START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
Group Discussions
Gov. Chris Christie on the Daily Show
2 years ago


This is quite and awesome conversation.
 

2 years ago


I believe this is an extended version containing some stuff that didn't make it to air.
 

2 years ago


Quite an awesome conversation, that is ...
 

2 years ago

Christian, for some reason I can't get to the video.  I did look it up because Christie news is always of interest to me.


I think I found it here


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/07/chris-christie-jon-stewart_n_2257198.html


You are correct that was an awesome conversation and both had valid points.

2 years ago

The only thing I would add is that New Jerseyans pay alot to the feds and do not get nearly the return other states do on a yearly basis for so many various areas.  Sandy was beyond comprehension and the word humbling is very appropriate.

We are not asking for anything more than another state would receive or expect  in a similar disaster situation.  We do our part, it's time for some payback.



This post was modified from its original form on 07 Dec, 12:49
2 years ago


And I can't see the videos at your link. I bet it has something to do with the fact that my link is from the Canadian site for the Daily Show and yours is from the states. Stupid copyright laws prevent people from watching most videos outside their country. Hulu claims it will be doing something about it someday, but they've been saying that for years. 

Anyway, that's too bad, because your version is much shorter. I wish there was a way you could watch my version without having to download one of those programs that provides fake IP addresses to fool the video hosting site into thinking you're in the country in which it is being streamed.

I think you missed the point, though, and that is when people get hit by an unexpected illness, it is exactly like a catastrophe that needs dealing with, and yet Republicans refuse to see it that way, and they refuse to provide help when it is desperately needed, unlike most other countries.

Republicans go straight to the feds with tin cup in hand when they need assistance, though, like in the case of Governor Chris Christie and Hurricane Sandy. At least he seems somewhat sane, unlike other Republicans.
 

2 years ago

I don't miss that point actually at all.  I live with that threat daily and have for the last 4 or 5 years now.  It's been so long I forget how long it actually is.  Having a child under those terms adds to the stress of it all ten-fold.  I get it probably more than you will ever give me credit for.


In New Jersey we have Medicaid, Medicare and NJ Cares.  Poorer people in this state are covered with eye, dental, prescription and health.  Rich people in our state are covered well through their own means.  It is more the middle-class which is lacking healthcare.

Governor Christie has a valid point on cost.  Our state is broke and in serious shyte.  If a healthcare exchange is set up without accurate information pertaining to cost to our state, meaning taxpayers of this state.  It could be very harmful to the very middle class who these new taxes to raise the money will hit the worst. 

Also, he mentioned who actually is in charge but footing the bill.  It's valid.

Need numbers and accurate numbers to crunch.  I think it is a responsible decision in that regard. 

On the other hand, being a person who really does want to have insurance and is now going to have to get insurance, whether I can affford it or not.  I personally would love to see some type of reasonable exchange come about and be run by the state. 

2 years ago

I don't think Sandy is a valid argument.  It is a natural disaster that for any other state or country for that matter, the United States kicks in as a united country to assist in time of need.  I think comparing it and acting like we are asking for something that is not afforded to anyone else in this situation is insulting and blurring the issues.

Just how I feel about it.  Sandy is not healthcare.

2 years ago

By the way, that is interesting about videos being seen outside ones own country. 

I saw three parts, each about 6 minutes.  I saw the Springsteen discussion, poor boy is star struck.  He really needs to get over that.

I saw the healthcare discussion thrown in there from time to time.  His Jersey attitude discussion.    The Sandy discussion.


What else was there?

2 years ago


The video at the link I provided was closer to half an hour in length. It was a longer, more in-depth discussion.

Unexpected illness is exactly like a natural disaster. If you can't pay for its treatment, your life, and the lives of your loved ones, get destroyed. Why the hell can't the US kick in as a united coutnry to provide health care to its citizens? All would pay in through taxes, all would be covered whenever its needed. No additional private, monthly, unaffordable premiums. Most other countries do this and have been doing this for decades. They already have their shite together. It's not "taking from one person and giving it to someone else for free" as you keep claiming. Everyone can use it whenever it's needed. That's how it works everywhere else.



