Skip to main content

Yesterday, I had a discussion with a friend who was very upset and angry about the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).  After a minute or so of listening to her rant, it was amply clear that she had no idea what the law actually included.  

Not wanting to go through summer listening to histrionic tirades about things that aren't even real -- e.g. Death Panels, I decided to respond instead of just letting it go.  

To my amazement, the approach I used worked!

I posted my best effort to capture the exchange as a comment, and per requests, here's a diary on it.

As she started in on how rotten Obamacare is ...  looked at her and said:

Well, I like it.  I am damn tired of subsidizing and paying for the free loaders who don't pay for insurance and just go to the ER when they get sick or hurt.  I say it's about time someone made those damn freeloaders pay their fair share instead of us paying higher premiums and higher taxes to cover their care.
That got a slack jawed look of confusion, so I followed it up with a list of the good stuff along the lines of:
Yeah, you and I won't be affected at all ... oh, except for maybe getting a rebate check each August if the insurance company doesn't spend at least 80% of what we pay'em actually paying for medical care for us ... oh, and your son will get to stay on your coverage until he's 26, no pre-existing condition shit anymore, we can't get dumped anymore either if we get sick, no lifetime caps anymore ... good stuff like that.  It's just the damn freeloaders who can afford to pay but don't are finally going to have some personal responsibility.
As long as I kept using the phrase, "damn free-loaders being made to pay their fairshare,"  I was able to explain the real,main parts of the law!

We even got to the "death panels," and I explained that:

some idiot ... I think it was Palin ... started calling having living will discussion with your own doctor.  Originally, the law was trying to give us this kind of doctor's visit as a new benefit that would get covered (Iit isn't now - you have to pay for that kind of visit completely out-of-pocket) ... But NOOOO, that idiot started making out that it was some sort of crazy gov conspiracy Death Panel - scaring people with bizarre shit like the government is out to kill all our grandparents ...  So, unfortunately that benefit got left out.
On and on we went actually discussing the REAL aspects of the law.  Being able to change jobs without fear about losing your insurance, and we even covered that SHE would not be taxed to provide the subsidies ... It turned out to be a very nice conversation.  My friend went from being confused to flumoxed to nodding to angry, once again.  

Only, by the time we were done she wasn't angry at Obamacare; she was angry at Fox News, now, for being so misleading.  (I'm going to send her the research about how watching partisan news outlets alone can really mess with your head -- best to stay with a strong dose of NPR and The Daily Show.)

As Radiowalla  (HT) pointed out, Healthcare Freeloaders = welfare queens  ... I had just kind of desperately wanted to find some way into my friend's way of thinking and the damn healthcare freeloader phrase was like a key in a fraudulent lock that got forged long ago.

Another (HT) to Bensdad for his "good parts" of the bill list:

1. Insurance will be cheaper because everyone will be required to have it.
2. You can keep your current insurance if you like it.
3. No taxpayer dollars. You pay your share of the policy premiums just like now. But it will be lower.
4. In fact, if anyone who can afford insurance freeloads, they have to pay a tax.
5. If you can't afford insurance, you will get help, so you can.
6. Your adult kids can stay on the policy until 26, so they will be insured while in college or pursuing a career.
7.  Not government-run healthcare! It's free market! The government just requires you to have it. Your relationship with your doctor stays the same.
8. Don't like the insurance through your employment or want to change jobs but are afraid to lose your insurance? There will be affordable plans for you to choose from (created by demand). You can change jobs if you want.
9.Near retirement but too young for Medicare? The Feds give money to your employer to supplement your health care insurance in retirement, if they offer such a benefit to you already.
10. Got a preexisting condition? Insurance companies think we all do. It doesn't matter. They have to insure you.
11. If insurance companies charge too much in so-called administrative fees and other things not related to healh care, they have to refund it to you.
I know it's only a test sample of ONE, but it worked.  I like Obamacare because it's going to make the damn healthcare FREELOADERS finally pay their fair share.  

If it helps get us all talking about what is actually in the actual law, it's worth the try.

We can sell this, folks.  Yes, We Can.  One person at a time, let's spread the news. :)

4:27 PM PT: Update:  I want to make it VERY clear that a "damned healthcare freeloader" is NOT a poor person or any of the people that the insurance companies have either kicked out or priced out of the system.  They are the 1% making more than 400% of the poverty level ($44K individual & $88K family).  And YES, my friend did GET it.  We have a well off friend who like to drink their fill at the bar and skip out stiffing us with his part of the bar bill.  I used him as the example of the "damn free loaders."  

My friend is not dumb or racist or particularly cruel.  She was just fine with the poor getting help ... as long as she was not going to be hurt and the "damn freeloaders who could pay" were going to be made to pay their fair share.  

These are the folks I think we can pull away from Wing Nutty Land ... using this sales lead.  Hope this helps.  

Originally posted to bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:02 AM PDT.

Also republished by Psychology of Conservatives and Liberals.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (367+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    We Won, MartyM, hnichols, deepsouthdoug, Melanie in IA, jgnyc, Mistral Wind, MKSinSA, kestrel9000, boophus, glendaw271, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Militarytracy, karmsy, Getreal1246, blue jersey mom, wmspringer, Thinking Fella, Ashaman, Matt Z, langstonhughesfan, GeorgeXVIII, TracieLynn, wdrath, banjolele, theKgirls, Phoebe Loosinhouse, FreeWoman19, Davui, pixxer, DamselleFly, geejay, middleagedhousewife, murrayewv, Little Red Hen, Gowrie Gal, rantsposition, DBunn, lotlizard, Alma, grannycarol, tripodisblack, majcmb1, Siri, 88kathy, rscopes, grrr, spunhard, ArchTeryx, Panacea Paola, pamelabrown, Haf2Read, kerflooey, nervousnellie, KVoimakas, gfv6800, FloridaSNMOM, karlpk, myboo, MNsmartgirl, FiredUpInCA, David54, ybruti, niteskolar, bookbear, wilderness voice, mnguitar, nupstateny, Quicklund, geordie, Regina in a Sears Kit House, maybeeso in michigan, SingerInTheChoir, shortgirl, OIL GUY, nicki37, tin woodswoman, SeattleTammy, Its any one guess, Cronesense, hungrycoyote, millwood, Only Needs a Beat, janmtairy, howabout, nzanne, Tod, Bob Duck, deep, wasatch, LaraJones, Fury, bgblcklab1, bwren, BleacherBum153, zizi, ARS, Scioto, indybend, leema, Lorikeet, cv lurking gf, sea note, Lorinda Pike, EricS, Wreck Smurfy, Dirtandiron, virginwoolf, CoolOnion, kefauver, ladybug53, jethrock, sulthernao, mamamorgaine, DRo, anodnhajo, Brian76239, sallyfallschurch, mik, Railfan, SaraBeth, alguien, GOPGO2H3LL, chimpy, hazzcon, rukidingme, Gustogirl, otto, tapestry, doingbusinessas, VTCC73, lexalou, Eddie C, lcrp, miscanthus, gulfgal98, Milly Watt, Ckntfld, Sanuk, citizenx, IreGyre, workingclasszero, eeff, mconvente, filby, Karl Rover, maggiejean, TXdem, LaughingPlanet, tegrat, cordgrass, evelette, mookins, GAS, mrsgoo, eru, pat bunny, citisven, Diogenes2008, eXtina, Radiowalla, Damnit Janet, Prospect Park, catwho, xanthippe2, disastertothewench, Dingodude, sunbro, Iberian, CharlieHipHop, jomi, cpresley, rmonroe, yaque, JenS, luckylizard, Killer of Sacred Cows, Fe Bongolan, asilomar, wackoliberal, Timaeus, pileta, bnasley, Fonsia, BlueOak, I love OCD, Carolyn in Oregon, Dem in the heart of Texas, dmhlt 66, deeproots, antirove, coppercelt, Chris Andersen, DaleA, Glinda, AspenFern, jamess, annan, addikell, stormicats, fayea, debedb, fumie, Themistoclea, prettygirlxoxoxo, OhioNatureMom, wayoutinthestix, MrJayTee, AnnCetera, cwsmoke, rat racer, Shotput8, Late Again, ParkRanger, means are the ends, BarackStarObama, La Gitane, uciguy30, JVolvo, GayHillbilly, Alice Venturi, Son of a Cat, DvCM, kiwiheart, slapshoe, Mike08, sfarkash, drdana, sebastianguy99, Hayate Yagami, lostinamerica, Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN, petulans, NedSparks, Ice Blue, armadillo, bwintx, mmgth, splashy, Deep Dark, asym, DSC on the Plateau, ArtemisBSG, averybird, Haplogroup V, asterkitty, peacestpete, HoundDog, Aug6PDB, Little Flower, Its a New Day, highacidity, collardgreens, dewtx, Emmy, jessical, badlands, reflectionsv37, GMFORD, LSophia, elwior, madgranny, artebella, elfling, no way lack of brain, stonekeeper, nother lurker, mumtaznepal, dotdash2u, rapala, sostos, tb92, Texknight, willynel, freeport beach PA, rb608, Assaf, trivium, Larsstephens, Nance, Jujuree, Khun David, MRA NY, Alohilani, FrY10cK, blueoasis, goobop, Dbug, emmasnacker, terabytes, BC Progressive, Arahahex, hyperstation, Trevin, elengul, 2thanks, llywrch, Madrig, martinjedlicka, cspivey, chimene, Americantrueandblue, rage, RhodaA, rgjdmls, yawnimawke, Patience is Not a Virtue, belinda ridgewood, Aaa T Tudeattack, revsue, UtahLibrul, cacamp, tonyahky, sturunner, klompendanser, notrouble, jdld, zukesgirl64, Lefty Ladig, calibpatriot, flitedocnm, crystalboy, sailmaker, basquebob, outragedinSF, gloriana, Arenosa, anafreeka, ManhattanMan, Subversive, BachFan, Steve15, global citizen, Maverick80229, icebergslim, Mighty Ike, pioneer111, GDbot, p gorden lippy, science geek, kathny, Rona, rsmpdx, NJpeach, Odysseus, aunt blabby, turn blue, SaintC, smartdemmg, tjampel, Esjaydee, AnnetteK, caul, Sandino, Russgirl, SherwoodB, ColoTim, where4art, ctsteve, dopper0189, Gorette, Libby Shaw, radarlady, BerkshireDem, DixieDishrag, exNYinTX, HeyMikey

    Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

    by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:02:46 AM PDT

  •  PS As a bleeding heart liberal, I'm actually (156+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    We Won, MartyM, hnichols, Melanie in IA, Mistral Wind, Militarytracy, karmsy, blue jersey mom, Matt Z, theKgirls, FreeWoman19, Bluehawk, DamselleFly, geejay, middleagedhousewife, murrayewv, Little Red Hen, lotlizard, grannycarol, tripodisblack, Siri, 88kathy, kareylou, Cedwyn, Panacea Paola, pamelabrown, kerflooey, Livvy5, FloridaSNMOM, ybruti, niteskolar, bookbear, wilderness voice, mnguitar, Quicklund, geordie, David54, maybeeso in michigan, Regina in a Sears Kit House, SingerInTheChoir, shortgirl, SeattleTammy, Only Needs a Beat, nzanne, WuChier, deep, wasatch, Fury, bwren, ARS, stlkaper, cv lurking gf, sea note, Pescadero Bill, Dirtandiron, virginwoolf, CoolOnion, ladybug53, jethrock, sulthernao, mamamorgaine, chimpy, Hugin, doingbusinessas, VTCC73, lcrp, gulfgal98, Ckntfld, IreGyre, mconvente, filby, TXdem, evelette, icemilkcoffee, pat bunny, Pompatus, citisven, cotterperson, Diogenes2008, Damnit Janet, catwho, sunbro, jomi, cpresley, yaque, JenS, Killer of Sacred Cows, luckylizard, Prospect Park, pileta, Fonsia, Dem in the heart of Texas, SoCalJayhawk, dmhlt 66, deeproots, antirove, greendem, Janet 707, annan, stormicats, fayea, fumie, OhioNatureMom, ROGNM, Take a Hard Left, MrJayTee, cwsmoke, rat racer, Shotput8, means are the ends, uciguy30, JVolvo, Alice Venturi, DvCM, kiwiheart, BlueOak, sebastianguy99, dagnome, Brown Thrasher, lostinamerica, bwintx, splashy, averybird, asterkitty, HoundDog, bdizz, badlands, reflectionsv37, LSophia, elwior, elfling, nother lurker, mumtaznepal, freeport beach PA, rb608, Assaf, Larsstephens, blueoasis, BC Progressive, superfly, elengul, chimene, belinda ridgewood, revsue, notrouble, jdld, Lefty Ladig, flitedocnm, crystalboy, basquebob, outragedinSF, Arenosa, BachFan, global citizen, Maverick80229, GDbot

    thrilled by how many additional Americans will get coverage and would be willing to pay more to have that happen.  I was just looking for a way into my friend's worldview.

    I want single payer, and will be fighting till the day I die for that eventual outcome.

    Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

    by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:04:41 AM PDT

  •  Slacker Tax. If they want to call the penalty (61+ / 0-)

    a tax, call it the slacker tax.

    After all, NO ONE wants to be a slacker.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:12:04 AM PDT

  •  Before passing the ACA... (21+ / 0-)

    we described people without insurance with words like "poor", "needy", "struggling"... now they are "slackers", "freeloaders", and "moochers".

    You seem to think that there are millions and millions of people with plenty of cash who just refuse to buy insurance. But there aren't.

    The uninsured ARE poor and struggling and it's shameful that you would call them as freeloaders.

    •  apparently you don't understand the Law (36+ / 0-)

      According to the CBO - 1% will choose NOT to participate in Obamacare.

      1% - and Republicans LIE - claiming it's a tax increase for the "middle class."

      Family of 4 with $32K income will be in Medicaid.

      "Tax cuts for the 1% create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

      by MartyM on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:29:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly! It's just like what Romney had to (17+ / 0-)

        say in 2008:

        ROMNEY: ”Yes, we said, look, if people can afford to buy it, either buy the insurance or pay your own way; don’t be free-riders.”
        "I like mandates."

        Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

        by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:41:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Did you vote for Romney in 2008? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          for 6 too, gooderservice, shaharazade

          I voted for the guy who rejected his decision to call struggling workers "freeloaders".

          Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

          by JesseCW on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:20:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Which is why I'm not voting for Mittens (0+ / 0-)

          I voted for the guy who thought mandates were stupid.

          Keep in mind that sucking up to the right(or at least pretending to) tends to turn off those that think that the way of conservatism leads straight to Failureville.  As recent history has shown us.

          You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

          by Johnny Q on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 01:40:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  You miss the point (13+ / 0-)

        which is that we are being called freeloaders when it's a damned lie.

        And if our state's legislature/governor decide to refuse Medicaid expansion, we may be screwed yet again.

        Socialist Jesus said: “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me… whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.”

        by BitterEnvy on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:48:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No one is calling YOU a freeloader ... (31+ / 0-)

          Here from Kaiser ... a good site to better understand it all.

          Premium subsidies will be available for individuals and families with incomes between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level, or $14,404 to $43,320 for individuals and $29,326 to $88,200 for a family of four.

          The subsidies will be on a sliding scale. For example, a family of four earning 150 percent of the poverty level, or $33,075 a year, will have to pay 4 percent of its income, or $1,323, on premiums. A family with income of 400 percent of the poverty level will have to pay 9.5 percent, or $8,379.

          The freeloaders are individuals with incomes above $43,320 who choose to pay nothing for health insurance, and then go to the ER if they get sick or injured.  Or families who make $88,200 but who choose to pay nothing, and then take advantage of being able to go to the ER ...

          I don't consider individuals or families at 400% of the poverty level as "poor."  

          AND, it is time for all of us to attack any R-Gov who refuses 100% funding for his or her state.  THEY are the ones who are attacking the poor.  I am certainly not.

          Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

          by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:17:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  4% of its income per year or per month? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Killer of Sacred Cows, elwior

            ♥ Medicare For All. ♥
            "Our health care system is like a casino. The insurance industry is the House... The House always wins." -- UnaSpenser

            by Chi on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:08:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Opps - disregard that one didn't read LOL! (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bkamr, Janet 707

            ♥ Medicare For All. ♥
            "Our health care system is like a casino. The insurance industry is the House... The House always wins." -- UnaSpenser

            by Chi on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:09:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  As a public school teacher, I make $45,934 a year (8+ / 0-)

              (after 7 years experience and with 3 college degrees including a masters in Education).  

              I'm now paying $695 a month for insurance for me and my family (plus my husband carries an additional $75 per month for vision care that is available with his company) ... but what I pay for insurance comes to 18% of my salary.

              We're just barely above the 400% mark, and we're making it with even that level of insurance costs (and yes, we have student loans, a child, and one parent that we help to support).  It is doable for people at this income range to pay for health insurance like we have the opportunity to buy.  That's what the ACA Law is about.

              PS And no, that is not off-set with some cushy, "free retirement fund."  I pay in over 9% of my salary to the retirement fund (and I'm not allowed to participate in Social Security).  

              Teehee.  I'm commenting about a public employee reitrement program ... 3 2 1 Sparhawk?

              Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

              by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:48:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You make more than 75% of American wage (5+ / 0-)

                earners.

                You are well off.

                Yet, this is still obviously a hardship for you - why do you believe that forcing others to be abused by the same industry has some sort of value?

                Did you pay for your own health insurance in college (which cost a shitload less back when you went)?

                Or were you just some worthless "free rider"?

                Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

                by JesseCW on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:25:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, I don't think it's a "hardship." My point is (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Killer of Sacred Cows

                  that paying for insurance if you make 400% of the poverty level is NOT a hardship.  It IS doable and it is even doable if the insurance costs 18%, like my employer subsidized plan does.

                  Health insurance was part of our tuition back then, and we went to the school's health clinic.  THAT was a really good deal BTW.

                  Last time in school, I paid for insurance under COBRA and used a home equity line to do so.  

                  But, I think this is all rather beside the point, huh.  You sound like you're really angry we didn't get Single Payer - is that what is really upsetting you?  And, you think I'm somehow selling out on that, because I'm willing to support the ACA Law we have now?

                  I agree with you about Single Payer.  I want it too, and I'll still be fighting with you to get it.  I just think it's good to get a beach head to continue the fight from.  

                  Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

                  by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:32:17 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The more you make, the less a given percentage (4+ / 0-)

                    matters.

                    When you have to walk to work a for four days so you can afford to go get a milkshake for valentines day, 5-6% of your income is huge.

                    I'm "really angry" that you're shitting on and targeting people who cannot afford insurance, and doing it while pretending to be a Democrat.

                    Skip the mind reading.  Skip the straw man.

                    This is about you lighting out after people who make 8 bucks an hour and calling them "freeloaders" and insisting that they owe you something.

                    Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

                    by JesseCW on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:38:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'll try one more time. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Killer of Sacred Cows

                      An individual making $8 an hour makes $16,640 dollars a year. They would be eligible for a subsidy and their health insurance payment would be $61 bucks a month or or 4.1% of their annual income.  The government would subsidize them $2,649 a year.

                      A family of 4 with 2 making $8 an hour would pay 3.18% of their income or $84 a month for their family health insurance and the government subsidiezes $9,096 a year.

                      A person making minimum wage would be covered under Medicaid under the ACA Law.

                      best wishes to you.

                      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

                      by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:22:00 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Pardon me, I have to check my blood (9+ / 0-)

            I think it's starting to boil.

            The freeloaders are individuals with incomes above $43,320 who choose to pay nothing for health insurance, and then go to the ER if they get sick or injured.  Or families who make $88,200 but who choose to pay nothing, and then take advantage of being able to go to the ER ...
            Spoken like a true patrician.  Have you tried raising a family of four on $88K/year, lately?  Now add in the manadatory cost of -- need we point out -- FUCKING PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT INSURANCE!  So, gosh you made $88K as a contractor, and now you have to shell out, what, $1,500 a month for insurance.  You've got mouths to feed, a roof to maintain, kids to educate.  But you're a "freeloader" if one of your kids gets terribly ill and needs to go to the ER because you rolled the dice and paid for dance lessons instead of your share of some FUCKING PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT INSURANCE COMPANY's CEO's obscene salary.

