Commenter Bella Q took a field trip to testify in favor of Ohio’s Medicaid expansion, and she was kind enough to send me an account. Here’s part of what she wrote and agreed to share with us:
The interesting highlights include the testimony of government affairs personnel of assorted chambers of commerce, in support of Medicaid expansion. Strange bedfellows indeed, though the straightforward argument is that it will cost businesses more by way of increased premiums if Medicaid expansion is not adopted. The most remarkable, slightly surreal, moment of those presentations is not in the public record as it occurred in response to a question. The government affairs VP of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce stated that employers don’t know what their employees make. I verified with my nearby colleague that I’d heard correctly. The audience in our section looked at one another, puzzled, as none of us could quite believe he’d made that statement. It was quickly stepped on by a tangential question from another committee member, which appeared to be asked in genuine discussion rather than by design.
An additional interlude of note was the appearance by an Ohio Liberty Coalition board member. Her appearance itself was remarkable for her attire: a slightly short and very tight knit skirt and pumps with what appeared to be 5” heels. The blouse was white and nondescript, but she wore no jacket. Her glasses were stylish and rectangular. My colleague and I both noticed the apparent reference to a heroine of liberty for regular Muricans everywhere; even the voice was reminiscent. Her presentation concluded unsurprisingly, and I excerpted this from the public record:
“We were all very happy when Governor Kasich decided not to involve Ohio in implementing federally mandated Healthcare Exchanges because that would have committed our state’s resources to expanding federal power over healthcare in Ohio. Little did we know, a few months later that he would choose to pledge Ohio to a federally dictated expansion of Medicaid by agreeing to go along with the false promises of federal funding for it. I say false because our country is 16.4T in debt and counting. Whether you realize it or not, we have already gone over the fiscal cliff and now it’s a matter of how hard or softly we hit the bottom. By expanding Medicaid, I imagine we’re going to hit very hard.
I’m asking all true statesmen that we have in Ohio who are willing to stand up for our state, our country, all the elderly and handicapped through no fault of their own, that depend on Medicaid, and voters who helped vote all of you into office. I’m asking you to stand strong with the other states that are refusing to accept the expansion of Medicaid. Help us rid ourselves of this Obamanation in healthcare. With the expansion proposed by our Governor, the people of the state of Ohio will be burdened with heavy taxes and crushing debt, and Ohio’s truly needy children and disabled citizens will be trapped in a medically failing and bankrupt Medicaid system. Please vote no on the expansion of Medicaid. There has to be a better way of tackling the issue on healthcare than this. Thank you.”
My impression from observing the subcommittee is that there are representatives who are open to passing Medicaid expansion, as well as some who will not be persuaded. But the swing votes must hear from constituents in favor of Medicaid expansion, as they are hearing early and often from its opponents.
Here is some polling from redstate on how the Tea Party (re-branded GOP base) feel about their elected representatives, because feelings are important. I’m not sure the poll reflects the redstate write-up but none of that matters to conservatives anyway. They could have saved some money, invented numbers, and used those:
The Ohio Liberty Coalition (OLC), whose membership includes many of the state’s tea party and liberty-minded groups, has warned Republicans in the Ohio General Assembly that voting for the PPACA Medicaid expansion may invite a primary challenge. The Hill poll found a distinct partisan divide on the question of Medicaid expansion, with results suggesting Republican primary voters strongly agree with OLC.
A majority – 60 percent – replied that they would like to “give new people a chance” when asked, “Have your legislators, your members of the Ohio state House and Senate, performed their jobs well enough to deserve reelection, or do you think it’s time to give some new people the chance to do better?”
Asked the same question about Governor Kasich, 52 percent indicated they would prefer to “give a new person a chance.”
You really need to read this take down of the Washington WhorePost and their POS editorial board
As to how Employers could not know what their workers make? Well, its tough to convert Rupees and Yuan to dollars on the fly and the markets fluctuate you know!
The Moar You Know
Well, on that Palin Jr. and I are in full agreement. But I suspect her solution is “die quickly” and mine, of course, is single-payer.
CVS is making news with a requirement of employees to submit weight and fat ratio, or face an additional $50 a month on their premiums.
This IMO, sounds bad but is really beneficial. People can make their own judgements about their health and the costs of maintaining it. The Co is being financially responsible by keeping costs down for employees. Sounds like a good thing to me.
Because expanding healthcare coverage destroys personal liberty how?
