support health care?

[TXgolfer]

They do... in a way.

YES!

Cha- Ching

 

[TXgolfer]

Generally, with SSDI it is based on what you have paid in, as well as the number of years you have worked. Also Survivors Benefits are a pay in base.

Oh that reminds me....I never collected for my daughter when my wife passed away...Have to see if she can get back pay....

 

[posts from hell]

Oh that reminds me....I never collected for my daughter when my wife passed away...Have to see if she can get back pay....

The legal provisions: They can collect infinite amount of overpayments to you, however if they owe you $, its only for up to 1 year.

 

[jillio]

Oh that reminds me....I never collected for my daughter when my wife passed away...Have to see if she can get back pay....

Is she still under the age of 18?

Back pay only extends from the date of initial application.

 

[PowerON]

does it include support on dentist and optometry that way we could get one?

 

[jillio]

First people complain that the bill has passed the house, then they want to know how much they can get out of it.

 

[Banjo]

Wow, the GOP actually did this.

GOP.com - Fire Nancy Pelosi

If you go to the official GOP website, you are re-directed to the Fire Nancy Pelosi website mentioned above. The GOP should be ashamed of themselves for lacking in maturity and class when it comes to voicing your opposition. The politicans are supposed to be viewed as role models to the children.

This isn't the way to do it. Fear-mongering and juvenile methods, nothing more.

Did the democrats ever do something like this in the past? Just asking.

 

[jillio]

Wow, the GOP actually did this.

GOP.com - Fire Nancy Pelosi

If you go to the official GOP website, you are re-directed to the Fire Nancy Pelosi website mentioned above. The GOP should be ashamed of themselves for lacking in maturity and class when it comes to voicing your opposition. The politicans are supposed to be viewed as role models to the children.

This isn't the way to do it. Fear-mongering and juvenile methods, nothing more.

Did the democrats ever do something like this in the past? Just asking.

It is what we have come to expect from the GOP.

 

[Banjo]

It is what we have come to expect from the GOP.

I would had expected it from someone like Michelle Malkin or any other bloggers lacking any class and maturity, but the official GOP website?

This is a new low.

 

[jillio]

I would had expected it from someone like Michelle Malkin or any other bloggers lacking any class and maturity, but the official GOP website?

This is a new low.

I agree. Supposedly mature and fair minded people are resorting to some very disturbing and unethical behavior. And still, there are those who attempt to justify it.:roll:

 

[TXgolfer]

Wow, the GOP actually did this.

GOP.com - Fire Nancy Pelosi

If you go to the official GOP website, you are re-directed to the Fire Nancy Pelosi website mentioned above. The GOP should be ashamed of themselves for lacking in maturity and class when it comes to voicing your opposition. The politicans are supposed to be viewed as role models to the children.

This isn't the way to do it. Fear-mongering and juvenile methods, nothing more.

Did the democrats ever do something like this in the past? Just asking.

Thx for the site. I just donated.

 

[jillio]

I would had expected it from someone like Michelle Malkin or any other bloggers lacking any class and maturity, but the official GOP website?

This is a new low.

Here is one Repub who manages still to have clear and intelligent thought:

Washington (CNN) -- What the hell do we Republicans do now?

In the very short run, our course is obvious enough: There will be more votes on health care in the Senate, and we will vote nay again. But this is anti-climax territory. The decisive vote occurred Sunday night.

The "what next?" question pertains to the days further ahead, after President Obama signs the merged House-Senate legislation and "Obamacare" becomes the law of the land.

Some Republicans talk of repealing the whole bill. That's not very realistic. Even supposing that Republicans miraculously capture both houses of Congress in November, repeal will require a presidential signature.

More relevantly: Do Republicans write a one-sentence bill declaring that the whole thing is repealed? Will they vote to reopen the "doughnut" hole for prescription drugs for seniors? To allow health insurers to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions? To kick millions of people off Medicaid?

