It’s official – country to change name to Insurance-Industan

What it actually means:

You thought it would never happen, especially not after our pal Obama was elected! Beside no candy falling from the sky, we also now have, under the language of the healthcare bill expected to pass in the senate, created a consumer dictatorship in which the health insurance companies have first priority to our money. According to several news sources, the “encouraging” bill, which the president has called a victory for the country, mandates that everyone has to have private health insurance or pay a fine, with no option to get it from the government like seniors can. According to te New York Times on 19 Dec, the senate version carries the following penalty:

$95 a year per person in 2014; $350 in 2015; $750 or 2 percent of a household’s income, whichever is greater, in 2016 and beyond. No penalty if the cost of cheapest available plan exceeds 8 percent of household income.

Think of it as King Insurance Industry the Cruel, and the federal and state governments are now the sheriff of Nottingham, running around strangling taxes out of working people.

The same article as above indicates that your all’s friends the democrats in the House would have the poor -who’ll need to get subsidized as in (2) below -barred from abortion coverage under the pretense that the feds won’t subsidize elective abortion. This assures the middle that there’ll be plenty of poor and ignorant in the future to do the lifting.

I predicted this years ago. Soon we’ll have a situation in which you’ll be fined or jailed or beaten for not buying Starbucks and Budweiser every day or not having a receipt for it. We’re already spiritually forcing ourselves into a consumerist state of being, now all we need is the material obligation to buy -buying at gunpoint, imagine. In this report I won’t even get into how individual senators are about to get away with money to put in their pockets and reportedly into their states for lending their vote to the bill, but will stick to the physics of health insurance coverage.

They’re already doing this coverage-or-fine system in Massachusetts, and guess what? Lots of people are paying the fine, because it’s cheaper than insurance. Duh! And it’s not just individuals, but small business owners as well. Now imagine how much money the government will be able to make by fining the fifty million people who don’t do the insurance thing now $100 a year to remain barred from getting affordable health care, money which they’ll use to escalate invasions of other countries. Hell, screw fixing the budget deficit, this windfall could be the dealmaker on invading Venezuela by 2014.

Anyhow, here’s the core of this report, a set of simple flow charts, with the arrow being your money, describing our options under the new bill.

1. You get health insurance:

You—-> Insurance company

2. You can’t afford to get health insurance, so you apply for financial help from the man under this new bill:

You—> Government (taxes)—–> You (aid)—–> Insurance company

3. You don’t get health insurance, and the proposed eye in the sky finds out and fines you:

You—> Government —-> Insurance companies (see help for people in 2.)

According to analysts on KUSP yesterday, the bill as it stands now was definitely written by lobbyists. All this won’t even come into effect, excepting the taxation that has to happen to pay for it, for approximately four years, so the next president will take the flak for what Obama did while you were all sleeping, just like usual, just like before you all elected Obama in your fit of religious elation. Too bad you didn’t have the foresight to elect non-asshole representatives.

But all is not lost. For one, we don’t know how the government will find out whether or not you’re insured. We do still have this thing called the fourth amendment. Perhaps insurance companies will offer a McDonald’s-scale plan with all the new business.

For another, the bill evidently makes it illegal to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Now they have no choice but to charge you thousands a month to cover your diabetes so they don’t lose any money, and you now have no choice but to bend over and pay it and be thankful, damn you, that now it’s illegal for them not to extend you the privilege.

What we can rely on, however, is that the poor will be blackmailed with this new law, since the poor have to show more paperwork than the rest of us. The government, under precedents existent today, can:

1. Make proof of insurance a necessity in getting food aid

2.Make proof of insurance a necessity in getting a driver’s license (hi kids!)

3. Make proof of insurance a necessity in getting a passport (hi tourists and students!)

4. Make proof of insurance a necessity in applying for financial aid or even to post-secondary schools

5. Make proof of application for insurance a necessity in getting a work visa (should take care of the immigration problem)

Anyone who can think of something even nastier gets a prize.

But what do you care? You’re sitting in front of a computer reading a blog and trying to find a decent recipe for capuccino, you’re not poor. But you may become deeper in middle-class consumer debt if you can’t get a job because the health insurance costs are killing all the nice little local businesses that constitute your community.

