the past is a foreign country

[calimac]

If you go back and read the debates over the various civil rights acts, the "separate but equal" controversy, the miscegenation controversy, and so on, they seem quaint now. I know we still have a long way to go on racial equality, but to think there was a time when some people actually argued that allowing black people even nominal equal rights would destroy American civilization. What were they thinking?

One step towards dismantling that came when Truman desegregated the armed forces. Just like that, with an executive order. No "don't ask, don't tell" crap.

Gradually, we're turning towards a world in which discriminating against gay people in the way we used to discriminate against blacks is as unthinkable. We can't get there soon enough.

Did you know there was a time when you could only watch TV shows at the moment the station chose to broadcast them? Did you know there was a time when to make a copy you had to use carbon paper? Did you know there was a time when all phones were physically connected with a wire? Did you know there was a time when music recordings could only be heard on scratchy vinyl? Did you know there was a time when some people didn't have health care?

I'm hoping for a time when the last of these questions seems as unbelievable as all the others.

That is all.

Comments

[wordweaverlynn.livejournal.com]

Hell, I remember when TV was black and white and record players had four speeds. With luck anti-gay discrimination will soon be as quaint as sumptuary laws.

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

I have health care: That is, if I need routine care, I pay for it out of pocket, and should I suffer from something moderately serious, I have a CD, a mutual fund, and a lot of unused credit on my VISA. If it comes to more than that, I'm in trouble, because I can't afford health insurance.

However, I've looked at both the Baucus proposal and the House of Representatives proposal, and neither of them is going to enable me to have insurance, because they both require me to pay a substantial amount of the cost of a health insurance policy before becoming eligible for any assistance . . . an amount, in fact, that would be more of a financial hardship than I can deal with. I have no expectation of any policies being available that cost less than the maximum I would be required to pay; my cost for a catastrophic policy several years ago was at that level several years ago (and left me chronically short of money, to the point where I worried about paying the rent sometimes), and the Democratic proposals would not permit me to have purely catastrophic insurance anyway, so I would expect to pay even more. Even worse, they would require me to pay the full amount out of pocket, and then wait till I filed my tax return to get reimbursed, if my income weren't too high for me to be eligible for the tax credit at all (and note that this would give me an incentive to earn less and be less economically productive). And the full amount could be high enough to wipe me out financially.

So I don't expect to have any better access to health care if the Democratic plans go through. I expect to have worse, because I'll be paying an annual fine ($950 under the Baucus plan; probably a bit more under the House of Representatives plan) to punish me for not being able to afford health insurance. Note that this was something that Barack Obama campaigned against a year ago—and I supported him because I thought he was right. I still think he was right then, and I'm sorry he's changed his mind . . . because he could have said, "I'll veto any bill that contains mandates," and killed the idea right there.

[jpmassar.livejournal.com]

I don't think you are correct in your assessment, but without your exact status (age, family, income, other debts, etc) I can't be sure (and I'm not suggesting you provide them).

Under HR 3200 everyone in the same age group would pay the same premium
(adjusted for geographic location, IIUC). Your insurance company could not charge you more for it than they charge anyone else.

If you are eligible for a subsidy, I do not believe you would need to wait until you file your taxes (a year a 1/4 later) to get it under HR 3200.

I very much doubt that earning an extra $1 will push you over a threshold so that you get nothing vs. getting a substantial amount. Presumably the subsidies are graduated just as income tax rates are graduated: earning another $1 never causes you to pay more than a fraction of a $1 in taxes.

HR 3200 provides for subsidies up to four times the federal poverty level,
which is a pretty substantial income.

Still, you may be someone who falls through the cracks, although there may even be provisions for waivers in certain hardship cases, IIRC.

If Obama said he would veto any bill that contained mandates, there would be no chance whatsoever of any health reform bill passing either the Senate or the House. He has bowed to political and economic reality.

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

I have actually read the summaries of both the proposals and plugged my data into them. I make way to much to get any help whatever from Baucus. I might be able to qualify under HR. But I would be required to pay 1% of my gross income every month for health insurance, if I did qualify . . . and 1% of my gross income is more than I have room for in my budget; it would cause me financial hardship and force me to raid my retirement savings to pay my expenses.

In any case, we could debate whether I am actually unable to afford health insurance, or just financially irresponsible. But I should not have to justify my financial judgment of my situation to you. And I shouldn't have to justify it to government, either. I supported Obama because he promised to come up with a plan that would make insurance affordable, and because I figured that if he failed, I could remain uninsured and be no worse off than I am now. Now he and Congress want to take that option away from me, and compel me to pay what they have decided I can afford to pay . . . and the very fact that they are going to resort to compulsion convinces me that they are not going to come up with insurance rates that are actually a good deal for me; you don't have to resort to coercion to sell something that's actually a bargain. I'm an adult, and my judgment of how to deal with my financial situation should be my decision, not that of legislators or bureaucrats who have no experience of my situation and don't know what it costs me to comply with their rules.

And my basic sense of the debate is that my real concerns about actual financial hardship are being dismissed as, at best, the fear of someone who doesn't realize that Congress has his best interests at hard, and, at worst, the ranting and lies of a right-wing bigot. I've discussed online a fair bit, and I've repeatedly seen objections to the Democratic proposals dismissed in that way; and I've looked at the statements of various elected officials, including Obama, and I don't see them acknowledging for a moment that some of the opposition to their ideas might come from people who have reason to fear real harm from what they propose. And that does not strike me as evidence of honest concern on their part, but of profound arrogance.

[jpmassar.livejournal.com]

(1) IN GENERAL- In this title, the term ‘income’ means modified adjusted gross income (as defined in section 59B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
(HR 3200)

If you cannot afford to pay 1% of your modified AGI as above for health insurance then I will concede that you would not be helped, and almost certainly hurt, by any plan.

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I suspect that the number of people who cannot afford to pay 1% of their modified adjusted gross income for health care is extremely small. I suspect that the number of people who are not already spending that much on health care, even if they have health insurance, is fairly small. Just to cover the co-pays on our current required medications, my spouse and I would have to have a modified adjusted gross income of more than $8000/month to be paying only 1% of it. And we don't have anything remotely like that; a very small percentage of American families do.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Very well said.