How have you benefited directly from Obama's Presidency?

[head of joaquin]

Which point? Just stating the reality.

The point being that a lot of adult children do have pre-existing conditions. Obamacare deals with that. Conservatives have no answer except borrow from your rich millionaire parents.

 

[Fisher]

The point being that a lot of adult children do have pre-existing conditions. Obamacare deals with that. Conservatives have no answer except borrow from your rich millionaire parents.

Actually it is more like "Get a job". I have never had an issue with pre-existing conditions coverage or no caps on benefits. It is the mandate. I have said it many times. I would have been better with even a nationalized single payer system than have the mandate to contract with 3rd parties who are for-profits. That will be used as a justification for all kinds of non-sense by both parties down the line.

 

[head of joaquin]

Actually it is more like "Get a job". I have never had an issue with pre-existing conditions coverage or no caps on benefits. It is the mandate. I have said it many times. I would have been better with even a nationalized single payer system than have the mandate to contract with 3rd parties who are for-profits. That will be used as a justification for all kinds of non-sense by both parties down the line.

Thanks for making my point -- the conservative solution is to deny the problem. It's all conservatives can do, since it's intellectually bankrupt.

 

[Fisher]

Thanks for making my point -- the conservative solution is to deny the problem. It's all conservatives can do, since it's intellectually bankrupt.

Well now that the government will have a vested interest in all out healthcare remember this day as the day you agreed to allow them to take your Big Gulps away That is what will be coming next, so smoke 'em if you got 'em because those will be illegal too in 20 years.

 

[Jarhead]

You are absolutely wrong about No. 1, and probably wrong on No. 2 as McCain said that he would not strike inside of Pakistan.

No Sir, you are wrong in this. You also failed to answer me in another thread on this very question. The bail-out was for the UAW, not GM or anyother car maker. The UAW got an ultra sweet deal out of this Government Controlled Bankruptcy that in the end will cause GM to really go under.

We would have eventually gotten Bin Laden no matter who was sitting in the Oval Office, you Progressives can think otherwise but the truth is the truth.

 

[head of joaquin]

Well now that the government will have a vested interest in all out healthcare remember this day as the day you agreed to allow them to take your Big Gulps away That is what will be coming next, so smoke 'em if you got 'em because those will be illegal too in 20 years.

I think investing in the health of young people is both a responsibility of society and a benefit in the long run, since a healthy citizenry is more productive.

But I know conservatives want sick, poor, ignorant workers who don't ask questions.

 

[head of joaquin]

No Sir, you are wrong in this. You also failed to answer me in another thread on this very question. The bail-out was for the UAW, not GM or anyother car maker. The UAW got an ultra sweet deal out of this Government Controlled Bankruptcy that in the end will cause GM to really go under.

.

Good, workers should get a good deal since they are working people and the more money they have the better for all of us.

We would have eventually gotten Bin Laden no matter who was sitting in the Oval Office, you Progressives can think otherwise but the truth is the truth

Using Bush time, that would be about 30,000 years.

 

[Fisher]

I think investing in the health of young people is both a responsibility of society and a benefit in the long run, since a healthy citizenry is more productive.

But I know conservatives want sick, poor, ignorant workers who don't ask questions.

Or perhaps they feel that investing in society is the responsibility of young people. It is a two way street. Something is going to have to be cut and revenues are going to have to be raised. States are going to have to do more of the heavy-lifting on the social programs. Democrats prefer Washington to do it because either their power is stronger there or they do not trust states, either way, it is a reality that we are spending way too much on stuff even if it is worthwhile. A person pays their own bills before they choose to give to others, why cannot the same principle apply to government? There is endless need but there isn't endless revenue.

 

[Jarhead]

I completely support several very important provisions in Obamacare. I'm glad he got it passed. While I'm not happy with the way he got it passed? Maybe ramming it down Congress' throat was the only way it was ever going to get done. I think it's going to need tweaking; think it's going to cost a whole lot more than we think; but, end result? It's time had come.

The important provisions I support include the change that insurance companies can no longer exclude people on the basis of pre-existing conditions. That premiums must be level for everyone within an age group. So, if someone's had three heart attacks (example), and is 65 years old, he can't be charged any more than someone who is 65 and perfectly healthy.

People who have had employer-provided health insurance all of their lives have no idea what it's like to purchase individual policies. Who purchases individual policies? The entrepreneurs among us. Job creators. There are probably millions of people who would leave Corporate America and start their own businesses were it not for their uninsurability. Well, no more.

That is a very good thing for our economy. Not only will those "would-be entrepreneurs" leave Corporate America and leave a few million available jobs in their wake, they'll be starting their own businesses and working towards providing jobs for other Americans as well.

I knew the individual mandate would be found constitutional one way or another. I'm not sure the penalty is steep enough. I know it's going to cost a veritable fortune; but it had to happen. And Obama got it done.

Insurance companies are in business to make money. For the Federal Government to make a private company charge rates the way the Government wants them to is, in my opinion, unconstitutional. While I understand the sentiment of you and others, the business of the Federal Government is not to take care of people from cradle to grave. Eventually this Law (Obamacare) will be struck down. There may be some good things in it, but the Federal Government telling a Privately Owned Company who and how they have to insure people to me just seems unconstitutional.

 

[Cephus]

Not one bit.

