Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=all][quote=FlyerInHi]
Why do people expect Hillary to divorce?
[/quote]Because her husband is a philanderer?[/quote]
That’s not a conservative viewpoint. With the help of God, you work it out.[/quote]
perhaps He killed JFK for all his extramarital fucking. what a dope Jackie o. was…to be consistent shouldn’t we all be contemptuous of that gold digging loser chick?[/quote]scaredy, Jacqueline Bouvier was born into a family with money. She didn’t need to hang with JFK for money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Kennedy_Onassis
Jackie was widowed 10 years into her marriage (at the age of 34) and had she not been, she would have likely dumped JFK as soon as he left office. Of course, we’ll never know as both of them have been long deceased.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi] … BTW, people who have gone trough a lot should be admired, not hated.
Contrast Princess Di to Hillary. Di was a needy, insecure woman and people loved her. Hillary is smart, intelligent and resourceful; and people hate her.[/quote]Apples to oranges, FIH. As “needy and insecure” as you make Diana Spencer (aka Princess of Wales) out to be, she actually voted with her feet fairly early on (at the age of 31 after 11 years of marriage). By 1986, Di could see with her own eyes and hear with her own ears that what her spouse really wanted was not her but the “one that got away.” However, they had two young sons at the time and so instead of addressing their problems (which were not fixable, IMO), they put on a facade of trying to make their marriage “work” by continuing to fulfill their royal duties together for over five more years while constantly in the public eye … which had to be very hard. (Camilla Shand was married at the time as well but that didn’t stop either she nor Charles from conducting their liaison “under the radar”). Charles and Di’s tumultuous “marriage” is a prime example of not choosing one’s partner wisely. Di was too young at the time to get married and, at the age of 19, got caught up in the pomp and circumstance of planning her opulent wedding (paid for by the monarchy), IMO, and Charles just ended up “settling” at the age of 34 due to incessant family pressure to get married and produce an heir to the throne ASAP. By that time (1981), his “one true love” had married someone else due to his effing around in his youth and not making a decision to commit to her. Charles Windsor (aka the Prince of Wales) was lucky in life in that he was finally able to marry his one true love at the age of ~59 but many, many others are not. He is a prime example of why we should ALL counsel our kids to choose their spouses very wisely and marry based ONLY upon true love and NOT “convenience,” money, security or how they feel they others will perceive them if they are married.” I speak from experience in this matter and have been on every side of the fence imaginable in this regard. By the time most people are able to take the time and energy out of their busy lives to even locate (and hopefully converse with) their one true love in life (often 30-45 years later), that person is frequently “attached” to another person, very ill or deceased or dies shortly after becoming “unattached.” There comes a time in life where one has to realize that the egregious errors made in their youth are not fixable and no one wants to die with major regrets.
Hill and Bill would have been married 11 years in 1986, at which time they were ~38 and 39. They could have thrown in the towel then but at that time, he was the Governor or AR and the Clinton’s were enjoying their power, prestige and connections. (I forgot to add to my earlier post that Bill was appointed AG in the state of AR in 1977. This was 2 years BEFORE he was elected Governor of that state so that makes 34 years that Hill has either been in a supporting role of a an elected or appointed official in high office OR occupied those positions herself.)
It’s a shame that many (most?) US voters are too caught up in the institution of marriage in that they expect their president to be “married” and “straight.” It doesn’t matter much to them whether their president should be married to a particular person … or should even be married at all! It only matters that they are married because on the surface, a married person “gives a public appearance of being settled in life.” In actuality, I believe a single president would likely have more time and energy than a married one to devote to running the nation properly. This “married public official” voter preference was undoubtedly the conumdrum that Hill and Bill felt they had to wrestle with their entire lives in order to attempt to achieve their goals. Maybe one day, this voter mindset will change but I’m not so sure of it in my lifetime.