            You see, it's not a tax.  It's more goddamn subsidy for the rich from the many.  This law, while maybe a good start in some way, SUCKs because it forces people to pay for a shitty, overpriced product that makes its money by NOT paying for health care whenever it can get away with it.

            I understand that the diarist was using a trick of rhetoric in calling the working class who can't afford FUCKING PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT HEALTH INSURANCE "freeloaders,' but you seem to have no such sense of irony.

            By the way, the "poverty level" is a joke.  It should be about three times higher than it is.

            I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes. - Walt Whitman

            by CharlieHipHop on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:34:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'd LOVE to raise a family of four on 88K. (13+ / 0-)

              That would be fucking wonderful.

              Jesus fucking christ. 88K. I'll NEVER see that. To someone that makes 19K, you are definitely the one who sounds like a patrician.

              "Maybe: it's a vicious little word that could slay me"--Sara Bareilles

              by ChurchofBruce on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:57:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Do you raise a family on that? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bkamr, JesseCW

                Yes, I make good money.  I'm very lucky, but as for bein' patrician:  It ain't me.  I ain't no millionaire's son.  

                So now that we have that out of the way...

                Do you raise a family on 19K?  If so, I'm very impressed.

                I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes. - Walt Whitman

                by CharlieHipHop on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 11:02:58 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  We have a family of 3 ... but also contribute (3+ / 0-)

                  $400 per month to support my mother (kind of like a family of 4).  Combined we make almost 90K.  We do okay.

                  It was rough when we only had my teacher's salary for 2 1/2 years while my husband was out of work.  I made almost exactly the 400% above the poverty level -- for an individual -- But, we made it then, too, as a family.  Plus, being a public school teacher in our state means I pay 9.7% into a retirement fund alongwith Medicare payments & an extra 1% for the shortfall in the state retiree medical program -- instead of being able to pay the lower SS %. I also currently pay 18% of my salary for health insurance.

                  At even the 18% for insurance rate on a 44K salary, we did indeed still "make it." Yeah, it took sacrifices ...  For example, we dropped one car and my husband took me to work and I car pooled home.  We sweated whenever the heating system hiccuped and the only person who got new clothes was our son, from the 2nd hand store.  

                  Living on nearly 90K feels A LOT better.  :)  

                  Let me ask you this, what if you could get decent health care like my family has for let's say $800 a month?  Would you buy it?

                  Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

                  by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 12:25:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So you have group insurance (5+ / 0-)

                    provided by your employer. That means the cost is much less than people like me who have to buy it on the open market would pay. Your employer can do that because they can expense it and pass it on to me, one of the uninsured.

                    •  My employer subsidizes my insurance by (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      splashy, Killer of Sacred Cows

                      by $2500 a year, which without their support would make my insurance $7920 (I pay) + $2500 = $10,420 per year

                      If I was paying for it entirely by myself it would be $868 per month for our entire family.

                      It's good insurance at that price, because I am part of a large group.  The ACA creates large group leverage scenarios, so that individuals are no longer just on their own.

                      And, if you make less than 400% of poverty level ($40K as an individual or $88K as a family) the federal government steps in like an employer to provide a subsidy.  

                      You'll be able to buy up for a high % of your income like our family does (18%) or buy a catastrophic plan and self fund the smaller visits if you want.  

                      The free loaders are only the 1% who make the 44K or 88K who decided not to pay for any insurance ... where they are expecting everyone else to cover their risky gamble.  They are the only ones who will be "taxed" according to the ACA Law.

                      Poor people are NOT free loaders and will not be taxed as such.

                      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

                      by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 02:07:47 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  This is what you want to for people? (3+ / 0-)
                    We sweated whenever the heating system hiccuped and the only person who got new clothes was our son, from the 2nd hand store.  
                    This is what you want to subject them to so Humana execs can get bigger bonuses?

                    Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

                    by JesseCW on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:28:11 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  LOL No the ACA Law has the scale down at 4.0 % (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Killer of Sacred Cows

                      - 9.5 % of income for people below the 400% times  the poverty level.  If I'd the option of the ACA Law when my husband was out of work for 2 1/2 years, WOW! ... We would have gotten a subsidy and would have been paying about 5-6% of income for insurance instead of the 18%.

                      I certainly don't want what we went through for anyone else, that's one of the reasons why I like the ACA Law.

                      But, I was answering someone else about if I thought it was possible to be an individual making $44K and be able to afford health insurance?

                      My answer was yes, I think it is.  I backed up my assertion by sharing that we made it on $44 k for a FAMILY of 3 paying 18% of our income for health insurance.  

                      Don't know where you got the idea that I would want anyone else to have to go through what we did while my husband was unemployed for 2 1/2 years.  My point was that it was rough, but if it's doable to make it on $44K ... with a family and pay for our insurance even at 18%, then it's very doable for an individual.

                      So, yeah, I do know that I could make it on $44K as an individual and pay for health insurance.  

                      And the 80/20 reg insn't giong to leave much room for the high rolling CEO's anymore.  It's not going to be a stock star business and become a boring, modest cash cow business.

                      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

                      by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:58:14 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  I also want to point out... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bkamr, wsexson, JesseCW, shaharazade

              ... that a self-employed individual making up to $110,000 a year pays the full cost of their Social Security and Medicare contributions.  So that person gets stuck twice -- higher taxes than a worker bee with a cushy job, and now being forced to pay for FUCKING PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT HEALTH INSURANCE.

              Yeah, this will really encourage entrepreneurship... uh huh.

              I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes. - Walt Whitman

              by CharlieHipHop on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 11:00:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  There are so many aspects of this (4+ / 0-)

                that are still messed up. The fact that numerous expenses that were formerly considered overhead are now considered medical care is worrisome. Also, the assumption that premiums will drop steeply is wishful thinking.

              •  True (3+ / 0-)

                but we self-employed people also have a lot of tax breaks that employees don't (I've been self-employed for twenty years).

                Speaking for myself, the car mileage deduction is FAR more than it costs to run my car and I can deduct a portion of computers, internet, phones, office furniture, etc. The tax deduction for health insurance is also much better for a self-employed person. I find my taxed income to be far less than if I were employed and everything claimed is legit.

              •  Yes, I remember doing that and when either my (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Killer of Sacred Cows

                husband or I were working as independent consultants ... we also got a much hirer hourly wage since we were independent professionals.  Being an independent entrepeneur sure has it's ups and downs, doesn't it?

                I liked the independence and being more able to control my own time ... liked being my own boss so to speak ... though, it certainly does bring more risk and as "your own employer" you do have to pay the employer side of SS for yourself.

                I didn't mind that ... it was just part of our retirement investments, and we were getting twice the hourly rate we would have working IN a company FOR someone else. I wish I could pay into SS, now.  Instead, I pay 9.7% of salary into the retirement fund, AND I carry an extra individual disability plan since I'm not allowed to pay into SS as a teacher, by state law.  LOL I'm paying about the same % as the double SS back then, but I sure as heck am not making the big bucks like then.

                Looks like I'm making less than half what you are -- but it's all good since the kids are great.

                I never minded paying my fair share for health insurance back then.  I paid about 15% of my salary as an outside consultant, and I pay about 18% of my salary, now, as a public school teacher.

                I certainly never expected to pay NOTHING.  

                best wishes.

                Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

                by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:32:48 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  You are assuming shelling out $1500 a month. (2+ / 0-)

              Is that what you pay, now?  is that the kind of deal you'd have if the ACA was not going to be the law?

              What if you could get insurance for half that amount?  

              Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

              by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 12:11:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's academic (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JesseCW, shaharazade

                It won't affect me personally.

                But if I were making 88K, raising a family of four and was suddenly stuck with an extra $750/month mandatory expense to buy a for-profit insurance plan -- yeah, it would piss me off and definitely have a palpable effect on my disposable income and standard of living.

                We need health CARE for all, not health insurance for all (at their own expense).

                I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes. - Walt Whitman

                by CharlieHipHop on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 05:24:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Um, we are a family of 3 (and we also help (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Killer of Sacred Cows

                  support my mother).  We take in just a little over $88K, and as a public school teacher, I pay 18% (about $700 a month) for our family health insurance.

                  THAT is the status quo, and I'm supposedly one of those lucky public servants who has it so good.  (Oh, and I pay 9% for my retirement fund too ... AND I pay for seperate personal disability insurance since I'm not allowed to participate in Social Security by state law.)  

                  Soooo, nope I wouldn't be pissed off if I had the chance to pay 9% for my health insurance instead of 18%.  

                  In fact, looking at the MA program (that is like the ACA Law) results so far, I definitely do like that better than the status quo!

                  Would I prefer a Single Payer like Europe and pay 11.7% of my income for that?  Sure!  Let's go for that transition, next.

                  Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

                  by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:06:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Is it 9 percent per family... (0+ / 0-)

                    ... or nine percent per insured person?  I really don't know.

                    By the way, you're actually paying a lot more than $700, too, because your employer is picking up a large percentage of the premiums and that's factored into your salary at contract negotiation time.

                    I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes. - Walt Whitman

                    by CharlieHipHop on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 09:40:41 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Raising a family of 4 on 88K is not hard (4+ / 0-)

              compared to doing it on 30K, or even 50K LIKE THE AVERAGE AMERICAN.

              You are a Republican troll. I can tell this because you throw around the word "patrician" with absolutely no awareness that you are in the patrician class compared to most of the people in the country.

              •  Well, judging from your user id... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                shaharazade

                ... I've been around here a lot longer than you so I must be a pretty persistent and sneaky troll.

                I do realize how fortunate I am, but I am no patrician, just a middle class dude who has done well at a few points in my life.  

                Raising a family of four on 88k is hard nowadays, at least if you want to have any sort of life.  There is a difference between living and existing.  A loaf of bread is three bucks now and a jar of peanut butter is three bucks.  Throw in four apples at about a buck apiece, and you've got a semi-nutritious lunch for about ten bucks.  Multiply that times 365.  Multiply that times three.  Ten grand a year for food -- eating a PB and J sandwich and a piece of fruit three times a day.  A three bedroom house will run you a couple grand a month -- not including maintenance.  Now you've got clothing. You've got medical bills.  You've got vehicles.  You've got school supplies.  You've got taxes.  You've got heat and electricity.  And on it goes.  88K doesn't go that far.  It's better than the average American makes, but that fact in itself shows you just how fucked up things are.

                I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes. - Walt Whitman

                by CharlieHipHop on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 09:33:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  bkamr was just kidding! (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bkamr, JesseCW, for 6 too, shaharazade

            Fingers crossed behind the back! But the people who you aimed this at heard that you believe it is everyone who has not purchased insurance who is a freeloader.

            If insurance premiums for my family are $20K and we make $45K this year, what is the level at which you think I should have to contribute in order not to be flamed as a "damned freeloader"?

            •  I'll answer your second question, first. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              splashy, Killer of Sacred Cows

              From Kaiser's help page:

              Q: What if I make too much for Medicaid but still can't afford coverage?

              A: You might be eligible for government subsidies to help you pay for private insurance that would be sold in the new state-based insurance marketplaces, called exchanges, slated to begin operation in 2014.

              Premium subsidies will be available for individuals and families with incomes between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level, or $14,404 to $43,320 for individuals and $29,326 to $88,200 for a family of four.

              The subsidies will be on a sliding scale. For example, a family of four earning 150 percent of the poverty level, or $33,075 a year, will have to pay 4 percent of its income, or $1,323, on premiums. A family with income of 400 percent of the poverty level will have to pay 9.5 percent, or $8,379.

              In addition, if your income is below 400 percent of the poverty level, your out-of-pocket health expenses will be limited.

              It's a range of between 4 and 9.5 % sliding scale.  I personally pay 18% of my salary, now, for our family so the ACA scale is about half what we pay.  (But I also have to carry FULL payment for a disability rider since we are not allowed to participate in SS, by law.)

              The approximately 1% who will choose not to pay this scaled amount for insurance would be the damned free loaders that the ACA law would levy a small tax on.  

              The Right wing is blasting out the lie that ALL middle class people are going to be forced to buy government controlled health care, and everyone is going to be taxed to pay for it.  This is the crap we have to get past in order to have a conversation with people.

              And, my wing nutty friend did indeed GET IT that the damn free loaders are not the poor.  I used the analogy of a wealthly friend of ours that has frequently drunk his fill with the crowd in the bar, and then, he skips out leaving us with the tab.  THAT is a free loader!  LOL Everyone does get that ... and I found it to be a very effective lead to get into a rational conversation about the real law instead of haing lies screamed at me.

              Hope that helps.  :)

              Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

              by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 02:30:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  We're "freeloaders" when we don't pay (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              for 6 too, shaharazade

              our kids college tuition too, I guess.

              Just "refusing" to buy the things Bkamr's family can afford on 90k a year.

              Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

              by JesseCW on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:30:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It may be location too, you know. We live in (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Killer of Sacred Cows

                N KY with an acre of land.  We have a big garden and fruit trees.  Our cars are 10 years old, but paid off.  I work 2 miles from the school I work at and my husband takes the bus into the city.  We stream a lot of Netflix and play board games for fun.  

                Oh, and I'm still paying off my student loan from my last degree.  Our son is 16 and half of what he earns on his part time job goes into a college fund and we've been socking awy 25 bucks a month all his life.  He'll take out loans for whatever else he needs.

                We do have a paid off house.  I made A LOT more before I left the corporate world to become a teacher, and we divested all our stocks and sold the rental we had in FL right before the bubbles broke.  Saw it coming and put everything we had into paying off our house.

                So, yeah.  You most certainly can raise a family on 90K and pay for health insurance. Under the ACA Law, health insurance would be less than what I pay as a public employee.  

                In fact, I'd bet there are an awful lot of kossacks who raise a family on a hell of a lot less.

                Best wishes. :)

                Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

                by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:18:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh. Yeah. It's not 90k. It's because you stream (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  fuzzyguy, for 6 too, shaharazade

                  a lot of netflix and play board games for fun.

                  You're attacking people who make 20k, calling them free loaders, and insisting they need to be fined.

                  You're doing it from a place of massive privilege, and in a way that reeks of entitlement.

                  Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

                  by JesseCW on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:40:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Let me get this straight (0+ / 0-)

                  You don't have a mortgage or have to pay rent and you are talking about how affordable the PPACA will really be?

                  You divested yourselves of all of your stock and rental property in Florida - how many typical Americans have stock to divest or have rental property to divest in addition to their jobs?   And you are talking about how you can afford ACA on 90k? Really?

                  Of course you can afford it. You aren't shelling out anywhere from $700 on up in mortgage or rent like 70% of the households out there. They don't have two mile commutes and the other spouse with easy access public transportation to their job.

                  It is no wonder that you don't seem to get it when people are telling you that there will be millions of households of all different sizes that will not be able to afford insurance whether subsidized or not. And millions more that even if they could somehow afford the subsidized premium they couldn't afford the deductibles and out-of-pocket on top of it.

                  Over 60% of the households in this country can't come up with $2000 if some emergency came up.  More than half the households in this country are living from paycheck to paycheck. If they don't already have health insurance, with the exception of those on the lower end who will be forced into Medicaid, none of the rest will be able to afford health insurance whether it was subsidized or not.

                  These people aren't freeloaders and won't be considered poor but nevertheless will not be able to afford the insurance.

                  Another thing, (you aren't the only one that does this)  quoting off Kaiser or even HHS about "for a family of 4" etc. etc. isn't particularly useful to anyone. 75.6% of all households in this country consist of THREE or fewer individuals. 59.5% of all households consist of TWO or fewer individuals. The subsidy numbers and all that end up sounding like a great deal but fewer than 25% of households are going to see anything like it.

                •  No mortgage then (0+ / 0-)

                  Hey I could afford insurance if I had no mortgage. I make over the subsidy line but we're self employed, we have a hard time keeping afloat paying our taxes, eating decently and keeping our home, let alone buying health insurance. So your telling me that I should have to live like a pauper, eat shitty food or lose my house and my business to pay for crap insurance that is not even going to pay for day to day medical needs because the uninsured are what keeps insurance so affordable.

                  That is a myth, what keeps 'health'  insurance so expensive is that the whole 'health care industry' is corporate and for profit. It is nothing but extortion for the profit of these entities that make their obscene profits off blocking access to medical help. I also include in this the hospitals for profit and big pharma. Calling people who are struggling to live decent lives in this economy freeloader because they cannot afford to pay 9% of their income for insurance is insult to injury.

                  We took a 30% reduction in income in 2008. I pay 30% of our income in taxes. That's hard to come up with and maintain any cash flow or have anything left after necessities let alone build back our business.

                   Sure people can and do live like refugees and pay the vig to these extortionists but how do they even afford to go to the dentist or get medical help for day to day needs? So If I purchase insurance even with the supposed dubious price reductions that are going to occur, the good news is I will end up poor enough to get subsidies.

                  Too bad we don't have another option that is actually affordable and would  make us freeloaders of the future not be such slackers. Too bad the for profits got to write this bill that pits people against people regarding who gets access and what's affordable.

                           

          •  You keep repeating "There's subsidies!!!" (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fuzzyguy, for 6 too, annecros

            You never discuss what single individuals will have to pay in premiums.

            You never discuss co-pays, or actuarial value.

            The bill passed.  It was maintained by the SCOTUS.

            It has huge flaws that really hurt real people.  We can't ever fix them if we have to fight Republicans and "Democrats" who have wholeheartedly adopted Republican views.

            Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

            by JesseCW on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:22:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  No one is a freeloader or slacker (25+ / 0-)

          This is simply a brilliant way to get the right wing low information voter's attention. People are so confused about the ACA and yes, the admin in my opinion did an awful job of marketing it, most don't even have a clue as to how positive this will be for them. As for us, it is not perfect but it is a solid step in the right direction.

          •  yes, there *are* freeloading slackers (7+ / 0-)

            they are not the uninsured who are poor, but rather the people who choose not the purchase insurance when they are financially solvent enough to do so, relying on ERs and such when they do get sick or injured.

            Even most of the wingnuts aren't all that upset about actually poor people getting subsidized healthcare, what upsets righties is the thought that people are getting support who don't need it: exactly what the tax penalty is intended to discourage, and exactly what the righties should be upset about.  The job of the administration and congress is to make sure that the people who are fined are the ones who actually deserve it.  Our job is to sell the program by representing the intent and the actuality accurately, dispelling the idiocy that has obscured it with.

            Never wear your best trousers when you go out to fight for freedom and truth. -- Henrik Ibsen

            by mik on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 09:46:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  People who are financially solvent (8+ / 0-)

              but go to the ER when sick have to pay. They are not permitted to walk away from the bills. The hospital goes after them, and if they don't pay it goes into collection.

              Why would it bother you if someone decided to go to the ER when sick and pay out of their own pocket?

              It's a myth that there are tens of millions of people who are able to pay any amount for health insurance and health care but have chosen to walk away from their bills and let the taxpayer pick up the tab. It doesn't happen. Only the truly indigent do not pay for their trip to the ER.

              •  Perhaps the part of the bill I like best is that (3+ / 0-)

                people will be empowered to go to a doctor for regular preventive care before they are so sick that it becomes a disability or catastrophic care scenario.

                Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

                by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 02:32:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  No, it's a way to let them say "Even Democrats (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            for 6 too, Nada Lemming

            agree!!!".

            It's a way to help Rove do his job, which to make sure they never question any of the underpinnings of their world view.

            Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

            by JesseCW on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:31:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  BitterEnvy, I see your point, but IMHO, (18+ / 0-)

          bkamr is using their own language simply to get their attention.  See what he/she has done?  Rather that start an argument over the term "freeloader", she has used that word to get her friend's attention, then brilliantly turned it around to where her friend was willing to listen to the benefits of the bill.  I find it difficult to get people to even listen at all once their mind is made up (by Fox).   And I think there is a lesson to be learned here.  We must find ways to break through the wall.  Here is one way, one which my salesman husband uses frequently: Confirm what the buyer is saying...yes, you're right...get them nodding...then they are listening.  No one is suggesting that you are a freeloader.  It's a cynical ploy, yes, but maybe we need to get a little more cynical...Sometimes two wrongs do make a right!