It's unimaginable, impossible.

But there are things that can be done, and here are some early priorities:

1) One of the worst things about the Democrats' plan is the method of financing: an increase in income taxes. The top rate of tax was already scheduled to jump to 39.6 percent at the end of this year. Now a surtax of 5.4 percent will be stacked atop that higher rate. At first, the surtax bites only very high incomes: $500,000 for individuals. But that tax will surely be applied to larger and larger portions of the American population over time.

Republicans champion lower taxes and faster economic growth. We need to start thinking now about how to get rid of this surtax -- if necessary by finding other sources of revenue, including carbon taxes.

2) We should quit defending employment-based health care. The leading Republican spokesman in the House on these issues, Rep. Paul Ryan, repeatedly complained during floor debate that the Obama plan would "dump" people out of employer-provided care into the exchanges. He said that as if it were a bad thing.

Yet free-market economists from Milton Friedman onward have identified employer-provided care as the original sin of American health care. Employers choose different policies for employees than those employees would choose for themselves. The cost is concealed.

Wages are depressed without employees understanding why. The day when every employee in America gets his or her insurance through an exchange will be a good day for market economics. It's true that the exchanges are subsidized. So is employer-provided care, to the tune of almost $200 billion a year.
3) We should call for reducing regulation of the policies sold inside the health care exchanges. The Democrats' plans require every policy sold within the exchanges to meet certain strict conditions.

American workers will lose the option of buying more basic but cheaper plans. It will be as if the only cable packages available were those that include all the premium channels. No bargains in that case. Republicans should press for more scope for insurers to cut prices if they think they can offer an attractive product that way.

4) The Democratic plan requires businesses with payrolls more than $500,000 to buy health insurance for their workers or face fines of $2,000 per worker. Could there be a worse time to heap this new mandate on smaller employers? Health insurance comes out of employee wages, plain and simple. Employers who do not offer health insurance must compete for labor against those who do -- and presumably pay equivalent wages for equivalent work.

Uninsured employees have now through the exchanges been provided an easy and even subsidized way to buy their own coverage. There is no justification for the small-business fine: Republicans should press for repeal.

That platform is ambitious enough -- but also workable, enactable and likely to appeal to voters. After 18 months of overheated rhetoric, it's time at last for Republicans to get real.

I've been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes, it mobilizes supporters -- but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead.
Now the overheated talk is about to get worse. Over the past 48 hours, I've heard conservatives compare the House bill to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 -- a decisive step on the path to the Civil War. Conservatives have whipped themselves into spasms of outrage and despair that block all strategic thinking.
Or almost all. The vitriolic talking heads on conservative talk radio and shock TV have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination.

When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say -- but what is equally true -- is that he also wants Republicans to fail.
If Republicans succeed -- if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office -- Rush's listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less and hear fewer ads for Sleep Number beds.

So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished.

For the cause they purport to represent, however, the "Waterloo" threatened by GOP Sen. Jim DeMint last year regarding Obama and health care has finally arrived all right: Only it turns out to be our own.

How GOP can rebound from its 'Waterloo' - CNN.com

 

[darkdog]

I very much oppose it. Exactly at the time we need to scale back our unsustainable entitlements that are heading toward insolvency, we're adding a new huge entitlement with some of the most brazen lies and cheesiest accounting gimmicks imaginable in a failed attempt to fool the public about the true costs. This bill can only speed up the day of reckoning.

We will have entitlement reform one day. We can either do it the easy, humane way- by gradually scaling back our entitlement obligations, or we can do it the hard painful way- by waiting until a debt crisis is upon us and we're forced to suddenly give up entitlements because there's no money to pay for them. Yesterday, our Congress has chosen the hard inhumane way.

For those of you with good intentions who supported this and refused to listen to the hard facts and alternative approaches that people like me have been putting out over the past few years, you own this. We're going to remember you when the results of this bill manifest over the coming decades.