June 2, 2016 at 9:26 PM in reply to: OT: Does anyone have a list of local politicians that are endorsing Trump? #798241Participant[quote=harvey]I said before it’s over.[/quote]Yeah, by the 11th hour, “party unity” will eventually win over any trailing Repubs who haven’t yet “fell in line to support the nominee.” (I’m actually agreeing with Harvey on something, here!)
Harvey, do you think it will be “over” by the end of the RNC (7/21) or will it be on November 9?
June 2, 2016 at 6:09 PM in reply to: OT: Does anyone have a list of local politicians that are endorsing Trump? #798230Participant[quote=utcsox]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016Here is the national list include some of the best and brightest Republicans office holders: Paul Ryan, Nikki Haley, Greg Abbott, Scott Walker and much more.
[/quote]Thanks for this link, utcsox! Very interesting!Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]BG, so many contractions in your post…
Why do people expect Hillary to divorce?
If my wife were having extra marital sex, I probably wouldn’t care. Maybe there comes a time, I don’t want sex with her anymore. So what? We could be business partners and if the business is prosperous, then why dissolve it?
The marriage is the foundation on which to build. If that connection is useful, then why not keep it?
BTW, people who have gone trough a lot should be admired, not hated.
Contrast Princess Di to Hillary. Di was a needy, insecure woman and people loved her. Hillary is smart, intelligent and resourceful; and people hate her.[/quote]
My “brethren” and I no longer “expect” the Clintons will divorce. I mean, hello? Hill and Bill are pushing 69 and 70 years old, respectively. Why bother at this point?We FULLY EXPECTED her to dump him in 2001, after he left office. ESPecially if she had future political aspirations! THAT’s the very latest date she should have left Bill and had she done so then she would not have the baggage her opponent is currently using against her on the national airwaves.
It’s not Bill’s “infidelity,” per se, that’s making her look today like the chump she is. That’s all on HIM. It’s the fact that she denied the Lewinsky “affair” as long as she could until she could no more (in effort to “protect” Bill, who was POTUS at the time) and then stood by him during his “impeachment” process (for lying about his activities with Monica).
It’s also the fact, that, as the First Lady of AR for 12 years (with two more years in between stints as Governor), she put up with Bill’s numerous affairs (one lasting ~4 years) and hung by his side even though she would have been more than justified to dump him as early as 1981. If the things Trump is saying are true (haven’t investigated them myself) and Hill actually threatened some or all of these women in the name of protecting Bill’s “reputation” (the Governor at the time), then my opinion of her would plunge to the lowest of low ratings.
Yes, I am judging her because she has supported Wild Bill’s storied “career” serving in the highest elected posts in the land for 20 years, she was then elected and served as a Senator of NY for 8 years and then served as US Sec of State for 4 years (a POTUS appointed cabinet position). Including her First Lady gigs, that equals 32 years that Hill has either served in high public office herself or closely supported someone else who did. She always had political aspirations for herself and we all know that all is fair in love and politics. Had Bill and Hill (yes, they’re a pkg deal) never occupied the AR State Capitol or the White House and lived in relative obscurity, then it wouldn’t matter to anyone what kind of arrangements they had/have in place in order to put on a facade of presenting a “happy marriage” in public. They could go along thru life as 50-75% of long-married couples do and live as roommates, vacation separately (or even live separately) and no one would be the wiser.
Yes, I DO believe that the reason they are still together today is because they feel that elements of their relationship are “useful” to each of them. And that is A-okay, perfectly legal and done every day, everywhere. But let’s all just call it the “sham arrangement” that it is and hope that if she gets elected, she doesn’t place Wild Bill in a position where he can muck up the works too badly . . . or worse, embarrass the sh!t out of her again because of his not-so-well-controlled addictions and proclivities. As POTUS, she’s not going to have the time or inclination to keep an eye on him. I guess she could get a trusted cabinet member or aide to do it, though. Bill well knows “the lay of the land” around Washington and there will always be a young female aide, intern or even beautiful Gen X staffer working in or visiting the White House or the Nation’s Capitol who would be star struck if charming Billy paid any attention to them at all :=0
ParticipantWhat I called a “chump lady” on the “Everything Hillary” thread, Trump calls an “enabler,” going so far as to implicate that she threatened some of Bill’s “other women” by personally having them tailed by PI’s, intimidated and in fear of losing their jobs. I haven’t personally looked into all that (except heard the recent, tearful Broadrick interview online) and don’t know if all of it is true … or not. But if any of it actually is, then Hillary was far more desperate to remain “Ms Bill Clinton” and “Arkansas’ First Lady” than I previously thought.