          Got Social Security? Thank a Democrat!

          by Fury on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:49:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly. I used to develop sales training (12+ / 0-)

            programs for a big Pharma company, and it is exactly the "Agreement Lead."  Your husband is exactly right.

            Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

            by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 09:00:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Speaking of my husband, I wonder if (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bkamr, Killer of Sacred Cows

              he's ever tried the "Agreement Lead" on me!

              Got Social Security? Thank a Democrat!

              by Fury on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 02:27:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  "I used to develop sales training programs for (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bkamr, for 6 too

              a big Pharma company".

              "Nuff said.

              Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

              by JesseCW on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:31:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  LOL Yeah, and I used to also be a VP of a (3+ / 0-)

                GE Company, too.  But, not anymore.  I left corporate America to become a middle school teacher.  But hey, believe what you want.

                This is about beginning a conversation with a lead that can get through the crazy stuff to talk about what the law actually has in it.  THAT is the first step to being able to talk with one another.

                We are never going to get to Single Payer if all we do is plead with them to care about their brother's and sister's.  They don't.  They publically cheered for letting a person die if they had no insurance.

                If we are going to win the Single Payer WE all want, I think at least some of us are simply going to have to find a way to position it, so at least a lot more of THEM are okay with it too.

                We lost Single Payer, and we got the ACA Law. It's very disappointing, but not a disaster.  It looks like we're going to have to play the long game.  And, that means taking a beach head when you can get it, defending it, and then, moving forwared to chip away to get where we ultimately want to go.

                The right wing is pretty good at that, frankly.  Look what they are doing to us with the "settled law" laid down with Roe v Wade.

                So, yeah, we have to sell this step to a firm majority, and I'm willing to do that.  I also think there are actually some interesting things in the ACA Law that are game changers.  For example, the 80/20 regulation is going to transform the industry away from being a star industry where the execs are incented to spike the stock by going for the highest ROI they can ... that's were the high deductibles and all the crap came from.  They wanted us to avoid using health services.  Wall Street isn't going to much interested in the boring, little cash cow industry anymore.  The industry is already whining about it not being worth much anymore.  

                Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

                by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:09:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  The friend is now willing to listen to the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Fury

            benefits of the bill and convinced that the health care mess is the fault of all the "damned freeloaders" who have not purchased health insurance.

        •  I'm wondering about that (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Killer of Sacred Cows, bkamr

          If they don't expand Medicaid, I'm thinking what would likely happen is those that would be on Medicaid if it were expanded would get subsidized 100% for their premiums. That way it would cut out the states as middlepeople in the funding for the poor and near poor that the states want to deny Medicaid.

          Basically, it would be the same as Medicaid, but the private insurance would be the ones managing payments instead of the states doing it with Medicaid.

          That's the only thing that makes any sense, considering that those that earn more will be subsidized. Why wouldn't the Feds subsidize those that are ever poorer than that?

          Actually, that would be sweet, cutting out the Republicans that are so callous and cruel that they would let other people die for the right wing ideology of the politicians, who all have theirs.

          Women create the entire labor force.

          by splashy on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 02:39:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Or, I wonder if the Federal Gov would just move to (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Killer of Sacred Cows

            Medicare for them, with the Fed Gov paying into the system for them.  That would actually allow them to prove out the process and scale the system for a Medicare for all option.

            Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

            by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:12:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Getting to this late (0+ / 0-)

              But that would be wonderful! I think that would be the best choice, and the easiest choice. Trying to work with the private insurance corporations doesn't sound like any fun for the poor who are very busy.

              Women create the entire labor force.

              by splashy on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 12:18:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  "1% will choose NOT to participate in Obamacare" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bkamr, Killer of Sacred Cows

        Freeloaders, the new 1%.

        •  And if the 1% and the 1% gets repeated and (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Killer of Sacred Cows

          repeated ... maybe just maybe we'll have more and more of the 99% waking up to who the REAL free loaders are in this country.  

          Well, I can hope.

          Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

          by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 02:35:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  A single person making 25 k will be expected to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fuzzyguy, for 6 too

        shit 1,700 a year in premiums.

        If they can't, or prefer to go to college, "Freeloader!!!".

        The fucking Freeloaders are the CEO's making millions a year off of their victims.  The fucking Freeloaders are the shareholders who will be raking in dividends from all the additional revenue working people will be forced to provide.

        The fucking Freeloaders are the middle-aged white-collar assholes who look at struggling working people and say "That fucker owes me something".

        Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

        by JesseCW on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:20:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The poor who can't afford it will be given the (39+ / 0-)

      subsidies to afford it -- they are not the ones who will be affected by the "tax."  

      Only those who can afford insurance but don't get it -- NOT the poor -- will be assessed the fine.  

      Talking about how this law helps the poor is not going to get through to wing nuts.  That approach only makes them angrier.  Remember, we are talking with people who cheered at the thought of letting people die if they didn't have insurance?  And, trying to shame them into wanting to help the poor is NOT going to work.

      I'm just sharing an approach that worked to get past hate and into an actual discussion about the law.  We have been lamenting for YEARS about not being able to reach people who are voting against their own self-interest.  I just got through to one of them about how the ACA actually fit their self-interest.

      PS  You don't have to try to shame me into wanting to help the poor.  :)

      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

      by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:32:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Are we sure that some of us won't (8+ / 0-)

        slip thru the cracks?? I'm not. If states refuse Medicaid expansion while the law assumed that expansion would happen, what the hell happens to those of us who should have benefited from expansion?? Does anyone know, at this point in time, what will happen to us?? I doubt it.

        PS  You don't have to try to shame me into wanting to help the poor.  :)
        Do you not understand that those of us without insurance who never abused the system (and there are many more of us than there are freeloaders) are wrongly being shamed by our own side?

        Socialist Jesus said: “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me… whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.”

        by BitterEnvy on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:54:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Two different issues. If your state does not take (12+ / 0-)

          the Medicaid expansion, AND you are under 400 % of the poverty level (BTW MA used a 300% above or 75K level), then you qualify for the subsidies for buying insurance.

          Now, if after being offered the subsidy to make the insurance affordable, you then choose not to purchase the affordable insurance ... then, you could be assessed a small fine for the choice.  This "tax" would be used to off-set the cost to the rest of us for treating those who choose to go the no insurance route and then showed up in the ER for care.

          In essence, there's a big carrot in this law with a little stick.

          I'm also hopeful that this will get some more people engaged and calling into those R- Governors.  

          Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

          by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:06:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Lots of people will fall through the cracks (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bkamr, wsexson, for 6 too

          Lots of people make over the limit but still can't afford the crappy product proffered by the health insurance scammers.  Those people will be forced to pay penalties, and when they get sick, they will be refused care.  Yay, progress!

          I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes. - Walt Whitman

          by CharlieHipHop on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:39:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why do you think this? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Killer of Sacred Cows, splashy

            Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

            by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 12:28:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are right (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wsexson, bkamr, CharlieHipHop, fuzzyguy

              More likely they will purchase the insurance at a considerable expense to themselves (with some token government subsidies) but be unable to come up with the money it will take to pay for their own health care out of their pockets until they have reached their deductible.

              More people than ever, especially the insured, are forgoing health care they simply cannot afford.

              •  Which is already causing some very interesting (3+ / 0-)

                behaviors to occur ... namely the insurance companies are calling doctors to encourage them to call patients to come in for the preventive care visits (free under the plan - deductibles don't count).  My doctor's office called me an got me to agree to come in for a shingles shot and check-up for BP and chloresterol test given my family history and age!  LOL

                Plus, my insurance company is fairly bugging the crap out of me to get set up with a "Wellness RN Coach."  Huh? The message they keep leaving on my cell phone has the come on that there is a good chance that our YMCA dues could be partially or even completely covered if I sign-up with "my coach."

                The insurance companies are currently set up to disuade us from using services (high deductibles), so they could max out profits and spike their stock prices for the Wall Street global casino.

                The 80/20 regulation means the insurance companies have to prove they are using our money for care ... BUT they have conditioned us to avoid going to the doctor ...

                Ah, poor, poor insurance companies are now facing the deadline where they will have to pay rebates if they don't meet the 80/20 care scenario.

                It's kind of funny having my doctor and insurance company bugging me to take free services to keep me healthier, but that's what is starting to happen.

                Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

                by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 02:46:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's interesting (4+ / 0-)

                  And a great "side effect" of the law.

                  Women create the entire labor force.

                  by splashy on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 04:34:20 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  They're not doing it to keep you healthier (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bkamr

                  They're doing it because they don't want to pay the rebate.  Isn't that obvious?  They probably have some slick accounting to make it look like they paid the doc more than they actually did so they can say, "See, we paid 80 percent of your premium back out for services!"

                  Me, personally?  I'm never seeing a doctor unless I'm at death's door because I want those fucking pieces of shit at the insurance companies to pay me back for the tens of thousands of dollars I've paid for their shitty product over the years.

                  I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes. - Walt Whitman

                  by CharlieHipHop on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 05:28:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, I know they are doing it to avoid the (2+ / 0-)

                    rebate.  The ACA Law is having the intended effect.  I will be getting more preventive care (without any deductible), so I will get my shingles vaccine, BP and chorlesterol checked.  If they and I get to avoid a shingles episode ... or a heart attack, that's GREAT!  It's care health care -- not just sick care.  

                    I hope you will consider taking advantage of the opportunities to care for yourself, so you can live to a ripe old age and get your money back by making them pay for a century of preventive care.  :)

                    Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

                    by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:36:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Here's the actual calculator for the Health (0+ / 0-)

                Reform Law.  Run your own situation with it.

                Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

                by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:24:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  What do you want us to say? (3+ / 0-)

          How do we frame the argument to get through to low-information, Faux-fed voters -- not you, not the people on this site,  but the people who howl right-wing, hate-radio talking points -- how do you suggest we talk TO THEM about this subject in a way that

          1)  gets their attention

          2)  gets past their Faux and hate-radio defensive talking points

          3)  gets our message across in language they can understand and will accept?

          Give us an alternative.  Give us YOUR talking points, your strategy, for getting through to this specific group of people who need to understand what is really going on.

          And if you can't, well, please, don't clutch your pearls and get your panties in a twist over the nuances of a message that a) works and b) is not talking about you to anyone who knows you.

          It's not about you.  It's about them.  And getting our message to them.

          "There isn't a way things should be. There's just what happens, and what we do." — Terry Pratchett (A Hat Full of Sky)

          by stormicats on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 11:59:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  IOW (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wsexson, bkamr, for 6 too

            the poor who don't have insurance should just fall on our swords for everyone else's benefit?

            TYVM for letting me know

            It's not about you.
            As long as SOMEONE is helped to hell with me and others like me.

            Socialist Jesus said: “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me… whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.”

            by BitterEnvy on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 01:38:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Where are your talking points (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bkamr, Calamity Jean

              and your strategy? Your response sums to "whatever."

              Science can tell you how to clone a dinosaur. Humanities explains why this is a bad idea.

              by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 01:42:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Can you give some more information about a (2+ / 0-)

              person who is in your situation?  I can't tell if that person would be part of the expanded Medicaid group that the Fed Gov is going to cover 100% for a number of years ... of one of those making less than the 400% of the poverty level who will get the subsidies so you could buy insurance for about 4-9.5% of your income.

              Glad to try to help, but I don't have enough info.

              Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

              by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 02:49:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Where in heaven's name did I say that? (2+ / 0-)

              I asked for substance, for alternatives, for another way to approach the issue since this one seems to set you off so badly -- I didn't say anything about "the poor" or sacrificing them for everyone else's benefit -- there's nothing like that in this diary, in the ACA itself, or in my comments.

              Where the heck are you getting all of this out of a diary that boils down to "I figured out how to frame the issue so this right-winger will actually listen to me about what's going on?"

              You seem determined to force a fight about strawmen.  Pass.

              "There isn't a way things should be. There's just what happens, and what we do." — Terry Pratchett (A Hat Full of Sky)

              by stormicats on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:46:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  *applause* (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                anafreeka

                I am sick of people overpersonalizing and taking personal offense to methods to frame things so that right-wingers will listen.

                Science can tell you how to clone a dinosaur. Humanities explains why this is a bad idea.

                by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:07:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh my (0+ / 0-)

                  sorry that I give a damn about myself. I didn't know that was against the rules.

                  Socialist Jesus said: “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me… whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.”

                  by BitterEnvy on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 02:36:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You can certainly give a damn about yourself (0+ / 0-)

                    but if you are focusing only on that tree, then you miss the forest, which is also important.

                    No, this isn't perfect. But it's a damn sight better than what we had before.

                    Science can tell you how to clone a dinosaur. Humanities explains why this is a bad idea.

                    by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 03:21:34 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  its not tough to imagine situations (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bkamr, efraker, Janet 707, wsexson, fuzzyguy

        where someone is subject to the penalty but can't afford insurance.  take someone out of college, paying rent and student loan interest, and they're already there.  add something like having to support an ill parent and its more likely than not they'd make more than the subsidy but still be struggling to make ends meet.  

        •  Just out of college ... 18 + 4 years of college = (3+ / 0-)

          22 or 23 years old ...  At this just starting out point, you'd still be able to be covered under your parent's insurance until you are 26.  That gives you 3-4 years to get on your feet.

          Plus, if your job pays below 400% the poverty level, then you'd get subsidies.

          At $43,200 for an individual (assuming even only 60% take home), I could pay for my $21,000 in student loans ($175 a month) and a rent of even $1000 a month and still have $1000 a month for living expenses.  Now, I also know that I didn't live alone in at that age and had room mates to share housing costs ... So, if I had double or triple the cost in student loans, that is what I'd be doing.

          Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

          by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:34:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your privilege is showing. (7+ / 0-)

            You're assuming that Mommy and Daddy have insurance and can afford to add you.  

            You're also assuming that the person isn't just out of grad school or professional school.  

            "rent of even $1000 a month" - If we're talking about NYC or San Francisco, that would be close to the floor with roommates.  

            Your $21K is also below average, which is $25K.  So take someone that's above average, and that loan payment is quite a bit higher.  So, in your optimal universe, that'll leave $500.  And we haven't even gotten into food, transportation, entertainment.

            •  Okay, I'll play some different numbers. I'm older (3+ / 0-)

              but BTW not priviledged. (I was on my own at 17 years old -- NO parental support, at all.  I paid for all 3 degrees with student loans and grants and working and double loads per term ... and tuitions were lower ... going to all state schools ... living with up to 10 room mates in a house.)

              No Mom and Dad ... been there and done that.

              Give me the salary and location and I'll give your scenario a try.

              Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

              by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 09:11:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Here's a scenario (0+ / 0-)

                Three years ago my taxable income was $13K. Anticipating an increase in income, I priced out insurance. $868 a month. This was before ACA was passed, which means insurers were given the go-ahead to triple the premiums in my age bracket.

                Luckily I am now earning more, so now I'm not totally broke. I can't imagine how much I would have to earn in order to be able to afford a policy that costs $20K a year, and it seems to me in most cases I would just be exempted as too expensive to bother saving, because insurance premiums would be too high in comparison to my income.

                Even though I haven't been sick in years!

          •  BTW, I like your diary and your framing. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bkamr

            I do think, however, that it's easy to imagine someone that will struggle w/ the mandate.  The mandate tax is based on AGI, and there are so many expenses that aren't deductible (paying medical bills for a non-dependent family member, for example) and don't reduce that AGI.

            W/ that said, I'm actually pretty OK throwing those people under the bus, but I'm equally sure that that would be an unpopular position among Kossacks.  

          •  Only if your parent has a FUCKING JOB (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fuzzyguy, for 6 too

            Only if you have fucking parents.

            Only if your parent isn't institutionalizd

            Did you know that my class has a median life expectancy 5 years less than yours?  We're far less likely to have parents around in our 20's.

            Everytime you repeat "Young people get to stay on their parents insurance!!!" as if your economic status and that of your friends and associates was the norm it makes it clearer why you would elect to attack people barely scraping by and call them "FreeRiders" instead of attacking FreeLoading Big Pharma companies that have made hundreds of billions from Medicare Part D and will make hundreds of billions more from PPACA.

            You insurance isn't unaffordable because some 22 year old waitress is going to junior college instead of buying insurance.

            It's unaffordable because insurance companies are skimming 15-20%, because Pharma is charging Americans quadruple the price for drugs the rest of the developed world pays, and because specialists here are paid four times what they're worth.

            Why are you devoting your energy to attacking only the weak?

            Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

            by JesseCW on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:37:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Yay, subsidies for private insurance! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bkamr, wsexson, JesseCW

        Private for-profit health insurance is the problem.  Feeding this beast with taxpayer dollars and mandatory purchase of its product is not the solution.  It's regress, not progress.

        God, I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with some of the smarter right wingers on at least the basic principle that it's wrong to force people to buy something that somebody else is making money on.

        I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes. - Walt Whitman

        by CharlieHipHop on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:37:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree with you about Single Payer. That (4+ / 0-)

          argument is not on the table ... at this time.  

          Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

          by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:50:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're making a choice not to put it on the table. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            for 6 too

            You're making a choice to devote yourself to reinforcing a worldview that will keep it off the table.

            Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

            by JesseCW on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:38:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No. Congress made that choice. What's your plan (2+ / 0-)

              for persuading the folks who publically cheered for letting a person die if they didn't have insurance to go for Single Payer in the next six months?  In the next year?  In the next 5 years?

              If you have a good plan to get there, I'll be glad to support you.  

              Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

              by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:43:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  You already buy something else someone (7+ / 0-)

          is making money on that is clearly illegal to go without:  pants.  

          ACA is a first step.  I do not think it is a wonderful law.  I am hopeful that it gradually persuades most Americans that health care is actually a right.  It will do that by establishing that we the people have the right to apply regulations to the insurance industry.  These initial regulations will positively affect many millions of people who will live longer and better lives because of it.  There will be people who fall thru the cracks in this first step.  This law does not make it worse for them.  I fails to help them.  That is terrible - but not terrible enough to throw the whole thing out and let the millions who will be helped not get their help.

          As a doctor, I've been to the mountaintop of piles of health insurance paperwork and crap.  I would be delighted to see the demise of private health insurance, especially as primary coverage.  I would love Medicare For All.  But even that could be problematic as most patients on Medicare carry some sort of supplemental private insurance.  I'd hate to see Medicare For All gradually eroded such that if you don't carry a supplemental, you'd be screwed.  

          I was wise enough to never grow up while fooling most people into believing I had. - Margaret Mead

          by fayea on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 12:15:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  before ACA - poor. after ACA - freeloaders (21+ / 0-)

      There's an important difference here. Before the ACA, people with lower incomes couldn't afford healthcare. After the ACA kicks in, the tax credits should make it much more affordable. So after the ACA tax credits are available, the 'poor' excuse is mostly taken care of, and the people that are left are basically freeloaders.

      And don't forget that the freeloader tax still doesn't apply to people with low incomes, it's pretty strictly targeted at people who could afford insurance but choose not to pay for it. There's a low-income cutoff on the mandate, it simply doesn't apply.

      •  Exactly. it's targeted at any individuals making (8+ / 0-)

        about $44k and families at $88K who choose to STILL not buy insurance.

        Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

        by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:56:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  To be honest, it makes me want to puke HAVING (5+ / 0-)

          to buy for-profit, criminally negligent insurance that will continue to try and screw people to death--literally.

          But it's a start to get people to understand the idea of collective social responsibility.

          Romney - his fingernails have never been anything but manicured.

          by Pescadero Bill on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:13:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree. I cried sinks full of tears and yelled (6+ / 0-)

            at a bunch of clouds for Single Payer.  I remain hopeful that we will get there.  This is a start.

            AND, I'll be damned if I'm going to lets lies kick even this first step out form under us.

            Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

            by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:53:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yes. We have to remember (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fayea, bkamr, Janet 707, Pescadero Bill

            that change and progress always happens incrementally.

            Also, this will force real competition among insurers. Before, they had a near monopoly on their particular markets because you were stuck with whatever your employer gave you for a couple of reasons:

            - that pre-existing condition bullshit. That has been cut out from under them; they can no longer refuse to insure you.