The Moar You Know
@Schlemizel: The lethal error the author makes, as do most Americans, is to believe that a money-making enterprise (WaPo, or any news outlet for that matter) has any sort of duty to act an impartial distributor of facts.
It used to be understood in this country that the media was a product designed for the consumption of rubes and suckers, paid for by the powers-that-be. Somewhere in the last fifty years, that changed, and people started taking them seriously. America’s citizenry need to take a seriously overdue look at their media, and stop forgetting that their first and only function is to make money.
Another Halocene Human
@Schlemizel: One can only assume it is because they don’t pay the taxes.
To be charitable, I would assume that this means that the guy from the Ohio Chamber is saying that they don’t know how much the health care benefit of employer provided health care is worth in “real dollars” – as in, the leverage that an employer has in negotiating with the insurance companies for a good deal means that every dollar the employer spends is worth $1 + X in dollars that an employee would have to spend if you paid them out of pocket, and so it’s hard for an individual employer to calculate what they’d have to be paying to get an equivalent benefit without providing health care.
It may also be that the guy from the Chamber is a numbnut who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. That happens a lot here in Ohio.
@The Moar You Know:
Conservatives had 60 years to “tackle the issue.” In that time they privatized a chunk of Medicare, bleeding that public program for profits, and put in a huge new drug company entitlement.
What else does she want?
@The Moar You Know:
That really unfair to goopers to say they want people to die quickly. Thats not the real truth. What they want is for everyone to be born to rich parents who set them up with everything they need including great health insurance.
That way the big hospital companies, drug companies, doctors and insurance companies all make bigger and bigger profits.
You should only die if you are not rich enough to buy insurance
Just curious, these “liberty-minded groups” must really be up in arms over all the abortion-restriction bills the states have recently introduced. Right?
Another Halocene Human
@Bulworth: It all makes sense when you realize that “liberty” is a codeword for “privileges”.
That may be true but not as bitterly funny as the joke I made!
You know it was a good night when your bed is untouched and you cannot, for the life of you, remember where you ditched consciousness
The Moar You Know
@Ben Franklin: I suspect, from some of the things that Kaiser’s been asking me recently, that Kaiser is going to shortly start doing the same thing but on a far more comprehensive scale.
Overweight? More money. Smoke? (and they’re testing SO2 at random to see if you’re lying about that) – more money. Own guns? More money.
Not surprised and while I find it overly intrusive and irritating, they’re paying for people’s lifestyle choices, and I guess if we’re going to ask them to do that then they should get a say in them.
@Ben Franklin: We’ve had to do that for the last several years. It’s framed another way–save $25/month on your health insurance contribution if you do the health assessment–but it works out to be the same result. The health assessment is required either to be completed by your doctor and that visit can be no more than six months prior to the form being completed, or you can go to one of the health assessment clinics they set up and get it done there. Height, weight, waist circumference, are all on the form, in addition to blood pressure and cholesterol.
Is CVS requiring them to do it every month or something? Ours is due once a year, during annual enrollment. There’s also an online portion you have to fill out through the health insurance company’s website if you want to get the full savings.
My understanding is that the employer can’t see specific results, due to HIPAA laws, but they receive aggregate information from the insurance company.
The Moar You Know
@Kay: No taxes and the death or forcible enslavement of every brown person in America.
Just a guess.
@Schlemizel: Oh my. Someone is NOT getting invited to Sally’s next party!
@The Moar You Know: The slippery slope of asking all those questions and charging more for various lifestyle choices is that they can not only get pretty intrusive (“Have you ever had unprotected sex? Anal? Oral? How many times per year/month/week? Provide names of partners.”) but they can also get into things people don’t have much control over. Like having certain genes, a family history of cancer or heart disease or Alzheimer’s. Where is the line? Can–or should–an insurance company charge more if someone has a crappy gene pool? Should they be able to know every risky thing you do?
@The Moar You Know:
I love the “let’s put our heads together and reform health care!” on the Right. Seat a roundtable. Get Andrew Sullivan on the line. Week, week and half, we’ll have this fixed.
I mean, jesus christ. They’re just now thinking about this?
No wonder they want to replace their representatives. They don’t do anything.
but they receive aggregate information from the insurance company.
When an employer reaches 500 employees, they are foolish if they don’t self-insure.
They do hire an Ins Co. to administer the plan guidelines, but I think CVS is the direct recipient of the weight info.