 

[head of joaquin]

Or perhaps they feel that investing in society is the responsibility of young people. It is a two way street. Something is going to have to be cut and revenues are going to have to be raised. States are going to have to do more of the heavy-lifting on the social programs. Democrats prefer Washington to do it because either their power is stronger there or they do not trust states, either way, it is a reality that we are spending way too much on stuff even if it is worthwhile. A person pays their own bills before they choose to give to others, why cannot the same principle apply to government? There is endless need but there isn't endless revenue.

Oh I get it, the meme that young people are lazy and don't work as hard as you did.

Boring.

Meanwhile, our for profit medical insurance system is broken, for young and old alike, and Obamacare fixes some of its more egregious problems. Working harder isn't the solution

 

[tres borrachos]

The point being that a lot of adult children do have pre-existing conditions. Obamacare deals with that. Conservatives have no answer except borrow from your rich millionaire parents.

I have a son who was born with a "condition". Never at any time were we denied insurance through my husband's job changes because of it.

 

[head of joaquin]

Insurance companies are in business to make money. For the Federal Government to make a private company charge rates the way the Government wants them to is, in my opinion, unconstitutional. While I understand the sentiment of you and others, the business of the Federal Government is not to take care of people from cradle to grave. Eventually this Law (Obamacare) will be struck down. There may be some good things in it, but the Federal Government telling a Privately Owned Company who and how they have to insure people to me just seems unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. You lose. That's how the Constitution works.

 

[head of joaquin]

I have a son who was born with a "condition". Never at any time were we denied insurance through my husband's job changes because of it.

Well, if you were lucky, that means there isn't a problem for anybody else.

Jesus.

 

[Fisher]

Oh I get it, the meme that young people are lazy and don't work as hard as you did.

Boring.

Meanwhile, our for profit medical insurance system is broken, for young and old alike, and Obamacare fixes some of its more egregious problems. Working harder isn't the solution

Then there is no point discussing it further if you think young people should be able to sit on their arse and be entitled to other people's money. Guess what happens when everybody sits on their arse? Nobody pays the taxes to give you your healthcare or your welfare or anything else. We will be equally broke. How very practical.

 

[tres borrachos]

Well, if you were lucky, that means there isn't a problem for anybody else.

Jesus.

How many people do you know were denied healthcare insurance through their employer because of a "pre-existing condition"?

 

[Jarhead]

Good, workers should get a good deal since they are working people and the more money they have the better for all of us.
Using Bush time, that would be about 30,000 years.

I am always amazed at the mind of the Progressive. While I agree that workers should get a good deal, and I understand that working in a factory is a tough grind, I also believe that if a privately owned business makes bad decisions or allows its "workers" to push them into a corner, they should suffer the consequenses. Same for those "workers" who push too far and eventually cause the business they work for to go over a cliff.

The unions want no responsibility for the problems at GM, and the Democratic Party had to do something to ensure their support in future election cycles. I am always hearing about the "Bush Cronies", even now, four years since he was in office, how about the Democratic Cronies? The UAW and other large unions?

Unions have lost their luster. There are so many workplace laws now that protect workers and yes, unions had a very large part in making that happen, but they are obsolete now. Unions, especially the UAW, are a part of the problem now, not the solution.

 

[winston53660]

How many people do you know were denied healthcare insurance through their employer because of a "pre-existing condition"?

FAQs About Portability Of Health Coverage And HIPAA


Thank goodness for government involvement in health care

 

[Jarhead]

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. You lose. That's how the Constitution works.

For now you are correct, but we shall see.................

 

[head of joaquin]

Then there is no point discussing it further if you think young people should be able to sit on their arse and be entitled to other people's money. Guess what happens when everybody sits on their arse? Nobody pays the taxes to give you your healthcare or your welfare or anything else. We will be equally broke. How very practical.

Pssst: the idea that young people are sitting on their arses is pretty silly. Is that all you got? Whatever you do don't let facts dissuade you from your discredited memes.

 

[head of joaquin]

For now you are correct, but we shall see.................

Don't hold your breath.

 

[tres borrachos]

FAQs About Portability Of Health Coverage And HIPAA


Thank goodness for government involvement in health care

HIPAA was from 1996.

 

[a351]

Another factually challenged joko post....

In fact food inflation has been very low, averaging about 1.5%. Household energy inflation has been all but nonexistent at less than 0.2% per year. Gasoline is obviously a different story, but it was grossly deflated in '09 as a result of the recession.

Strange isn't it? So many insist that food prices and energy in general have absolutely skyrocketed in the past few years despite no indications of the sort. The product of slurping up the rantings of certain doom and gloom salesmen masquerading as experts.

 

[Helix]

I started reading pubmed and the NIH site sites when I got diagnosed with a fairly grim congenital heart defect and started learning about all the wonderful things these federally funded programs have supported and continue to support. Best of luck to you in your research millions I hope benefit from it.

i hope so, too.

i have also benefited directly from this kind of research. a pubmed search led me to try a supplemental treatment for my digestive disorder, and this treatment has helped.

 

[head of joaquin]

Another factually challenged joko post....

In fact food inflation has been very low, averaging about 1.5%. Household energy inflation has been all but nonexistent at less than 0.2% per year. Gasoline is obviously a different story, but it was grossly deflated in '09 as a result of the recession.

More evidence that conservatives post from a mystical "fact-free zone". It's all they got.