None of this has any bearing on her skills (or lack thereof) to occupy the position of POTUS but nonetheless it is beyond mind boggling why someone of her means, talent and stature would stay with a sex-addicted pervert of a spouse.
There is no cure for sex addiction (or porn addiction) and, in Bill’s defense, it’s perfectly legal to not be able to be monogamous.
Participant[quote=zk][quote=bearishgurl]My comments/opinion about Hillary are here:
http://piggington.com/ot_everything_hillary
[/quote]All of your opinions of Hillary (that I could find) on that thread relate to her relationship with her husband. That’s kind of what I’m talking about.[/quote]It matters to a lot of voters, ESPECially those in her particular demographic (or close to it) who actually paved the way for today’s women so they WOULDN’T find themselves having to be financially “dependent for life” on a man.
It was a hard-fought and hard-won battle that I don’t think a lot of millenial women appreciate today. The laws that came about to protect them (as well as Gen X women) in the workplace (and provide extended FML for maternity leave without losing their jobs) did not exist for a boomer woman before the early ’80’s and even then, her only remedy was an EEOC complaint (which would have gotten her summarily fired).
https://www.brandeis.edu/investigate/teenSH1/timeline.html
We had to often “go with the flow” and put up with a lot of touchy-feely crap at work at the hands of the PTB if we wanted/needed to keep our jobs.
I also want to add that I feel that neither HILL nor BILL are/were “victims” of one another. BOTH had (and have) their eyes wide open 100% of the time.
Participant[quote=zk][quote=livinincali]
It’s not a question. It’s a hypothetical that attempts attempts to influence you into thinking you’re sexist. It infers that if Hillary was a man her various transgressions would be ignored, or at least tolerated. [/quote]
You mean “implies,” but you’re wrong. I’m not implying that if she were a man her transgressions would be tolerated.
I’m asking if (and maybe implying that) the main reason that so many people hate her so much is that there’s a dissonance between what we want from a woman and what we get from Hillary.
Almost all politicians have committed transgressions that must be tolerated if we’re to vote for them. Hillary is no different in that respect. I’m saying that people hate her, not because of her transgressions, but because of something else, and that that something else is related to her being a woman. Is that different from saying that they would forgive those transgressions if she were a man? Yes. In a subtle but important way. If you ask those people why they hate Hillary, they won’t even mention Benghazi or emails. They’ll talk vaguely about her character or her personality. Maybe they already forgive those transgressions, but they still won’t vote for her because they hate her.
Where Hillary is different is the amount of seething hatred she garners from those who might not hate another politician who’d done the same things and held the same positions. And that’s what I’m trying to understand.[/quote]zk, you’ve made good points here. I didn’t vote for Hillary but I don’t hate her. She’s paid such a high (psychic and in every other form) price for where she is today and isn’t a good role model for women of all ages (and neither is her sidekick, Bill a good role model for men of all ages, for that matter). I just feel a little sorry for her.
I’m going to predict that Bernie will get the delegates for the Dem nomination over Hillary (and be nominated by hook or crook after a floor tussle at the DNC for any stray votes from superdelegates which haven’t yet defected from Hill’s camp by then). I gotta hand it to her campaign. Hill’s peeps are currently embroiled in a relentless, extremely heavy grass-roots campaign covering every corner of CA in several languages and every place in the middle and the result of their efforts is going to be very, very interesting in the coming week.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]with so many seniors running nowadays, is it not unlikely that someone could croak before nov.? nobody would write a life insurance policy on these fosSils. seems weird how only geriatrics can compete.[/quote]um, scaredy, certainly you must know that “Geriatrics” have a lot more experience, both in career and life, than younger candidates. Who do you suggest run for POTUS? Perhaps 35-year olds (the minimum age to run)?