 

[TXgolfer]

I very much oppose it. Exactly at the time we need to scale back our unsustainable entitlements that are heading toward insolvency, we're adding a new huge entitlement with some of the most brazen lies and cheesiest accounting gimmicks imaginable in a failed attempt to fool the public about the true costs. This bill can only speed up the day of reckoning.

We will have entitlement reform one day. We can either do it the easy, humane way- by gradually scaling back our entitlement obligations, or we can do it the hard painful way- by waiting until a debt crisis is upon us and we're forced to suddenly give up entitlements because there's no money to pay for them. Yesterday, our Congress has chosen the hard inhumane way.

For those of you with good intentions who supported this and refused to listen to the hard facts and alternative approaches that people like me have been putting out over the past few years, you own this. We're going to remember you when the results of this bill manifest over the coming decades.

Excellent. Sometimes you just have to sit back and watch them learn

 

[kokonut]

I very much oppose it. Exactly at the time we need to scale back our unsustainable entitlements that are heading toward insolvency, we're adding a new huge entitlement with some of the most brazen lies and cheesiest accounting gimmicks imaginable in a failed attempt to fool the public about the true costs. This bill can only speed up the day of reckoning.

We will have entitlement reform one day. We can either do it the easy, humane way- by gradually scaling back our entitlement obligations, or we can do it the hard painful way- by waiting until a debt crisis is upon us and we're forced to suddenly give up entitlements because there's no money to pay for them. Yesterday, our Congress has chosen the hard inhumane way.

For those of you with good intentions who supported this and refused to listen to the hard facts and alternative approaches that people like me have been putting out over the past few years, you own this. We're going to remember you when the results of this bill manifest over the coming decades.

It is unfortunate. It doesn't take a genius to see the unsustainability in all this. We don't have the money nor the means to sustain this program. It's the continuation on the maxing out more credit cards to pay for interests on previously maxed out credit cards, so to speak. But the analogy is very apt and correct here.

 

[Steinhauer]

It is NOT a flaw. The SSA makes it clear - if you're disabled or retired, you're eligible for benefits. It's that simple.

Dude, I have been turned down every time. Every audiologist since the time I was tested said I should be receiving benefits, yet I keep getting turned down.

 

[Steinhauer]

I agree. Supposedly mature and fair minded people are resorting to some very disturbing and unethical behavior. And still, there are those who attempt to justify it.:roll:

Yeah .. Obama and his czars. Glad you finally recognized it.

 

[Steinhauer]

I very much oppose it. Exactly at the time we need to scale back our unsustainable entitlements that are heading toward insolvency, we're adding a new huge entitlement with some of the most brazen lies and cheesiest accounting gimmicks imaginable in a failed attempt to fool the public about the true costs. This bill can only speed up the day of reckoning.

We will have entitlement reform one day. We can either do it the easy, humane way- by gradually scaling back our entitlement obligations, or we can do it the hard painful way- by waiting until a debt crisis is upon us and we're forced to suddenly give up entitlements because there's no money to pay for them. Yesterday, our Congress has chosen the hard inhumane way.

For those of you with good intentions who supported this and refused to listen to the hard facts and alternative approaches that people like me have been putting out over the past few years, you own this. We're going to remember you when the results of this bill manifest over the coming decades.

I don't know you, but I really want to shake your hand.

Well said.

 

[TXgolfer]

Dude, I have been turned down every time. Every audiologist since the time I was tested said I should be receiving benefits, yet I keep getting turned down.

Have you tried an Atty? I am in the process of applying just for fun. I was rading a book on government free money today. I am applying for everything I qualify for. Even hired someone to fill out/chase down paperwork

 

[Steinhauer]

Have you tried an Atty? I am in the process of applying just for fun. I was rading a book on government free money today. I am applying for everything I qualify for. Even hired someone to fill out/chase down paperwork

I spoke with an atty that told me I should receive benefits from the first time I applied.

That was 20 years ago.