Revolution?

[Electrophile]

I'm curious if you are working in the field you studied for? The reason I ask is most people I know aren't.

After college I did for about a year. I had to quit that job because they moved to a location that I wasn't able to commute to anymore. After that, I couldn't find any work in that field. Right now I am unemployed because I can't hired anywhere, not even Wal-Mart. Which really makes a person feel good, you know.

Doesn't mean I'm giving up hope or getting defeatist about it.

[Jarlaxle 56]

http://www.holytaco.com/2008/06/03/the-10-...college-majors/

The 10 Most Worthless College Majors

I assume the man who wrote this has never heard of the profession of TEACHING.

[Evster2012]

I'm curious if you are working in the field you studied for? The reason I ask is most people I know aren't.

Graphic arts and design. Was marketing director for a mortgage company in South Orange County, CA. Got laid off when the bubble burst. Currently seeking a customer service job at the local drug store. I've moved to three states in two years looking for work. And I'm not whining! We take what life hands us. We just have to get off the couch and fight for it!

[eternal light]

A lot of my friends ditched their high school education and went to work for unions. They've done quite well. They weren't interested in the French Revolution or calculus, but got trained in a trade, and worked themselves up. A person's work ethic and abilities shouldn't be measured by how they stuck to school. In some cases (not all) there are people who just want to get on with it, and I've seen them do it. A person should not be measured by having finished school, but rather what they do when given a task. To judge someone's ability to stick to it based on what they did as a tennager in high school is erroneous and a waste of talent.

So I should only value what happens in the workplace and totally ignore everyone who finishes school?

Alright, as long as you can drive a forklift then you can probably perform open heart surgery. Who needs a medical degree for that? Oh wait, there is a law that requires a license, and to get that license, you must have a degree from an approved school of medicine, and to get into that school, you must have an undergraduate degree, probably in biological sciences, which has a breadth requirement that includes the arts and humanities, but darn it if you fail that dance or history course, you are stuck.

So much for emergency health care.

Don't have a heart attack while you are driving that forklift.

[Evster2012]

So I should only value what happens in the workplace and totally ignore everyone who finishes school?

Alright, as long as you can drive a forklift then you can probably perform open heart surgery. Who needs a medical degree for that? Oh wait, there is a law that requires a license, and to get that license, you must have a degree from an approved school of medicine, and to get into that school, you must have an undergraduate degree, probably in biological sciences, which has a breadth requirement that includes the arts and humanities, but darn it if you fail that dance or history course, you are stuck.

So much for emergency health care.

Don't have a heart attack while you are driving that forklift.

Um, my post had nothing to do with health care. It was in regards to education and the view of its necessity in the eyes of upper management and how that's changed over the years.

And I happen to have a degree. Thanks.

And I don't drive a forklift, but I have hella respect the hard working folks who do.

My girlfriend and I are full-time caretakers of an ailing relative. We don't get paid. We are however doing the right thing at the right time. That's all that matters.

[eternal light]

Um, my post had nothing to do with health care. It was in regards to education and the view of its necessity in the eyes of upper management and how that's changed over the years.

And I happen to have a degree. Thanks.

And I don't drive a forklift, but I have hella respect the hard working folks who do.

My girlfriend and I are full-time caretakers of an ailing relative. We don't get paid. We are however doing the right thing at the right time. That's all that matters.

So that makes it okay for the rest of the world to be uneducated, seeing as they can always drive a forklift? Oh wait, you need a license to do that, so you must be able to pass a test and be old enough. I guess even driving a forklift requires some kind of education.

As for being a caretaker of an ailing person, that requires some interpersonal skill. You have to be nice to people.

[Evster2012]

So that makes it okay for the rest of the world to be uneducated, seeing as they can always drive a forklift? Oh wait, you need a license to do that, so you must be able to pass a test and be old enough. I guess even driving a forklift requires some kind of education.

As for being a caretaker of an ailing person, that requires some interpersonal skill. You have to be nice to people.

Why are you on about forklift drivers? It was just an example about how many of my friends left school to work for aerospace companies. That doesn't make them stupid. I certainly wasn't opposing education. I got my drivers license when I was in the 10th grade. That I suppose required a certain level of competency. Please don't make my point into a point I wasn't making.

[eternal light]

Like I previously said, there is a reason why job requirements often include an equivalent of education or experience. That is because both have value. It depends on each individual's accomplishments, whether it be in the workplace or the classroom.

