Opinion: Supreme Court decision a good deal for U.S. furs
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Many laws have little practical impact on furry fans one way or another. But this is one we should pay attention to, because it applies especially to us.
Young people are often lucky enough to have few medical expenses. But when they do occur, they can be crippling for those whose finances do not permit the purchase of insurance – in particular, vulnerable low-income artists who are forced to work several jobs just to stay afloat.
The Act expands health care via Medicaid as of 2014 to those who earn up to 33% above the poverty level – just under $15,000 this year – and offers generous subsidies for those who earn up to 400% of it. There's a laundry list of other benefits; most notably, the ability for young adults to stay on insurance until they turn 26, which covers around 70% of adult furs.
The cost of the act falls mostly to singles earning above $200,000 a year, and families above $250,000. Few furs make that kind of money; indeed, as of 2005, only the top 1.5% of households made above $250,000.
As a bonus, insurance companies now cannot raise their rates without having to explain themselves. They'll also have to pay above 80% of premiums on medical care, or issue a rebate – limiting the level of profit they can make, and forcing them to become more efficient. Other changes have been made to limit future increases in the cost of health care, with the goal of keeping the cost to taxpayers low.
Those who pay for insurance through their jobs will benefit from many of the provisions, including no denial due to pre-existing conditions, and free preventative health checks in new plans. Most of all, their less well-off friends will suffer less financially as a result of medical hardship.
The only question now is whether these benefits will be kept. As Mitt Romney put it, you have a clear choice: to vote his competitor into a second term, or to see these changes overturned in 2013. I urge those of you who can to register and vote in the upcoming state and federal elections.
Counterpoint: Health care law threatens U.S. furs - Editorial: For the love of Flayrah; please keep it furry!
About the authorGreenReaper (Laurence Parry) — read stories — contact (login required)
a developer, editor and Kai Norn from London, United Kingdom, interested in wikis and computers
Small fuzzy creature who likes cheese & carrots. Founder of WikiFur, lead admin of Inkbunny, and Editor-in-Chief of Flayrah.
I have long prized Flayrah's non-political atmosphere. If politics are allowed, I'll be forced (as a dedicated Libertarian) to rehash the whole miserable debate here. This will benefit no one, end friendships, and is sure to degenerate into name-calling and all the other politics-related misery that Americans have come to know so well in recent years. Therefore, I'm firmly requesting that this article be removed and Flayrah return to its politics-free state before it's ruined.
Besides, the topic has _nothing_ to do with "furry".
You may rate this piece, or comment – though nobody is holding a gun to your head. I see no reason to remove it. Most publications of significance include a certain amount of political opinion content, and many endorse specific candidates after considering how their policy positions may affect the interests of their readership.
This year I feel there is a particular reason why they might want to be involved; I've seen enough furry charitable fundraisers for U.S. fans made destitute through medical bills to seek a more permanent solution. I also believe our demographics means we are particularly likely to benefit as a group if this Act is preserved, and lose if it is repealed.
More generally, voting is important, not enough young people do it, and furry fandom is full of them. As a legal alien, I cannot vote in the U.S. elections myself (despite seven years of paying taxes), but I see no reason not to encourage others to do so.
Given the Libertarian Party's stated support of freedom of speech and the press, I am a little surprised that you'd prefer censorship.
This isn't about censorship-- it's about good taste, IMO.
"I also believe our demographics means we are particularly likely to benefit as a group if this Act is preserved, and lose if it is repealed."
What about furs in the medical field? They could be affected harshly by this bill. Plus, trample the furs with a rights with a tight budget with this tax that is implied to those who couldn't afford it.
"Given the Libertarian Party's stated support of freedom of speech and the press, I am a little surprised that you'd prefer censorship."
He is a Libertarian that was looking for just furry news. A safe haven from political news, because one can get tired from dealing with political news elsewhere. This news really doesn't give both sides of the story. Just promotes all the pluses none of the possible minuses.
It is possible that some medical professionals will be disadvantaged by elements of the Act. In some cases, they will not be able to charge quite as much as they had in the past. However, some reimbursements will actually increase, and it is likely that they will appreciate the increased reason for people to regularly attend to their health. I also doubt they enjoy having to turn people away due to lack of medical coverage. The American Medical Association approved the Act as passed by Congress.
This absolutely is not a neutral piece which discusses all pros and cons of the legislation. That is why I was clear to mark it as opinion. I do not think anyone should make a decision based solely upon it; they should read a variety of sources to form their own opinion. I do think it is an issue that U.S. furry fans would do well to consider when they vote - more importantly, it may provide a reason for them to vote at all, one way or another.