@Kay: I believe the solution is tax exempt healthcare savings accounts for everyone. Of course, the middle and upper classes they be giving up their blue chip plans. Just workers. Manged accounts. Because if there’s one thing the uninsured have done well is save. I mean uncovered healthcare have been draining retirement accounts of the middle class for years. Why not extend that feature to everyone.
So a friend is dealing with an elderly relative and her health issues. The time is here to find nursing care for her. However, elderly relative is not on Medicare and instead is on some state version of it–monthly costs were cheaper but now hardly any nursing home seems to take it. Friend’s family doesn’t have much money and they are applying for Medicaid for this elderly family member.
I love this friend, but I have to confess I’m biting my tongue every time we talk about it because this friend and especially her husband are wingnuts. President Bush and the war in Iraq were supported wholeheartedly. Much depression when Obama was elected. Lots of gripes about taxes and “takers and moochers.” And look who’s going to be a taker now. Who pays for that Medicaid for grandma? The money doesn’t grow on trees and it sure isn’t them. They have talked to facilities about what it would cost to pay and it’s something like $250/day and that’s at a low budget facility. They don’t have that money. Thank goodness for Medicaid. I hope they enjoy being takers.
Like I said, I love this friend, but this sort of crap makes me crazy. It’s really her husband who is the worst, but still. It’s hard to deal with people who can’t even see that the safety net is there to help when there is no where else to go and THEY NEED IT. I guess somehow they’re special flowers and are different–they’re not takers and moochers.
@Violet: Well of course not. They’re good white straight Christian folk! They’re SUPPOSED to get that benefit after all, not those lazy young bucks with T-bone steaks and Cadillac welfare queens. They EARNED it after all!
@The Moar You Know:
My doctor is dying for single payer. He says he spends ridiculous amounts of time on dealing with multiple sets of rules, it’s more than he sees the actual patient sometimes. Some days he said he gets a little excited that he has several patients with the same insurance and the same issue near the same time so he has it covered.
One of the shittier things about Medicare part D (and there are plenty) is that a different insurance is covering meds than is covering doctor or hospital visits. So they don’t give a shit if they refuse to pay for a med and then you end up sicker, with bigger bills over all. Doesn’t come out of their pocket.
@Ben Franklin: Can you explain this further? The company I’m speaking of is a multinational company with employees all over the world. They have thousands of employees in the US, so they should be in the category you are speaking of.
Through various dealings with them re: health insurance, we’ve been told they are the customer of the health insurance company. That’s why we cannot see the actual contract because the company is the customer and we are just peons somehow paying into it. We are not eligible to see that contract. We are not the customers–the employing corporation is the actual customer.
As for the health assessment info, we have been told that the company will not see the actual specific info due to HIPAA laws. They can only get aggregate info.
I once had a Republican in-law tell me in all seriousness that if people didn’t have insurance (you know, like the servers and bartenders at her favorite restaurants), they should have chosen a different line of work.
We don’t talk about issues like that any more.
As a group, though individual results may vary, Republicans really do not give a shit about the plight of the uninsured. Nor do they care about medical costs in general unless it concerns how much is spent on Those People and the poors in general – until catastrophe strikes them. Then, per usual, they are absolutely shocked to discover that their medical coverage has left them facing thousands in co-pays and noncovered expenses. Until then, they’re all ‘people need to have some skin in the game’, etc.
Then there are the 0.5% who really don’t care about health care for anybody except them…but hey, Galtian superheroes never get sick anyway, amiright?
@The Moar You Know:
GUNS ARE NOW CONSIDERED A LIFESTYLE CHOICE!? WITH ACTUARIAL CONSEQUENCES? HOLY HOLE-IN-THE-DONUT, BATMAN!
Next up, the jackbooted thugs at Blue Cross/Blue Shield are coming for our precious symbolic man-junk augmentation devices! Jebus save us, no wonder the wingnuts have their panties screwed up in a tight little wad over this healthcare reform thing. This isn’t going to end well…
Another Halocene Human
@danielx: Yup, if you do an “unworthy” job, you’re an asshole who deserves anything that comes to you.
Douglas Adams had something to say about that, I think.
@Violet: Not only that, but what if their “health advice” is wrong?
Current thinking on treating diabetes encourages low fat and whole grains when carb restricted diets have the best results.
Maybe they can’t make you follow their health advice, but they can pressure you with financial penalties for not doing so.
How fair is that?