There is no reason to devalue either what happens in the workplace or in the classroom.

[Electrophile]

I don't think Evster was devaluing education. At least that's not what I got from his posts. I think he was saying that sometimes a college degree DOESN'T help you get work, if the work that is available requires skills or knowledge that aren't taught in college classrooms, like how to drive a forklift.

[Evster2012]

I don't think Evster was devaluing education. At least that's not what I got from his posts. I think he was saying that sometimes a college degree DOESN'T help you get work, if the work that is available requires skills or knowledge that aren't taught in college classrooms, like how to drive a forklift.

Thanks! I wasn't at all saying education wasn't of value. I was just making an observation about how some of my friends got very good jobs. I was certainly not implying my forklift driving friends were less educated than me. Hell they make more money than I do! So who's the dummy?

What sucks is being overqualified.

"Dude, I just need a job. I don't care what it is."

"Well unfortunately you have a degree, so we can't hire you. It wouldn't be fair to the other employees"

"Wha?"

[Electrophile]

What sucks is being overqualified.

"Dude, I just need a job. I don't care what it is."

"Well unfortunately you have a degree, so we can't hire you. It wouldn't be fair to the other employees"

"Wha?"

That's been my problem right now. None of the companies and businesses within my field are hiring right now so that's strike 1. Places like Target, Wal-Mart, Walgreens.....they're not hiring me either because a) people who are heads of households are more likely to get those kinds of jobs over me because they need them more and b.) I have too much work and education experience for them. So that's strike 2. Lastly, my parents are wonderfully letting me live at home right now and I have no dependents. So employers don't think I am as desperate for work as someone who maybe has 3 kids and a mortgage is. Strike 3, I'm out.

That doesn't mean I regret getting a degree, I would never, ever regret that no matter how dire my situation became. Hell, companies and businesses in my field in Georgia where I used to live aren't hiring either so if we hadn't moved, I'd be in the same position I am now.

I'm hoping the economy improves soon, maybe some of these hiring freezes will lift.

[eternal light]

Then you must continue to expand your search to target those employers who will hire you and enhance your career.

[ZPN]

Nathan, Nathan, Nathan. I feel you. I really do. But as long as you have people in this country (and in this thread, sad to say) believing in GOP talking head scare tactics and going around bringing guns to town hall meetings, holding signs saying "Death To Obama" and "Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids".........everything you say will fall on deaf ears.

The right wing in this country has fallen off the fucking rails.

Amen...and Nathan, I will add that just because someone is the biggest bully, doesn't make them right (by right I mean correct, not right wing).

[ZPN]

An open question to those opposed to government run health care...

The military is run by the government and last time I checked it is the best military in the world. Health care is/would a smaller operation compared to the military, so why would the government fail to properly run health care?

And MEDICARE is a government program-irony of ironies is that some of these town hall folks who are screaming about the public option being socialism say in their next breath, keep your hands off my medicare! Also public schools (I had a VERY GOOD education via public schools), roads, coast guard, environmental and labor protections to keep us safe, minimum wage (if they can set a minimum wage, I think a maximum wage would be fair), FMLA, Social Security....no they're not perfect, but where would we be without any government in our lives?

And as far as Obama lying about people being able to keep their private health insurance if they want to, why assume he is lying? I only suspected Bush of lying after it had been proven that he did lie. It seems to me Obama has been more than reasonable with Republicans, both in general and in terms of health care reform. He has reached out to them (appointed conservatives/Republicans, met with them repeatedly and praised them in speeches, press conferences and town meetings, even though some-Grassley for example-respond by criticizing him and lying about things like the death panels) and tried to work with them more than Bush ever did with Democrats. He said Single Payer would not even be on the table, even though the majority of Amercans want Single Payer. Public Option is a compromise between the status quo and Single Payer. Even though I'd much rather have Single Payer, I will be glad if Public Option passes. If it doesn't pass, the will of the majority will have been completely ignored.

[ZPN]

People are opposed to government-run health care because they have no clue what it is, what it will do or what it won't do. If you have health insurance, great. You get to keep it. You get to keep your doctor, your provider, everything. What this is doing is giving those WITHOUT health care........health care. Which is really fucking horrible, apparently.

Also, they'll believe any lie they hear about the NHS in England or what Canada has.

I know enough about Canada's health care system to know that the 17 year old girl who died in the US, because her insurance company wouldn't cover an organ transplant (after protests and negative publicity the insurance company reversed its decision, but it was too late-she died 2 hours after they announced they would cover the transplant) would not happen in Canada.