I second it just a case of liberal politics. All media serves as a platform.
To make two quick point first the plan fails to contain cost and second there the pesky thing about mandatory issuance or pay the Tax.
This bill has passed by a partisan congress in 2009. This bill does not reduce premium prices and put our economy in more danger from the debt. I have heard about Hospitals in other countries with social medicine and long weight times. We currently have a doctor shortage and will get worse as it implemented as it goes along. Please give Mitt Romney with the next HoR and Senate to repeal it. They know what you like and still keep it in. While not adding to the National Deficit. Whether your Democrats or Republicans please don't limit your sources of news. Please research all sources before elections or national deficit and long doctor waiting times could be the least of our worries. One final note, this is not really furry at all in this story.
I am a free citizen first and a furry third or forth. This law does so much damage to my country's Constitution and therefore to my freedom that I can't possibly support it, or even obey if it's fully implemented. It saddens me that many people think only of getting "free" stuff by taking it from someone else.
If you don't want to turn this site into another front in the political wars, then this article (and for that matter this reply) doesn't belong here.
Ah, well, there's the problem - as a non-citizen, I must put furries first. I also come from the UK (edit: but as said below, have lived and worked in the U.S. since 2005), where universal health care has been the status quo for sixty years.
The law has been judged constitutionally valid, although not in the way that the current administration had hoped. If you feel such taxes are inappropriate, a constitutional amendment may be the best means of redress.
Almost all taxes are redistributive to some extent - presumably one reason why those opposed to redistribution feel so strongly about any taxes. As a taxpayer who supports the goal of universal health care, I am more concerned whether the money spent is being used effectively for that purpose. As a practical matter, U.S. medical facilities already provide significant health care to those who do not pay for it - it is just not given in a timely manner, but only in emergency situations, ultimately costing us in higher premiums.
I do not see such pieces being common on Flayrah, if only because there are relatively few political issues likely to appeal to furries as a group. But we shall see!
As a non-citizen, it would be in good taste for you to not talk about this at all. If you put furries first, talk about furry and animal stuff first.
I live in the U.S. and I pay taxes and insurance premiums. The law affects me as much as it does anyone else here; perhaps more, since as a worker over 25 I am unlikely to benefit from many of the provisions I have highlighted.
Gonna have to one vote this, I mean, one certainly would have their opinion on this legislation, but and it's going to impact everyone. I as someone who does political commentary a lot and this I can see this is a bit of a stretch trying to put a round topic in a square hole. Saying it impacts furries is simply trying to put the fandom name on an article you had wished to publish.
It's kind of like six degrees to Kevin Bacon. If you say, "well this could effect furries because it effects those within our age demographic" then is it fandom tailored or simply coincidental that we fall within the demographic that will be impacted.
Then all articles that involve the young adult would become news on Flayrah. Like the Supreme Court deciding what the founding father conceived what the constitution was for, in my opinion I don't think this is what the founders of flayrah had in mind. That interpretation could be flawed, but it's just how I see it.
I enjoyed reading this article, and I think it pertains to the Fandom in some way since, like the author said, most furries are young adults and artists with a limited income and who would benefit from this bill. Yes, there are still a great number of furries who do not fall into these two categories, but I say if the article pertains to the majority of the Fandom, which in this case it does, then it is worth posting within a furry-related-news website. Also, it's nice to see some politics here and there, for the Fandom actually has more to do with politics than most furries think. Plus, this article should help to inform some readers who may have been otherwise ignorant of this bill. Well done. :3
I agree that this law could affect many Furry artists, since I believe that most of them are young and self-employed. Each fan is free to decide what aspects of Furry-related news interests him or her, but I disagree that this has nothing to do with the Furry community.
The problem is, the furry community consist of human beings, the natural evolution of this is that we'd suddenly be providing human stories if we use this logic no matter how carefully one would craft furries into the story.
Then we become just another new site running the same things everyone else is.
A story may be of interest to all humans, yet some aspects may be particularly of interest to furries and worth pointing out to them. One good example is 9/11:
Another that comes to mind is the UK's position on animal research involving human tissue and non-human primates.
Oh, you did not just bring up 9/11, motherfucker!
I did just remember it is the fourth, so I guess that has some bearing? Maybe? Just nod your head. Though I can't wait for our foreign readers to log in and go off on us for being too America-centric. Rakuen Growlithe is gonna shit!
Also, I think the UK story is kind of especially appropriate to Flayrah since probably some readers out there think that story is about the possibility of "real" furries.