            - lifetime and yearly limits. Gone. They can't use that to deny coverage, either.

            As a result, this forces the insurers to actually compete and in order to do that, they have to lower their prices.

            It may not be perfect, but it's a start at breaking their oligopoly. If they try to collude to price-set, hit 'em with RICO charges.

            The industry may still have a monopoly on health care, but the individual insurers no longer have a monopoly on the patients they've had; those patients are now free to go elsewhere without fear of losing coverage.

            Science can tell you how to clone a dinosaur. Humanities explains why this is a bad idea.

            by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 11:12:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is no longer a discussion about whether or (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pescadero Bill, bkamr, for 6 too

              not the PPACA should, overall, be the law.

              That ship sailed earlier this week.  This is the model now.  It will not be undergoing any fundemental change for at least a generation.

              We, as Democrats, now have a choice.

              We can praise and support the worst elements of the new model, or we can try to fix them.

              We can mock and attack poor people, or we can say "You're right, the mandate sucks as structured, and we should expand Medicaid to 160% of FPL!  We need stronger price controls on what insurers can charge!  We need a temporary break for anyone enrolled full time in college who isn't covered under a parents plan!".

              Right now, we're just finding out who people really are.

              Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

              by JesseCW on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:44:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Good. You push and fight for an expanded front (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Killer of Sacred Cows

                line, and others of us will chip away and erode their flanks.  This is going to take ALL sorts of actions at the state and federal level ... in the courts and streets... and it will even involve doing the one-on-one persuasion efforts needed to pull as many wing nuts along the road as possible to join up with us as far as they can.  

                I appreciate your passion.  Go for it, and I will be in the streets protesting for it with, donating to candidates who support it, and voting for it.  

                Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

                by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:48:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You're fighting to excuse the worst features (0+ / 0-)

                  of this bill.

                  You're fighting to get more people to adopt a Republican worldview that labels the poor "free riders".

                  You're attacking the poor while making a household income of 90 thousand a year.

                  We don't need any wingnuts.  We need poor and working people to have something worth voting for.

                  We outnumber them, and we outnumber you.

                  I can understand why you wouldn't us to get clear on the facts.

                  Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

                  by JesseCW on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 02:25:15 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  That's just not true. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bkamr, for 6 too

          It kicks in at 150% of FPL.  It's about 5% of income for folks in that income bracket.

          It's broken, it's brutal, and it needs to be fixed.  It really will do serious harm to poor people.

          We can't fix it if you're going to join the Republicans in attacking the poor.

          Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

          by JesseCW on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:41:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Individuals making $44K and families making (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Killer of Sacred Cows

            $88 K are NOT poor.  The penalty tax is only going to affect about 1% of the population ...who can afford to buy insurance but choose not to.

            From the front page diary, today, quoting the Urban Institue Analysis:

            What may be surprising, however, is that if the ACA were in effect today, 94 percent of the total population (93 percent of the nonelderly population) or 250.3 million people out of 268.8 million nonelderly people--would not face a requirement to newly purchase insurance or pay a fine.

            Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

            by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:59:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is not responsive. (0+ / 0-)

              I think 18 million people matter.

              You don't agree?

              Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

              by JesseCW on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 02:15:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think 26,100 people matter. (0+ / 0-)
                The lack of medical insurance has had grave consequences for individuals and the nation. In 2010 alone, 26,100 people died because they had no health insurance — that amounts to 502 preventable deaths a week. MSNBC
                The ACA Law will provide health insurance coverage for millions of Americans.  Over 500 people a week won't die as a result of this law.  

                I understand that you are upset about how the law may affect YOU, and people who may be in a situation similar to you, but:

                1.  It isn't only about you.
                2.  This is a life and death matter for many other than you.
                3.  The law actually IS going to help millions of people who are working and poor.
                4.  AND, I am concerned as hell that if we don't sell this step forward and persuade enough of the low info, independents, and reachable wing nuts in swing states ... We could very well get Romney as POTUS and lose both Houses in Congress.  (BTW The friend I was talking with that the diary was about lives in OHIO!)

                Then, we could lose even this small step forward we've made and every week 500 Americans would lose their lives.  So, there are many of us who are doing the difficult work of trying to persuade others to support this first step instead of trying to squash even this movement forward.

                Here's some of things in the law we were able to get, at this point that may be of interest to you, in your situation:

                1. People making minimum wage or less will now be covered by expanded Medicaid, due to the ACA Law, so millions more of the working poor will be getting care

                2. The 8 buck per hour worker ($16,640) will be able to buy insurance with subsidies from the Fed. Gov. for about $61 a month.  IF that person chose NOT to buy the insurance, they may be assessed a penalty ... that could only be collected as a deduction from a tax return or from their total SS contribution over the course of their lives. (That's it.  The Dems didn't put any enforcement mechanism for the mandate beyond these 2 avenues.)

                3.  The penaltyitself:  

                The penalty for people who forego insurance is the greatest of two amounts: a specified percentage of income or a specified dollar amount. The percentages of income are phased in over time at 1% in 2014, 2% in 2015, and 2.5% starting in 2016. The dollar amounts are also phased in at $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 beginning in 2016 (with annual increases after that). The Congressional Budget Office projects that 3.9 million people will pay the penalty in 2016.
                So, if you don't want to pay it, or you think you can't afford the insurance ... just don't buy it.

                4.  AND, your situation may even exempt you from the penalty anyway:  

                Several groups are exempt from the requirement to obtain coverage or pay the penalty, including: people who would have to pay more than 8% of their income for health insurance, people with incomes below the threshold required for filing taxes (in 2009, $9,350 for a single person and $26,000 for a married couple with two children).
                Whatever YOUR personal situation is, I hope you will actually benefit from the law, but quite aside from YOU, millions will benefit and thousands will live.

                Will more people be required to pay in?  Yeah, they will.  You do realize that Europeans all do pay into their helath systems too, using a system that is rather akin to our SS and Medicare taxes?  One of the pluses of this first step is getting everyone used to paying into a health care system.

                Yeah, Europe has a mainly (though not entirely) non-profit system whereas now we have a net 15-20% profit situation in place.  BUT, this is a decided improvement due to the ACA Law about a billion bucks that would have been corporate profits will be coming back to US by August 1 of this year ... due to the ACA Law.

                Finally, the whole point of the diary was to share a sales/ rehtorical lead that reached a wing nutty friends and family to possibly pull them back from the Fox News Edge ... and get them talking about what the law actually had in it.  THAT was it.

                Hundreds of kossacks "got it."  No one was ever calling the poor ... who will now have expanded access to Medicaid ... freeloaders.  People in the 75% income level who refuse to pay a % of their income for healthcare?  Yeah, they are the free-riders/ freeloaders ...

                There will be about 4 million if the CBO is correct.  I don't particularly give a fuck if they do or don't participate ... BUT wing nuts and many, many independents do.  And if you want to persuade them to accept the law, it is indeed a successful lead to get into a rational discussion with them.  

                The Dem Big Tent has a lot of different people in it who all do different types of things to try to push and move us progressively forward.  Some are occupying, some write checks, and some of us try to persuade conservative friends and family.

                Best wishes to you.

                Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

                by bkamr on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 09:46:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Furthermore, from the same front page diary! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Killer of Sacred Cows
            As Ryan Grim noted, that's because "98 percent of Americans would either be exempt from the mandate—because of employer coverage, public health insurance or low income—or given subsidies to comply." The Urban Institute estimated that 8.1 million Americans would have their insurance paid for by the expansion of Medicaid to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Another 10.9 million people would receive subsidies to buy private insurance in the new state exchanges, while only 7.3 million (2 percent of the total U.S. population) would be required to purchase a health plan using their own resources alone. As for those Americans choosing to instead to pay the penalty of $695 or up to 2.5 percent of household income for failing to obtain insurance at all, the CBO estimated that number at 4 million. (That forecast is almost double the rate in Massachusetts, where only 48,000 in a state of 6.6 million people opted to pay the penalty rather than acquire health insurance under Mitt Romney's version of the individual mandate.)
            my emphasis and that 4 million are the damned freeloaders we are talking about.  

            Not the poor.
            Not the college students who have not income.
            Not the family of 4 making 40, 50, 60, 70, or even 80 K a year who will get their subsidy and tax credit.
            Not the entire fucking 93% of Americans who are not even going to be affected or required to newly purchase insurance.

            And, remember, even referring to this 1% group (you know the buddy whose parents do give him lots of dough, but he's the one who skips out on the bar bill and stiffs everyone else?  That dude.) is just a LEAD to open up a dialog.

            That's it.

            Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

            by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 09:09:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is not responsive. (0+ / 0-)

              You're just refusing to admit you're wrong.

              Everyone not eligible for Medicaid is subject to the fine if they can't afford their share of their premium.

              This is a simple, basic fact about the way the PPACA works, and you got it wrong.

              The fines don't kick in at 400% of FPL.  

              The subsidies don't actually make insurance (let alone care) affordable for a large block of people.

              Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

              by JesseCW on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 02:21:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  It hits anyone over 140% of Federal Poverty (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        for 6 too

        Level.

        Do you think someone working a full time 8 dollar an hour job is not poor?

        Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

        by JesseCW on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:39:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  They still can't. Do you seriously think a person (0+ / 0-)

        making 150% of FPL can afford to go 2k out of pocket for premiums and care in a year?

        Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

        by JesseCW on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 02:22:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Check the subsidy calculator; premium's much lower (0+ / 0-)

          http://healthreform.kff.org/...

          I ran it for your hypothetical:

          Projected income in 2014:  $17,258 – 150% of poverty

          Unsubsidized health insurance premium in 2014 adjusted for age (Based on an age factor relative to a 40 year-old of: 1.00) – $4500

          Maximum % of income the person/family has to pay for the premium if eligible for a subsidy     – 4%

          Actual person/family required premium payment – $690    (which equals 4.00% of income and covers 15% of the overall premium)

          Government tax credit $3810 (which covers 85% of the overall premium)

          I do think that $690 ($57.50/mo) is manageable. It's a far cry from what McConnell says ---that it's not his party's concern at all whether this person is able to get coverage. I pay $675/mo right now and make under 50k including health care as part of salary (in my 2 person firm).

    •  Did you even read the diary? (10+ / 0-)

      The word "freeloader" was used as a wedge to market the program to a wingnut. No one here believes that, even the diarist said that s/he had to continue to speak in wingnutese in order to maintain his/her audience.

    •  It is reverse psychology on the wingers that is (8+ / 0-)

      being used. No one on DKos is denigrating the poor or needy.  

      "We are a Plutocracy, we ought to face it. We need, desperately, to find new ways to hear independent voices & points of view" Ramsey Clark, U.S. Attorney General.

      by Mr SeeMore on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:10:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. For a greater good...... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Killer of Sacred Cows

        .....we need to speak their language and throw it back at them: Personal responsibility, slackers, taxing those that go without insurance, no more people who just think they can waltz into emergency rooms, insurance rates set by the free market, not by government.

        Say what you must, that is true and will break through the wall of ignorance. We are at war here and they are about to fight back very hard and we are playing by the Marquise de Queensberry rules, and fussing about whether our jackets are straight.

      •  It's not "reverse". It's reinforcing. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        for 6 too

        Agreeing with their framing is how we got to a place that the best we could do was a Heritage Foundation bill.

        Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

        by JesseCW on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:45:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The poor aren't freeloaders (6+ / 0-)

      They want the insurance, they just can't afford it.

      But there are freeloaders out there. People who could afford insurance but don't buy it through a combination of lazyness and a sense of invulnerability. The mandate was always about these people. Not the poor.

      I hate that it is so, but a lot of people seemed to be wired to be more supportive of something that hurts "the bad guy" than they will be of something that will help "the good guy".

      "Make the damn freeloaders pay" is a message that taps into that sentiment in a way that will actually help those who really need the help.

    •  Is thickness a congential Progressive condition? (3+ / 0-)

      Did you really not grasp the concept, clearly outlined in the original article, that freeloader = people who can pay but don't?

      This is why Liberals can't turn a victory into a win. Because they have to stop and explain "winning" to every third person on their side.

      The simple and obvious solution is to define anyone who has a job as not a "freeloader." This is a definition that will fly with the Right.

      As for people without jobs, there are answers to that, too. But you have to lead the Righties to this understanding one step at a time, and you have to start the steps in their territory, and it doesn't help the rest of us to have people like you screaming in outrage because a Lefty was spotted speaking to a Righty in language the Righty can understand.

      •  I know what (0+ / 0-)

        you got from the article, that republicans can be outsmarted with their own terms.  We all see it.  The problem is that, despite the best intentions, it unwittingly tells them that their views are universal, and that we are only pretending to disagree with conservatism.

  •  I've been hearing this a lot. (32+ / 0-)
    ...I decided to respond instead of just letting it go.
    I've been doing that myself.

    How many of us have been biting our tongues, not wishing to engage in battle as we sat and listened to right wing rhetoric from family and friends?

    Now is the time to speak up.  Because, testimony after testimony is showing us that these types of telling it like it is conversations are working.  

    Only, by the time we were done she wasn't angry at Obamacare; she was angry at Fox News, for being so misleading.
    We need to be gently understanding to those who will be waking up to the fact that they've been duped.

    Nobody wants to admit that.  Those who will be screaming the loudest will be those who know the truth but refuse to admit they've been used.

    Growing old is inevitable...Growing up is purely optional

    by grannycarol on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:53:15 AM PDT

  •  You plugged in to the "Strict Father" frame (20+ / 0-)

    described by George Lakoff, in contrast to the progressive "Nurturing Parent" frame. If that was the only way to connect with the person you were talking to, then it seems to have worked. Unfortunately, it won't do much to help you communicate other progressive positions.

    "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

    by Geenius at Wrok on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:53:36 AM PDT

    •  Exactly! I've been begging these people to (19+ / 0-)

      be their bother's keeper for YEARS!

      Bumpkiss.  In fact, it seems to drive them nuts.

      Fine.

      If they think making the above 400% poverty level (above about $44k individual and above $88K family) people should  PAY their FAIRSHARE is a feature of the law ... I can sell it that way.

      To a progressive, the millions more covered is the feature.

      Both things are true with this law.

      Basic sales technique, folks.  Sell the percieved feature that fits the particular customer's key need.  

      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

      by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:24:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think it's time we start (12+ / 0-)

      thinking of ways to phrase some of these other progressive values with the 'strict father' frame. Messaging seems to be the issue, not values.

      Try to shout at the right buildings for a few months.

      by nickrud on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:32:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We have to use Reverse psychology on the wingers (3+ / 0-)

        to make them accept ObamaCareS.

        "We are a Plutocracy, we ought to face it. We need, desperately, to find new ways to hear independent voices & points of view" Ramsey Clark, U.S. Attorney General.

        by Mr SeeMore on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:37:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  ObamaCareS is cute but since (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bkamr, Killer of Sacred Cows

          wingers don't care it won't impact them at all.  Wingers think that caring is the fatal flaw of liberals.  Apparently to them we care so much we would give away the store while they wisely miser their way into riches.  

          I was wise enough to never grow up while fooling most people into believing I had. - Margaret Mead

          by fayea on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 12:21:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  They don't like care or cares, BTW...... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Killer of Sacred Cows, bkamr

          ....they have been teaching Republicans NOT to care for years. And so the way to get through to them is not with soft, nice words about caring. The very idea that a President would "care" is repugnant to them. No, really it is.

          Focus on NOT caring. Focus on all those bad people in emergency rooms who are soaking up our dollars. Tax them if they don't have insurance. Focus on the free market and what a celebration of the free market this is -- this isn't government health care (what we want, but we will need to do this increments).

          Liken it to having CAR insurance and showing a little personal responsibility.

          Go right wing on their asses.

      •  But they're not really compatible (6+ / 0-)

        That's the difficulty. If you believe entirely in the "strict father" frame, you will be a conservative, because only conservative policies will make sense to you. If you believe entirely in the "nurturant parent" frame, you will be a liberal.

        The only time "strict father" framing works for us at all is when we're stuck trying to defend an essentially conservative policy against the depredations of regressives and reactionaries. Because "strict father" looks like "nurturant parent" when placed next to "psycho child abuser."

        "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

        by Geenius at Wrok on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 11:05:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think we all have a bit of the (4+ / 0-)

          strict father (I'd prefer to say strict parent) in us and also the nurturing parent.  It's just the predominant balance that is different between us liberals and those conservatives.  I am in a community dominated by conservatives and have seen them display plenty of nurturing parent type behavior.  I've also seen a few liberals who display complete narcissistic strict parenting behaviors at times.  We are all human with the complete range of human potentials.  

          I was wise enough to never grow up while fooling most people into believing I had. - Margaret Mead

          by fayea on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 12:25:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The sound of whirring wheels of academia... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Killer of Sacred Cows, bkamr

          ...is very loud. Again, we are playing chess and they are planning to come in the room with a bazooka and blow the chess board to smithereens.

          Let's get real. Lakoff is not as effective as their guys. He is a muttering, nearly incoherent academic who couldn't create a tagline if his life depended on it.  His heart is in the right place, but you cannot plug and play his meanderings.

          Selling something to conservatives using language they understand doesn't make you conservative, any more than does selling an old Subaru to a wingnut by telling them it is a great car that will get you all the way to Canada on back roads IF Obama comes to get his guns.

          Sell the car.

          Then later you can apologize to God. The apology would go something like this: Sorry, I really needed to sell that car and I did not tell the wingnut Obama was coming to take his guns. I said IF Obama came to get his guns, he could get to Canada in the Subaru. And he can.

          •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)
            Selling something to conservatives using language they understand doesn't make you conservative, any more than does selling an old Subaru to a wingnut by telling them it is a great car that will get you all the way to Canada on back roads IF Obama comes to get his guns.

            Sell the car.

            Then later you can apologize

            I wish that the folks here who are so angry would realize we are talking about RHETORIC AND STRATEGY, not POLICY.

            Sheesh, folks. We're talking about selling it to people who hate it so that they won't undermine what good it is doing. No, it isn't perfect. We can't get perfect yet. We're working on it. But speaking of messaging - every shrill voice on our side saying how bad it is is a voice that they will use to say "See? Even liberals think it's a bad thing."

            Science can tell you how to clone a dinosaur. Humanities explains why this is a bad idea.

            by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 03:26:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Other progressive positions (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bkamr, fayea, Killer of Sacred Cows

      I think it is still possible.

      IMO, we should put aside the arguments about compassion, and sell progressive policies as things that work.

      •  That's why I try to sell things like the SNAP (3+ / 0-)

        Program as being for agribusiness, keeping them going with regular dependable sales to the poor, not talking about feeding the poor. I tell them about how it was started for that purpose, to keep farmers in business so that when they want to buy there is a ready supply of the food they want.

        Also, how it's so that the poor don't try to steal from the haves to get food.

        You know, make it all about them and the wealthy they worship.

        Women create the entire labor force.

        by splashy on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 05:15:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I wonder (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bkamr, Killer of Sacred Cows, fayea

      We just seem to assume that progressive policy can't be reframed as Strict Father because we like to think of ourselves more as Nuturers.

      But the OP hit on a SF frame that actually supports the real anger of Nuturers everywhere: we resent the small percentage of people who would take advantage of the nuturing instinct in others.

  •  I like it. (30+ / 0-)

    I like it a lot because it frames the people who are whining about the mandate accurately. Yesterday I got into a back and forth on Facebook with a couple friends of my son's, young people who have fully bought the "government is bad, I hate taxes" line of thinking. This is what I said to them:

    For those who oppose the mandate, consider this. Suppose you are in a car accident, you don't have health care coverage, and you can't come up with the half-a-million dollars it will take to save your life. Who foots the bill for not letting you die? All the rest of us, that's who. All of us who have health care coverage are subsidizing the free lunch for those who want the "freedom" to not have health coverage.
    We can sell this. We just have to work at it. Great diary. Tipped and rec'd.

    "...in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy." Matt Taibbi

    by Getreal1246 on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:55:00 AM PDT

    •  I was in a FB fight too! I said the same thing! (16+ / 0-)

      But this one clown still didn't want to admit that we'd be covering his non-insured ass if he showed up in the ER. They never like looking in the mirror. They like thinking that only OTHER PEOPLE are freeloaders. But this is indeed the way to go because it's the line of reasoning Bob Dole and his friends used in 1993 when THEY advocated the individual mandate.

      Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed...

      by langstonhughesfan on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:15:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I hear you (6+ / 0-)

        One of the people I was conversing with came back and said, "Well, even if I am covered, the government will just deny the half-a-million dollar claim." There is always another objection. I just kept badgering him with facts. Hopefully, he at least learned something about the law.

        "...in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy." Matt Taibbi

        by Getreal1246 on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:34:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They will get real quiet for a while and then not (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bkamr, Killer of Sacred Cows, fayea

          talk politics again.

          . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

          by 88kathy on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:55:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Nope, the laws does away with lifetime caps! (5+ / 0-)

          I hit this one, too, and the law has it covered.  

          I wanted single payer, but there really is an awful lot in it that is MUCH better than going back to where we were.

          Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

          by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:58:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  They are under the mistaken impression (9+ / 0-)

          that the government is providing the insurance. That's another lie that's taken hold because of all the right wingers out there calling this a "government take over of health care". They need to be set straight that we don't even have a public option (yet). Everyone except for Medicare and Medicaid recipients will still be getting their coverage through private insurers. Those insurers will just be subject to a lot stricter rules so they can't abuse their customers anymore.

          48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam "Compassion is the radicalism of our time." ~ Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama -7.88, -6.21

          by Siri on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:22:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, lots of misinformation still (6+ / 0-)

            Some people seem to think they will be forced now to buy some government "Obamacare" insurance, as opposed to keeping the insurance they have.

            And some think (and the GOP will try to get people to think) that the insured middle-class will be paying a "tax" to cover insuring the poor.

            We need to push back hard on both and the best way to do it is to push the responsibility theme. Make it clear the "tax" is a penalty on the "freeloaders" who can afford insurance but instead make the rest of us pay higher premiums to support them.  This approach is the only way to get through to the middle class, who are always afraid something is being taken from them to give to "those people".

            Yes, we need to emphasize all the good things in the bill for everyone (pre-existing conditions covered, no lifetime limits, can't be dropped when you get sick). That stuff will resonate with the middle class voters we need. Just emphasizing providing help to poor people, as noble as it is, is unfortunately not a winning formula.

            "Responsibility". Everyone paying their fair share. No more "free-riders". Insurance companies must live up to their responsibilities.

            Those are the main keywords.

            I'm a dyslexic agnostic insomniac. I lie awake at night wondering if there's a dog.

            by rennert on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 09:05:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Right. Here's the right wing talking points as of (4+ / 0-)

              this morning:

              Obamacare means higher taxes and governmental control over your healthcare.
              Of course, it's the kind of clever lie with a shred of truth designed to hit the customer in their hatefilled, selfish center.  Wish I had a quarter for everytime I'm going to hear THAT statement over the next month.

              THAT is what we're up against.  It's excellent marketing and messaging on their side, once again.

              We've been complaining for years that "THE Dems" don't message well or "fight back."  Well, "THE Dems," are us.

              It's time for us to learn how to SELL, too.  This is just a lead that opens the sales call with wing nuts customers.

              Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

              by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 09:23:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Uh oh (4+ / 0-)

          He's on to us.  It's true.  We have him on the list, people who will have their half million claim denied by a faceless govt bureaucrat when their sorry asses show up in the emergency room.

          We have his room all ready for him, at the FEMA reeducation camp.

          •  Except that the gov is actually going to save (6+ / 0-)

            the dumb cluck from the Insurance Death Panel that has a lifetime cap on him, now.  

            All I had to do on this one was ask, "Good point.  Lifetime caps suck!!  Soooo, what's your insurance company's lifetime cap, now?"  "Doesn't have one, are you sure about that?"

            Very few people even know, for sure.  I guess I kind of played the fear card, too, didn't I?  (Cringe) Well, that worked too.

            I let her up, immediately.  "Well, even if your insurance company has some sort of Death Panel or life time cap, after 2014, under Obamacare NONE of our insurance companies with be able to pull that damn crap on us anymore!"

            and yeah, the other damn group I used were the insurance companies.

            Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

            by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 11:02:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  You can't convince the freeloaders (6+ / 0-)

        But you can convince those who have incorrectly identified who the freeloaders are. To many people subject to right-wing propaganda, the freeloaders are the poor, the immigrants, the down-trodden. The Right has successfully framed them as people who are sucking off the teat of the government instead of going out there and pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.

        The real freeloaders are people like Mitt Romney who want the government to guarantee them a path to riches and make sure no one else can threaten and never ask them to pay anything for that help.

        Elizabeth Warren really hit on this when she talks about how the rich succeed in part because society has given them so many tools to help them succeed (public roads, etc.) We don't resent the rich for being rich. We resent the rich who want to access the benefits of society without paying a fair price for those benefits.

      •  If we agree with and support Bob Doles worldview (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        for 6 too

        this is the way to go.

        I didn't vote for him 1996.

        Did you?

        Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

        by JesseCW on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:48:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  About Bensdads list: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bkamr, SingerInTheChoir

    Rebuttal needed for this assertion:

     

    Wrong about the "insurance will be cheaper part. Just the opposite. Costs are going to continue to soar because there are no enforceable regulations preventing constant price increases.

    "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

    by kestrel9000 on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:56:19 AM PDT

    •  This is where the 80% rule and rebates come (13+ / 0-)

      in.  If the insurance company is not using 80% to cover health care costs, then, they have to send rebates.  Plus, with more of us covered, the billing will get simpler etc. and the cost bend in the curve goes into effect.

      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

      by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:26:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Angry White Democrat, wsexson

        that will control costs about as well as a cost-plus contract.  If they only get to keep 20%, they have little incentive to cut costs and every incentive to raise customer rates, because the more they go up the bigger their 20% is.

        all morals are relative, but some are more relative than others.

        by happymisanthropy on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:20:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They have to show how it was used to pay for care. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Killer of Sacred Cows

          Another poster, here, mentioned about how she got called by her doctor for preventive care ... and I just did, last week, too.  I thought it was weird when it happened, but it just clicked for me why I got the call.  The insurance companies are approaching the deadline ...

          Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

          by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 11:05:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Do you think 20% profit margins are *small*? (0+ / 0-)

        Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

        by JesseCW on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:49:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Refutation..... (9+ / 0-)

      costs are not soaring in Mitt Romney's Massachusetts where increases were at 2% annually.  That said, there is expected to be a bit of a rush on doctors as sick people who didn't get care before show up at drs offices.

      You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

      by murrayewv on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:44:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  My insurance company is working hard (12+ / 0-)

      to find ways to make sure they are spending the 80% of my premium on actual health care.  First they told us they would be bringing in a health fair to our work place.  (some of the wingers were suspicious) Then they gave us a 24/7 call in nurse to help us do triage.  Thursday I got a call from my Dr.'s office.  I hadn't been in for a check up in a long time.  Why did my Dr. care?  Well the insurance company had sent her a note that I was overdue.  They want to spend my healthcare dollar on those copay free visits.  

      Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world--and never will. Mark Twain

      by whoknu on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:21:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I got a call from my doctor, too! How funny is (5+ / 0-)

        that.  They wanted me to schedule a check-up visit ... and how about getting that Shingles vaccine, too?  I agreed.  I HAD been putting off the shot, even though I know I have a 1 in 3 chance of having a shingles ourbreak.  Plus, my Mom does have high blood pressure and they wanted to check my BP and chloresterol ... now that I'm above 50.

        LOL  Yes, yes, and yes.  All good preventive care steps to keep ME from costing all of us big bills -- plus, it will keep me healthier for me.  Grin.  In a sense, I too have been gambling that I won't get really sick!  Big laugh at and on myself.

        Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

        by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:41:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Rate review programs (5+ / 0-)

      Rate increases over 10% will be reviewed by the state or HHS, and the review will include how well the insurance company is meeting the 80/20 rule.

      From The 80/20 Rule: Providing Value and Rebates to Millions of Consumers on healthcare.gov:

      The 80/20 rule is ensuring that insurance companies provide consumers value for their premium dollars. This rule works in combination with other consumer protections in the Affordable Care Act, like the program that reviews insurance companies’ rates to ensure that premium increases are not unreasonable. Insurance companies are now required to subject insurance premium rate increases of 10% or more to a new review process and justify these increases.  Most states now have the authority to determine whether these increases are excessive, while HHS reviews rates in states that do not operate effective rate review programs.  In making these determinations, HHS and the states closely review insurance companies’ 80/20 or MLR standards.
      [emphasis mine]

      Sounds to me like a rebuttal to

      there are no enforceable regulations preventing constant price increases.
      Caroline

      What we have are markets. Culture rewards both action and restraint, in many ways; markets can only reward action, which makes them sociopathic when used to operate culture. h/t Gooserock 6/7/2011

      by SingerInTheChoir on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:41:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The ACA has incentives for providers to find (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bkamr, Killer of Sacred Cows

      more cost effective ways to deliver care.  Going to care based models instead of the pay for procedure model is one of them.  Increased funding of preventive care is another.

      “when Democrats don’t vote, Democrats don’t win.” Alan Grayson

      by ahumbleopinion on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:57:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well, as a rhetorical jujitsu move, I suppose it's (5+ / 0-)

    okay.

    As an accurate summation of the situation, it sucks. And the fact that this is on the rec list indicates just how far 'round the bend this site has gone.

    You can call it "class warfare" -- we call it "common sense"

    by kenlac on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:06:02 AM PDT

  •  Fantastic! (13+ / 0-)

    Thanks for laying it out so clearly. I`ll use this info in a letter to the editor in our local paper here in rosy red state east Idaho.

  •  I used this argument too and it's amazing how... (10+ / 0-)

    this approach stymies the opposition! LOL! You have to appeal to their mean-streak in order for them to get on board! But it works!!!

    Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed...

    by langstonhughesfan on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:10:54 AM PDT

  •  socialist medicine is using free emergency rooms (16+ / 0-)

    I'm always amazed at the claim that the ACA is socialized medicine. First, it's socialized insurance, not medicine, until the doctor's paycheck comes directly from the government, which isn't happening.

    Technically, using free emergency rooms, provided at taxpayer expense, is socialism, while buying insurance from commercial providers is capitalism. So the key element of the ACA is actually a significant reduction in the socialized part in order to boost the capitalist part.

    •  Insurance, by definition, is a socialist setup. (0+ / 0-)

      Everyone pays in, only a few people get big payouts, so they are getting their care based on everyone else's contributions at a sometimes disproportionate rate. But if it were done the way socialists wanted it done, nobody would rake in a profit from it - only the ability to meet costs.

      Science can tell you how to clone a dinosaur. Humanities explains why this is a bad idea.

      by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 03:29:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Exactly the approach I have been using. The (9+ / 0-)

    wingnuts home on on "free-loaders" like a laser. It's part of their conditioning.

  •  this "freeloader" argument is one (8+ / 0-)

    of the most potent ones, in my opinion. After listening to the owners of my place of employment trash Obamacare (yes, they are your typical Republicans), it occurred to me that we should be telling everyone that we already have health insurance for every American, only it is one of the most expensive and inefficient types of health insurance because it encourages those without health insurance to use expensive hospital emergency rooms. Instead of subsidizing people's expensive emergency room visits, we should be trying to reduce the taxpayers financial burden.

    You are right. It seems to me that this is one of the most potent arguments. Unfortunately, the Obama administration dropped the ball immediately after passage of the health care act, when they should have begun an aggressive, sustained, ongoing public information campaign, with a truth squad and all. Instead, they have just pretty much let the opposition off the hook, time and again.

  •  The "damn" freeloaders? (6+ / 0-)

    I don't like the tone against free loaders. Many of the "freeloaders" are people who just can't afford to buy insurance. They are freeloaders, but not by choice. Our issue is with the group of Americans who want to preserve freeloading (which consists of both some current freeloaders but mostly people currently insured or on Medicare). Attacking the "damn freeloaders" will alienate many Obama- and ACA-supporters, needlessly.

    •  The "freeloaders" are individuals making (6+ / 0-)

      above $44 K and familes above $88 K who are not paying for insurance but have the opportunity to go to the ER ...

      400% above the poverty level and not chosing to buy affordable insurance = freeloader

      Not the poor.

      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

      by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:35:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, freeloaders include all freeloaders, (4+ / 0-)

        not just the better-off ones. And many of these people, including the better-off, have pre-existing conditions that make them uninsurable. So when someone says "damn freeloaders" that includes "damn poor people" and "damn uninsurables". Our opponent here is not all freeloaders, but rather all people, freeloaders and not, who oppose universal healthcare.

        •  The law disallows turning down or charging (9+ / 0-)

          MORE for people with pre-existing conditions.  

          Presumably, the reason that people you are listing have NOT chosen to buy affordable insurance is due to cost or not being allowed to buy it?  So, they will ba able to ... and therefore, they are NOT "the freeloaders."  They are the wonderful, decent, responsible Americans that the damn greedy insurance companies won't be able to deny coverage to, anymore.

          See how that works?

          Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

          by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:04:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Which presumes (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wsexson

            they have been able to afford to pay whatever exorbitant rate the insurance company would have charged them. People who are seriously ill, chronically ill, or disabled don't automatically make lots more money to pay those rates. They make less, which is why so many are uninsured.

    •  I think you missed the point (12+ / 0-)

      That phase was solely used to appeal to and get the attention of the misled RWer. I did not come away with the feeling that the diarist believes all people without insurance are freeloaders, but rather s/he was using it as a device to reach their intended audience.

      Wise men talk because they have something to say, fools, because they have to say something. - Plato

      by eashep on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:43:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I understand that. (6+ / 0-)

        I'm saying that as a device I think it is divisive and unnecessary. I don't even agree that all freeloaders are bad people at all - many of them simply can't afford to buy insurance or are uninsurable due to a pre-existing condition. There are people here in this community who are "freeloaders". I don't think we should call them "damn".

        •  I frankly despise the divisiveness ... It's (10+ / 0-)

          a tool that has been used against us (the 99%).  However, arguing or acting like it doesn't exist is not reality based or helpful.  

          I'm done trying to begin discussions by pleading with wingnuts to love their neighbors.  They don't.  In fact, they hate their neighbors ... if they think they are being expected to give them a dime.  They even cheered the idea of letting people DIE outside the hospital if they didn't have insurance!

          So, how can we reach that 27-37% of the 99% who bought the whole "welfare queen" -- the poor, teachers, firemen ... are your enemies group?  Re-direction.

          The supposed "freeloaders" in the approach I found that worked?  Frankly, there will probably hardly even be many freeloaders (looking at the Mass. example) that evenreally exist at all, once the bill goes into effect.  Re-directing their hate toward a non-existent group ... wierd huh.

          Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

          by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:17:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is reverse psychology and it is a great way to (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bkamr, Killer of Sacred Cows

            get the point across, in a manner the rightwingers will understand.

            The ends justify the means.

            "We are a Plutocracy, we ought to face it. We need, desperately, to find new ways to hear independent voices & points of view" Ramsey Clark, U.S. Attorney General.

            by Mr SeeMore on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:49:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It gets across the point (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wsexson, for 6 too

              that there are positives.

              But it also gets across the point unintentionally that the problem with healthcare in this country is all the damned freeloaders who have not purchased insurance. They know all about those damned freeloaders, because they've been hearing about them on Fox News and hate radio all along. They are poor and brown-skinned folks, and every one of them lives in luxury on welfare-for-life and gets free healthcare at the ER. And they're all illegal, too.

              They know all this, because they have heard it so many times. And now they know that the libruls agree with them about it.

          •  Everyone hates freeloaders (4+ / 0-)

            Even the freeloaders :-)

            Instead of trying to find ways to get people to understand freeloaders, let's instead correctly identify who the freeloaders are and direct the natural anger against the correct target.

    •  Yes. This is good. (5+ / 0-)

      The vast majority of people without insurance are people who couldn't afford it anyway.  The "tax" will better assure they can.

      So much silliness being written even by the left on this.  The more I think about the ACA as it is, the more I like it.  But you do have to think it through.

      “I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.” - Harriet Tubman

      by Publius2008 on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:07:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You have bought into the right wing frame (6+ / 0-)

      A freeloader is not someone who can't afford to pay. A freeloader is someone who can pay but doesn't.

      Even though I think you know this, you take offense at the association because a part of you thinks that way.

      The only way to be offended at this idea is if you think that "freeloader", air-quotes or not, is in any way an appropriate way to think about the poor. It is not, therefore there is nothing offensive to the poor in this use of the term.

    •  "Freeloaders" is a lot bigger problem than (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      for 6 too

      "Damn".

      Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

      by JesseCW on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:51:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  the emergency room isn't free (14+ / 0-)

    I don't know why some of you think that going to the ER is freeloading.

    Why would I want to pay $8000 a year (that I really can't afford, to be honest) for junk insurance which won't cover an ER visit, due to deductibles, when I can go to the ER if I need it and pay $1500? How does that make me a freeloader?

    And why would you think going to the ER and getting a bill and paying it is slacking? Why would you think that nobody pays the bill if they go to the ER?

    •  I'm glad you're willing and able to pay $1500 (9+ / 0-)

      out of pocket for your care ...  But what if you're in a car accident or get cancer and it isn't $1500?  What if your bill is $500K?  The wingnuts cheered the idea of just letting you die instead of having the hospital be required to treat you.

      Now, you say you can't afford $8000 for junk insurance.  Fair enough.  But this is where the rest of the law comes in.

      1. Junk insurance - the 80% for health care or you get a rebate regulation is targeted at this. (Competition is also targeted at this.  Some market principals do work a bit.)

      2.  If you make less than 400% the poverty level ($44k as an individual or $88 K for a family, then you get a subsidy to help pay for your insurance).

      Bottom-line is:  Those who are above 400% of the povery level with incomes as I described above who still choose not to purchase one the affordable, decent care insurance options that will be available will frankly be choosing to play a pocker game in which they know that the house will bail out their debts if they lose big time.  THOSE are the individuals who will be assessed a really small fine/ tax to off-set those bai-out situations ... instead of having those bills covered by higher premiums and taxes like they are, today.

      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

      by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:46:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you have cancer.... (10+ / 0-)

        you cannot go to the ER and get free treatment.  Nor will they perform heart surgery or give you a liver transplant or any other major treatment.  They will only treat things like broken bones, cuts, etc... minor things that require emergency care.

        •  Currently you can't get care for early stage (3+ / 0-)

          cancer where there is a chance of saving your life, but if you're dying on the cusp of multiple organ failure ... um yes, they will take you in and perform all sorts of tests and catastophic efforts ... to find out that it's too late.  Making today's system an idiotic shame, since if the same $ and effort had been given in the early stages, you might have been saved.  

          I think this law has a decent chance of changing that bizarre dynamic for millions of Americans.  But, that's me appreciating the progressive perspective.

          Like I said. I wanted Single Payer, but we aren't arguing that argument amongst each other ... at the moment.

          I'm looking to find a way through the CRAZY to be able to discuss what the existing law actually is with wing nuts friends and family.

          Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

          by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:51:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, they will perform heart surgery if you (6+ / 0-)

          go to the ER and cannot pay and do not have insurance, it happened to me, last year.

          Unemployed three years, went to ER June 11, 2011, thinking I had a perforated ulcer.

          Actually had 100% blockage of a coronary artery. Had a heart attack in the ER exam room.

          They sent me to the CathLab and performed an angiogram, determined the blockage and inserted a Stent (a tiny piece of filigreed metal shaped like a sliny) to keep my artery open.

          Spent 2.5 days in recovery and then discharged.

          I had not seen a doctor since 1998, the last year I had any insurance was 1996, prior to my divorce.

          What hospitals are required to do in ERs is determine if your condition is life threatening and then provide sufficient care to stabilize you. Which is what they did for me.

          The 'major treatment" that ERs do not provide, is due to that requirement. Many 'major treatments' are not emergency treatments, which is what ERs are designed to deal with. Not long-term treatment plans.