Now, as you all know from my other posts, I may talk nasty, but all of this is the straight truth and I’m putting it out here to help you. We have to plan how to undermine this law, and otherwise how to be able to work it into our expenses until it can be fixed. Don’t take my word for all this, look it up:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/19/us/politics/1119-plan-comparison.html

http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf

Can I raise some questions? Does it matter to anyone that this started as an attempt to get health care for all in an organized, public fashion? And do we really need the president’s top-priority domestic policy to be a show of business’ dominance? I though we already knew that business was in charge. And how does the bill handle  homelessness? The last time I looked at the bill at any length it was the really long earlier house version, but I’d love to hear from anyone who has more details than I do who can sharpen the picture.

Happy holidays, schmucks!

ac

Advertisements

“Camping” and other laws

Anyone’s wondering what I’ll be writing about next, here’s some real vagrancy laws from Santa Cruz, California, which I  had a hell of a time finding but eventually got from the municipal code at http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz. Since “vagrancy” law is too easy to fight (due to being bullshit) in the city councils, I had to be told by a lawyer that now it’s called “camping,” then I found all of it. Italics, etc. are my marks. Have fun.

___________________________________

6.36.010 CAMPING PROHIBITED.

No person shall camp anywhere in the city of Santa Cruz, whether on public or private property, except as hereinafter expressly permitted. “To camp” means to do any of the following:

(a)    Sleeping – 11 p.m. to 8:30 a.m. To sleep at any time between the hours of 11 p.m. to 8:30 a.m. in any of the following places:

(1)    Outdoors with or without bedding, tent, hammock or other similar protection or equipment;

(2)    In, on or under any structure not intended for human occupancy, whether with or without bedding, tent, hammock or other similar protection or equipment;

(3)    In, on or under any parked vehicle, including an automobile, bus, truck, camper, trailer or recreational vehicle.

(b)    Setting-up Bedding – 11 p.m. to 8:30 a.m. To establish or maintain outdoors or in, on or under any structure not intended for human occupancy, at any time between the hours of 11 p.m. to 8:30 a.m., a temporary or permanent place for sleeping, by setting up any bedding, sleeping bag, blanket, mattress, tent, hammock or other sleeping equipment in such a manner as to be immediately usable for sleeping purposes.

(c)    Setting-up Campsite – Anytime. To establish or maintain outdoors or in, on, or under any structure not intended for human occupancy, at any time during the day or night, a temporary or permanent place for cooking or sleeping, by setting up any bedding, sleeping bag, blanket, mattress, tent, hammock or other sleeping equipment or by setting up any cooking equipment, with the intent to remain in that location overnight.

(Ord. 99-01 § 1, 1999: Ord. 78-29, § 2, 1978). -this is called “intent to cover” or “intent to protect” oneself -ac.

6.36.020 CAMPING PERMITTED.

Camping may be permitted in the city of Santa Cruz only under the following circumstances:

(a)    Camping in public areas specifically set aside and clearly marked for public camping purposes;

(b)    Camping events authorized and permitted by the Santa Cruz City parks and recreation department;

(c)    Camping events authorized by the city council pursuant to Section 6.36.030;

(d)    Camping:

(i)    In the yard of a residence with the consent of the owner or occupant of the residence, where the camping is in the rear yard, or in an area of a side yard or front yard that is separated from view from the street by a fence, hedge or other obstruction; or       <– it’s illegal for a kid to camp on his or her folks’ front lawn -ac.

(ii)    Inside of a licensed and registered motor vehicle in the parking lot on the site of a religious institution with the written consent of such institution, where the driver/occupant of such vehicle is in possession of a valid driver’s license, provided that no more than three vehicles shall be permitted at any one location; or

(iii)    Inside of a licensed and registered motor vehicle in the parking lot on the site of a business institution in a non-residential district with the written consent of both the business institution and property owner, where the driver/occupant of such vehicle is in possession of a valid driver’s license, provided that no more than two vehicles shall be permitted at any one location;

(iv)    Inside a licensed and registered vehicle in a residential off-street driveway with the written consent of the owner and occupant of the residence, where the driver/occupant of such vehicle is in possession of a valid driver’s license, provided that no more than one vehicle shall be permitted at any one location. No particular location shall be used for camping under this provision for more than three days during any one calendar month.