@The Moar You Know: An English family member just visited and we had a long conversation about health insurance. She has to buy additional insurance to come here because there isn’t a reciprocal agreement between the UK and the US for health insurance like there is with the UK and European countries. She’s now getting to an age where it’s going to be very expensive and we’re trying to figure out how to handle it.
She has had hip replacement surgery and she went private for that in England. She has private insurance she pays for and she’s afraid to change companies to possibly lower her premium because they can and probably will deny her for pre-existing conditions.
She went private for her hip replacement surgery because there is not a six month or one year wait time. As well as the NHS required that she become incapacitated before they’d allow the surgery. That’s penny wise and pound foolish because when older people become incapacitated they take a lot longer to come back and it costs a lot more. She’s also very active and having the surgery sooner allowed her to get back to her activities sooner.
She also said that private meant she knew which surgeon was performing the surgery–with the NHS you never have a guarantee of seeing the same doctor and you don’t know who will perform the surgery. There were other niceties, like a private room and bath and better food, but she didn’t care too much about those. It was the the confidence of knowing who the surgeon was and that he would know her case properly.
Tone in DC
Happens even more in Virginia.
Can you be more specific with your question? I highly doubt they are paying premiums to an insurer with so many employees. The idea is to create a trust-fund for paying benefits; your premiums go into the trust, not to the Ins Co. And I’m not sure HIPAA would prevent CVS from garnering info voluntarily given by employee, as long as they disclose those numerous docs about confidentiality.
@WereBear: I agree. There is a whole new frontier of opportunities for abuse, crossing privacy boundaries, and general mucking about with people’s lives. Bloomberg and his sodas are a preview.
@Ben Franklin: I guess your explanation answers my general question. Without being too specific, there was a situation that required going to an insurance committee with the company to plead a case. During that process, what we learned as that employees cannot see the actual contract between the health insurance company and the corporation because the employees are NOT part of that contract. How that’s structured, I don’t know, but that was how it played out. Employees pay their monthly contribution rather blindly. They are subject to whatever terms the employer and the health insurance company decide, they do not get to set terms of the contract, nor do they ever get to see the actual contract. There is a contract but it’s between the health insurance company and the corporation. How that’s structured, I’m not really sure.
That whole approach is stupid. We could handle the problem by stopping the ridiculous flow of money to sugar producers. We’d do great things for human rights, raise the price on sugar laden items which are bad for people, and increases the public health. Only downside would be a few already rich people would stop slurping at the public trough.
So, of course, we won’t dream of doing it.
@Ben Franklin: Found this from an article on the issue:
If push came to shove and you had sufficient motivation, you could access the contract.
The contract basically is setting what the Co is willing to pay for a specified procedure.
They (the Insurance Co) have the job of shopping for clinics or Drs. who agree to discount required. Your list of approved Drs. have signed their end of the contract.
Why stop there? Put a webcam in every employee bedroom to monitor sex acts, and jam a probe you-know-where to keep constant surveillance on blood pressure, caffeine, nicotine and alcohol levels. The handy logic still applies – win-win!
@Ben Franklin: This was a few years ago (maybe five) and trust me, there was sufficient motivation. At some point though, you have to decide if you are going to be the employee who wins this battle and then gets labeled a troublemaker and gets let go or fired. Win the battle, lose the war kind of thing. Again I’m trying not to be too specific for personal reasons, but I assure you there was great effort made to access the contract and we were told in no uncertain terms by people in charge of that area that we absolutely would not be allowed to see the contract because we were not in the contract. End of discussion. We were shut out. Maybe it’s available online somewhere via Smoking Gun or something, but through legitimate channels in the company it was not available.
@Another Halocene Human:
This. “Liberty” is my right to do as I please. “Tyranny” is the Government taking the side of the little people who think their ability to do what they want is just as important as mine.
I have a comment in moderation. No idea why.
About the CVS thing:
(edited by me to avoid moderation)
That sounds pretty controlling. What if they participate in the program and still smo ke? What then?
@Roger Moore: And “Tradition” “Culture” and “Heritage” are the right of me to preseve my privileges.
The Moar You Know
@Violet: My instinctive answer is “no”.
Devil’s advocate: If someone flipped the situation around and said “you, Mr. Moar, get a certain amount of money each month from Violet, but you are then personally liable for and have to pay for each and every health condition Violet suffers from, whether acquired in the course of nature or due to self-inflicted risky acts” then I have to admit I would probably want to know A LOT about what you’re up to, including a bunch of stuff you probably wouldn’t want to discuss with me.
we were told in no uncertain terms by people in charge
We, being you and your attorney? That’s what I meant by sufficient motivation.