It had nothing to do with the day - it is merely the most obvious case where Flayrah's submitters posted stories on a topic of interest to all, focusing on the elements of interest to furries (specifically, the location/safety of fans, the use of rescue animals and the impact on convention travel).
Yeah, it would have been a good example, and I get what you were doing, but bringing up 9/11 on the Internet is like bringing up Nazis on the Internet; not a good idea, even when it is a good idea.
See, I just said "Nazis," and even though it was a good example, I said "Nazis" first, so you won the argument.
You know, come to think of it, Fred keeps mentioning Nazis . . . though he's not the only one.
(In fact, mentioning Nazis does get us more traffic, but they don't stick around. Probably for the best.)
Well, anyone want to take bets on which discussion gets uglier; the discussion about whether we should even be having the discussion, or the discussion of the issue itself?
I can't even be assed to remember what GR was talking about, myself, but shit, guys. Lay off the fucking "IF YOU DON'T LIKE AMERICA, WHY DON'T YOU LEAVE IT?" b.s. Fourth's over; you're making the token hick slightly nauseous.
We're watching something that will go down in furry history; Green Reaper puts his foot in his mouth, and you were there! Guy's already got egg on his face; no need to fight dirty.
Well, the Nazis did do talking-dog research. (Hitler ordered the Wehrmacht to look into claims of talking dog research and training to see if it would make dogs more effective battlefield couriers. The Wehrmacht reported that it wouldn't.)
I think this is a red herring my Green one
I know you can do better that this.
The arguments whether this is or is not a fit topic for Flayrah reminds me of the comments on Equestria Daily about whether My Little Pony is anthropomorphic or not, and should be eligible for a Furry award or not. NO IT ISN'T! YES IT IS! NO IT ISN'T! YES IT IS!
Well what is it that politicans always say to excuse their bad decisions: "After 9/11, everything changed."
Perhaps this should too.
Flayrah is much larger now then it is then, it runs a lot more content so it doesn't need real world fluff to kill the dead time.
I'm sorry, but I have to express a degree of distaste on this. Whether you're for or against obamacare (and I have a feeling some of the opinions regarding this post would be different had SCOTUS made a different decision) many of us simply do not want to read political editorials on Flayrah. There's a whole wide internet for that. We come here for furry news. Lots of things indirectly have an impact on the furry community and don't get coverage; and that's fine. That's what the forums are for. As I understand it this site was intended to educate and inform people on news directly involving the fandom. Unless there is a specific furry-claus in the bill or the government is mandating we get insurance for our fursonas, I'm not interested in reading about it here. We can already see the negative effect that this is having on the readers, and I think we would all be happy with simply leaving the political editorializing to the talking heads and self-righteous bloggers on both political ends.
On one hand, this shit is stupid, and both you and Rabbit should be really ashamed of yourselves.
On the other hand, automatic five star, because I'm in a real "fuck our readers' opinion" mood right now. And also the whole knee jerk five star to downvoted stories thing.
If it's any consolation, I enjoy your reviews :)
See, this guy got an automatic five star.
And Sonious doesn't think pandering to reviewers effects how we rate things.
What can I say? You hit the right balance of thoughtful analysis and snark. I appreciate that.
I enjoy your reviews too.
Speaking of which, uh, I just realized I need to reply to an email of yours; I think. Unless I, uh, got mixed up with my Internet avatars, in that case, I need to email someone else.
Though you already got five stars, so you don't need to pander.
This article is horrifying. This is a furry news site, and this is a very inappropriate place to post this. Its disgusting that you post your personal opinion as if it represents all furries, and then argue that it actually does represent us in the comments (notice from replies to this alone, there are plenty of furries that strongly disagree with you and this bill). Lastly, I think its pitiful that you weigh in, and then close by urging your viewers to vote for your choice candidate, when YOURE NOT EVEN A F*CKING CITIZEN. I'm not one to deny your right to an opinion (although I would not consider it a valid one since you're hardly in an objective position to understand both sides), but you should not be trying to influence citizens of another country to vote on bills that you are not affected by and you do not pay for.
"Lastly, I think its pitiful that you weigh in, and then close by urging your viewers to vote for your choice candidate, when YOURE NOT EVEN A F*CKING CITIZEN."
Seriously, WTF is with that? This is none of GR's business. I'm sick of people from other countries trying to nudge us in the "right" direction when it comes to US policy. It's not effecting them, so why should they care? It's even more insult to injury when they're lecturing to the people who will be negatively effected by this law. How about you get off your high horse, come over here, and try running a business with this law looming over your head.