          * * *
          I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization
          -- SCOTUS Justice O.W. Holmes Jr.
          * * *
          "A Better World is Possible"
          -- #Occupy

          by Angie in WA State on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 09:07:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  you've described a real problem (8+ / 0-)
        But what if you're in a car accident or get cancer and it isn't $1500?  What if your bill is $500K?
        Who is the freeloader here? I'd say it's whoever is making that much money off of providing health care. Half a million dollars for any kind of problem is pure greed. We're talking about people's health yet the insurance world, combined with for-profit medicine, is way out of line. This should be addressed but no one in any position to do anything about it wants to touch the system as it now stands.

        I understand that if no one rocks the boat then we have to make it work as best we can.

        But I think this is the wrong entry point in solving it. I feel pretty strongly that the purpose of the mandate is to make sure the insurance providers continue to make a lot of money.

        •  Great. And THAT is the feature that YOU like (4+ / 0-)

          the most and speaks to you.

          Maybe that same feature will appeal to some of the wing nuts.  My point is that we can't keep trying to sell people with what appeals to US.  

          Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

          by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:53:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I reject that. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wsexson, JesseCW, for 6 too

            If we reinforce right wing framing by saying "Hell yes we're going to stick it to those fucking poor people," you just make their right-wing hatreds stronger.

            all morals are relative, but some are more relative than others.

            by happymisanthropy on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:26:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, the poor are NOT the Free Loaders as (3+ / 0-)

              defined by the ACA Law (aka Obamacare).

              The "free loaders" are the people who make 400% of the poverty level or above ... $44K as individuals and $88K as a family who choose not to buy any of the affordable, private options they will have available.

              Free Loaders =The people who will be able to afford insurance but choose not to get it.

              THEY are the "free loaders" who will be made to PAY the fine/ tax for not paying for insurance ... THEY are the ones who are gambling that they won't get sick or hurt while they are expecting US to pick up the bill in increased premiums and taxes if they lose their bet.

              In essence, it's a kind of gambling like the bankers did and we got stuck with the bailout.

              Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

              by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 11:14:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  We can't change their framing to ours. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              stormicats, bkamr, Calamity Jean

              It's been tried and it failed. Research shows that providing evidence to people when the evidence doesn't match their biases does no good at all.

              Using their framing, on the other hand, seems to be getting their attention and converting them to supporting ACA.

              We can either rail against the fact that our framing doesn't work for them, or we can rejoice that we've found a way to make their framing work for us.

              Science can tell you how to clone a dinosaur. Humanities explains why this is a bad idea.

              by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 11:29:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  if they support ACA (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wsexson

                but they still hate poor people and brown people, they're going to vote for Romney anyway.

                all morals are relative, but some are more relative than others.

                by happymisanthropy on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 11:37:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Then realize that they are a lost cause (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bkamr, Calamity Jean

                  and move on to the people we CAN reach.

                  I will admit that one of the things I hate most about some of the liberals and progressives I've met is this need to hold up our idealistic ideals as opposition to the tools that actually WORK to get people to vote our way. The phrase "beating one's head against a brick wall" comes to mind when I think of that approach. Sometimes, you have to appeal to their baser natures. If it works, IT WORKS.

                  Look, here's an example of working with the tools instead of insisting on the ideals: I think it was in a comment to one of my recent diaries that a progressive for-Obama canvasser described their encounter with a midwestern family who said "Oh yeah, we're voting for the n*gger."

                  Now. They VOTED FOR OBAMA. We can either be glad of that or be angry that they used racist terminology, alienate them for doing so, and quite possibly move them to vote against him.

                  Progressives need to focus on what works, not on what we want people to believe. Get the votes first; change the hearts and minds later.

                  Science can tell you how to clone a dinosaur. Humanities explains why this is a bad idea.

                  by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 11:52:59 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Framing is like roads built in the brain (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    wsexson, for 6 too, JesseCW

                    if you only use the Republicans' roads, you're 99% sure to arrive at a Republican destination.

                    Building your own roads is much, much more difficult because you don't have Fox Paving Company behind you.  But there's no way to arrive at a different destination while driving on the roads that Rupert Murdoch built.

                    all morals are relative, but some are more relative than others.

                    by happymisanthropy on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 12:34:14 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Okay, lets try this another way. You can't change (2+ / 0-)

                      an attitude by arguing with someone.  Why?

                      An attitude is a closely bound construct that includes thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

                      They are designed to be short-cut programs we use to get our needs met.  

                      We largely use them on an unconscious level.

                      Whenever we challenge a thought that's part of someone's attitude, they feel what it would be like if the attitude got broken.  For example, if it is an attitude that is meeting:
                      1. basic physical needs -> they feel a twinge of anger
                      2. security needs -> they feel feel
                      3. belonginess needs -> they feel isolation or having others they value abandon them

                      We may disagree with, or even loathe someone's attitude, but it is nonetheless WORKING to meet needs for them.  And, we're not going to get anywhere disagreeing with the thoughts attached to them.

                      We can; however, change attitudes ... by requiring someone to change their behavior one small step at a time, OR by activating the attitude (not attacking it), and suggesting another behavior that "fits" with the other parts of their existing attitude.

                      Long term, I actually have some pretty good confidence that once everyone is paying a % of thier income for insurance ... and the insurance companies are no longer able to be anything more than a boring little cash cow ... it will not be a big deal to transfer everyone into paying a % of income for a Single Payer system like they have in Europe.

                      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

                      by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 12:58:32 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  so (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        wsexson, for 6 too, JesseCW
                        Long term, I actually have some pretty good confidence that once everyone is paying a % of thier income for insurance ... and the insurance companies are no longer able to be anything more than a boring little cash cow ... it will not be a big deal to transfer everyone into paying a % of income for a Single Payer system like they have in Europe.
                        I really don't see these vultures giving up without a fight... and they'll only get stronger.

                        And the toxic lie that freeloaders are any significant part of the problem... that only reinforces all the cultural hatreds that conservatives have.  

                        all morals are relative, but some are more relative than others.

                        by happymisanthropy on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 01:17:31 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  We'll see. it's the law, now, and time will (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Killer of Sacred Cows

                          tell if the national plan is as successful as the MA program is.  What is your current situation? Is the status quo or having Romney win and the ACA repealed going to help you?  

                          Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

                          by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 03:06:34 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  Some are racists and bigots. Lost cause - move on (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Killer of Sacred Cows

                  I'm thinking that there are a significant number along the edges who are eminently reachable.  

                  Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

                  by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 12:44:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Reinforcing right wing framing is how we wound (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              for 6 too

              in a situation where, with 59 Democrats in the Senate and the largest House Majority in a generation, "Single payer was off the table".

              Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

              by JesseCW on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:56:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  BTW... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shahryar, efraker, wsexson

        Nobody gets "free" care at the ER. The hospital will send you a bill; it's more like getting medical care on credit.

        It's only "free" in the sense that if you bought a TV with a credit card and never pay the bill, you got a "free" TV.

      •  You're either misinformed our willfully dishonest (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        for 6 too

        about how the fine works.

        It doesn't start at 400% of FPL. It starts at 140%.

        Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

        by JesseCW on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:55:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You always have the choice (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bkamr, ybruti, Killer of Sacred Cows

      not to buy insurance even if you make more than 400% of the poverty level and go to the ER, but you have to pay a fine to do so.  The fine will be a lot less than an insurance policy, but it is your choice.

    •  Because when you need (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bkamr, rennert, Killer of Sacred Cows

      a million dollars in health care, which does happen quite a bit, you will not be able to pay. Thus you are a freeloader because you basically have a free catastrophic policy you possess, but you aren't paying for it. By the way, I believe that for the truly liquid, those with 7-figure net worths, there is a provision that allows you to basically post a bond, and self-insure yourself and not pay any tax.

      •  Yes, that is indeed an option. However, I (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Killer of Sacred Cows

        think most people in that position are going to choose the carrot just like most corporations choose to use the insurance companies rather than self insure.

        Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

        by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:54:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  but (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Angry White Democrat, for 6 too

        that's a stupid argument.  If one person pays in 8k and another pays out 1.5k, and they both end up receiving 500k worth of health care...

        that means they're both getting at least 490k more in health care than they paid for.  They're both taking almost identical amounts out of the system relative to what they paid in, it's stupid and arrogant to call one responsible and the other a freeloader.

        all morals are relative, but some are more relative than others.

        by happymisanthropy on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:29:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, that would kind of look true if it only (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Killer of Sacred Cows

          involved 2 people, but the scenario changes you move to having the huge percentage of the population participating.  The larger ther pool invested the broader the risk gets spread.

          This is digging into the weeds, but I do believe there is even a way for the "free loaders," as defined by the ACA Law to get good with the plan, when and if they do need catastrophic care.  

          It's the power of numbers and probabilities.  PLUS, with the incentives placed on preventive care, we're going to be getting earlier care before we have so many needs for care at the catastrophic level.

          This is a big part of the whole point of this.

          Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

          by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 11:19:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Look. People are working on saving (3+ / 0-)

      one person at a time, whatever it takes.

      You're absolutely right, it's a shitty job which requires sometimes that we come at it from their point of view. (which sucks to desperation and oh yeah, Sick  to Death of It)

      I'm an artist so I think we have to CREATE each conversion based on their shitty beliefs. We're kinda like Evangelists in a way.  

      snark. a little.

      Mostly we're so lucky we have art to help us.
      Not red carpet enough to most but lots of us believe in it.

      If nothing else she will have the feeling of the mind's clogs slowing, then backing up and taking a turn for the better regardless.

      What else have we got?
      Convert them to Boycott Rush Limbaugh's sponsors.

       

      A society of sheep must beget in time a government of wolves. Bertrand de Jouvenel

      by Little Red Hen on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 09:09:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Their perception is what we have to work with (6+ / 0-)

        ....which sucks, but that's what we've got.

        So, yeah, we have to make whatever arguments work. I've been telling my classes - full of low information voters who watch Fox - that people who have no insurance do get sick and do use the ER. Some don't have the ability to pay and thus the tax payer is stuck with the bill, which is true.

        It is a free rider problem if health care were truly a public good in America, which it's not, but explaining it in those terms DOES seem to break through their Fox-induced haze and get them to see that "there is no such thing as a free lunch".

        These are adult learners in my classes who typically do not have health insurance, and think that it is their choice to be in the health care system...in their view, they'll just pay out of pocket. But what about a cancer diagnosis or a major accident? They never have a good response to that free rider or freeloader framing. They never actually thought about it that way. I think it's good framing for this group.  They really don't care about love thy neighbor crap, so we have to put it in terms that they can understand.

        "At stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country." ~Sen. Ted Kennedy

        by Wendy in FL on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:01:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Bill Kristol and the Insurance Corps. thank you (5+ / 0-)

    for your ardent support!

    It's really weird to see the left tie itself into rightward pretzels defending this piece of Heritage legislation.

    NOW SHOWING
    Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
    Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

    by The Dead Man on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:34:14 AM PDT

    •  This is step one. Still want Single Payer. (10+ / 0-)

      Even Teddy's advice was to go for what you can get, now.  This is how Social Security got started, and it got expanded over the years.  

      I will repeat.  I want Single Payer, AND let's go forward with this toward that.  :)

      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

      by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:49:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Social Security (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The Dead Man, wsexson, JesseCW, Clues

        started as a government program. There is no comparison to the corporatist ACA.

        •  You can either bitch about it not being SP (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bkamr, Calamity Jean

          or you can accept that we did win a victory. It's a small one, granted, but that's how we get big ones eventually.

          This was a battle, which we won. We are still working on winning the war. That takes time.

          Science can tell you how to clone a dinosaur. Humanities explains why this is a bad idea.

          by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 11:33:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  ACA moves us farther from single-payer (4+ / 0-)

            by entrenching and empowering the for-profit, private insurance industry.

            •  It also cuts their balls off (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bkamr, Calamity Jean, Subversive

              because it forces them to actually COMPETE for patients instead of having them given to them on a silver platter.

              Do you not get that?

              It's a step towards single payer. You can keep bitching, or you can work towards changing more people's minds about it in whatever way works.

              See, this will force real competition among insurers. Before, they had a near monopoly on their particular markets because you were stuck with whatever your employer gave you for a couple of reasons:

              - that pre-existing condition bullshit. That has been cut out from under them; they can no longer refuse to insure you.

              - lifetime and yearly limits. Gone. They can't use that to deny coverage, either.

              As a result, this forces the insurers to actually compete and in order to do that, they have to lower their prices.

              It may not be perfect, but it's a start at breaking their oligopoly. If they try to collude to price-set, hit 'em with RICO charges.

              The industry may still have a monopoly on health care, but the individual insurers no longer have a monopoly on the patients they've had; those patients are now free to go elsewhere without fear of losing coverage.

              Science can tell you how to clone a dinosaur. Humanities explains why this is a bad idea.

              by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 12:02:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That only works in a world where corruption (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JesseCW, for 6 too

                isn't as embedded as it is in ours.  We're at the end of empire; corruption is king.  There's no 15th dimensional chess being played out.  Just follow the money.  No one's bothering to hide their paymasters these days.

                NOW SHOWING
                Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
                Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

                by The Dead Man on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 12:45:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The 80/ 20 regulation just made the industry into (3+ / 0-)

                  a boringly dull industry for Wall Street.  No more sexy spiking stock prices based on ROI manipulations.  The industry is already whining that they won't be able to make the kinds of profits they were.  Watch Wall Street begin to drop them out of the global casino game.

                  The healthcare industry will become a modest profit service provider with a small but safe return ... kind of like an old blue chip with dividends for returns ...

                  OR  They will want to hang it up and turn it over to the government ... like roads.

                  Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

                  by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 01:04:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Roadbuilding in TX is very lucrative (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Killer of Sacred Cows, JesseCW, bkamr

                    Perry makes sure his favorite Spanish company gets all the choice toll road contracts.

                    NOW SHOWING
                    Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
                    Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

                    by The Dead Man on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 03:41:08 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not road building ... as in the toll road business (0+ / 0-)

                      I'd be very happy to see the health care industry find out that it's not really a very good business to be in at all ... and have it transitioned to the government as a service for the common good.  :)  

                      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

                      by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:25:27 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  They can't refuse to sell you a piece of paper (0+ / 0-)

                that says "insurance policy" on it, but they can and will refuse to pay for your medical care.

                Don't you get it? The purpose of for-profit insurance is not to provide care. Its purpose is to make profit. The way that it makes profit is through denial of care.

                •  Do you get that now (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bkamr, Calamity Jean

                  the law will come down on them like a ton of bricks if they try to make any excessive profit?

                  Or are you so angry you can't think straight?

                  Science can tell you how to clone a dinosaur. Humanities explains why this is a bad idea.

                  by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 01:17:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Taking 20 cents out of every dollar (0+ / 0-)

                    while adding no value sounds pretty excessive to me.

                  •  The way the law "comes down like a ton (0+ / 0-)

                    of bricks" on those reaping the profits from Cost Overruns on defense contracts?

                    Government isn't inherently bad or evil, but our is massively corrupt.  

                    A Republican Secretary of HHS is going to regulate Health Insurance about the same way a Republican SecDef regulates Defense Dep spending.

                    And we will have another Republican President. It's gonna happen.

                    Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

                    by JesseCW on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:01:48 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Then what do you suggest? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Calamity Jean

                      Seriously?

                      What are your actual, tangible suggestions for fixing the problems you've identified, starting with the problem of getting right-wingers to listen?

                      Do you have suggestions, or just complaints?

                      Science can tell you how to clone a dinosaur. Humanities explains why this is a bad idea.

                      by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:11:28 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You don't need right wingers to listen. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        for 6 too

                        The majority of Americans don't agree with them.

                        The majority of Americans wanted a public option.  The majority of Americans support an even bigger Medicaid expansion.

                        Trying to cater to the batshit crazy 25% of eligible voters on the extreme right has destroyed our ability to pass progressive polices even when historic majorities of the public vote for progressive policies.

                        What's more, it alienates a lot of sane people, who shrug and say "Eh, they all agree with fucking people like me" and stay home.

                        When we got those people to the polls in 2008, we saw how many of them there are.  Attacking them won't get them back there.

                        Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

                        by JesseCW on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:15:19 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

  •  everyone opposed to single-payer needs to kick (11+ / 0-)

    thier parents OFF of medicare and fucking pay for the bills themselves!!!

    NOT one fucking tea partier will agree to do that.

    The Seminole Democrat
    Confronting the criminally insane who rule our state; as well as the apathy of the vast majority who let them.

    by SemDem on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:42:08 AM PDT

  •  Great approach. (3+ / 0-)

    I copied and saved your list to use as talking points.  Thanks.

    "And where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can."

    by rscopes on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 07:52:31 AM PDT

  •  it's "fair share" (6+ / 0-)

    two words.

    ; )

    Die with your boots on. If you're gonna try, well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

    by Cedwyn on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:00:08 AM PDT

  •  The freeloaders, absent price constraints, (7+ / 0-)

    are the insurance companies, the hospitals and the medical providers.  

    I like the ACA because its ultimate effect will be to constrain these freeloaders.

    “I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.” - Harriet Tubman

    by Publius2008 on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:04:12 AM PDT

  •  The freeloader insurance companies that collect (5+ / 0-)

    premiums and don't pay medical costs.

    Medical care doesn't cost that much if everyone pays their fair share.

    . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

    by 88kathy on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:04:47 AM PDT

  •  Pretty smart framing (6+ / 0-)

    for these people.

    Of course I don't think people are freeloading - they simply can't afford health care - but if there is one thing conservatives or leaning conservatives perk up with its any hint that they are being victimized.

    Yay.  Stop being victimized by those freeloaders who don't have insurance. Support a system that makes them "take responsibility for themsleves"  I think you have hit on something.

     Its gross of course, but it is Conserva-Speak for maybe this thing would benefit ME and make ME less a victim because the whole world is out to GET ME.

    very smart framing  indeed!

    •  You have it exactly. I don't really think that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Killer of Sacred Cows

      there are that many of the "free loaders" I was so pissed off at.  I think in the Mass. situation it was like 1% ... I'll go research that shortly.  

      It's kind of the equivalent of saying, "Oooooh, look at the shiney thing."  Okay, now that I have you looking at that free loader that the law defines who is going to be made to PAY (not you or me like the Republicans are saying) ... that other that this law says will be made to Pay ...

      NOW, you and I can talk about what the law actually says and does -- which people generally like.

      cynical? yes. but effective.

      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

      by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 09:33:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The "personal responsibility" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bkamr, Killer of Sacred Cows

      meme is good, too.

      "At stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country." ~Sen. Ted Kennedy

      by Wendy in FL on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:03:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Some people are freeloading (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bkamr, Janet 707, Calamity Jean

      You are buying into the right wing frame when your mind thinks "can't afford insurance" when you hear the word freeloader.

      If someone insults a freeloader, you don't have to defend people who can't afford insurance because they are not freeloaders. Therefore, the insult is not against the poor.

      If you think for a moment that it is then you have been programmed to think so by right-wing propaganda.

  •  Well Done! (3+ / 0-)

    Fear is all the demagogues on the right have. They have no real governing philosophy.

    "You call this bicameral government? Hah!" - Homer Simpson

    by karlpk on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:14:38 AM PDT

  •  This is how Romney attacks it, and he's got a (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HoopJones, bkamr

    point.  

    He always seems (seemed, I guess, now) to talk about his mandate as a penalty for freeloading.  "Penalty" + "freeloader" will prime suffering of poor brown people in the wingnut lizard brain, so it works.

    Not sure the Democratic constitution allows them to put things in these terms, except maybe in mealy-mouthed "end welfare as we know it" language.

    Happy to be wrong. In any case, we'll find out, over the next few months.

    What do we want? Compromise! When do we want it? Now!

    by itswhatson on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:16:19 AM PDT

    •  Democrats can't do it (3+ / 0-)

      The ones who have difficulty doing this are those who think that they should be able to win people over by appealing to their "better angels".

      They think they should be able to win by getting people to favor "help those who need help" instead of "hurt those who deserve to hurt".

      The unfortunate reality is that, for a lot of people, "hurt those who deserve to hurt" is of a greater importance than "help those who deserve to be helped". Instead of trying to changed their psychological programming, we should instead re-direct their instinct against the people who really deserve to be hurt.

      •  There are enough clips of Romney selliing it (2+ / 0-)

        for us.  Time to play them, folks.