What is this sick mentality of yours that says, "Hit by a hurricane? Here's some help. Hit by cancer? No help for you."



2 years ago

Christian, don't get all nasty and hysterical with me.  I am not opposed to a single payer system. 


The reality as the system sits is that some do pay into a system in which others have available to them what the one contributing does not.  NJ Cares is a perfect example of this.  It is not available to all who need it, but do pay for it.

My mentality isn't anything of hit by hurricane or hit by cancer.  The comparison is not a fair comparison.  You will not see it that way and I don't see it your way.

Yes, cancer is a natural disaster but not in the same sense.






This post was modified from its original form on 07 Dec, 13:54
2 years ago


Nobody got "nasty and hysterical." The mentality that would deny someone health care when they desperately need it is most definitely sick. 
 

2 years ago


How do you not see the stark similarities between a natural disaster and a major, unexpected illness? In both caes, you stand to lose everything. Other than the fact that you lose your home more slowly with cancer, what is the big difference?
 

2 years ago

The mentality that would deny someone health care when they desperately need it is most definitely sick. 
 


You are saying that is my mentality.  That is most definitely sick, nasty and way off the mark.

2 years ago

Christian, both of those scenarios have the same end effect.  Both are very sad events.

However, the scenarios are so vastly different in scope and scale.  While yes, both are tragic.  They are not the same.  I see where it can tug at a right and wrong type of thing.  I see the general point.  Still the events are different in nature.

One no less tragic than the other, but different...

2 years ago


So that is the excuse for a country not providing health care coverage for its citizens? Because hurricanes and cancer are "different"?
 

2 years ago

Yea, you pegged it. 

Have a nice weekend!  Gotta run...



This post was modified from its original form on 07 Dec, 14:36
2 years ago

I just lost someone to cancer.  4 months ago she was fine.  She only made it 3 months after her diagnosis.  You bet that's catastrophic!  She left a 5 year old behind and a lot of grieving friends and family.  No one who gets cancer and is too poor to afford health care should die feeling alone and like nothing more than a burden on the state.  I realize that health care is expensive, but it is too expensive.  Nobody in the hospital needs to be charged over $100 for an ace bandage or an aspirin, either.  But that happens all the time. My mom was charged $90 for an ace bandage a few years ago in a hospital in Miami.  Costs need to be maintained so that the ill can receive treatment.  Too many people in the health care business have become billionaires while the poor can't afford to get treated.  

Thank God for Obamacare.  It is already saving the lives of some catastrophically ill people. And, under Obamacare, insurance companies will have to show evidence that they spent 85% of their proceeds from policies on treatments for the sick.  They haven't had to do that before.  The CEOs of some of these companies are mega-billionaires.  If that was all the ACA did, that alone would be great.  But it also provides for more training and therefore, more jobs in all 50 states.

A catastrophe is a tragedy - no matter where it comes from.  

2 years ago


Suzanne, apparently, doesn't see it that way. For her, Cancer is your own personal problem, so don't bug the rest of the US about it.
 

2 years ago

Christian, remember the conversation between Governor Christie and Jon Stewart about painting people into a box?


That is not what I am saying.  You are just to rigid in your own way of thinking to get my point.  It's a shame really because you never even try to understand any point other than your own.


No one said either event isn't a tragedy or devastating. 


Keep twisting and turning maybe someday you'll get it right.

2 years ago

Angelica- part of the "overcharging" for things like that $90 Ace bandage is to cover the uninsured who are receiving care.  Not defending it, just explaining it.  If everyone was insured, we would have less of that.  We still would have some as their are visitors to our country (I am talking tourists) who still have emergecnies and get care.  Americans would not be charged in other countries and we don't necessairly charge them here. 

There are many thing about Obamacare that I don't like.  Suzanne points out one of them.

Health insurance, IMHO, should be urun by nonprofits' the way that Blue Cross used tobe.