Talk about misinformation:

Investor’s Business Daily published an editorial claiming Steven Hawking “wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.” If they were concerned with facts, they would have found out that Hawking is not from the US, he's British. Hawking responded to the editorial by saying: “I wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the N.H.S. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived.”

In addition to providing coverage to those currently uninsured, the public option will give those of us who have coverage but are going broke &/or being denied care some other options. I know a lot about prescription drug plans, because I was employed by a rx benefit company for 3 years, until they fired me in Nov 08. For example, the MILITARY (ie government) prescription plan had lower copays than other plans for most drugs. And if there was a base with a pharmacy near a member, they could get many drugs filled there free. Military members would sometimes complain about their copays-they didn't know how much lower their copays were but we were not allowed to tell them. And besides, I didn't resent the military members having lower copays: they deserved that and more for their sacrifices and the risks they took on our behalf. I just think everyone should have copays they can afford, instead of having to skip meds, take the wrong dose, take drugs that don't work well just because they're cheaper, choose between groceries and meds, or choose between heating their homes/apartments and meds.

If all you can think about is the money it will cost to reform health care, the facts show that Canada (and other countries) with Single Payer pay less per capita (and a lower percentage of GDP) than we do. It would be cheaper to switch to Single Payer than continue with our system as is, plus everyone would be covered. It would also remove the burden of paying for medical benefits from employers: I would think that people who are pro-capitalist would LIKE that! This would also put

self-employed/small businesses on equal footing with large corporations: thus entrepeneurs would

benefit!

If you think this would suddenly put someone between you and your doctor, we have that right now-the difference is the someone between us and our doctors are insurance companies who are making a profit on their decisions while people go bankrupt, get sicker and die because of them.

I am willing to take a chance that the government would do a better job than these insurance companies. If it doesn't work out, fine, we can go back to an all for-profit system. But it's working in Canada, England and other countries. If they can succeed with it, we can too.

And again, Obama/Congress are not even proposing Single Payer, they are just proposing a PUBLIC OPTION. It seems like a win-win idea that is meeting opponents of Single Payer 1/2 way.

[ZPN]

I said I liked Type-O's remark about having a brush so wide one wouldn't know where to store it. I wasn't opining on the remarks of yours it was in reference to. Sorry if you confused my appreciation of a good dig with what I think of your opinion.

Thanks for clarifying that-thoughtful of you.

[ZPN]

Canada doesn't have our sensationalistic media, turning everything into a racial issue....they're just trying to make sure white America isn't trying to visit, and cash in on your health plan.

A bill of this size will have sections that cancel each other out, tag alongs that have nothing to do with the core subject, and enough verbage that runs opposite of the US constitution to keep the Supreme court busy for the forseeable future.

So back to the question...if we have to "give' people who don't pay into the system (and that of course is NOT limited to people here illegally) health care, how can the government regulate that? Illegal aliens have drivers licenses, fake ID's, and social security numbers...are we going to mortgage our future even more to keep an s-load of people onhand to do background checks? It's going to come down to the Amnesty issue a mentioned above, because if we're not going to turn people away at the borders, and ratify those who are already here as honest citizens, the government will be forced to throw up their collective hands and treat anybody with a drivers license.

Also can't wait for the cost of all of our goods and services to skyrocket, and wages go down as small businesses compensate for having to pay for healthcare benefits.

Does the government need to step in on healthcare? Yes, reform has been needed for a long, long time...does it need to be a national healthcare system? I've never believed so.

You may be making the assumption that "illegal" Americans are currently not receiving any medical treatment because they don't have private health insurance. At minimum, when they have emergencies, or their kids are sick, they are already going to emergency rooms and urgent care clinics, and the costs are passed on to those who are in the system and paying for coverage. So even if a plan with public option did cover "illegals" (as far as I know, it won't), I don't think we can say that now we are paying nothing for their health care, compared to whatever amount it costs to cover them.

[ZPN]

You say that in a world that practically relies on degrees. Shit... most major business-world companies require a bachelors for a usual desk position, and a masters if you wanna move up the ladder.

Besides... I'm not getting the degrees because I have to have them. I want them. I fully intend to be educated on everything I plan on doing. Believe me... I'm already drawing up my business proposal/model for my Record Label. I'm writing and recording music for an album.