Hey I have a Moore Award suggestion for that fucktard Sullivan
How about Michael Moore himself!
Getting booed at the Oscars in 2003 for denouncing Iraq.
I really can’t stand that narcissistic preening limey anymore.
@The Moar You Know: Agreed. And that’s where the government regulations are helping. They can define what is acceptable for an insurance company to know and what crosses privacy lines. It’s also another example why private, for-profit health insurance companies are stupid. They should be heavily regulated utilities that provide a service and allow employees to make a reasonable living. Private jets and mansions and platinum parachutes for CEOs should not be part of the deal. They’re making money off people’s health disasters.
Except that it’s illegal in many states. Insurers can do this, but employers cannot. Further, employer/insurer can come up with a mechanism whereby the insurer rebates part of the premium for meeting health goals, but that is no business of the employer, for the same reason that it’s illegal for insurers to send your health history to your employer.
But running this program through the insurer is already done in many states. No reason CVS can’t do the same. And it is beneficial.
@Ben Franklin: The attorney advised us to think about what the larger goals were, and as I said, losing the job was a potential issue.
My larger point, though, was that the contract is not available to employees unless they are willing to go to the point of hiring an attorney. That kind of thing puts the employees at a distinct disadvantage. They use the service, they are considered “customers”, but they do not negotiate the contracts nor do they have any input into those contracts. It’s a bizarre place to be.
Yesterday I read a post by an A. Marcotte over at Slate telling readers why two teenage girls threatened the victim in the recent Steubenville juvenile rape case. Marcotte concluded it was because of Rape Culture.
Today I read this account of a health care hearing in Ohio:
Thanks. I really wasn’t sure about that. Do you know, for a fact, that if an employer observes the same disclosure laws about confidentiality, they still can’t get that health info directly? It seems the relationship is more conjoined now between the provider and employer.
Lawyers are sometimes timid. It is unlikely they would risk firing you over this, as they abhor HR issues. They could of course, stymie your career and sundry other unprovable harassments, so ;he was probably reading your thoughts.
The Moar You Know
@Violet: Right now, with a lot of insurers, your premiums go up by quite a bit compared to a non-smoker. As an employer, I pay most of my employees premiums. Perhaps I might choose to pass the entire extra premium onto the smoking employee. Given what the entire premium actually is compared to what the employee pays (we pay 85%), that would be one hell of an incentive to stop. I suppose CVS could do that. We’re not going to. Not yet, anyway. Depends on what actually happens to our rates when ACA kicks in.
You can also be dropped by an insurer. Not sure if that’s going to be the case after next year.
Pretty sure within a decade that you will not be able to get health insurance if you smoke.
@Ben Franklin: Hire and fire at will state. Without a contract, the employer can fire you for anything so long as it isn’t an illegal thing. They stymie your career, catch you accidentally taking a pen home in your bag, ding you for anything slightly personal you do on your work computer, etc. The employee is at a disadvantage and that’s the starting point for those kinds of negotiations and discussions.
The lawyer was experienced and explained the situation. Other ways of dealing with the issue were found and it all worked out in the end. Still was an eye-opening experience in just how few rights employees have with the health insurance situation.
@The Moar You Know:
How is that going to work after 2014 when ACA fully kicks in? Will smokers just pay the penalties? I hope eventually for-profit health insurance goes away, but the downhill slide is going to be crappy.
Forgot about that State thing. I worked in CA, and many of my peers worked out of AZ, and trust me; you don’t want a career in AZ or Texas.
Honestly, I think that’s a stretch. She intended to compare the speaker to Sarah Palin, which is what the passage leads up to.
It’s a political blog.
My company has had one of those wellness programs for a few years. I probably should look into it again, but I initially refused to participate when I could not get a straight answer about what information they were collecting, who was going to have access to it and whether it could ever be used by the insurance company when deciding if they will pay a claim. (EDIT: That last one is really the key. If the insurance companies didn’t have such a record of aggressive recission, I would be much more willing to provide them more information about my life)
@Ben Franklin: Lots of people live in those states and lots of people have careers there. Texas did pretty well though the whole Great Recession and its economy is booming. Not sure about AZ. People go where they can get jobs, feed their families, put a roof over their heads…just as it ever was.