Could you imagine a millenial US president?? I couldn’t :=0
Don’t knock it and just go with the flow …. and be sure to cast your vote! (No, “Vermin Supreme” isn’t running this cycle … sorry.) You’re headed in the “geriatric direction” along with the rest of us, scaredy.
ParticipantThis post is in response to the current convo in the “Reasons I cannot vote for Trump” thread:
As a nearly lifetime Dem (and local Dem activist for nearly ten years), I lost respect for Hillary after the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Of course, Bill had other “dalliances” long before that but he was not the POTUS at that time, nor was she the FLOTUS (in the public eye of the nation and not just in their parochial existence back in Arkansas, a culture of which I am highly familiar). If Hill has had any relationships outside of her marriage, she has managed to conduct them under the radar of public scrutiny.
Hill has turned into a longtime “chump” in my mind and her health has obviously suffered adversely from it (as well as from the pressure from her Sec of State position). She did it to herself.
And as an admitted lifetime feminist, I hold men (and women as well, incl myself) personally responsible for the choices they made in their adult lives. In my biz, I’ve repeatedly listened to men complain incessantly about how their marriages and/or relationships fell apart over the years (usually while in the throes of filing a divorce petition or answering one) and felt many of their complaints were valid (ie spouse abruptly quit working or failed to return to work after maternity leave was over, spouse charged up credit cards with discretionary purchases and left him with 4-5 figure bills, spouse couldn’t balance a checkbook/manage money, spouse couldn’t manage household, couldn’t manage kids (even if unemployed), spouse refused to apply for jobs or engage in job training, has refused to take care of herself for years (ie let herself go), spouse got pregnant after he told her he didn’t want any more kids, spouse not interested in sex, no sex for years/decade(s), blah, blah, blah. Every single time, I ask them, “Where were YOU when all this was going on? Did you ever look at your credit card statements every month? Did you ever confront her on the charges on your (joint-but-bad-idea) CC’s you’re complaining about here? Did you ever tell her you’re not getting enough attention? Did you ever consider having a vasectomy if you don’t want anymore children? Why have you hung out this long sleeping on a twin futon the study and hauling your a$$ off to work every morning (while she sleeps in) when you haven’t been happy for 10++ years? Do you think your current situation is good for your minor children living at home? What kind of message are you sending to them?” Etc. Even if the couple divorcing has grown kid(s) no longer residing with them, it’s the same sad saga which has become even more pronounced, often proportionate to the extreme length of time they have sat motionless and did nothing to improve their happiness levels.
Of course, married women seeking divorces or answering a divorce petition have legitimate complaints about their spouses as well (incidence[s] of domestic violence, spouse hasn’t been able to hold a job for any length of time, spouse has alcohol/substance abuse problem[s], spouse repeatedly arrested, spouse has longstanding porn addiction, spouse is a narcissist or a hoarder …. and on it goes). Since I’ve often been the front-line paper pusher for most of these “clients,” I’ve heard it all.
However, the profound difference I have found between women and their estranged spouse (in parties seeking dissolution) is that 90% of the time, the existence of complete or partial ongoing financial dependency on the spouse on the part of the women. THEY and ONLY THEY have allowed themselves to get into the situation they are now finding themselves in. Either consciously or unconsciously, they slipped into a role which rendered them unable to fully support themselves (or support themselves at all) throughout their lives.
And I don’t buy the excuse that divorce costs so much that it is worth giving up happiness for the rest of one’s life (which can be unexpectedly cut short, btw). Divorce can be expensive of the parties can’t agree on anything, but in CA, BOTH parents are viewed by the courts as equally financially responsible (by percentage of their respective incomes) for the support of their children and BOTH parties are expected to bring in income equivalent to a FT job they are qualified to do.