But I want the benefits of a great education from Full Sail University to help me with everything I intend to do and push me towards the contacts I need to make. I don't feel like I'm wasting my 20's at all. In fact, I'm quite looking forward to this venture. I happen to think that the education I know I will receive (and the education I have already received) is extremely valuable (to me, that is).

If you want to consider me a brainwashed, docile sheep for this, then go ahead. I'm just telling you that I believe that this education is the way to go for me, personally...

I'm glad you're sticking up for yourself, Nathan. I for one am really tired of Steve Jones' mean spirited posts. I might stop using this forum completely because of it (ok, now I know I'll get a reply from Steve that I should f'ing leave, that I'm a wimp and a marxist, etc.). It's one thing to have a different opinion, but why does it have to be so mean? It's the same thing I feel coming from the screamers at the town hall meetings.

[ZPN]

There's probably more conservative plans that would actually work to cheapen healthcare that would work better than nationalizing healthcare.

Pres Clinton tried that (HMOs-and now we are forced by insurance companies to take "consumer driven" plans-which usually have high deductibles). We've given the private insurance companies plenty of time to improve things on their own. Most people don't know that medical insurance in this country was not always for profit-it was originally non-profit. You could theoretically have non-profit

coverage that is not a government system, like we had in the past. I don't know how well it would work, because it would be such a giant undertaking.

[ZPN]

According to the copy of the Constitution I've read, this is in the preamble:

"promote the general welfare"

Couldn't one make the argument that making sure our citizenry is healthy and able to get health care constitutes promoting the general welfare of our populace? Welfare in this instance doesn't mean government checks and food stamps. It means "well-being".

In the Declaration of Independence, does it not say the following:

"that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"

Now what does that say? Sounds to me like governments are instituted to ensure, among other important things, that the populace LIVES. Don't you think health care for the populace would help them to oh I don't know.......LIVE?

And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25, states:

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate to the health and well-being of himself and his family, including...medical care...and the right to security, in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

[ZPN]

http://www.holytaco.com/2008/06/03/the-10-...college-majors/

7. Music Therapy

Why It Won’t Help You Get a Job: I didn’t even know this was a major until I found it on the Appalachian State website. According to their actual explanation of this major: “Music therapy is the scientific application of the art of music within a therapeutic relationship to meet the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual needs of individuals.” Which is a big, fancy way of saying “We’ll teach you how to make a mix tape.” I guess I, too, am a qualified music therapist because my “Summer Jams ‘95” tape I made in the 10th grade totally rocked my house party. All my friends told me that kicking it off with Wreckz-N-Effects “Rump Shaker” followed by Coolio’s “Gangsta’s Paradise” totally met their physical, mental and spiritual needs to help them get wasted on my dad’s Schnapps and Drambuie.

What Job You’ll End Up With: After realizing that yoga studios and elderly homes don’t pay people just to come in and set mood music, you’re sadly going to end up putting your degree towards burning a fire to keep warm because you are homeless.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O2 and Nordoff-Robbins Music Therapy charity are proud to announce a one off concert, featuring unique collaborations from some of the UK’s greatest music talent at London’s most celebrated music venue, The O2.

Taking place on 11th September, O2 Rockwell in aid of Nordoff-Robbins will see influential musicians including Robert Plant and Tom Jones, sharing the stage with some of the best new talent to come out of the UK in recent times. This unique event will be a celebration of the amazing contribution that Nordoff-Robbins has made to Music Therapy and the music industry over the past 50 years.

The artists confirmed to play the event, with more to be announced, in no particular order includes…

Razorlight Tom Jones

Robert Plant Joss Stone

Ronan Keating Gaz Coombs & Danny Goffey (performing as Hot Rats)

Gabriella Cilmi Beverley Knight

Lulu Dan Gillespie Sells (The Feeling)

David Gray

… with more artists coming together to plot and plan a very special Super Group to play for one night only, and legendary collaborations amongst the other artists, it truly will be the musical spectacular of the year.

One hundred percent of proceeds from the show will be donated to Nordoff-Robbins, and O2 customers will benefit from an exclusive priority ticket period on 3rd and 4th August, followed by a general release ticket sales period for non-O2 customers on Wednesday 5th August.

Mark Stevenson, Head of Sponsorship, O2 said, “O2 has been proudly supporting Nordoff-Robbins Music Therapy for the last 8 years. Our O2 Priority scheme has allowed our customers to purchase over 500,000 tickets to events across the country and we are delighted to be able to offer them Priority Tickets to this unique event as well. In addition all proceeds will go directly to Nordoff-Robbins to help them continue to make a valuable difference to people’s children’s lives through music building on Telefonica O2’s support for children and young people.”

