Mommy’s college boy

About Joanne

Comments

  1. HAHAHAHA – so true. The only thing she forgot is that she gets to keep her widdle baby on her health insurance until he’s 26, thanks to Obamacare :P

  2. Lee, please tell me you’re not going to start whining that Obama won because he is “giving gifts” to women, young people, and the middle class. Obama won because most Americans don’t think that making ordinary people go without healthcare so that the wealthy can have a tax break is a good idea. Deal with it.

    • You do realize that there are still 30 million people without healthcare even under Obamacare right? And more people everyday see their full time job turned into a part time job so that their employer doesn’t have to deal with obamacare.

      • Deirdre Mundy says:

        And Obamacare has drastically increased insurance rates for the self-employed and those who work for small business. We’ve actually decided to drop insurance and pay the penalties, because with premiums+ deductible (and no maternity coverages) it was going to be eating up 66%-110% of our income a year. We’re better off working out payment plans if there’s a hospitalization and paying docs out of pocket.

        People who work for big companies and state and local govts don’t realize how this law has smashed small business. Real, market-oriented reforms would have been helpful. This just makes insurance unaffordable…..

        • …and does nothing to curb the lawyers. In most of the countries with nationalized health services, patients cannot sue. Now, we’ll have all of the problems and costs of national health services plus all of the costs of defensive medicine and lawyers.

          • Malpractice is a very small part of our overall healthcare picture, and most malpractice victims go uncompensated or undercompensated.

            The nation’s insurance companies could have had comprehensive, national tort reform as part of the PPACA, but chose not to pursue it. Why? Because they’ve won enormous victories at the state level, and are quite happy with the status quo.

            By way of example, Texas has all-but-eliminated liability for medical malpractice and nursing home injuries – and most states have failed to index their malpractice caps to inflation. Federal legislation would not only likely be more fair, it would allow victim’s advocacy groups to target Congress for universal reform rather than having to split their effort among state legislatures where the insurance companies have a much friendlier audience.

    • Stacy in NJ says:

      According to polls, a clear majority of Americans still dislike and disapprove of ObamaCara. He was re-elected dispite ObamaCare, not because of it. My guess is that most people believe that raising taxes on the “rich” will solve our fiscal problems. Ohhh the ignorance of the masses.

      • If you say “Obamacare”, you get a slight majority who dislike the bill. If you poll over individual elements of the bill, other than the mandate the bill gets overwhelming support.

        That’s why Romney was promising to eliminate “Obamacare” but promising that he wouldn’t eliminate any of its constituent elements except for the mandate – and yes, he knew that the mandate was necessary to sustain the rest, because he dealt with the same issue in Massachusetts. Gotta love politics.

    • Being without health insurance and unable to afford it, I would be one of the supposed beneficiaries of Obamacare. However, I happen to value liberty more than freebies. Obama won despite Obamacare, not because of it, and thankfully the majority of Americans still haven’t been snookered into believing it’s a better system. Deal with it.

      • How does buying health insurance interfere with your liberties?

        If you go to the E.R. for treatment and don’t have insurance, do you pay cash?

        • Roger Sweeny says:

          If you are forced to buy health insurance, of course it interferes with your liberties. If ER people are forced to treat you whether or not you pay them, of course that interferes with their liberties. If governments require the second without the first, some people will “free ride.” That is certainly unfair, but it doesn’t make the requirement to buy insurance any less coercive.

          (And, of course, requiring that “health insurance” pay for X,Y and Z and not A,B and C adds an additional layer of interference with liberty.)

  3. greeneyeshade says:

    Actually, Shakespeare and the Boer War sound like a pretty good start. (Now, if it had been poststructuralism and critical theory …) And since when do economics and communications not impart any practical skills?

    • Since when they don’t provide you with salable skills. If no one’s hiring those skills then their practical value is doubtful regardless of the fierceness with which valueless degrees are defended.