I wouldn’t participate in it. That info can travel. And it could be hacked.
Glad to hear that. Guess I’ll chalk it up to another explanation in XX Factor – The Mean Girl Syndrome.
@ricky: Even before I got to the part where she compared this woman to Palin, I was thinking, “that sounds a lot like Sarah Palin”, which was her point. Palin trades on her looks and always has. She seems to have inspired a bunch of imitators with their rectangular glasses, high heels, tight clothes and dropping of the “ing” at the ends of words.
I thought the person who wrote that did a good job off describing a Palin wannabe and setting the scene for the hearing.
I don’t know. Tina Fey played off Palin’s looks and dress and I don’t think she’s a “mean girl”. It’s part of the character. The writer here didn’t trash Palin’s looks. She simply described what she saw. At one point she compliments the speaker.
I sometimes wear high heels and I wouldn’t be offended if someone said that I was wearing them. That is what I wear. I think people have teased me about shoes, and I didn’t think it was “mean”. As I recall, I responded by telling the person he was wearing “cop shoes” (true, by the way, big cop-like shoes). I get along with that person.
@The Moar You Know:
When the government regulated radio frequencies as a public good and made businesses, who used these frequencies responsible for maintaining minimum standards of honesty and fairness in reporting things began to change, with regards to how people viewed the news.
Eventually this idea about responsible reporting started creeping into newspapers, which had always been highly partisan. Thomas Jefferson, for example, had direct control over what several leading newspapers would publish, during the election of 1800 and Hamilton had influence on the Federalist newspapers.
Of course things started to change after the Fairness Doctrine was repealed and the 1996 TelCo act allowed consolidation of the news industry, but this isn’t going back to the partisan newspaper days, because there are no loyal Democratic papers and it seems damn near all the news outlets are run by and for Republicans.
Again, thanks. You too Violet.
Of course, the inevitable question that arises is why girls would do this to another girl. All women are theoretically in it together when it comes to health care . Understanding actions like women belittling women witnesses is why feminists came up with the term “rape culture” to begin with. The short answer is that women often find it more personally beneficial to go along with sexism than to try to fight the power, on the theory that if you’re going to be treated like a second-class citizen anyway, you might as well not get yelled at all the time for speaking up about it.
The longer answer is this: It’s easier to believe the witness is a lying slut than to accept that your position has a down side. And women have an extra reason to blame and shame opposing women witnesses, rather than the patriarchs of the policies.
With all this pressure for women to play along with rape culture, perhaps the bigger mystery is why so many women fight back anyway. The answer to that question could probably fill a book.
I think it’s nuts to portray this account as saying “the witness is a lying slut”. I told you: I don’t think merely describing what a woman is wearing is sexism. I think it was a narrative technique to compare her to Palin.
I know you’re trying to make a point about the Steubenville case, but I’m not sure what that point is, or why these two things are connected.
Are you really comparing? The Stuebenille case with a blog post about a health care hearing? I know you were offended by some of the comments on the rape case, but I’m not sure lecturing me on feminism is helpful. I didn’t make any of the comments you took offense to.
What is it you’re mad about? You think claims of rape culture by women are sometimes hypocritical because women are “mean girls”? Is that your point? I don’t even know what to do with that.
What’s the common word you’re grabbing here, from the rape case? “Testimony”? Seems like sort of thin reed to drape a whole theory on.
Why don’t you link Marcotte’s post, so I can compare? I don’t generally read a lot of opinion, but that by no means is an indictment of A. Marcotte! I just stopped reading a lot of opinion in 2009 or something.
@ricky: In all seriousness, I for one appreciate your effort at analyzing the larger picture of rape culture. But what’s going on here, in this specific instance, is that (as Kay said) the person who wrote this was describing a Sarah Palin wannabe to a T, and confirmed it when she described the woman’s speaking style and what the woman said. I’m a woman myself, and I got it right away. It was a descriptive and effective passage, and reading it made me know what this woman would be saying even before the writer quoted her speech. Furthermore, it was in no way inappropriate to write this in reference to a woman who in fact trades on her appearance.
You’re quite right, we are all in this health care mess together. And that means we don’t appreciate the efforts of Sarah Palin, her evident acolytes, the white male Republicans in state governments refusing to expand Medicaid, or anyone else looking to restrict Americans’ access to health care.
Just trying to figure out the rationale between the differential treatment afforded to the male witnesses and a female one by a female author. And of course, applying what I am learning on the blogosphere. I found A. Marcotte’s work enlightening but there were other theories found and absorbed at the same site on this kind of intra gender phenomenon.