While this situation does directly affect me, as explained below, the choice of U.S. policy - and leader - would matter regardless. Many of my friends were and are U.S. citizens, and I care about government policies which affect them.
Moreover, such policies often impact other countries. The USA, like other nations, recognizes this and has done much to influence other countries - occasionally to the extent of invading them and replacing their governments. Is it a surprise that the citizens of those countries might have some concern over who has their finger on the trigger?
The irony is that in this case, the leader is someone I could probably relate to, if he weren't married to the current Republican party. Romney seems like an intelligent man who has been forced into denouncing a solution very similar to the one he once supported.
So you are a US citizen? Okay, sorry about that.
Still, this post was incredibly off topic and sounds more like you're campaigning for your candidate than inviting a rational discussion. It would be appreciated if you would express your political opinions on a site suited for such instead of this one.
No. I am a legal alien who lives and works in the USA. I pay the same taxes and insurance premiums as any citizen, and am affected by U.S. policies, with the caveat that I'm unlikely to benefit from many of the provisions in this law (a skilled job in my trade pays far more than the poverty line; without one, I'd have to leave by law).
As to why I've been here for seven years without being able to get permanent residence, let alone citizenship - well, that is another political matter, the need for immigration reform. It is certainly not for lack of trying! :-)
I am not saying that I represent all furries. I am saying that I believe the majority of furries stand to benefit from the Act's provisions, and that for that reason, we should support it as a group. (I know, many Flayrah readers are older than 25, but we are not representative of the fandom as a whole.)
I have lived in the U.S. for seven years, and I pay my taxes - over $15,000 to the feds last year, or $20,000 including state, SSI and Medicare. I also pay my medical premiums, while never having had to claim on them. I'm not poor, but I have many friends who are, and I care enough about them to hope that they benefit from this law.
Oh, this crapsack of a law. This law isn't going to help anyone, least of all people who are looking for a job. Medical benefits won't do you much good if you can't earn an income with all the businesses (both big and small) freezing hiring and firing people, or putting them to part time. Like it or not, not all businesses, especially small businesses, can afford to give health care to every one of their employees no matter how much they want to. If they did they would go out or business or have to fire a bunch of people just to break even. What idiot would think that another tax (yes, it is a tax) on businesses would help the economy? The government is full of people who have no idea how business and the market actually work. None whatsoever.
If you had gone without throwing in your recommended vote at the end, you could win the argument that this is in good taste, but it is not the case.
It is also worth noting that this bill actually puts the most financial burden on the young adults in this country. Since insurance now limits the costs to the elderly to only 3x that of the young and healthy, although their health issues tend to cost 6x as much, that extra cost that they are exempted from paying is being passed on to the young. It also forces young people who are healthy and might otherwise have CHOSEN to opt out of health insurance that they didn't want or need to buy something that they don't want to afford.
I'm not sure how the last part makes a difference. One side has vowed to destroy the Act. Another enacted it. It is obvious what I think people should do, and this post is indeed a call for them to do so. I am not arguing that it is in "good taste", but then I do not agree that political matters are in "bad taste". They have simply not been submitted to Flayrah.
A link to the part you are talking regarding elderly costs would be appreciated. (I suspect many elderly folk cannot afford either 3x or 6x, and the system as a whole would end up paying anyway, but I could be wrong.)
Part of the goal is indeed to ensure that young adults obtain health insurance. The current situation is analogous to saying that you should be able not to pay for the police or fire brigade. When this actually becomes an option, and their houses burn down, people are not happy. In the same way, many people are unhappy when their kidneys burn down. Unfortunately, doctors cannot just turn them away and let them die in the same way; the law requires that they be treated. By then, though, they often can't pay, so we have to, in the form of increased premiums. As for those who truly cannot afford it, that is what the subsidies are for.
This has absolutely nothing to do with being a fan of anthropomorphic animal characters. If I want political news and opinion, I have plenty of other places I can go for it. Can we please keep this a site for actual furry content (which often involves enough in the way of flamewars on its own)?
2-star for off topic.
not 1-star because I had read too many reviews on Flayrah and appreciate a change of scenery :p
It's the largest tax in US history, going to raise the cost of all healthcare in this country, going to make a large number of workers lose coverage when their companies decide it will be cheaper to pay the fine rather than pay the insurance, and it will adversely affect those of middle to lower incomes. But hey, at least they removed that whole part where you could go to jail if you didn't have insurance and didn't want to pay the fine... I wonder what other little gems we'll find in the thousands of pages of that massive bill that nobody read before voting on and which we had to put into law before finding out what was in it.