As you may surmise, I believe in no-fault divorce and divorce reform in states which still have “fault-based” divorce. I also feel the CA Legislature needs to reform the way child support is set as a percentage of each parent’s timeshare of the child(ren) because it invites the higher-earning spouse to litigate child custody (a VERY expensive proposition).
Back to the subject of Hillary, she has always been very well-educated and self-supporting, meeting Bill in her youth while students at Yale Law School, where they both graduated with JD’s and went on to become successful lawyers. This is all the more reason why it seems so far-fetched to her “brethren” that she would voluntarily reduce herself to a chump for the sole purpose of hitching a lifetime ride on Wild Bill’s coattails! This is the same sex addict who was a habitual predator to mostly working women in his “daily sphere” (yes, ALL were in my demographic except Broadrick, who is closer to Bill/Hill’s age). We boomer women are entirely cognizant that there weren’t any sexual harassment laws in place for US workplaces at that time. If a young woman had minor children to support and/or a “state capitol gig” was their first great job after graduating from college or business school, it was difficult for a working woman/possible single mom to mess that up by continually fighting off the advances of their boss (or an influential friend of their boss) … especially if he was a powerful public figure. I’m not making excuses for anyone here but it couldn’t have been easy in that part of the country for women to make a living wage at that time and it probably still isn’t easy today.
Obviously, Hill had political aspirations of her own from her 30’s forward and likely figured that she could better fulfill her goals in the political arena if she remained attached to Bill at the hip, even when publicly humiliated by his behavior. It’s disgusting to me why a woman of her stature would do that to herself and I am not alone. I believe she could have fulfilled many or most of her career and political goals without continuing to prostrate herself as Bill’s (chump) “other half.”
see: http://www.amazon.com/Chump-Lady-Survival-Guide-Infidelity/dp/149355400X
I found the above link on my “wish list” (cost $13-$15) but it looks like Amazon recently sold out of it and “used copies” are now over $150! I wonder why that is, folks? Perhaps it is an indication of the American “electorate” wanting to better understand the inner-workings of would-be Prez Hillary, the Chump Lady?? After all, some of the books I had saved which were written by Trump, as well as Trump family bios have gone up in price in the past few months so they must also currently be selling well … no?
For even more reviews, see: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22601740-the-chump-lady-survival-guide-to-infidelity
and: http://www.chumplady.com/
Hill has put women and family issues at front and center of her campaign. But women (especially those within the huge boomer cohort with long memories who are close to her age) are shaking their heads … incredulous that she has placed herself in a position to be repeatedly publicly humiliated by her sex-addict spouse when she had so many options in life! Now she finds herself (and her campaign) having to “take the heat” by necessity cuz they are unable to “stay out of the kitchen,” anymore. DUH! Of course, she had to have already known all this before embarking on her campaign for POTUS 2016!
I’m not suggesting that she should have divorced Bill while he was still in office. But she could have quietly done so soon after he left office and kept her dignity. No one would have judged her for that.
In Hill’s defense, she may not appear “likeable” to many people because she has gone thru a lot of sh!t in her personal life (again, her choice) and has developed into a steel magnolia because of it. And that’s okay. I don’t think she’s incompetent but I think the Sec of State position was clearly too much for her (physically, mentally and spiritually) and has affected her health adversely.
And, no, I’ve never been a “victim” of “infidelity.” I don’t even like that word because it is not illegal and it always takes two to tango in a relationship. Because a marriage is akin to a “business” under the law, there are no “victims” in a marriage unless one party has secretly gambled away the bulk of marital funds, spent the bulk of it on a drug/alcohol addiction or has (covertly) stolen it from joint accounts and put it into an account or “investment” that the other party doesn’t have access to. And the “victim” in this case is only a victim as long as they keep their head in the sand by not paying attention to what is going on in their financial lives.
