Disqus - Latest Comments for seattleclock

Re: Acute Phallocentric Twitterosis - Joshua Green - Politics - The Atlantic

seattleclock — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 05:25:02 -0000

Exhibitionism can be considered a psychological disorder if it interferes with quality of life or normal functioning capacity. Psychiatrists define it as "sexual gratification, above and beyond the sexual act itself, which is achieved by risky public sexual activity and or bodily exposure."

Re: Acute Phallocentric Twitterosis - Joshua Green - Politics - The Atlantic

seattleclock — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 05:19:17 -0000

Exhibitionism can be considered a psychological disorder if it interferes with the quality of life or normal functioning capacity of the individual. Many psychiatric definitions of exhibitionism broadly define it as "sexual gratification, above and beyond the sexual act itself, that is achieved by risky public sexual activity and/or bodily exposure."

Re: Scary sound bites for health care plan? - Snoqualmie Valley Record

seattleclock — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:43:51 -0000

I'm happy to see that someone besides me is paying attention! On August 10th I sat in on a health care reform teleconference with Congressman David Reichert and some of his constituents from the 8th Congressional District. I didn't get a chance to ask a question because the meeting was short and Congressman Reichert's answers were long. The telephone Town Hall format is very controlled and does not allow for much interaction.

This is some of what Congressman Reichert told his constituents that had phoned into his teleconference on health care –

Reichert:
Congressman Reichert said that benefits under the new health care reform bill would be limited. A caller indicated her concern that the new plan would ration benefits and that her special needs child would not receive adequate care. Congressman Reichert did not disagree or correct this caller.

Fact:
The health care reform being proposed right now will forbid rationing or the practice of denying people coverage for a pre- existing condition. There is widespread rationing with private insurers denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions, limiting care, or kicking people out all together.

Reichert:
Congressman Reichert said that employers might be inclined to drop their employees health insurance and pay a fine of 8% because that would be cheaper than insuring their workers.

Fact:
First of all, the 8% fine is for large companies. There is a sliding scale where many small businesses would pay no fine at all. The fine for companies with annual payrolls from $250,000 to $400,000 is from 1% to 6% and applies to businesses with more than 25 employees. 90% of businesses have fewer than 25 employees. But it's highly unlikely that any small company would be paying a fine because businesses that can't afford to offer insurance would finally be able to. Right now small businesses are paying about 18% to 20% more for health coverage than big businesses. Health care reform will ease the burden on small businesses and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less. Small businesses will be able to participate in a health insurance exchange and they will receive tax credits for offering employees insurance.

Boeing doesn't have a reason to stop offering their comprehensive health insurance plan and they will not be eligible for the public plan in the new reform bill. t's ridiculous to assume that health care reform would cause them to stop paying these premiums and force their employees to fend for themselves. For most companies, the insurance they offer is part of an employment package, an incentive package designed to recruit and keep employees. For many companies, such as Boeing, a union protects these benefits. Does Congressman Reichert think that unions are going to just roll over and play dead? In all likelihood, premium expense for large companies will go down when reform forces private insurers to compete. When our employers pay less in premiums, we could see more in earnings.

Reichert:
Mr. Reichert spoke of a Health Choices Commissioner with no medical background that would make medical decisions for all of us.

Fact:
Our doctors, with our consent, will continue to help us with our medical decisions, not the US Government or an assigned commissioner!

Page 31 of the new health care reform bill covers the appointment of Advisory Committees. Members would be appointed in the same manner in which the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission was appointed.

Congressman Reichert is inviting people to submit their health care stories on a form on his website. The websites indicates that he “may” use your letter. If you look at the letters that were submitted you will find that they are all carefully selected. If your letter does not agree with his position, it will not be posted. He takes this a little further, by posting a sensational letter filled with inaccuracies by an obviously frightened constituent. Mr. Reichert should have sent a letter to this constituent stating that although he does not agree with the new health care reform bill, he is certain that no one would be allowed to die under any government health care plan! I can only assume that this letter was posted in an attempt to frighten people.

If you like your health care, you can keep it! More than 95% of us will not be taxed to pay for the reform that will help the uninsured, the under-insured and those barely able to keep up with skyrocketing premiums. If you lose your job, have a very serious illness or medical condition, this reform will make sure that you receive health care. No one should have to fight an insurance company for needed treatment or have to declare bankruptcy because of medical bills.

I would like to challenge Congressman Reichert to consider that at least half of his constituents want health care reform and a plan that includes a public option.

Re: Tim Carpenter appears on Fox News: makes the case for single-payer healthcare

seattleclock — Sat, 30 May 2009 10:32:25 -0000

Single-payer health care reform is off the table. Beyond the fact that it “had a snow balls chance in hell” of becoming a reality in our right-leaning country, the President never once promised this during his lengthy campaign. Right now it is more important than ever to ensure that the insurance and health care industry lobbyists don't succeed in stripping a public option from the President's plan!

While we are busy fighting for single-payer helath care, opponents are stepping up the criticism of the health care plan that is on the table right now! On Sunday, May 31st, Conservatives for Patients Rights will air on NBC a "documentary" full of lies about the President's proposed plan!

Yes, in a perfect world we would have single-payer but if we keep ignoring the battle that is going on right now we will have nothing!

Swift Boating Obama’s public health care option - http://tinyurl.com/kmzm4u

Re: Why Doesn’t MoveOn and Democracy for America Support Single-Payer Healthcare?

seattleclock — Tue, 12 May 2009 03:41:02 -0000

Hi Katrina, The President promised that if you like your health insurance you will be able to keep it. Millions of Americans get their health insurance from an employer and many pay very little for this insurance. For people in my circle, they are paying $0 to $65 per month, not anywhere close to $225 per month.

I had private health insurance before and I agree it's priced way too high! It's outrageous that insurance companies are allowed to deny someone health insurance because of a pre-existing condition. I think that we need to focus much more attention on insurance companies and their outrageous practices.

I think it would be ideal if the millions of Americans in this country that don't have or can't afford health insurance could be pooled together into a national single payer program, but not if that means it will be at the expense of the millions of us that have insurance provided by an employer.

State programs have been gutted and you can no longer get health coverage from your state. Children can get coverage but not adults. This is crazy; it should have been a huge priority to fund these programs!

$225 per month is still too much to pay for millions. I would be happy to pay a little higher tax so that health insurance could be provided in my state for everyone that needs it but I am not happy to give up the coverage I have now!

I support this President, I support 99% of his agenda, but someone needs to explain, clearly, that single payer will not take away the insurance that millions of Americans already have.

Re: Why Doesn’t MoveOn and Democracy for America Support Single-Payer Healthcare?

seattleclock — Tue, 05 May 2009 07:05:20 -0000

According to Congressman Conyer's website, under HR 676 the average family of four would pay $2,700 a year for their health coverage. That's $225 per month.

Re: Why Doesn’t MoveOn and Democracy for America Support Single-Payer Healthcare?

seattleclock — Tue, 05 May 2009 06:39:47 -0000

On Ed Schultz(MSNBC)today, Howard Dean insisted that single payer was not off the table. I thought it was off the table and so did Ed Schultz. I'm not sure what Howard Dean meant, but he was pretty clear!