O2 has a long-standing commitment to supporting children and young people through its charity partnerships and its flagship youth programmes including the It’s Your Community scheme in the UK which has funded hundreds of projects aimed at young people and Pronino, an initiative tackling the problem of child labour across many countries in Latin America through education support for 100,000 young children.

Nordoff-Robbins Music Therapy has established itself as THE charity of the music industry, with support from across the globe and patron’s that include David Bowie, Coldplay, Elvis Costello, Mick Jagger, Tom Jones, George Michael, Cliff Richard, Keith Richards, Sting, Rod Stewart, and Paul Weller to name but a few. Since its inception back in 1959 when Paul Nordoff and Clive Robbins put their individual talents together for a fantastic cause that has helped millions, it has gone on to host and benefit from some fantastic events.

Nordoff-Robbins Music Therapy is the UK’s largest music therapy charity and the O2 Rockwell event is part of its 50th year anniversary celebrations. It provides over 35,000 therapy sessions a year to disabled children, through its national centre in London and

across the country through a network of regional services in partnership with 70 schools, hospitals and day centres. It also runs training and education programmes and develops research evidence for music therapy programmes nationwide. Nordoff-Robbins does not receive statutory funding and needs to raise almost £3 million a year to continue to operate.

(from http://www.nordoff-robbins.org.uk/newsAndEvents/?p=211)

[Mangani]

Also, they'll believe any lie they hear about the NHS in England or what Canada has.

I've been amazed at some of the beliefs I've heard from right wing Americans regarding the NHS in Britain. If I listen to them then I would be fooled into thinking nobody ever gets to see a doctor or gets treated at the hospital.

Strange, when I don't personally know anybody who has had problems with the NHS here. Indeed, my girlfriend might as well bloody live at the doctors or the hospital as she's seemingly always there (LOL) and is treated very adequately and professionally every single time.

So, no complaints with the NHS from my perspective. Of course there are problems for some people but with million and millions using it that's par for the course. No system will ever be perfect.

I have no opinion on America's healthcare. None of my business and it's not my country. There must be some reason why so many people think an American NHS healthcare system would be a good thing though. It appears to be such a big debate over there right now.

[ZPN]

Sorry comrade, that is quite incorrect.

Modern Health Insurance

Accident insurance was first offered in the United States by the Franklin Health Assurance Company of Massachusetts. This firm, founded in 1850, offered insurance against injuries arising from railroad and steamboat accidents. Sixty organizations were offering accident insurance in the US by 1866, but the industry consolidated rapidly soon thereafter. While there were earlier experiments, the origins of sickness coverage in the US effectively date from 1890. The first employer-sponsored group disability policy was issued in 1911.

Before the development of medical expense insurance, patients were expected to pay all other health care costs out of their own pockets, under what is known as the fee-for-service business model. During the middle to late 20th century, traditional disability insurance evolved into modern health insurance programs. Today, most comprehensive private health insurance programs cover the cost of routine, preventive, and emergency health care procedures, and also most prescription drugs, but this was not always the case.

Hospital and medical expense policies were introduced during the first half of the 20th century. During the 1920s, individual hospitals began offering services to individuals on a pre-paid basis, eventually leading to the development of Blue Cross organizations. The predecessors of today's Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) originated beginning in 1929, through the 1930s and on during World War II.

"...in the 1920s. That's when doctors and hospitals, having only during the previous decade learned enough about disease that they could be reliably helpful in treating sick people, began charging more than most individuals could easily pay. To close this gap, which worsened with the advent of the Great Depression, the administrator of Baylor Hospital in Dallas created a system that caught on elsewhere and eventually evolved into Blue Cross. The Blues were essentially nonprofit health [/b]insurers who served local community organizations like the Elks. In exchange for a tax break, Blue Cross organizations kept premiums reasonably low.

The Blues, in their early days, charged everyone the same premium, regardless of age, sex, or pre-existing conditions. This was partly because the Blues were quasi-philanthropic organizations...They were sufficiently benevolent that when Harry Truman proposed a national health-care scheme, opponents were able to defeat it by arguing that the nonprofit sector had the problem well in hand. As private insurers entered the market, however, they rejiggered premiums by calculating relative risk, and avoided the riskiest potential customers altogether. To survive, the Blues followed suit; today, they no longer enjoy a tax advantage and are virtually indistinguishable from other health insurers. Meanwhile, large companies, which tend to employ significantly more young people than old people, began to self-insure. The combined result was that people who really needed health care had an increasingly difficult time affording, or even getting, health-care insurance.