Camping shall not be permitted under this subsection where it is conducted in such a manner as to create noise, inadequate sanitation, or other matters offensive to persons of ordinary sensibility; nor where the camping is of such frequency, intensity or duration as to constitute a use of land prohibited by any provision of Title 24 of this code; nor where the camping activity would be prohibited under any other provision of this code concerning use of mobilehomes; nor where any fee, charge or other monetary consideration is collected for the privilege of camping or for any services or the use of any facilities related thereto; nor where the covenants, conditions and restrictions of a duly organized homeowners association would prohibit the activity in the residential area subject to the covenants, conditions and restrictions.

(Ord. 2002-12 § 1, 2002: Ord. 2002-05 § 1, 2002: Ord. 99-01 § 2, 1999: Ord. 95-22, § 1, 1995: Ord. 78-29, § 2, 1978).

6.36.030 PERMIT FOR CAMPING IN CITY PARKS.

(a) The director of parks and recreation may issue a permit authorizing persons or groups to camp in the improved areas of Harvey West Park, the improved area known as lower De Laveaga Park adjacent to Branciforte Drive and San Lorenzo Park bench lands upon finding that the applicant has met the city’s requirements for:

(1)    Parking and traffic control;

(2)    Toilet and other sanitary facilities;

(3)    Security;

(4)    Liability insurance;

(5)    Garbage collection and cleanup;

(6)    Security and cleanup deposits;

(7)    Such other public health, safety and general welfare matters as may be raised by the camping application; and

(8)    Environmental compliance according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the city’s CEQA Guidelines.

(b)    Except as set forth in subsection (c) no person or group may camp in a city park under authority of this section for more than three nights in any twelve months. No permit shall be required for security guards who camp in city parks incident to a lawful event.

(c)    Where the camping activity is taking place in conjunction with an authorized and permitted restoration or conservation project being performed by campers at or near the campsite, the director of parks and recreation may permit an individual or group to camp in one of the afore-referenced city parks for a period of time in excess of that prescribed in subsection (b).

(d)    To ensure the fair and consistent application of this section, the director of parks and recreation shall promulgate regulations defining the criteria for permit issuance contained in this section.

(Ord. 2002-05 § 2, 2002: Ord. 89-33 § 1, 1989).

6.36.040 PENALTY – SINGLE OFFENSE.

Any person who violates any section in this chapter is guilty of an infraction and shall be subject to a fine of not more than twenty dollars. Alternatively any person who violates any section in this chapter, in lieu of a fine may, if that person so requests, be required to provide no more than eight hours of community service.

(Ord. 99-01 § 3, 1999: Ord. 79-41 § 1, 1979).

6.36.050 PENALTY – SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS.

Any person who violates any section in this chapter, other than subsections (a) and (b) of Section 6.36.010, and is cited for such violation, and who within twenty-four hours after receiving such citation again violates the same section, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(Ord. 99-01 § 4, 1999: Ord. 79-41 § l, 1979).

6.36.055 CITATIONS ISSUED WHEN WINTER SHELTER ARMORY IS FULL.

Any citation issued for a violation of this chapter shall be dismissed by the city attorney in the interest of justice if, at the time of citation issuance, the winter shelter at the Santa Cruz National Guard Armory is filled to capacity.

(Ord. 99-01 § 5, 1999).

6.36.060 PUBLIC NUISANCE DECLARED.

Any campsite established in the city in violation of this chapter is declared to be a public nuisance, and the chief of police, after consultation with appropriate city officials and upon a determination that such a campsite constitutes an immediate threat to the health, safety or welfare of persons in the city, including persons using the campsite, is authorized and empowered to remove any such campsite forthwith. If persons are occupying the campsite at the time, then before removing the campsite, the chief of police, or the officer designated by the chief, shall warn the person or persons occupying the campsite that they are in violation of this chapter and shall give them the opportunity to remove the campsite forthwith.

(Ord. 94-11 § 1, 1994).

And for all you hacky-sack playing miscreants (i know, that’s so 1996), you’ll get it too.

(e)    Notwithstanding subsection (d), individual bubble street performers and individual jugglers who otherwise comply with all applicable statutes and ordinances are authorized to blow bubbles and juggle in the C-C, C-N, C-B, CBD and R-T zoning districts. When in the judgment of the director of parks and recreation or the police chief, or their respective designees, said bubble-blowing or juggling activity will materially interfere with pedestrian use of the sidewalk or attract crowds which will create such interference, the city may require a bubble street performer or juggler to obtain a noncommercial event permit from the city as a condition to continuing or undertaking a bubble or juggling performance. This subsection shall not be construed to authorize hackysack activity in the referenced zone districts.