2 years ago


But your points change from sentence to sentence, Suzanne. First you're against health care, then you think you may be for it, but you're not sure, then you think people should have it, but you're not sure how that should work, and of course you don't want to pay for it yourself because you're sick of people getting free stuff that's paid for by you that you don't get to use, and so on. Waffley waffley. No consistence there.

Nancy hit the nail on the head when she said that the high cost of care is to cover the cost of the uninsured, and that if everyone was insured, these costs would go down. That's the part that the anti-health care crowd never gets. They don't understand that if an entire population is covered, it is a massive pool in which costs come down because they are shared by everyone. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not the best way to go about insuring everyone, but it's better than nothing at all. A proper and comprehensive state plan in each state that everyone pays into with the taxes they already pay now is the way to go.
 

2 years ago

Christian you tell a good tale.  I am getting pretty sick of you making what I say into your version of it. 

In any case, your tale above in the first paragraph is nonsensical in so many ways.  When did I ever say I was against health care?  I believe in fairness and if my taxes are paying for something that when I am in need and am denied of that something.  Yea, it bothers me.  That is not saying those that get it shouldn't.  It is saying it should be available to all who are in need, especially if they are contributing to it.


If anyone thinks that this Affordable Care Act is not a gift to the insurance companies and their CEO's, I think I just saw some reindeer flying around in my yard.


Also, most of the disucussion here between you and I, Christian, has been about the comparison of Sandy to healthcare.  I still feel that is not an fair comparison.

2 years ago


<<If anyone thinks that this Affordable Care Act is not a gift to the insurance companies and their CEO's, I think I just saw some reindeer flying around in my yard.>>

And that is exactly why it's a piece of shite legislation. It is pathetic. Even more pathetic is how something that pathetic is actually better than what was in place before.

Just imagine that when you woke up tomorrow, all your health care was covered, guaranteed, by the taxes you already pay. No tax increase, no denial of care, no more bills, no more monthly payments to a private insurer, and all you had to do was go get a health card that you would show at every doctor's visit. What woud your objection to that be?
 

2 years ago

Christian- think for a minute about what Suzanne is saying.  Don't assume you know her or her life.

SHE will get no benefit from this healthcare act as many others aslo will not.  That is EXACTLY one thing wrong with it.  Of course there are others.  Not ONLY will Suzanne NOT get a benefit but she WILL be  taxed.  She will then be paying for the healthcare of those who are benefitting.  Well, we all are taxed,  SHE WILL be taxed MORE than you or I or Angelica. 

Christian, it si a great thing to think that one day we will all wake up and magically have healthcare for all.  I actually don't see that happening here.  Too many are opposed.  ANd the insurance companies, who are now people, will oppose anything and everything to make haealthcare more affordable because it will taek their profits from them.

Unfortunately that IS the American way. 

(Suzanne- isn't there that bridge up north of you that you could sell to Christian?)

2 years ago


How does Suzanne get no benefit from the health care act? She said she will be buying insurance, so ... doesn't that mean that now she will be insured? How does having health insurance not benefit Suzanne?
 

2 years ago


Wait, you're not making any sense. What do you mean "she will be taxed"? You have to buy the insurance from a private corporation. The insurance is not paid for by taxes, plus she already pays taxes. Did someone specifically say her taxes are going up, and if so, did they say the extra taxes are to pay for private insurance that she will not be allowed to use?

WTF? That makes no sense whatsoever.


 

2 years ago

Christian it is either buy insurance or pay the IRS a penalty (tax) for not doing so.  To be honest, more than likely I will not be affording the monthly premiums so will be paying that money to the IRS which helps to fund the healthcare.  After doing so, I will still walk away without healthcare and an even emptier pocket.


Last time I checked, which has been a while now, under this affordable care act in NJ for my family the premium will be about $700+ per month.  Not so affordable really.


There are a bunch of us who will fall into that situation.

2 years ago

"Did someone specifically say her taxes are going up, and if so, did they say the extra taxes are to pay for private insurance that she will not be allowed to use?"