I am of the belief that every adult needs to be responsible for their OWN actions and reactions, no matter what their “status” is. As non-PC as it my sound, Hill has, unwittingly or not, devolved into a laughingstock “chump lady” among her peers … women of my (her) generation (she’s several years older than I). Yes, there IS such a thing and 90% of the time, the phenomenon stems from financial insecurity on the part of the woman, plain and simple. In Hill’s case, it was her insatiable need to occupy an elected position of power and authority along with her (erroneous) belief that she needed Wild Bill at her side to successfully achieve those goals.
A lot of people vote for (or don’t vote for) a political candidate depending on how they “feel” about them as a person and I am no exception. I feel Hillary was a “sellout” to her generation of women when she could have set an example as a maverick among us with all her talent and connections WITHOUT Wild Bill by her side. Right now, he’s nothing but a liability to her.
The old stepford wife … “just-don’t-tell-me-about-it” model hasn’t “worked” since the 1950’s and it really didn’t work that well back then … given the amount of “shotgun marriages” which took place in that era , lol.
ParticipantMy comments/opinion about Hillary are here:
ParticipantMajor arrogance and bullying displayed here by flu …. and also a touch of OCD.
The biggest reason that prime borrowers took out Prime ARMs when they were common and available is primarily because they qualified for a particular loan amount based upon the index plus the margin (which were usually one in the same). Example from ~2000 to ~2003: 2.5% + 2.5% = 5%. This was 1.5 to 2.0 pts below the prevailing prime 30-yr fixed mortgage interest rate of 6.5% to 7% at the time.
Part of the reason ARMs are not used very much today is because both the prevailing 15-yr and 30-yr mortgage interest rate has been artificially kept low by the Fed and is thus right in line with (COFI) ARM index plus margin (3.11 to 3.61 on an older, aged mortgage) or lower than the (LIBOR and 1yr T-bill) index plus margin. The second reason is that, in the ensuing years (2003 to the present), ARM lenders have gotten greedy and increased their typical margin to 3% or more and also created annual payment backstops and automatic interest rate resets in their newer ARM programs, making them much less desirable to a prospective borrower than when they naturally flowed month to month with the index. The older “free-flowing” type of prime ARM programs have now gone by way of the dinosaur because lenders figured they couldn’t make enough money on them since the Fed got in the way of naturally flowing mortgage interest rates. And rightly so … they’ve been stuck with us holdouts for the last 8+ years and must adhere to their contracts (or the contracts they “acquired” when they bought the lending bank and folded its assets into themselves). Too bad, so sad for them … at least for now.
************************************************
See, once again, I actually contributed something to the forum without managing to hijack the thread by lobbing negative innuendos and hurling insults. Why don’t you consider taking a writing class so you will be able to express yourself more cogently around here, flu? Remedial Freshman English Composition (as well as “College for Kids”) is open this summer for a nominal fee at a CC near you!
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]The vast majority of people who sign up for coverage on the exchanges DO take a subsidy. Why would anyone go thru all those layers of BS just to have a healthplan if they weren’t going to get a subsidy?
[/quote]
Because they want and need insurance. And believe it or not, in some markets, there are very decent choices at identical rates as are available outside the exchange. I bought insurance on the exchange with no subsidy for almost a year. My wife purchased insurance on a different state exchange for almost 2 years with no subsidy. Neither of us ever had to enter any income data.
I did the same thing for my daughter on the CA exchange last year for the 3 months she was without insurance between school and her job starting. No income entered. And guess what? with her return she got a premium tax credit. It’s possible that just looking at her tax return, the state of California would have liked to push her into medi-cal, but they never got the chance. And they would have been wrong in doing so. But I never had to fight the fight.
Not everyone who purchases insurance through state and federal exchange receive subsidies.[/quote]Yes, SK, I have checked out your suggestion, above, with a CC enrolled agent-navigator who works out with me, which you made earlier to me on the election thread. If, God forbid, I am forced to continue my CC marketplace PPO into 2017, I am going to do exactly what you have suggested here during opening enrollment this fall. I will drop my request for a subsidy (I get a monthly healthcare allowance from my retirement assn and my subsidy is small, anyway). If I receive a premium tax credit in 2018 (and I should), then so be it. That will be great! This is far preferable than worrying about whether I actually have any coverage from week to week after having my monthly premiums taken out automatically the 1st of every month.
