’s a bought and sold politician like many others and while it wouldn’t be the end of the world if she were elected, I don’t think Americans would get the solutions to the systemic problems we so desperately need solutions to. Throw in the fact that these problems are only getting worse and some of them have an expiration date on meaningful progress and Bernie just looks that much more appealing. 

I just want to be clear, I don’t trash Hillary because I simply want Bernie Sanders to win. I do want Bernie to win, but a big reason for that is because I don’t agree with Clinton values or the direction I think she would take this country. I also don’t think the Independent Senator from Vermont chose to challenge Hillary Clinton just because he wanted to be president, he knows America needs something more than establishment politics will provide. Those are my genuine beliefs and I hope these few paragraphs justified them to an extent.


5

On Oct, 29th, 2015, my band Right Lane Ends had about $10,000 worth of musical equipment stolen out of the back of my truck. The thieves were apparently able to pick the lock of my camper shell, and closed it again leaving no sign of forced entry- thus my insurance company can’t do anything. To anyone out there reading this, please keep an eye on Portland, Oregon (or anywhere near) craigslist, eBay and anywhere else you can think of for:

Mesa Boogie Transatlantic TA-80 combo tube amp (pic 2)

Drums from the Tama Swingstar Kit (black with clear tops and red badges) (pic 3)

Boss pedal board with DigiTech Whammy Gen 5, Morley Bad Horsie II Wah, Boss Flanger, and Boss DD-7 Delay (pic 3)

Boss ME-50B Bass multi effects unit, blue (not pictured)

Ampeg BA-115 bass amp (not pictured, missing a knob, power cable is damaged at the input)

PRS Custom 24 SE guitar with a chip in the paint on the headstock (pic 4)

Fender Stratocaster guitar- Japanese make with a single humbucker pickup and silver locking tuning pegs covered in stickers (pic 5)

Thank you everyone currently helping us and those kind Samaritans who want to help some stranger’s indie prog rock band out. We wish we could offer more in return, but all we have right now is our old ep at rightlaneends.bandcamp.com, which is free to download. The police told me that anyone trying to sell our gear at a local pawn shop would be refused for 30 days while the shop determines whether it’s been stolen or not, so we have at least that long to catch them in town. Thank you. Please reblog this like crazy until then.

skysquids  asked:

i see that you are declaring victory over the terfs - can i ask, is this in reference to anything specific? or just generally them being losers?

It is in reference to a whole host of things that have been happening over the last five years, combined with a simple truth.

Cynicism is surrender. It is the action of the defeated.

40 years of terf harm is coming to a close.

Trans military service is coming. Chelsea manning is likely going to be moved to get treatment because it would be unconstitutional not to treat a prisoner.

HHS is going to change the Medicare and Medicaid rules, which in turn will force insurance companies to do so. They also said that all treatment of trans people needs to be as the people they are.

EEOC and DOE clarified that sex discrimination applies to trans people at work and at school. Title IX applies to trans people, so the arguments they use create a hostile environment on college campuses.

Science continues to shoe them wrong at every single turn, and they think that just because trans people as a whole have a lot more to worry about than the latest ArchSexBeh issue as a whole that they are free to argue dishonestly.

The DSM is shifted, the ICD will make a massive change. The World Health Organization advocates for trans rights, the EU enforces it, even the CDC is making extra strong efforts in a way never before seen to make sure they record and monitor trans health respectfully.

Is there a lot do still? Oh hell yeah. But the TERFS, that tiny group of women who have hurt us worse and longer than any other group outside of cis men, they lost.

Their losing means that the religious right has lost, since all of those arguments are the same and come from the same source that popularized them.

There will be lots to do, but the framework that TERFS built to justify all the other stuff has collapsed under the weight of moral, ethical, scientific proof.

They lost. And trans folk should know that.

Trans folk should realize they don’t have to deal with them any more except as pathetic fringe extremists, like the other laggard groups who fought to keep denying human and civil rights to others.

They should know that the lies they tell and the tales they spread mean nothing anymore.

That all of it is people having tantrums about not being able to be dicks anymore.

The TERFS should have known, too.

They were being dicks.

And trans women often have a solution for dicks…

anonymous asked:

I hope that you would please address these concerns about your last HL post. 1. health insurance is employee compensation. It is up to the employer, however, to determine how they wish to compensate said employee. Simply stating it’s “employee compensation” doesn’t wash away the fact that the employer gets to determine how they wish to compensate the employee and the employee decides whether or not that is adequate enough for their needs.

