Obamacare is Private Health Insurance
When supporters of the Affordable Care Act talk about all of the people who have gotten health insurance because of it, they often neglect to emphasize that they got that health insurance from private
insurance companies!
Americans
who supposedly don’t like “Obamacare” need to be reminded that health insurance
purchased through the ACA does not come from a "government program," as its opponents unceasingly try to misrepresent it as doing. Sure, the government is involved, but only in getting people enrolled in plans sold by private insurance companies, offering subsidies in the form of tax credits to those who cannot afford policies, making sure that these companies "do right" for those who purchase their policies and mandating that all Americans have the opportunity to buy health insurance. What is wrong with that? Americans should view the Affordable Care Act in the same healthy way they perceive Mothers Day or apple pie!
There are innumerable people out there who love the *benefits which the Affordable Care Act has made available to them but still view "Obamacare" as something they do not favor. It is up to Democrats running for office to make it clear that the Affordable Care Act (growing to be almost as beloved by those with "Obamacare" policies as Medicare and Social Security are) and "Obamacare" are one in the same, and not the monster many Americans have been taught to fear by its opponents.
This will be a difficult job since as recently as last month, a Kaiser Foundation study showed that one in six Americans weren't even aware of the March 31 deadline for enrolling in a plan under the Affordable Care Act. People don't read newspapers anymore and rarely watch news on TV. Perhaps the ACA should advertise on Dancing with the Stars, American Idol and other reality TV shows.
This will be a difficult job since as recently as last month, a Kaiser Foundation study showed that one in six Americans weren't even aware of the March 31 deadline for enrolling in a plan under the Affordable Care Act. People don't read newspapers anymore and rarely watch news on TV. Perhaps the ACA should advertise on Dancing with the Stars, American Idol and other reality TV shows.
* Some of the ACA's benefits:
1. Insurance Companies cannot turn people down due to preexisting conditions.
2. Dependent children can be left on their parents' policies until age 26.
3. No lifetime cap on benefits.
4. Preventative care paid for without insured even being ill.
5. Insurance Companies cannot cancel policies because of claims.
Clogged Sink Quick Fix
A
quick remedy for a clogged sink drain is to sprinkle some baking soda
into the drain and then pour about half a cup of white vinegar down the
drain. The effervescent bubbling which results will clear most drains
without the use of harsh chemicals.
The
next step, however, is to see if such a remedy can be found for our
Congress which operates like a clogged drain. And that remedy is actually easier
to come by than simply baking soda and vinegar! It is your ability to
vote for candidates at all levels committed to constructive acts and not
merely criticism of anything the opposite party is for. This is not
only important at the national level, but at the state level as well,
for it is the state legislatures which control how voting is conducted
and how districts are determined. Unclog your drains. Unclog
Congress. Unclog your state legislatures. Rx: Use baking soda and vinegar or your vote as appropriate.
JL
The March of Time
America
in 2014 is different from what America was in 1964 and that America was
different from what America was in 1914 and that America was different from what
America was in 1864. America is
constantly changing and the things around us are becoming “history” right
before our eyes.
JL
The March of Time
Fifty
years ago is not that long a passage back into the past for many Americans to
remember. Those were the times of the assassinations
of Jack and Robert Kennedy, and of Martin Luther King. Back then, we were listening to Bing Crosby, Frank
Sinatra and Perry Como, and you had to go to “art” movie houses to see films,
usually with subtitles, where more than a little skin was exposed. TV was black and white in those days and you
had to have an antenna on your roof to receive a signal. Most Americans alive today did not experience
these things personally, but read about them in history books. But many of us were there, and were part of
that history.
Bing Crosby 
Jack Kennedy
Bing Crosby Jack Kennedy
Okay,
let’s go back to that time, fifty years ago, and recognize that there were many
older folks around then who could recall things which occurred fifty years before
their time. The First World War was
starting in Europe, automobiles were around but most transportation still was
dependent on horses, women could not vote and the Government was introducing a
new fangled thing called the “income tax.”
If you wanted to listen to music, you had to get a Victrola and play big
pie shaped records,
or learn to play the piano. Sheet music was a big thing then. And for entertainment, there were variety shows but they were in theaters. We called them vaudeville. Many immigrants, mostly from Eastern and Southern Europe, were being absorbed into our culture and some Americans did not like the changes they brought. Most Americans alive fifty years ago did not experience these things personally, but read about them in history books. But some older folks alive fifty years ago had been there and were part of that history.
or learn to play the piano. Sheet music was a big thing then. And for entertainment, there were variety shows but they were in theaters. We called them vaudeville. Many immigrants, mostly from Eastern and Southern Europe, were being absorbed into our culture and some Americans did not like the changes they brought. Most Americans alive fifty years ago did not experience these things personally, but read about them in history books. But some older folks alive fifty years ago had been there and were part of that history.