        PS  The plus side of this approach is that Santorum's hair will catch on fire and then explode as he stamps around yelling, "I told you all so!"  popcorn time.

        Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

        by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 11:23:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well, but Democrats also don't like to yell (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bkamr, Killer of Sacred Cows

        at people, in this case the, um, freeloaders.

        Actually, I take that back.  Democrats in elected office are happy enough to yell at their base when they perceive us to be getting, um, strident.

        It's a problematic mix.

        What do we want? Compromise! When do we want it? Now!

        by itswhatson on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 12:53:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The level of ignorance out there (6+ / 0-)

    ...is astounding. I'm not sure if I should be depressed or petrified.

    Neither.

    Sell ObamaCare

    ...the train's got its brakes on and the whistle is screaming.

    by themank on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:25:15 AM PDT

  •  Printing stickers listing these FACTS in (5+ / 0-)

    a non-confrontational way (a sticker is already controversial enough) and putting them where the can be seen would be good.

    Good framing.

    (It's ok to be appropriately confrontational, in fact, the Left should learn how.)

  •  Thank you for this. We know we need to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bkamr, Killer of Sacred Cows

    frame things differently to reach the emotional brain that too often overrides the critical thinking part...and this would seem to be it.

    "I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong." Richard Feynman

    by leema on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:48:38 AM PDT

  •  Nice diary, but I have a bone to pick with you (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bkamr, Janet 707

    about one thing.

    Your point #3 is incorrect.

    Taxpayer dollars will be used to help pay premiums, in fact that is exactly what the "subsidized premiums" for those who qualify for them will be.

    A Taxpayer subsidy.

    Who will that subsidy benefit? The low income working family who cannot afford even the "more affordable" premiums in the new Healthcare Exchanges, starting in 2014.

    And the healthcare insurance companies, of course, because they will be getting to keep 15-20% of those subsidized dollars, under PPACA's rules regarding the newly REGULATED profit-taking allowance in the Law.

    But at least, in this one instance, taxpayers will be directly benefiting their fellow citizens with this subsidy, and not merely some faceless corporate entity - the side effect of increasing the insurance companies bottom line is just that, a side effect and not the main event.

    * * *
    I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization
    -- SCOTUS Justice O.W. Holmes Jr.
    * * *
    "A Better World is Possible"
    -- #Occupy

    by Angie in WA State on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 08:50:43 AM PDT

    •  Yes, but who are the ones who will be required (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Killer of Sacred Cows

      to pay for this tax?  NOT the 99%.  :)

      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

      by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 09:40:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My understanding is that the funds for the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        catwho, bkamr

        subsidies will come from General Funds.

        That means they are fungible dollars from all sources of Federal Government income (taxes, fees, etc).

        So, yeah, even the 99% will be contributing.

        But again, it's a Federal Subsidy that goes (and the only that I know of) directly to benefit citizens, instead of a corporation or business.

        * * *
        I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization
        -- SCOTUS Justice O.W. Holmes Jr.
        * * *
        "A Better World is Possible"
        -- #Occupy

        by Angie in WA State on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 09:52:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How does it not benefit corporations? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          efraker, wsexson

          The subsidy money is used to pay insurance premiums.  The money goes from the Govt. to you and then to the insurance company.  It's a handout to the Health Insurance Cartel using the people being subsidized as middlemen.

          •  Yes, the dollars go to the insurance company (4+ / 0-)

            for the benefit of the citizen who cannot afford the full cost of the insurance premiums.

            The citizen is the first, primary beneficiary of the subsidy.

            I, too, wish things were different, that we had a Public Option, or better yet, Single Payer National Healthcare.

            But we do not yet live in that world.

            We live in the one where a minority of the US Senate can block nearly all legislation for years on end, via Senate rule #22 (filibuster).

            Gotta do what we can, with what we have, and hope (and work for) better in the future.

            That's why they call it progress.

            * * *
            I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization
            -- SCOTUS Justice O.W. Holmes Jr.
            * * *
            "A Better World is Possible"
            -- #Occupy

            by Angie in WA State on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:32:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Lets see... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wsexson

              The insurance companies get billions of dollars and we get plastic cards that guarantee nothing.  And this arrangement benefits us more than them?!

              •  No, the 80% requirement regulates what they (3+ / 0-)

                can use the money for.  This arrangement even puts big pressure on Wall Street to drop this industry out of their casino.  My take on it is that it puts pressure toward making the industry into more of a solid, steady kind of investment with a much, much smaller (but safer return) in the form of dividends instead of using it to bets on stock price swings based on profit margins.

                Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

                by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 11:28:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, but it's supposed to come from the really (2+ / 0-)

          upper incomce among us.  I'm okay with income redistribution along these lines for the common good.  I'm a hell of a lot more in favor of this than the oil subsidies.

          Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

          by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 11:25:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  If you can't bring yourself to use the word (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bkamr, Killer of Sacred Cows

    freeloader - which i totally get because it grosses me out - I have had some similar luck simply saying 'but we already ARE paying for those who are uninsured" because at least where I live that is such an obvious truth it stops them in their tracks.

    Everyone here knows that our hospital won't work with you on payments etc. because they are pouring so much money out for those who aren't insured.  this is really scary - even if you have insurance - because if you can't pay what you owe within a few months its collection for you which of course affects your credit which controls your modern life.  
     

  •  Good job! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bkamr, Killer of Sacred Cows

    I'll have to remember about the "damn freeloaders" next time I'm discussing health care reform with some rightwinger.  If there's one thing they hate it's "damn freeloaders!"

  •  Slacker Tax (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bkamr, Wendy in FL

    There, that wasn't so difficult, was it.

    Obama is at war with radical anti-American terrorists. The radical GOP is at war with American women. Take that and run with it DNC, you inept fucking pikers.

    by GOPGO2H3LL on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 09:17:30 AM PDT

  •  language matters (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bkamr, Janet 707, for 6 too

    I get that "freeloaders" is rhetorically powerful given the tenor of political debate in this country over the past 40 years and from a definitional standpoint is accurate. But I think it unwise to come off as little better than than GOPers who thump their chests and berate "welfare cheats" and others they consider freeloaders (proving they don't really understand the concept, but whatever).

    What I do not think is very helpful is to get (in general) all high-minded and self-righteous about those choosing to forego insurance they could afford.

    They are making mistakes and society in general is paying for it and that should change. That must be changed.

    But demonizing all people in that position as freeloaders seems to me unlikely to help us make our case (the instance referenced in the diary notwithstanding). I also think it vastly oversimplifies the reality that many people face and we are better off, ultimately, treating them as normal people whose minds we can and should change, or at least get enough to change to matter politically, which is much likelier if we don't make demonization the first rhetorical move.

    'Heh, freeloader, let me explain why you are such a dumb*ss' is not a persuasive gambit.

    •  I wouldn't use this approach on a person who (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      actually is one of the free loaders as defined by the ACA.  

      This is really an approach for reaching the majority of the wing nuts who have private insurance through their employers and the Right Wing has them all jacked up with lies to the point where they are willing to go screaming delusional crap in town hall meetings.

      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

      by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 03:11:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  that makes much more sense to me (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Killer of Sacred Cows

        That appeal might work on those with insurance we need to persuade to support ACA to git 'dem freeloaders. How reachable those people are I really cannot say.

        Apologize for misunderstanding your argument. I do think my point is valid with respect to the "freeloaders".

  •  I guess we know how easy it is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bkamr, Eileen B

    Being a right winger really just requires a pointlessly rude and judgmental commentary on a stereotyped adversary!  

    •  Uh, yes. And, the 1%'s politicians and ad men (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      otto

      know it and have been using it for years to get wing nuts to vote against their interest.

      As bizzaroo as it is, we can use the same lead to sell wing nuts on legislation that is in their interest, as members of the 99%.

      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

      by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 09:44:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not a matter of what's good (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bkamr, Killer of Sacred Cows

        It's a matter of what works.

        It works to phrase it this way. There are plenty of examples of how I use rhetorical positions this way.

        •  Yeah, it's just a lead in that allows for a (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Killer of Sacred Cows, otto

          rational discussion about what the law actually has in it ... instead of just having their heads full of RW lies.

          Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

          by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 03:12:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But the idea... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wsexson, for 6 too

            that there are millions and millions of freeloaders, people who have more than enough money to buy insurance and willfully choose not to so they can game the system, is a right-wing lie.  It's a lie they used back in the 90's when they were pushing the mandate and Romney used it too in MA.  It was shameful when they used it, even more shameful now that our side is using it too.

          •  But the idea... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wsexson

            that there are millions and millions of freeloaders, people who have more than enough money to buy insurance and willfully choose not to so they can game the system, is a right-wing lie.  It's a lie they used back in the 90's when they were pushing the mandate and Romney used it too in MA.  It was shameful when they used it, even more shameful now that our side is using it too.

            •  There are probably about 4 million, who will be (2+ / 0-)

              above 400% of the poverty level, but who will elect to pay the $695 penalty or 2.5% of income fine tax to choose not to pay for insurance that they could afford, according to the CBO.

              Go to the front page diary, today, "The mandates that are and the massive tax increase that isn't"

              As Ryan Grim noted, that's because "98 percent of Americans would either be exempt from the mandate—because of employer coverage, public health insurance or low income—or given subsidies to comply." The Urban Institute estimated that 8.1 million Americans would have their insurance paid for by the expansion of Medicaid to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Another 10.9 million people would receive subsidies to buy private insurance in the new state exchanges, while only 7.3 million (2 percent of the total U.S. population) would be required to purchase a health plan using their own resources alone. As for those Americans choosing to instead to pay the penalty of $695 or up to 2.5 percent of household income for failing to obtain insurance at all, the CBO estimated that number at 4 million. (That forecast is almost double the rate in Massachusetts, where only 48,000 in a state of 6.6 million people opted to pay the penalty rather than acquire health insurance under Mitt Romney's version of the individual mandate.)
              That 4% are the "damn freeloaders" I referred to as an opening with a Wing Nutty friend to get her to have a rational talk with me about the facts of the ACA Law.

              THAT is what this is about!  Some of us are actually trying to bring back some of the friends and family we know from the far right, freaking edge, so we can even begin to a have a rational discussion with them.  Please, keep that in mind, here.

              Now, to your point that I am lying about there being millions and millions of damned freeloaders, as I have defined them, I cite the CBO.  Where is your source to show me to be a liar?

              Furthermore, I'll even go so far as to say that 4 million is a damn significant number of damned freeloaders ... to a wing nut's mind, because the number of Americans on welfare is enough to make their heads explode and there are only 8 million Americans on welfare.

              So, 4 million Americans with the ample means to buy health insurance but who aren't is a BIG DEAL ... to them.  That's why they have a reason to at least listen to what the law actually has in it ... instead of creating another summer of insanity in Town Halls across the country.

              So, yeah, if mentioning that those 4 million are going to be made to pay up something gets wing nuts to open up for a rational discussion, hell yes.  I sure as hell haven't gotten anywhere begging them to care for their brothers and sisters for decades.

              That's all this about.

              Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

              by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 09:35:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  I'd shoot myself in the stomach... (4+ / 0-)

    ... if it'd keep them damn freeloaders from gettin' what they don't deserve!

    I think this is actually the core sentiment behind the conservative mind. Someone, somewhere, is getting something for free, while I have to work for it!  So, rather than put up with that situation, I'll give up EVERYTHING. I'll choose to live a harder life, as long as it keeps people from freeloading.

    It's a motivation that is deep within humans (and other species). It's one of the pillars of ethics or morality.  We have to cooperate, but we have to watch out for free riders.

    •  Yep. I just gave her a largely mythical "other" (4+ / 0-)

      to hate ... who is defined in the ACA law as:

      1. An individual making about $44K or a family making $88 K who
      2. After the law is in place, chooses NOT to purchase one of the affordable, PRIVATE insurance programs that are available to them.

      THOSE are the "damn free loaders" who are going to get FINED and TAXED.

      Sure beats having her wrongly target the millions of Americans who are below 400% the poverty level who can't afford insurance now, or people with sick children who have reached a lifetime cap, or people with pre-existing conditions ... ALL of the people we have miserably failed to get people like her to care about for decades!

      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

      by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 09:50:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You have the psychology of framing down pat (5+ / 0-)

        in my view...stealing a page from the master framers on the right.  

        What we need is a way to consolidate the great work of this and other diaries and then circulate a master list of language to be used in just the way Luntz and Gingrich did to such good (for them) effect.

        It needs to go to the DNC (good luck there...cough, cough), the Democratic leadership, the White House communications staff, the entire blogosphere.  Like Sherwin Williams, we need to cover the earth.

        It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

        by Radiowalla on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:14:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  They aren't mythical (3+ / 0-)

        That's the beauty of it.

        There are freeloaders in this country. It's just that a lot of them have managed to convinced a significant percentage of the population that it is people other than themselves who are the real freeloaders.

        We need to take back the term "freeloader" from those who would define it as the same as "get something for free".

        •  I agree, but the % will actually be so small, (0+ / 0-)

          if the national model looks at all like the Mass. model, that it actually will be as if I am taking on a mythical group.

          I know that the verb tenses on that scenario make it confusing, but did this make sense to you?  

          Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

          by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 11:34:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  "Freeloader" is not the same as ... (4+ / 0-)

      ... "getting something for free". That's just right-wing framing that makes you think so.

      A freeloader is someone who gets something for free even though they are quite capable of paying for it themselves.

  •  We need to stop calling it a bill (10+ / 0-)

    It is the LAW of the land.  It's a LAW.

    •  Also helpful to say "Under the old system" (4+ / 0-)

      Put the horrors of unrestrained capitalist medical care into the hall of shame.
      Gone, but never forgotten.

      As in:

      Under the old system:

      - you could go bankrupt if you got sick
      - they could deny coverage for anything they wanted
      - your premiums would go up every year with no restraints or government oversight
      - if you had a pre-esisting condition you would be lucky to find any coverage at all
      - if you got really sick and hit the lifetime cap, you were basically on your own

      "Work for something because it is good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed." -- Vaclav Havel

      by greendem on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 11:03:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  no lifetime OR annual caps (4+ / 0-)

    either one could screw you.

    Well done, sir or madam. Even though I am a single-payer wonk and not a great admirer of Obamacare, it is good to have these arguments at hand.

  •  insurance will not be cheaper (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wsexson

    there is nothing, absolutely nothing from keeping the HI industry raising rates as much as they'd like.

    The ACA did some good, but making healthcare less expensive is not one of them.

    big badda boom : GRB 080913

    by squarewheel on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:37:44 AM PDT

    •  Increases of 10%+ are to be regulated... (4+ / 0-)
      The 80/20 rule is ensuring that insurance companies provide consumers value for their premium dollars. This rule works in combination with other consumer protections in the Affordable Care Act, like the program that reviews insurance companies’ rates to ensure that premium increases are not unreasonable. Insurance companies are now required to subject insurance premium rate increases of 10% or more to a new review process and justify these increases.  Most states now have the authority to determine whether these increases are excessive, while HHS reviews rates in states that do not operate effective rate review programs.  In making these determinations, HHS and the states closely review insurance companies’ 80/20 or MLR standards.

      "We are a Plutocracy, we ought to face it. We need, desperately, to find new ways to hear independent voices & points of view" Ramsey Clark, U.S. Attorney General.

      by Mr SeeMore on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:55:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You have some reading to do (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Killer of Sacred Cows, bkamr

      Once the states set up the insurance exchanges we'll definitely see a reduction in the cost of insurance policies.  That's why the insurance industry is so damned nervous about this.

      "Americans, while occasionally willing to be serfs, have always been obstinate about being peasantry."

      by Glinda on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 11:37:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Some of the comments in this thread sound (3+ / 0-)

    just like the Republicans of the 1990s on healthcare. Is that what we aspire to now? Do we really believe the people waiting in emergency rooms as a last resort because they couldn't afford health insurance or preventive care are just "damn freeloaders"? Is it not possible to point out the good things about the ACA without perpetuating harmful stereotypes about the poor and the uninsured?

    A friend posted a Facebook thread about the bill. The discussion went something like this:

    Friend: "Thanks to the ACA, my daughter can stay on my health plan and get the life-sustaining medications she needs."

    Wingnut: "Then you can thank the taxpayers for that."

    Response: "I'll thank the taxpayers for that when you thank the President for reducing the number of people getting primary care in an emergency room, which caused healthcare costs to go up for ALL of us."

  •  Welcome to the 1995 Republican Party! (7+ / 0-)

    So we're not only going with the Heritage Foundation health care plan, but we're even using their talking points!   If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!  

    The Patriot Act: IOKIYAD!

    by Beelzebud on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:51:25 AM PDT

    •  Our quest for socialism (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bkamr, for 6 too

      has been cut back just a bit.

      ; )

      "Work for something because it is good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed." -- Vaclav Havel

      by greendem on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:59:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  not every democrat is on a quest for socialism (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Killer of Sacred Cows, bkamr

        i am not.  if i wanted socialism i would move to a socialist country, which i could do easily because i work remote.  but i like America.  we need to solve some of our social problems, but i don't think we need to do it by becoming a socialist country.  

        June 28th, 2012 - a good day

        by Anton Bursch on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 04:58:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I like America too (0+ / 0-)

          And I am a proud socialist.

          Third generation in fact.

          Granny served with the Lincoln Brigade in Spain, then came back to join the fight against fascism in the USA as a military physical therapist during WWII.

          "Work for something because it is good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed." -- Vaclav Havel

          by greendem on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 10:45:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Sad. I agree. Like I said right upfront, I (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      wanted Single Payer -- and I still do.  I also plan on still working for it.  I am certainly NOT suggesting we all sti back fat, dumb and happy with just this first step.

      Social Security started small too, but you have to get foothold to keep campaigning.

      In this meantime, I just don't plan on letting even this little win get kicked out from under us with a bunch of bs lies.

      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

      by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 11:40:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Arguments framed as personal responsibility (3+ / 0-)

    really confuse the teabaggers.

    Work it. Often.

    "Work for something because it is good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed." -- Vaclav Havel

    by greendem on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 10:57:47 AM PDT

  •  The so-called "freeloader"situation changes (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Killer of Sacred Cows, bkamr, BlueOak

    AFTER the ACA goes into full effect in 2014.

    Now (depending on your state laws) there are many people who have no practical access to any health insurance policy because insurance companies can effectively bar them from getting it via selectively high, or discriminative, premiums based on age, gender and health status. Folks in these circumstances are NOT free loaders, now. There are still people who are freeloading now, however.

    After the ACA goes into effect EVERYBODY will be elligble to purchase the same kinds of insurance, at the same prices.  With people at the lowest income levels getting it free and those with lower incomes (up to 400% of poverty levels) getting their costs subsidized on a slidng scale.

    At that point, and only at that point, will true "free riders" be exposed - and penalized/taxed, whatever you call it.

    As someone who is self-employed I know only too well how expensive insurance actually is.  Employed people with employer-sponsored plans - i.e. the majority of poepl - are completely clueless about the costs so its easy for them to be misled.

    My husband and I pay way,  more than new law's statutory 8% of  our AGI income for health insurance now. But I doubt we'd see any tax-credit benefits as our income probably exceeds the limits.  That's OK, because what I am looking forward to from the new law in 2014 is wider access to policies than I have now.  There are precious few available and I'm sure that means there's little, if any, downward  pressure on prices.

    One thing that does worry me, though, is that people get upset when they have a "junk" policy with a high deductible.  High deductibles do not mean the policy is necessarily junk.  It simply may be structured to provide benefits in a different way. Once we have more choices you may choose to have a high deductible policy for many excellent reasons.  And you can be assured that any policy you get will not be "junk".

    But everyone who does not have employer sponsored plans will have to begin to think about health insurance in a new way: more and better options, and possibly subsidies, as well.  But at the same time,  obviously,  there's the requirement that you have to decide which type of policy to buy -and pay for. And if you have been skating by choosing to ignore the issue/risk  you'll have to step up to plate. And, I also think it's inevitable that for those lucky - or truly freeloading  - few who managed to skip paying for any health insurance (or care) your expenses will go up.

