While the Cat's Away

Gibbs will put his foot in the cat's mouth.

During an press conference (do they call the regular get togethers that?) he was asked about the Exise tax it will put on middle class families ... well instead of explaining why it wasnt as tax, Gibbs instead related the fee to a speeding ticket.

Yeah -- Not having Health Insurance is the same as getting a Speeding Ticket. Here's what he said

Gibbs: ... there's an individual mandate that, and this speaks of
legislation,aaahh, that the President supports but, uh, uh, something that charges an individual that doesn't have & can't afford health insurance, uh, is a little bit like, uh, if you're not compliant with the law and you're speeding and I don't think anybody would say that if you're going to fast on the innerstate that somehow somebody has raised your taxes.

Now it was not the best sound bite I've heard -- it was pretty obvious that it came from the withing a larger response ... I did keep the pauses and stuff in the quote because he was really grasping for words to explain himself (to me its a sure sign that he doesn't believe in what he's saying).

So the President is aware, and Congress too, that there are Americans who are "middle class" who will not be able to afford ANY health insurance ... but as middle class they will not qualify for the federal program either (I've been in that group - it totally sucked ... not enough money to live & raise a family on, too much money to get help) ... but how dare they make too much money so lets 'fine' them on a regular basis.

The show "20/20" did a story once on families who didn't have health insurance - in particular those who purposefully chose NOT to pay monthly for insurance - and who had more to spend. They looked at what these families would have to pay per year for insurance and what they actually spent. They took into consideration what not only they would have to pay in insurance payments, but co-pays, and out-of-pocket expenses.

They looked at people who could have had "private" insurance companies, and those who could have had an HMO.

What they found was that the people who didn't have insurance paid less per year in the long run IF ~~~ and its a big if ~~~ IF no one got a major injury or hospitalization. But one family took the money that they would have spent each money and put it into a special acct just in case they had these issues.

Well think of it...

when I stopped working 15 yrs ago we were paying $77/paycheck X2 = $154/mo for family HMO - which was secondary insurance for everyone but me (it was my primary -- so we were basically paying $154/mo for me)

$154 X12 months = $1848/yr

$1848 X 6.5 yrs = $12012 total for the years I worked

WOW that was like 2 yrs of my paycheck! And that isn't even acct'ing for the error that they made for the first 4 yrs of my son's life when the insurance company covered him and the company swore they didn't charge me for family insurance so they suddenly started taking out EXTRA funds for my kids (they caught it after the company had switched insurance companies) to make up for what they considered to be a short fall -- they did however cut a deal with me, and I only had to pay $5 extra a check and then they figured that in a few years I would have it all paid off.

And yes it was a deal - state law didn't protect me at all from having them come after me for ALL of it .... state law didn't force them to pay for insurance while I was on maternity leave either -- so we had to carry that for my last pregnancy as well because the dr put me on bed-rest and I wasn't going to be out for just 6 wks.

So I have been on BOTH SIDES of this issue -- I've got to tell you .... the plans they propose are SCARY, mostly because there will be a group of people who are going to get screwed over -- totally screwed without recourse.

BUT no one can tell you what group that is because they keep moving the lines around.

And as more people get shifted amongst income lines due to the problems that are coming in the economy (which the Dems are making worse - c'mon, you can't blame the Reps on this one, they haven't had any power for 10 months now) those lines of who is considered 'upper most' & 'wealthy' are becoming more blurred!

And because they are becoming blurred -- no one knows who will be on the cutting block.

Accept the elderly - the Senior citizens know they are going to get screwed. Between the cuts in Medicare & the extra taxes to prescription companies (how dare they make money for research) they also plan on charging higher taxes on 'medical device' makers (like artificial hips/knees/pacemakers/etc) for some reason - no one seems to know why other than the fact that they are making money - and higher taxes on Insurance Companies who have those 'cadillac plans' for their customers.

Cadillac Plans are those plans that someone has to pay extra for to get better coverage, but that the "average" minimal wage worker couldn't afford -- in otherwords, non HMO plans. Got what is considered an 'Private Insurance'? it will get taxed and then you will be paying a lot more for your insurance.

If you see a dr bill - you will have to pay more (because you will have a cadillac plan if you have a copay or out-of-pocket expense) ...

Don't get me wrong, there are several things I DO like about the proposal ...

the elimination of pre-existing conditions - they considered my eye-sight a pre-existing condition and I had to wait for 'open enrollment' at my work before they would take me in withut worry of having a bill rejected - at least until I found I had to go to their eye dr who got my prescription totally wrong to the point that had I not gone back to my regular dr at my own expense would have ruined my eye sight forever.

Limetime limits - that needs to go. My son has a condition that came about by an accident that no one could see coming ... he isn't even a teenager yet and he is about to have a fairly major operation -- as are many children -- it is horrid to think of these kids suddenly finding they won't qualify for coverage when they get older because the company they work for might carry the same insurance company that they are under at the time of their operations. Thus preventing them from having full coverage when they get older.

Some insurance for those without - but I think it needs to be on a state-by-state basis ... the Federal government was not given the power for this type of thing in the Constitution, and by that same thought they shouldn't be dictating welfare or food-stamps either - both of those programs are not supported by the Federal Constitution (and it is breaking states & counties who have to make up for the federal shortfall).

But the whole thing and the way they are going about it is sooooo wrooooonng!!

They are snowballing it thru - damn the torpedos, full speed ahead - and no one could possibly tell them that they are wrong.

or that NOW IS NOT THE TIME FOR THIS ... that they have to stabilize the economy first! they have to get people back to work first! they have to save this nation before they start to punish people who they feel are 'against them' -- and their take over of the government.

And now to have the Press Secetary equating the punishment of people for not being able to afford insurance -- to a SPEEDING TICKET --

its like everyone in Washington is riding on the boat enjoying the scenery but no one is watching to see who is at the helm and where they are going.

Geez - we must look like absolute idiots to the other democratic societies out there ... especially to the ones that we tried to help get started.