(cont.) 2. Your second point seems to be poorly sourced. Where you get 40% I have no idea… In fact when I search for it the first article that pops up is yours where you explain that people “were promised”.. but doesn’t say who they were promised to or by and for what…

Yes, I got your question the first time you sent it. I’m a bit ticked that you are more concerned with getting me to explain myself than in re-reading the original post, but I’ll try to re-explain this as simply as possible for you.

First of all, yes, health insurance is part of an employee’s compensation. But when employers restrict access to birth control, they are not determining “how much” to compensate their employee, they are determining how that compensation is used.

An employer can decide to compensate their employees less by moving to a cheaper healthcare plan that requires their employees to pay more of their healthcare costs out-pocket. But employers would not be picking and choosing which benefits they will and will not pay for. They would simply be cutting their overall contribution to an employee’s healthcare. The Hobby Lobby decision allows for-profit companies to say that they are going to make a value judgement about a certain service and then interfere with the services the health insurer provides their employees.

Which brings me to those pesky numbers you’re so confused about. If you read my original post, I specifically said that I made up the 40% figure to illustrate a point about how those benefits operate. Since you didn’t understand my original illustration, I’ll make it even simpler for you.

Imagine you have a job where your employer compensates you with $100 a month (this isn’t a realistic figure, but I’m using 100 to make it easier to show percentages).

Your employer pays you $50 in cash. He then puts $10 in a retirement account you set up. Finally, he gives $40 to a health insurance company to provide health insurance. This is all part of YOUR compensation. The employer isn’t paying for health care out of the goodness of his heart, but because it is a benefit you earned. Employers pay this directly to the insurer on behalf of all of the employees to negotiate a lower rate for the entire group; that’s why they don’t simply give you the money as an additional part of your paycheck.

This works out fine for awhile. You use the paycheck to buy rent, food, and clothes. You need to buy allergy medicine and birth control every month, and sometimes you need to go to the doctor. Thankfully, your employer was able to negotiate a good group rate with the health insurance company, so you only pay about $10 out of pocket for co-pays and the like. 

But after the Hobby Lobby decision, your employer comes back to you and says, “Sorry, but we’ve told the health insurance company that they can no longer provide you with birth control. You’re going to have to pay for it yourself.”

You reply, “But I was paying for it myself! When I signed up, 40% of my overall compensation was going directly to the health insurer to pay for my birth control!”

Your employer replies, “Well, the Supreme Court says we get to control how that money is spent. We don’t like birth control, so we told the health insurer not to provide it. But we can’t control how you spend your paycheck, so you’ll just have to pay for it with that.”

You might ask, “Well, then can you give me some of that money back on my paycheck? Since you’re forcing the health insurer to refuse to provide me birth control, the value of my health insurance has gone down.” But of course, your employer will refuse.

And it’s not like you can pay for your birth control with your paycheck. You’re already spending it on rent, food, clothing, and for your co-pays for the health care your insurer can still provide. When you took the job, 40% of your overall compensation was going to be provided directly for health insurance. Now that compensation buys you less. Therefore, employees are being denied their fair compensation.

But here’s the kicker. It’s not actually about money, or about who pays for the birth control. It’s about control, and using any means necessary to prevent everybody from being able to use birth control.

Because at that point in our story, President Obama comes along. He tells businesses, “Don’t worry, I got this. We’ll just have the insurer pay for it themselves. None of the money you provide for an employee’s health care will go towards providing birth control.”

But the businesses don’t want this either. They go back to the Supreme Court arguing that the President’s accommodation still violates their religious beliefs. They refuse to even fill out the paperwork necessary for this accommodation, because it means that eventually their employees will be allowed to have access to birth control. They’re not even shy about their intentions anymore; Wheaton College wants to refuse to provide ALL forms of birth control.

So it’s not about compensation. It’s not about who pays for birth control. It’s about a few people using their religious beliefs and dubious legal reasoning to restrict access to birth control for millions.

This is called “Foodscaping”

In Geneva, Switzerland each yard is a food garden and neighbors consult and plan what each will grow so they can trade. Imagine if we did this in the US…

Though unfortunately Socialist, the Swiss are great examples of three things that history has proven can and has been accomplished by the most successful nations ever to exist whether or not they were Capitalist: they achieve a truly self-defensive agrarian society that is protected by a well-regulated militia rather than massive standing armies, and a great economy results from the first two.