    And that is how it should be as none of us can expect to go indefinitely without needing any health care. If we are to get guaranteed issue of health insurance to all comers at any time, then we have to have required, life-long  participation in order to make the economic model work. Even if we had the proverbial universal access free care model (like Canada or the UK, for instance)  it presupposes that everyone is covered (and funded, even if it is by public funds) from cradle to grave.

    (That the insurance companies, big Pharma, medical suppliers, for-profit hospitals, and doctors have been allowed by the current system to become engorged and greedy is a wholly other issue. Not that it's not worth looking at, but it is unconnected to the efforts to try to make the current system work in the meantime.  I asked an Irish doctor recently if he was here on an advanced-study fellowship.  No he replied, he was here because he could make three or four times the money that he could make at home. 'Nuf said.)

    I thank the diarist for adding to my arsenal of talking points as I am on a one-woman campaign to "occupy" the propaganda/false notions that are swirling around the ACA. If we don't do this, now, it may be too late.

    Araguato

  •  The problem is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wsexson

    with the ACA, you are not forcing people to pay for their health care. You are forcing them to pay for CEO bonuses and corporate profits. That should be abhorrent to anyone who calls him or herself a progressive.

    •  And those bonuses and profits (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bkamr, Calamity Jean

      have just been severely limited by the 80% for care rule in the ACA. They can't do what they used to do. Their ability to take and take and take has been curtailed.

      Science can tell you how to clone a dinosaur. Humanities explains why this is a bad idea.

      by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 11:36:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are still forced to pay money (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bkamr

        20% of which goes to making rich people richer. Once again, that should be abhorrent to anyone who calls him or herself a progressive.

        •  Okay. Point taken. It's abhorrent. It's also (2+ / 0-)

          a better situation than we have ever gotten to this point.  I'll willing to take the mosquito infested, swampy ground as a foothold to campaign forward from there.

          Everyone here, myself included wants a Single Payer, government option!  Got it, and that is the hill we are heading for.

          I frankly think the ACA Law may be a pretty sneaky way to get it too.  It gets everyone accepting the practice of paying something in for their health coverage -- everyone in Europe does.  And, it kills the star industry status of the health insurance industry as a profit provider.  Wall Street is going to drop the industry as it becomes more and more a a dopey low return cash cow.  Mooooo

          Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

          by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 03:18:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  It must be the zeitgeist (3+ / 0-)

    I was in a tony Manhattan cocktail bar last night with my husband and a couple next to us struck up a conversation with us and the talk got around to the ACA and the Supreme Court ruling, the guy shook his head and expressed his dismay about the bill.  And then I told him that I was ecstatic with the decision since "the bums who refuse to buy insurance and yet will go to an ER whenever they need a doctor" will now be forced to pay for the services they use.  I used "bums" about 3 more times listed the same additional advantages you did and got a similar turn around in attitude.

    I must admit I like "freeloaders"  much, much better than "bums" though.

    "Americans, while occasionally willing to be serfs, have always been obstinate about being peasantry."

    by Glinda on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 11:35:57 AM PDT

  •  You have to speak their language: Sociopathese (3+ / 0-)

    You can't sell it to many Americans by telling them who and how it will help.

    You have to sell it to the culturally sociopathic by telling them who and how it will hurt people they think deserve it.

    •  It's like inside out Orwellian, isn't it. I told (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      addikell, Killer of Sacred Cows

      her how the Law sticks it to someone who deserves it, how she (the deserving one would get helped) ... and then, she was just fine with the poor getting the help they deserve.  

      But really after the lead in and a few more "damn freeloaders" ... a dab of fear baiting, the vast majority of the discussion was simply rational discussion about the law itself.

      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

      by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 11:47:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great diary - this is a WINNING MESSAGE (3+ / 0-)

    I've noticed that we liberals often like to convince people in the same ways we ourselves are convinced, but winning messages meet people on their own turf.

    So yeah, I like the empathetic and humanitarian aspects of the law, but this is what will win over "independents" and conservatives.

    I am back east for the week and driving through central Virginia this morning to visit some family.  Surfing the radio, a promo comes in which the DJ says, "We had some interesting discussions about the new health law, or Obamacare, this morning..."  I cringed, knowing I was far from my blue Oregon home....but then the montage of clips played and the last one stuck with me the most:

    "[slight drawl] I consider myself to be pretty conservative but I love this law.  [Me bracing for sarcarsm].  Finally, all the people that think they can just free-ride the system and jump in when they need health care are going to have to pony up and pay their fair share."
    WIN.

    You couldn't load a pistol with dormitive virtue and shoot it into a breakfast-roll - CS Pierce

    by Mr Raymond Luxury Yacht on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 01:36:58 PM PDT

  •  Seems to me the freeloaders (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wsexson, Beelzebud, bkamr, Mike Taylor

    are the insurance companies that take a 20% cut in exchange for devising new ways to deny health care claims.  

    This is absurd.  If Romney had passed the ACA, dKos would be howling with rage, and rightly so.  Now we're supposed to support it, because a corporatist democrat is president?  Whatever.

    "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

    by Subterranean on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 01:46:00 PM PDT

    •  Sure we would have, if we'd have been (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Killer of Sacred Cows

      fighting the Single Payer fight at that point.  But we aren't, right now.  We will be once again, though.  :)

      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

      by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 03:22:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If only Justice Roberts hadn't let the states off (4+ / 0-)

    So they can refuse to expand Medicaid to the child-free poor and the near poor. I can see politicians in the the right wing states doing that, just to thumb their noses at the Federal government, leaving the child-free and near poor to fend for themselves, as they have had to do all along.

    Sure, it will be paid mostly by the Feds, but I wouldn't put it past the right wingers to just let poor people die than to admit they need to help them, especially the child-free that are either being responsible by not having children they can't afford, or are sterile.

    The right wingers want the poor to have lots of children, to have a ready supply of cannon fodder, slave labor and prostitutes. That's the only explanation for the fact that they expect the poor to have children to get Medicaid.

    Women create the entire labor force.

    by splashy on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 02:08:30 PM PDT

    •  it gets paid 100% by the Fed, and this is going to (2+ / 0-)

      affect a lot of working poor ... who we have GOT to get out to vote.

      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

      by bkamr on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 03:23:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Justice Roberts gave us a way to take over (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Killer of Sacred Cows

      Red States with that, however:

      "Gov. Jindal, Gov. Scott are refusing to create the affordable insurance exchanges, and expand the healthcare programs, that the ACA law has given you.   They are taking your legal cheap healthcare.  They are preventing you from benefiting from what the Supreme Court has done for you.  They are taking YOUR STUFF".

      I believe we help each other in times of need. I want all our children to get an excellent education. Every American deserves health care. I love my country. I am a patriot. I am a voter. I am a Democrat.

      by mumtaznepal on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 04:43:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yep, the court upheld what benefits private-sector (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wsexson

      interests (i.e. the mandate) and knocked down what would've helped public-sector interests (i.e. Medicaid expansion).
      How hard is this to figure out? People are blind, they will have to watch the whole movie to figure out the direction this is taking us (i.e. enforced privatization of healthcare, the world's most inefficient system of healthcare financing).

  •  Your description of your discussion with your (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Killer of Sacred Cows

    friend, the things you said, and the way you said them, would make a GREAT Letter to the Editor in support of the law, in very conservative-Tea Party-Republican areas:  Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, etc.  The Red States.

    Do you mind if I cut and paste and steal your words?  They could be very effective for that audience!

    I believe we help each other in times of need. I want all our children to get an excellent education. Every American deserves health care. I love my country. I am a patriot. I am a voter. I am a Democrat.

    by mumtaznepal on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 04:26:17 PM PDT

  •  there ARE freeloaders (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Killer of Sacred Cows

    and we all damn well know it

    and those people can bitch and object to having to pay for health care all they want, but the truth is that they just want to spend their money on other things.  they are spoiled entitled brats, period.  get them to break down their budget and you see pretty damn quick how they could afford it if they gave up some of their luxuries in life.

    i have zero sympathy for spoiled immature brats who make bullshit political arguments against being responsible

    June 28th, 2012 - a good day

    by Anton Bursch on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 05:06:50 PM PDT

  •  The for-profit insurance companies (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mike Taylor, wsexson

    are still the cancer on the health care system.  For all it does to help, this much has not changed with the new law.

    the whole "freeloader" tack may work for the Right, but for those of us not on the right it's just Fucking Insulting.

    Tell me at least that the "slacker penalty" or whatever you want to call it goes to a fund to cover healthcare(not insurance, CARE) for all who need it but cannot afford it and not corporate insurance coffers.

    You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

    by Johnny Q on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 05:40:08 PM PDT

  •  They also said auto insurance would be cheaper (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Subterranean

    if everyone had to buy it (before auto insurance was made mandatory). They used the exact same cost-shifting justification as they used for the health insurance mandate, it sounded good in theory, but in practice, insurance companies have ALWAYS raised premiums when insurance is made mandatory.

  •  It's so nice to see Reagan Republicans (5+ / 0-)

    claiming to be Democrats.

    Thinking the "food stamp challenge" teaches you about being poor is like thinking a camping trip will give you insight into being homeless.

    by JesseCW on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 06:11:08 PM PDT

  •  The "freeloaders" didn’t create this problem, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Subterranean

    the world’s most inefficient system of healthcare financing, i.e. the private health insurance-based model is what created the problem, by providing incentives for extravagant healthcare costs, so people wouldn’t be able to self-pay, thereby producing the need for them to be insured.
    Rewarding the same people who created the problem, i.e. private health insurers (with mandated business) will not be the solution. Think about it. What incentive does it create to reward the same people who created the problems we’re trying to solve? It creates the incentive for them to create more problems (because they just got rewarded for the previous problems they created).

  •  How typical, and how sad. (0+ / 0-)

    To get a conservative on your side, you have to give them someone to hate.

  •  How about this approach (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    Instead of using the freeloader argument...how about using the Newt Gngrich/Fox News/Geraldo line used on OWS? Shut up, deal with it because Obama won in 2008.

    I got so mad at a Republican family member today, I told him to just shove it. Obama won in 2008 against Queen Sarah/McCain by a landslide and elections have consequences. Obama and the Democratic Congress implemented their program. They begged Republicans to join-in them. They refused. They wanted him to fail. They said it was going to be his Waterloo. They pretended to join, but watered down the original bill so much, it looked like a Republican plan,  which originated in a Republican think-tank and was implemented by a republican Governor.

    Even after that, they still refused to join and help shape the bill that would help 50millions Americans who are without health insurance.
    And now, they asked Justice Roberts to bail them out and he too refused. It feels like they lost the game, and now they ask the referee to give them a goal, so they can level the score.

    Republicans need to stop bitching and take it like men. Trying to make Justice Roberts the scapegoat is whining. I called him a whiner, a sore loser and a hypocrite. It finally sunk in, when I asked him where his personal responsibility is for voting for a liberal? I told him, I hope he NEVER complained to me anymore, because he said OWS "were lazy people who should get a shower and go find a job". I told him to shut up and deal with it. And in November, we will see. I don't think he will EVER discuss this topic again with me.
    Sometimes, we just have to tell it like it is.
    You lost, deal with it. And don't cry like a baby.

  •  We need lots of new Facebook images (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Killer of Sacred Cows

    ...with this message, that can be shared page to page.  Yes, attacking "freeloaders" is the smart way to sell "personal responsibility."  When progressives spread all the layers of politically correct inoffensiveness and intellectual precision on top of their message, it actually distorts the message and turns off everyone who doesn't already agree with it.  Congratulations on cutting through all that bullshit and speaking directly to the common person directly at the level they are at, instead of unfairly expecting them to come to our level.  Now spread it as widely and as quickly as possible.

    Are you a Green who has difficulty telling Democrats and Republicans apart? Well, I have difficulty telling Greens and Maoists apart.

    by Subversive on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 05:12:43 AM PDT

  •  Might not work on Greens, truthers, and Naderites (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Killer of Sacred Cows

    ...but they are pretty much a lost cause anyways.  This argument will work well on middle America and that's all we need.

    Are you a Green who has difficulty telling Democrats and Republicans apart? Well, I have difficulty telling Greens and Maoists apart.

    by Subversive on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 05:33:49 AM PDT

  •  I'm a 'Damn Freeloader' (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Killer of Sacred Cows

    and sooooo happy that I can tell my fellow American's that because of ObamaCare(s) I won't be for too much longer!

    I will be first in line to PURCHASE AFFORDABLE HEALTH INSURANCE when Oregon's exchanges open in Oct 13!

    These right wingers can call me anything they want to; as long as it makes them see the ACA for what it really is: good for ALL Americans.

    YES WE DID! November 4th, 2008

    by Esjaydee on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 09:17:45 AM PDT

  •  poor people receiving subsidies = the new freelod (0+ / 0-)
  •   poor folks who get subsidies = freeloaders? (0+ / 0-)

    What happens when that becomes the new meme? Because thats rhe next logical step right? Are we simply going to adopt those talking points as well?  What happens when the hard right "why should i have to pay when those welfare queens are gettin money from the government?" argument breaks out? How are we suppised to contort ourselves into adopting that frame? And will we ever stop adopting their taking points and just stand up for what we believe?

  •  Great framing on this. (0+ / 0-)

    Can't wait to give it a spin!  

    ***Be Excellent To One Another***
    IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

    by potatohead on Sun Jul 01, 2012 at 07:24:51 PM PDT

  •  Just got healthcare rebate check thanks to ACA (0+ / 0-)

    We just got our $389.00 rebate back from the ins. co. as payment for their over-charging on administrative costs. Thanks to the ACA, every year the health insurance companies have to reimburse customers if they fail to spend at least eighty cents out of every dollar on medical care, not administrative overhead or profits or bonuses.

    We live in Massachusetts and believe that this is just the beginning. I think we will be headed for single payer or Medicare for all in the future. This is just the start.

OkieByAccident, Angie in WA State, Chris Andersen, Alma, TXdem, Radiowalla, True North, Odysseus, Timaeus, greendem, SaveDemocracy, karlpk, Khun David, alicia, Sherri in TX, hyperstation, eeff, Pompatus, polecat, Do Something, elfling, Matilda, Sandia Blanca, wackoliberal, Gareth, hnichols, geordie, Gustogirl, nicki37, 88kathy, TracieLynn, EricS, cyberKosFan, fugwb, wonkydonkey, mik, nyceve, whenwego, CoolOnion, highacidity, Bensdad, otto, chimpy, paulitics, badlands, bwren, Rona, evelette, fumie, Glinda, ctsteve, Iberian, Siusaidh, splashy, TheCrank, antirove, artebella, Chrisfs, Eddie C, revsue, Texknight, EntrWriter, dejavu, Getreal1246, annan, BleacherBum153, emmasnacker, marko, ManhattanMan, TexDem, Subversive, pat bunny, potatohead, Damnit Janet, HeyMikey, niteskolar, Jujuree, DSC on the Plateau, Steven Payne, grrr, lcrp, MagentaMN, outragedinSF, bwintx, Exurban Mom, ybruti, tomjones, Steven D, Black Max, Emmy, slapshoe, Josiah Bartlett, sebastianguy99, murrayewv, Gowrie Gal, maybeeso in michigan, radarlady, Ckntfld, caul, LarisaW, SherwoodB, ArchTeryx, Chinton, chimene, Erik the Red, Militarytracy, Alice Venturi, Blue Jean, citizenx, basquebob, dewtx, i m bobo, stagemom, Unforgiven, reflectionsv37, eru, SaraBeth, where4art, Fury, science geek, cspivey, wmspringer, lotlizard, Ice Blue, blue jersey mom, Steve in Urbana, sunbro, Sandino, SBandini, spunhard, Savvy813, Shotput8, deepsouthdoug, Tuba Les, turdraker, peacestpete, littlewren, Land of Enchantment, kathny, bently, debedb, WuChier, Nance, Sanuk, BachFan, myboo, Themistoclea, hungrycoyote, Russgirl, dopper0189, tonyahky, HoundDog, Gorette, Yellow Canary, mooshter, kestrel9000, bluebrain, Esjaydee, fou, Lefty Coaster, blueoasis, global citizen, Ashaman, Libby Shaw, JVolvo, armadillo, middleagedhousewife, sfvcadlt, Pilgrim X, onionjim, SingerInTheChoir, nother lurker, rage, CA Nana, doingbusinessas, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, BB10, means are the ends, Brunette, kurious, sea note, Quicklund, Opposite Reaction, Aaa T Tudeattack, cpresley, krwheaton, Thinking Fella, tegrat, asilomar, Cronesense, jessical, verso2, leema, SemDem, LSophia, ColoTim, gloriana, DvCM, rgjdmls, Matt Z, terabytes, Wendy in FL, rantsposition, mbh1023, GMFORD, Patience is Not a Virtue, Killer of Sacred Cows, millwood, pioneer111, Wreck Smurfy, Rumarhazzit, uciguy30, crystalboy, madgranny, spearfish, Da Rock, Assaf, rmonroe, Mighty Ike, 123man, gundyj, mconvente, Scioto, Mr SeeMore, angry hopeful liberal, kingneil, GAS, wayoutinthestix, Steve15, Sixty Something, prettyobvious, elwior, Cat Servant, filby, Its any one guess, jamess, pamelabrown, Haplogroup V, MrJayTee, smartdemmg, icebergslim, mofembot, codairem, glendaw271, petulans, phrogge prince, luckylizard, Karl Rover, Bongobanger, Diogenes2008, shortgirl, vmdairy, statsone, RobertNiles, fayea, MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel, maggiejean, BerkshireDem, Fonsia, Kansas Born, Dirtandiron, ARS, ceebee7, lostinamerica, notrouble, CamillesDad1, aunt blabby, langstonhughesfan, virginwoolf, zizi, MKSinSA, TheOpinionGuy, asym, jomi, COwoman, Keith Pickering, IreGyre, sfarkash, Tortmaster, Livvy5, jpmassar, citisven, collardgreens, Larsstephens, Lefty Ladig, BlueOak, HoopJones, Railfan, coppercelt, mamamorgaine, Alohilani, willynel, icemilkcoffee, flitedocnm, NJpeach, eXtina, estreya, jethrock, catwho, SeattleTammy, klompendanser, freeport beach PA, plankbob, Arenosa, cordgrass, gulfgal98, pixxer, Hoopgreen, anonevent, itswhatson, Maverick80229, elengul, ericlewis0, eclecta, nosleep4u, slice, theKgirls, no way lack of brain, Onomastic, Mike08, kerflooey, nervousnellie, sherryzee, bgblcklab1, sostos, jardin32, cv lurking gf, La Gitane, UtahLibrul, Mistral Wind, asterkitty, lexalou, Araguato, OhioNatureMom, kiwiheart, sallym, deeproots, Deleuzional, mrsgoo, Haf2Read, zukesgirl64, Carolyn in Oregon, IllanoyGal, slooterdam, KVoimakas, floridablue, MRA NY, createpeace, jgnyc, FreeWoman19, yaque, sound of progress, VTCC73, tjampel, rscopes, JenS, jham710, DRo, googie, Regina in a Sears Kit House, ChiTownDenny, ParkRanger, Davui, ArtemisBSG, Madrig, boredwitnuts, AnnetteK, bluebottles, Only Needs a Beat, stormicats, RhodaA, anodnhajo, leathersmith, cwsmoke, Siri, We Won, charliehall2, James Renruojos, outspoken82, ahumbleopinion, David54, Rob Morse, tb92, Yahzi, rukidingme, 2thanks, FloridaSNMOM, Trotskyrepublican, martinjedlicka, Lorinda Pike, Mike RinRI, belinda ridgewood, BC Progressive, AspenFern, reginahny, Arahahex, MartyM, rat racer, FrY10cK, dotdash2u, Artandscience, wasatch, mumtaznepal, Melanie in IA, tripodisblack, Buckeye Liberal, YsosadisticGOP, Patrick is Lucky, Near Miss, Phoebe Loosinhouse, Stills, idlemoments, Captain Chaos, Prospect Park, DamselleFly, Panacea Paola, ebailey, Late Again, Thornrose, EliWery, averblue, sweetsister, howabout, LaraJones, Icicle68, katiekitteh, Smoh, addikell

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site