Okay,
let’s go back to those days folks were recalling fifty years ago (in case you’ve
lost track, we’re talking about 1914) and ask some of the oldsters at that time
if they could remember what things were like still another fifty years
earlier. Some undoubtedly could, and they
would remember the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the freeing of the
Booth shooting Lincoln
slaves, the appearance of "factories," and the winning of the west (or more properly, its theft from the “native Americans.”) We won’t go back any further, but it wouldn’t be much a trip back from there in our history to the days of the “founding fathers.” In fact, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had died only twenty years earlier.
Booth shooting Lincolnslaves, the appearance of "factories," and the winning of the west (or more properly, its theft from the “native Americans.”) We won’t go back any further, but it wouldn’t be much a trip back from there in our history to the days of the “founding fathers.” In fact, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had died only twenty years earlier.
How did I get started
on this topic, you might ask, Well, I
had a long discussion with my daughter the other day who was surprised to find
out that I didn’t know who Pit Bull, Katy Perry and P!nk were.
Katy Perry Madonna
But to her, Bing Crosby was unknown and even Billy Joel was ancient history. She did point out to me that Madonna will be 60 in four years, so I suppose she does have a sense of "history." This brings to mind that old movie newsreel titled, “The March of Time," which was shown along with a cartoon, perhaps a "short subject" and a double feature not so far back in history.
Katy Perry Madonna
But to her, Bing Crosby was unknown and even Billy Joel was ancient history. She did point out to me that Madonna will be 60 in four years, so I suppose she does have a sense of "history." This brings to mind that old movie newsreel titled, “The March of Time," which was shown along with a cartoon, perhaps a "short subject" and a double feature not so far back in history.
JL
Here's a column by E. J. Dionne about the recent Supreme Court decision which confirms that since we all know that in business and politics, "money talks," "money" therefore is entitled to freedom of speech under the First Amendment.
WASHINGTON -- An oligarchy, Webster's dictionary tells us, is "a form of government in which the ruling power belongs to a few persons." It's a shame that the Republican majority on the Supreme Court doesn't know the difference between an oligarchy and a democratic republic.
Yes, I said "the Republican majority," violating a nicety based on the pretense that when people reach the high court, they forget their party allegiance. We need to stop peddling this fiction.
On cases involving the right of Americans to vote and the ability of a very small number of very rich people to exercise unlimited influence on the political process, Chief Justice John Roberts and his four allies always side with the wealthy, the powerful and the forces that would advance the political party that put them on the court. The ideological overreach that is wrecking our politics is now also wrecking our jurisprudence.
The court's latest ruling in McCutcheon et al. v. Federal Election Commission should not be seen in isolation. (The "et al.," by the way, refers to the Republican National Committee.) It is yet another act of judicial usurpation by five justices who treat the elected branches of our government with contempt, and precedent as meaningless. If Congress tries to contain the power of the rich, the Roberts court will slap it in the face. And if Congress tries to guarantee the voting rights of minorities, the Roberts court will slap it in the face again.
Notice how these actions work in tandem to make the wealthy more powerful and those who have suffered oppression and discrimination less powerful. You don't need much imagination to see who benefits from what the court is doing.
Roberts' McCutcheon ruling obliterates long-standing rules that limit the aggregate amounts of money the super-rich can contribute to various political candidates and committees in any one election cycle. In 2012, individuals could give no more than a total of $70,800 to all political committees and no more than $46,200 to all candidates.
The rule is based on a political reality Roberts sweeps aside with faux naivete: Access and power come not just from relationships with individual members of Congress but from strong links to party leaders and party structures. Someone who helps a party keep its majority by contributing to 200 or 300 candidates and Lord knows how many political committees will have a lot more power than you will if you make a $25 contribution in a congressional race.
Chief Justice Roberts
Roberts writes as if he is defending the First Amendment rights of all of us. But how many people are really empowered by this decision? According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 1,715 donors gave the maximum amount to party committees in 2012, and 591 gave the maximum amount to federal candidates. The current estimate of the population of the United States stands at over 317 million.
Those using the word "oligarchy" to describe the political regime the Supreme Court is creating are not doing so lightly. Combine McCutcheon with the decision in the Citizens United case and you can see that the court is systematically transferring more power to a tiny, privileged sliver of our people.
I keep emphasizing the word "power" because the Roberts decision pretends that the concept is as distant from this issue as Pluto is from Earth. The philosopher Michael Walzer, in his book "Spheres of Justice," made the essential distinction: "Freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly: none of these require money payments; none of them are available at auction; they are simply guaranteed to every citizen. ... Quick access to large audiences is expensive, but that is another matter, not of freedom itself but of influence and power."
In his McCutcheon opinion, Roberts piously declares: "There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders." This lovely commitment escaped him entirely last summer when he and his allies threw out Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. Suddenly, efforts to protect the right of minorities "to participate in electing our political leaders" took second place behind all manner of worries about how Congress had constructed the law. The decision unleashed a frenzy in Republican-controlled states to pass laws that make it harder for African-Americans, Latinos and poor people to vote.
Thus has this court conferred on wealthy people the right to give vast sums of money to politicians while undercutting the rights of millions of citizens to cast a ballot.
Send in the oligarchs.