As health-insurance costs rose during the 1970s and 1980s—driven both by improving medical technology and by the growing inefficiencies of the health-care system—health maintenance organizations, which had been around since the beginning, began to proliferate, along with other managed-care schemes. Like the Blues, HMOs became victims of their own success. Initially they were mainly nonprofit, but once again businesses spotted an opportunity and for-profit HMOs displaced nonprofit HMOs. (According to Cohn, 12 percent of the market was served by for-profits in 1981; by 1997, that was more like 65 percent.) With their bottom-line orientation, the for-profit HMOs were necessarily more aggressive about denying treatments.

Managed care kept cost increases in check for a while during the 1990s, but eventually costs started creeping up again, creating the current crisis. Today employers are reducing or eliminating outright health-care benefits for employees; hospitals are consolidating and becoming less accommodating to low-income patients as they seek to push back against insurers; and a shrinking portion of the population has any health insurance at all. The Bush administration has encouraged the growth of health savings accounts, which in the guise of providing greater consumer choice create a confusing array of alternatives that disguise a further reduction in coverage and more cost-shifting away from the young and healthy toward the old and sick. The overall trend—the gift of an increasingly market-driven health-care system—is to undermine the very idea that the cost of illness should be spread out among the general population, healthy and unhealthy alike. In this sense, the private health-care market is too efficient. Assigning health care costs to sick people is what the market wants to do.

(I got that from a website-I have no idea if the site is liberal or conservative or neutral)

[SteveAJones]

"...in the 1920s. The Blues were essentially nonprofit health insurers who served local community organizations like the Elks. In exchange for a tax break, Blue Cross organizations kept premiums reasonably low.

health maintenance organizations, which had been around since the beginning, began to proliferate, along with other managed-care schemes. Like the Blues, HMOs became victims of their own success. Initially they were mainly nonprofit, but once again businesses spotted an opportunity and for-profit HMOs displaced nonprofit HMOs. (According to Cohn, 12 percent of the market was served by for-profits in 1981; by 1997, that was more like 65 percent.)

(I got that from a website-I have no idea if the site is liberal or conservative or neutral)

That's fine, but let's take another look at what you said:

Most people don't know that medical insurance in this country was not always for profit-it was originally non-profit. You could theoretically have non-profit coverage that is not a government system, like we had in the past.

For the sake of argument, let's say the country began in 1776. Blue Cross did not come

along for over 125 years, and when it did it was not the system it was a system. Blue Cross was also quasi-philanthropic in nature. HMOs came along about 50 years later,

but they were not non-profit either.

Your underlying point is well taken though. Seems to me there is some wisdom to be gained from examining the past as opposed to trying to cram a socialist scheme down the throats of millions of Americas who are adamantly opposed to it. I've said all along Obamacare is far too cost-prohibitive as it trys to cover all of the people with

only some of the people contributing funds. Anyone with a brain knows amnesty for the nation's roughly 12 million illegals is next on the Dem's agenda so they will all vote blue

for life in large part because of all the free candy they would have been given now. It

isn't going to happen. This whole thing is D.O.A.

[BlackandGold]

I work for a non-profit Blue Cross Blue Shield Plan. We are still the insurer of last resort in Pennsylvania. We can't turn anyone away because of pre-existing conditions and the state insurance department regulates the rates we can charge. This means that we have to offer benefit plans that are not medically underwritten(ie not based on a person's risk factors/medical condition). The other health insurers that operate in the state are permitted to use medical underwriting and therefore we get the sicker people and the others get the healthy people. As a result, our rates continue to increase (within the limits set by the state), and the other insurers get healthy people and the truly sick people who can't afford the premium go without. We do get a tax break for being non-profit.

A simple solution that would go a long way towards insuring all Americans would to require all insurers to provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions which would mean to get rid of medical underwriting. In order for that to work, there would have to be a law that all Americans have health insurance. You can not choose to go without. There are a lot of healthy young people that choose not to pay for health insurance. In order for the insurance rates to drop, there has to be a pool of healthy people subsidizing the sick people. It's no different than car insurance where good drivers with no claims subsidize the accident-prone.