Here in SD, we don’t yet have “very decent choices at identical rates.” SD County (Region 19) is mostly sewed up with longtime Kaiser (HMO), Sharp (EPO) and Tricare (mostly HMO, some PPO) members, Most of the people I know who have HMO’s/regional EPOs (incl Anthem) like the “system” they are in and never take lengthy “road trips” like I do. Many of them stay in SD County and SoCal and just take staycations and day trips and so Sharp (in SD County only) works out fine for them because they were born here (or moved here as a young child 50-60 years ago) and have family here. However, I am out of state 4-8 weeks per year on the road (mostly visiting family) and need nationwide coverage.
I’d like to see the 6 PPO’s who defected from CA at the end of 2013 come back into SD County and offer competitive plans on the open market (above Bronze level). So far, that hasn’t happened.
If I could have qualified for Tricare for the rest of my life, I would have been on Tricare Standard (a PPO) and would not be having this discussion because I never would have signed up on the state exchange. Tricare Standard has a large network and nationwide coverage for whatever services I want to use (currently administered by UHP).
SK, your daughter’s situation was short term. Had she had to pay 100% of her premium long-term, it could have become cost-prohibitive for her, causing her to request a subsidy (and become inadvertent “prey” for trolling Medi-Cal workers to make “adjustments” to her reported income and bump her down to Medi-Cal behind her back). I understand when you say it would have be wrong to place her on Medi-Cal but she would have been on it a minimum of nine months had she been force-placed into it. Only a County Medi-Cal worker can “release” her from Medi-Cal. The truth is … CC and Medi-Cal don’t care if they made a mistake by bumping someone into Medi-Cal. The burden of proof is on the individual who was force-placed in Medi-Cal to appeal CDHS’ finding that they are “Medi-Cal eligible” or “Magi Medi-Cal eligible.” Your daughter (or any appellant) would have had to appeal the finding all the way to an administrative hearing, where, according to the CA agent/navigator blogs I’ve been reading, the ALJ is ruling nearly 100% on behalf of the appellants. It then typically takes Medi-Cal another 4+ months to adhere to the ALJ ruling and “release” the appellant from the “Medi-Cal vise grip” so they can buy some insurance (marketplace or otherwise). And that’s only with constant prodding by the appellant and/or their agent/navigator! This same appellant’s CC account could easily be hijacked subsequent times (after their ALJ win), causing them to be bumped into Medi-Cal again, with or without their knowledge. The incompetent bureaucrats who run Medi-Cal (and even the “pseudo gubment agency” that is CC) are essentially “immune” from all the egregious mistakes they make with people’s lives! It is disheartening that a lot of “middle class” people who, in good faith, signed up for marketplace plans with subsidies are essentially finding themselves constantly banging their heads against a brick wall to keep their rights from being trampled upon. Most people (esp the English-challenged) don’t have the knowledge or wherewithal to “fight the system” and that’s what CC/Medi-Cal count on to keep as many people OFF marketplace plans and ON the gubment dole, instead (with very, very few providers to choose from … IF ANY, in some locations). CC/MC doesn’t care about that little problem, either.
I’m happy to hear that your daughter landed a job with benefits quickly and I hope she is able to stay employed FT for the duration.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
SK, why don’t you leave “border crossing” and your other racist comments out of this discussion? The “border crossing” situation will either get fixed …. or it won’t, but we won’t know until after “We, the People” have spoken. They’re going to be speaking loud and clear in your border state (AZ) as well, so stay tuned.[/quote]LOL! it’s going to get fixed? With a wall? By a president with a rodent on his head?[/quote]Umm, it’s entirely possible that your peeps in AZ may decide that that’s what they want. Time will tell.
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/03/30/border-patrol-union-endorses-trump-president/
-
AuthorPosts