An attractive fourth to many; successful national healthcare comes as a result of voluntary or paid militia service, not forced government health insurance.

In a future United States, even conscientious objectors could volunteer or do paid militia work growing nutritionally superior organic food, or work in the fields of manufacturing, medicine, information technology, etc. for the Constitutional militia and receive healthcare as just one beneficial result of their service. This would significantly help U.S. unemployment, poverty, hunger, health, and national security.

If the U.S. followed its own Constitution and returned to an agrarian society with a Militia of the Several States composed of local people who follow local authority as prescribed and whose chain of command goes from County Sheriff, to State Governor, to U.S. President (Navy persists with the Marines, with Air Force and all Special Forces being integrated into it–federal Naval forces balanced by the local Militia of the Several States) then we would be many times stronger as a nation, not as weak as we are today with our strength continuing to deteriorate in every way.

youtube

Marco Rubio: Reimpose Sanctions on Iran

1) Reimpose sanctions on Iran; give Mullahs a choice – have an economy or have a nuclear enrichment program, but not both

2) Insure forces in the Middle East are ready; rebuild our military

3) After imposing crippling sanctions, talks can begin on their human rights abuses, their support on terrorism, and threats on Israel

How free are you?

“You are so free that you’re no longer allowed to protest in most places without first getting prior approval.

You are so free that possession of the wrong plant will get you a hefty fine or time in jail.

You are so free that your children are not allowed to open up a lemonade stand without being harassed by police for lacking a permit.

You are so free that your interests mean far less than the interests of banks and corporations.

You are so free that it is a crime in some places to film the police.

You are so free that it is a crime in some places to film animal abuse taking place on factory farms due to so-called “ag-gag” laws spreading across the country.

You are so free that some states have made it illegal to feed homeless people.

You are so free that some states will fine you for growing too many vegetables on your own property due to zoning laws.

You are so free that you can now be detained without a trial, thanks to the NDAA.

You are so free that you (and any children you may have) can now be assassinated without a trial, as was the case with 16-year-old, Denver-born Abdulrahman al-Awlaki.

You are so free that you have little say in how many people are bombed across the world with your tax dollars.

You are so free that you will be subjected to legalized sexual harassment at airports thanks to the TSA.

You are so free that when government desires, it can send heavily-armed tanks and troops into your neighborhood, kick you and your family out of your home at gunpoint, and search your property without any kind of warrant, as witnessed after the Boston Marathon Bombing.

You are so free that you are now forced to purchase health insurance from the same corrupt health insurance corporations that have been screwing Americans for decades.

You are so free that your snail mail, phone calls, emails, and IMs are all being logged for future use against you. In fact, the NSA probably knows you just read this.

That’s how free you are! Be sure to keep all of this in mind today while you’re out there celebrating.”

Under Obamacare, higher premiums are just the beginning of your financial woes

So, at this point, the higher price tag of health insurance under Obamacare is indisputable.  The average cost of premiums have risen every year since the law was signed, and there’s no end in sight.  But the higher premiums are just the beginning of Obamacare’s headache.  What consumers are getting for their hard-earned cash is less coverage, higher co-pays, and smaller networks.

from New York Times:

The Affordable Care Act has ushered in an era of complex new health insurance products featuring legions of out-of-pocket coinsurance fees, high deductibles and narrow provider networks. Though commercial insurers had already begun to shift toward such policies, the health care law gave them added legitimacy and has vastly accelerated the trend, experts say.

The theory behind the policies is that patients should bear more financial risk so they will be more conscious and cautious about health care spending. But some experts say the new policies have also left many Americans scrambling to track expenses from a multitude of sources — such as separate deductibles for network and non-network care, or payments for drugs on an insurer’s ever-changing list of drugs that require high co-pays or are not covered at all.

For some, like Ms. Pineman, narrow networks can necessitate footing bills privately. For others, the constant changes in policy guidelines — annual shifts in what’s covered and what’s not, monthly shifts in which doctors are in and out of network — can produce surprise bills for services they assumed would be covered. For still others, the new fees are so confusing and unsupportable that they just avoid seeing doctors.

read the rest

The bottom line is that health care costs are growing and forcing everybody to buy insurance hasn’t solved that problem at all…it’s only made it worse.