Here's a column by E. J. Dionne about the recent Supreme Court decision which confirms that since we all know that in business and politics, "money talks," "money" therefore is entitled to freedom of speech under the First Amendment.
Supreme Oligarchy
E. J. Dionne - From the Washingon Post of April 7. WASHINGTON -- An oligarchy, Webster's dictionary tells us, is "a form of government in which the ruling power belongs to a few persons." It's a shame that the Republican majority on the Supreme Court doesn't know the difference between an oligarchy and a democratic republic.
Yes, I said "the Republican majority," violating a nicety based on the pretense that when people reach the high court, they forget their party allegiance. We need to stop peddling this fiction.
On cases involving the right of Americans to vote and the ability of a very small number of very rich people to exercise unlimited influence on the political process, Chief Justice John Roberts and his four allies always side with the wealthy, the powerful and the forces that would advance the political party that put them on the court. The ideological overreach that is wrecking our politics is now also wrecking our jurisprudence.
The court's latest ruling in McCutcheon et al. v. Federal Election Commission should not be seen in isolation. (The "et al.," by the way, refers to the Republican National Committee.) It is yet another act of judicial usurpation by five justices who treat the elected branches of our government with contempt, and precedent as meaningless. If Congress tries to contain the power of the rich, the Roberts court will slap it in the face. And if Congress tries to guarantee the voting rights of minorities, the Roberts court will slap it in the face again.
Notice how these actions work in tandem to make the wealthy more powerful and those who have suffered oppression and discrimination less powerful. You don't need much imagination to see who benefits from what the court is doing.
Roberts' McCutcheon ruling obliterates long-standing rules that limit the aggregate amounts of money the super-rich can contribute to various political candidates and committees in any one election cycle. In 2012, individuals could give no more than a total of $70,800 to all political committees and no more than $46,200 to all candidates.
The rule is based on a political reality Roberts sweeps aside with faux naivete: Access and power come not just from relationships with individual members of Congress but from strong links to party leaders and party structures. Someone who helps a party keep its majority by contributing to 200 or 300 candidates and Lord knows how many political committees will have a lot more power than you will if you make a $25 contribution in a congressional race.
Chief Justice RobertsRoberts writes as if he is defending the First Amendment rights of all of us. But how many people are really empowered by this decision? According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 1,715 donors gave the maximum amount to party committees in 2012, and 591 gave the maximum amount to federal candidates. The current estimate of the population of the United States stands at over 317 million.
Those using the word "oligarchy" to describe the political regime the Supreme Court is creating are not doing so lightly. Combine McCutcheon with the decision in the Citizens United case and you can see that the court is systematically transferring more power to a tiny, privileged sliver of our people.
I keep emphasizing the word "power" because the Roberts decision pretends that the concept is as distant from this issue as Pluto is from Earth. The philosopher Michael Walzer, in his book "Spheres of Justice," made the essential distinction: "Freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly: none of these require money payments; none of them are available at auction; they are simply guaranteed to every citizen. ... Quick access to large audiences is expensive, but that is another matter, not of freedom itself but of influence and power."
In his McCutcheon opinion, Roberts piously declares: "There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders." This lovely commitment escaped him entirely last summer when he and his allies threw out Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. Suddenly, efforts to protect the right of minorities "to participate in electing our political leaders" took second place behind all manner of worries about how Congress had constructed the law. The decision unleashed a frenzy in Republican-controlled states to pass laws that make it harder for African-Americans, Latinos and poor people to vote.
Thus has this court conferred on wealthy people the right to give vast sums of money to politicians while undercutting the rights of millions of citizens to cast a ballot.
Send in the oligarchs.
HOW TO BE ALERTED TO FUTURE BLOG POSTINGS.
Most readers of this blog are alerted by Email
every time a new posting appears. If you wish to be added to that
Email list, just let me know by clicking on Riart1@aol.com and sending me an
Email.
HOW TO CONTACT ME or CONTRIBUTE MATERIAL TO JACK'S
POTPOURRI.
BY CLICKING ON THAT SAME ADDRESS, Riart1@aol.com YOU ALSO
CAN SEND ME YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE PUBLISHED IN THIS BLOG AS WELL AS YOUR
COMMENTS. (Comments can also be made by clicking on the "Post a
Comment" link at the blog's end.)
MOBILE DEVICE ACCESS.
DID YOU KNOW THAT www.jackspotpourri.com IS ALSO
AVAILABLE ON YOUR MOBILE DEVICES IN A MODIFIED, EASY-TO-READ, FORMAT?
HOW TO VIEW OLDER POSTINGS.
To view older postings on this blog, just click on the
appropriate date in the “Blog Archive” midway down the column off to the right,
or scroll down until you see the “Older Posts” notation at the very
bottom of this posting. The “Search Box” in the
right side of the posting also may be helpful in locating a posting topic for
which you are looking.
HOW TO FORWARD POSTINGS.
To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for
that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the
envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below,
enabling you to send them an Email providing a link directly to this posting.
You might also want to let me know their Email address
so that they may be alerted to future postings.
Jack Lippman
No comments:
Post a Comment