Yeah... color me skeptical on this being good news for furs.
I have to side with those that don't want this or Rabbit's article. Flayrah should be about furry and furry-related news. To me that is anything that directly impacts the fandom or is of specific interest to member's of the fandom because of their involvement in the fandom, so stories about animals.
Unlike Crossaffliction thinks, I'm not caring that they are American stories but that they are irrelevant to the site. Just because something similar has been done in the past (9/11 stories) doesn't mean it should have been done then. It was big news but irrelevant except where it impacted the fandom, like one title mentioned difficulties travelling to furcons afterwards. There are other big stories that we don't cover such as Fukushima (although [Adjective][Species] did an article on the Japanese fandom) and the discovery of the Higgs Boson that are even more global than American health policies.
There is no shortage of places for political news if someone wants that but let's keep Flayrah furry. Also we shouldn't forget that furry is a global fandom and politics is usually a local issue.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Furries: haven't got the balls, sense or decency to tell Crusader Cat and Lupine Assassin to fuck off; get worked up over a (foreign) country's politics instead.
This is completely off-topic for this site. Focus, people, focus.
GR has already made it clear in other comments that this is on topic.
Rabbit has made it clear that stories from the left will be met with stories from the right.
Do you have a better suggestion for a news site, Peter, because I just lost mine.
Well, not gonna read here anymore if we're going to have this extremely off-topic stuff clogging it. I read this site for FURRY/ANIMAL news, not political commentary. I can get that elsewhere in many, many places, whereas there are very few sites that cater to the furry/anthro crowd. I know the loss of one person, especially someone preferring not to register, is incredibly minor, but just wanted to add to the number of people expressing disapproval with this.
GreenReaper and Rabbit, if you want to write about politics, do it on your blogs, not here.
The Anons are leaving!
I know some of these anons, and they elected to not use their real names to log in.
Right now, I'm thinking about a compromise, where I can simply block stories from both GreenReaper and Rabbit until they get this little cockfight over with.
After reading 51 comments, I still think that this is on-topic for Flayrah because GreenReaper has made a well-reasoned case for how it may affect a large number of Furry fans who are (1) 25 or under, and (2) do not have or cannot afford medical insurance without the Affordable Care Act. This political shit bores me, too, but just because I am uninterested in a post or find its topic distasteful does not make it totally unsuited to a Furry news group.
According to that logic, any American political news affects even more furs so would be even more relevant.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
I'm sorry you feel that way. With all due respect, I do a lot of business/commission work under my artist/furry name, and knowing how furries react to drama, I would just as soon not attach my name to political disputes. I'd prefer to keep my business and personal opinions separate. If you think that somehow devalues my opinion, then that's rather unfortunate, but isn't going to change how I feel.
With all due respect, GR, I'm going to go on record saying that in my opinion both threads should be removed. After a day I can already see how divisive the issues themselves are, causing tempers to flare between individuals who are otherwise friends or potential friends. Viewers and contributors alike are talking about cutting back their viewership of the site if this sort of thing becomes the norm. I'm in agreement with those who say that neither Obamacare nor 'Fast and Furious' have any significant relationship to furry fandom and don't belong on a furry newsfeed website.
Your opinion is noted. The posts will not be removed; doing so because of pressure due to negative reader response would set an extremely bad precedent. What next would they deem not suitable for Flayrah? The rating system is provided for readers to express their opinion, and has a concrete effect on the visibility of stories on the front page.
I have never claimed that such pieces would become "the norm"; the reason they were not posted before is that they were not submitted before, and I have no reason to believe this is likely to change.
eh, I say leave them up but note it for the future that such posts don't really sit well with many readers on this site.
Wow, are you late to the party! You act like GreenReaper's never used Flayrah/WikiFur to promote non-Furry things he found "interesting" before. You act like GreenReaper's actually going to listen to you when you say this isn't Furry-related and belong here.
Plenty of other people who've complained about this very issue in the past eventually realized nothing's going to change in GreenReaper's personal fiefdom and decided to move on. It's up to you to figure out how much time you want to waste trying to do the same.
You know, I have a article in the pipeline that actually emphasis surprise that you didn't show up. Just so you know, I'm not too surprised you did this time. Surprised you weren't here sooner.
Everybody is saying "Screw you guys, I'm going home." But we can always count on our single most loyal reader!
Happy to help! I knew I could always count on Flayrah's dwindling readership to shoot the messenger instead of trying to fix the real problem.
Post new comment