Just a couple of days away

From having nationalized health care whether we like it or not.

We're not getting nationalized health care. We're not even getting nationalized health insurance.

We're getting mandatory private health insurance.

Big difference.




.

I'm not going to give a **** till the bill comes in the mail.


I heard it's not effective till 2012......so maybe I'll go ahead and marry a norweigan swimsuit model that came into a ton of money. (cough! Tiger Wood's Ex) I bet I'll get health insurance!

Yup...no national health care and there will be many challenges as to weather or not health care can be mandatory which I doubt...it is not Constutional...

This "Health Care Bill" is nothing but a big business give away..that is why the health care stocks soared the past few days..

The Tax and spend libs just did what they do well....there has been no change and there is no openness or transparancy...all was done behind closed doors...wait till we see the "Christmas presents" are that are under this "tree"...

Throw them all out this year...

Dunbar Plumbing said:

I'm not going to give a **** till the bill comes in the mail.

Click to expand...

Steve..the time to deal with the bill is before it comes in the mail...

This is a big business bill, not a progressive or liberal one. GOP might as well have written it, it looks like their handiwork.

This is nothing but a nightmare being rammed down our throats.

As I understand it, the "health care" whatever that means, comes in 2013 at the earliest. We start PAYING in January!

Well, I am not for the health care bill the way it is proposed. But maybe in the long run it might work out if you get diagnosed with some heafty ticket items. Pet scans alone can cost and does cost me 39 grand a year. Regular CT's 19 almost 20 thousand a year. So, if you are well yet consider yourself lucky and hope this bill will help you. I see nothing else that can be done now, so give it a whirl. If you are lucky you will never have to use it. That could be a blessing in disguise.

All I care about is that some of the 47 million uninsured get access to healthcare.

I'm not American bit I guess I am one of the very few here who cares about Americans.

They are nice people.

I'm ready to pay for them.

Sorry you might not be able to buy that new truck this year but it's for the greater good.

If you want to really want to help the americans that are uninsured then, visit under the bridges and see the homeless. Because unless you get them a residence address that health care bill will mean nothing. They need an address to apply. Same with the homeless trying to get even welfare. They can't get it until, they have an address. They are caught up in a real catch 22.

Were you aware of this?

Yes. Unfortunately that is the same with homeless people almost everywhere, except in those countries with nationalized healthcare but even in these homeless people struggle to get benefits and jobs without a permanent residence.

Many homeless don't want an "address" in great part because they do not want to be with other people, even if there are programs to help them secure a home.

I hope homelessness is a choice in the US like elsewhere. If not, then that would be something to be very disappointed about alongside your tragic state of healthcare for the general population.

I drop my change in the homeless guys' cups every now and again.

They promptly spend that on drink.

It's no different to buying a truck when you should be spending that money on healthcare, both for yourself and your fellow citizens.

Cookie said:

If you want to really want to help the americans that are uninsured then, visit under the bridges and see the homeless. Because unless you get them a residence address that health care bill will mean nothing. They need an address to apply. Same with the homeless trying to get even welfare. They can't get it until, they have an address. They are caught up in a real catch 22.

Were you aware of this?

Click to expand...

I'm aware it isn't true, about welfare, anyways. In NYC... and a quick bit of googling tells me it isn't true in a lot of other places, either: California, Washington, Massachussets... In fact, I couldn't find any indication that it's true anywhere.

Hi French,

In order to get welfare you need a permanent address, no ifs or buts about it. Contact social services in any state you will find that out. It will be the same with the new health care bill, too. Permanent residency or no dice.

Ian, read this....

http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html

...then maybe you'll understand that it is up to US to individually and privately take care of each other how WE see fit....PRIVATELY! Not by our government or how our government wishes.

The people of this country used to roar like lions for their freedoms. Now we cry like children for some security. Instead of providing for ourselves and taking care of our own we look to a government that can only give what it has taken from someone else. Or, in our case, by also printing/borrowing more money that we don't have. All to only be redistributed as a bureaucrat sees fit.

Cookie said:

Hi French,

In order to get welfare you need a permanent address, no ifs or buts about it. Contact social services in any state you will find that out.

Click to expand...

It might be true in your state - not saying it isn't - but it's NOT TRUE HERE, Cookie. Here, being homeless means you qualify for "emergency" benefits, instead of regular old "temporary" benefits - in other words, you get fast-tracked, and you don't need to fulfill the usual 20-hour work requirement, if you're homeless.

http://www.otda.state.ny.us/MAIN/ta/#programs


Explain to me, why there's anything at all about TANF on this web-page? It's a tutorial on assistance programs available to homeless people.

http://www.cms.gov/apps/firststep/content/tanf_tips.html


Kentucky Legal Aid's page on domestic violence:

"Do I need to have a permanent address to receive benefits?
No. You do not need to have a permanent address to receive TANF benefits."

http://kyjustice.org/node/756


North Dakota:

"Assistance may not be denied to otherwise technically eligible families merely because they are homeless; that is, have no fixed address. Thus, a lack of a permanent dwelling or of a fixed home address does not constitute a barrier to the receipt of TANF."

http://www.nd.gov/humanservices/policymanuals/tanf-508/400_17_10_20.htm


New Mexico:

"Who is eligible for TANF?
(...)
* You must live in New Mexico (homeless families can qualify)"

http://www.newmexicoresources.org/p...='yes'&SecondLevelDynamicID=350&DynamicID=349


Washington State:

"Over the full 12-month study period ACES data identified 4,344 newly homeless families (...) About 73 percent of the entire group received cash grants, most, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families grants. Close to 90 percent had state-provided health insurance; close to 90 percent got Food Stamps. Sixty percent had been active DSHS welfare recipients in the month before they were newly coded as homeless"

http://publications.rda.dshs.wa.gov/348/

The people of this country used to roar like lions for their freedoms. Now we cry like children for some security. Instead of providing for ourselves and taking care of our own we look to a government that can only give what it has taken from someone else. Or, in our case, by also printing/borrowing more money that we don't have. All to only be redistributed as a bureaucrat sees fit.

Click to expand...

Then why do you have a Government? And all these stupid building codes?

Where's the freedom?

Not trying to start a fight here, but Frenchie I am being honest saying only temporay aid is available, not a permanent welfare check if you are living in the streets, in an automobile, or a subway station, etc.

Permanent welfare checks? In America? That's news to me.

I thought the unemployed were promptly dropped after a period of time, so they can't even afford to buy a newspaper to find out about jobs or pay the bus fare to get to an interview.

Relatively permanent... since the welfare reforms of 1996, you can collect a maximum of 5 years. That's why it's called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, (TANF).

Used to be called Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and you could collect it forever.



Under the old AFDC, the Feds designed the aid programs, determined eligibillity rules, etc - the States just administered it.

Under the newer TANF system, the Fed gives the States block grants, and while they do set some parameters (like the 5-year limit, for example), the States design & administer their own programs.

So, while there was always some variation, one State to another - for the last 13 years, there's been a lot more difference between one State's programs and another's.



That's why, although you can be homeless & collect here, or in those other States I cited (ND, KY, NM, or WA), that doesn't necessarily mean you can in Cookie's State. Every State has its own system.