Yes, someone did.  And Yes, the penalty she will pay will go to others.

Read a little more about this Obamacare. 

2 years ago

To be honest, I have come to terms with this whole situation and it's just kind of a whatever type of thing.  I'll deal with it as it comes.  So will others, not much of a choice.


This whole topic to me though about Governor Christie going with tin cup for disaster recovery money has me bothered though.  As if we in New Jersey who were devastated are asking for something out of line.  Never heard this line of thought with Catrina, Haitii or others.  In those situations the government could clearly not do enough.  I wonder what it is about NY/NJ that has people saying stop whining.  Who gives a shyte that 85% of your state was devastated.  I just don't get that at all.

2 years ago

When I sell my house or any of us sell our homes 2% of that tax will go to health care as well.

Suzanne
2 years ago

That's not really accurate at least not entirely, here is a link from Tax Foundation:

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/would-obamacare-health-care-reform-tax-sale-your-home-probably-not

2 years ago

Hey Michael, so it does and it doesn't.  I am happy to say in this instance I think I will be safe from an added tax   My numbers don't go that high.

Thank you for sharing that with me though.  I know I read somewhere a while back before it all became offficial that this tax was there.  At that time, I did not read about the money breakdowns of such.

This is good news for me, not so good for others.

So what I said is true and not true...


Hope you enjoyed San Diego



hmmm
2 years ago

Buy you a Gin and Tonic in San Diego

2 years ago

I'd rather have pomegranate and vodka, but would gladly take you up on it if ever in Jersey.

2 years ago


Here's a newsflash; The original PPACA had a public option as well as other features which would have made life easier for everyone, but the Republicans and Teabaggers fought so hard against those things, they were removed in order to get it passed, and so now you are left with a pathetic Frankenstein version of what was meant to be. It is a perfect example of ignorance and hate triumphing over common good.

I know it's difficult for you to imagine (though God knows why), but other countries have systems in which you would have guaranteed, full coverage without having to pay $700 a month, and all paid for by your taxes. They've had these systems for many decades. This is what your beloved Teabaggers fought against: Sane, efficient, fair, affordable health care coverage for all citizens, including those who find themselves unemployed. Some use 100% public insurance, some use a mixture of public and private, with caps on what you have to pay for private, precisely so that people don't find themselves with $700+ monthly insurance premiums.

It's done that way because most people instinctively know that health care is far too important for society to have for it to be subject to selfish ideological considerations. They know that leaving people alone and uncared for benefits no one, and is morally unacceptable in an advanced civilisation.
 



2 years ago

Christian, I believe the orginial intent of the PPACA was to have the public option, but I do not believe it ever was officially introduced into the healthcare debate that took place.  I may be wrong, but I do not believe that ever made it to the legislative process.

The will was obviously not there by republicans, but as I recall it was never even put on the table.  Again, I may be misconstruing events of the day.

Certainly, we need an efficient, fair healthcare system.  It suks to not be covered.  It suks worse to not be covered and sick. 

I do not believe the actual will is there, maybe the want but the will to actually see it through.  Some truly may possess it but not everyone and not enough of them...  I wonder why? 



This post was modified from its original form on 09 Dec, 11:59
2 years ago


<<Christian, I believe the orginial intent of the PPACA was to have the public option, but I do not believe it ever was officially introduced into the healthcare debate that took place.  I may be wrong, but I do not believe that ever made it to the legislative process.>>

But that's exactly what I said. It was there intially, but had to be taken out before it got to a vote. Yeesh.
 

2 years ago

I think it was taken out before it even came to the discussion.  The democrats had the numbers to pass it.  They passed what we presently have without republican support.

Why did they not have the will to fight for a public option and pass it anyway?  They could have.

2 years ago


The usual corruption, greed, sell-outs and Republican resistance. This is why I refuse to vote for either of the two major parties.

Well, not like there was a hope in hell I would ever vote Republican anyway, but ...
 
 

2 years ago

  Don't worry, I don't think anyone would ever put that on you. 

This thread is archived. To reply to it you must re-activate it.