Perhaps I should stick to articles about sports and making fake ID’s to underage drink and skip stuff I will never get the hang of, like rape culture and health policy.
I often don’t “get” sarcasm on the internet (or in real life, actually) so there’s that, but honestly ricky I do not know the context here, so you’re losing me.
I gather that someone was lecturing you on the internet about rape culture and female witnesses re: the rape case in Ohio and you (obviously) feel it was unfair. I think this is not a good comparison or example to make your point, or I’m just not getting your point. That’s all I got.
Tried to add this to #68 to accomodate your request, but my editing efforts failed. All it seemed to do was change my name to “Undefined.”
Still not sure what you find so very confusing about what Bella Q wrote — she said the witness’s attire was remarkable and described what was remarkable about it. I didn’t realize that factual descriptions of what someone wore is “mean girl” behavior.
thank you Kay and Bella
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that their preferred option would be to eliminate Obamacare and let all those involved simply go without insurance. It’s the compassionate choice.
Kill the Bill!
@Violet: I’ve recently gained weight. Yes, this is bad. Yes, I should be losing weight. However, a side effect of every single medication I’m taking is weight gain. Every single drug. So, what do I do to stop the weight gain, stop eating? Stop taking my medication?
There’s no need for them to get the info. The employee pays the premium through their paycheck. The employee does the physical with the physician, the weight is taken, the rebate comes directly from the insurer to the employee and bypasses the employer. The employer does not get that information nor do they need it, yet the incentive is preserved.
This works if the employee is paying some portion of the premium, as that’s the only part that can be rebated. It’s not a cost savings to the employer, except if they then pass along the rebatable portion to the employee. So if they employer is willing to go with a $100 rebate for good health, they could make the employee premium contribution as little as $8.25, and 100% of that could be rebated.
The Moar You Know
@Kay: ricky is trolling the living shit out of you, that’s the context.
Thanks, but now that I’ve read it I think it’s more of a stretch.
The entire post is about rape and threats. We don’t have that context in this post.
I actually thought it would be broader, a “mean girls” theory, generally.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@TriassicSands: Actually, the full comments were prefaced by “we think Obamacare is a bad law that will not reduce health care costs but in fact will raise them, but considering the Supreme Court decision, businesses need to find a way forward.” That’s a paraphrase, but it’s the gist. They hate the PPACA, but recognize that it is the law they need to work within – or around – in a way the believe will cost the least.
@ricky: I can actually answer that one for you. The governmental affairs VP of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce looked like any number of males who provided testimony in the legislature, that day or any day – business suit and tie. The other females who testified during the time I observed were all dressed similar to one another – skirt or pants suit, dress and jacket, or skirt/pants with a related but not matching jacket. (In case you’re interested, I opted for a black pants suit as it was a tricky balance week for me so I was best off in flat shoes).
The point is that all those presenting, of each gender, were dressed pretty much interchangeably. Though to be honest, I was a bit surprised at the formality of attire – it was much more uniformly formal than state court, and even a couple of federal courts, are these days. The woman from OLC stood out because of her unique attire, and its similarity to the well known Sarah Palin look.
I did not imply that I found her a lying slut, nor would I have even commented on her appearance and attire had it just been odd. But it was specifically unusual, and appeared clearly referential to a famous spokesperson for the ideology she presented. My sense is that most of the readers here understood that, and several of them have pointed out what I just described. But I thought you should hear it from me, since I was commenting anyway.
And I suspect you don’t quite understand rape culture, but I’ll leave that for another thread.
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q):
I’m surprised it was formal, too. We’re all but running around in flip flops here.
Seriously, thanks for the post and the advocacy.
I’ll see if we can organize anything here to make calls or whatever. We don’t meet ’till Tuesday, but maybe I can make calls TO make calls.
@WereBear: That explains a lot about the contradictory information I’ve been getting regarding what I should be eating. My doctor was pushing the vegan thing, which would totally negate the redicing carbs diet.
@The Moar You Know:
I suspect poor smokers could still get Medicaid, old smokers could still get Medicare, vets who smoke could still get VA treatments and soldiers who smoke could still get TRICARE. Plus, Vermont smokers would still get their spiffy new single-payer coverage, which will be implemented in 2017.
Perhaps a better wording would be “[smokers] will not be able to get private health insurance.”