# Obamacare Kicking In (And The People Like It So Far!!)



## DaGoose (Sep 21, 2011)

Survey: Significant drop in uninsured young adults



> The number of young adults without health insurance has dropped significantly, a new survey finds, thanks to a provision of President Barack Obama's health care law allowing them to stay on their parents' plans.
> 
> The new Gallup poll findings translate to about 1 million more young adults with health insurance.





> .....coverage for young adults has proven to be a popular and relatively low-cost benefit that families were eager to sign up for in these days of prolonged school-to-work transitions.



.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 21, 2011)

What young punk wouldn't like to get something for nothing?

You might as well say :

*Survey Shows People Like To Get Free Shit*


----------



## Conservative (Sep 21, 2011)

dagoose said:


> survey: Significant drop in uninsured young adults
> 
> 
> 
> ...



link??


----------



## DaGoose (Sep 21, 2011)

Conservative said:


> dagoose said:
> 
> 
> > survey: Significant drop in uninsured young adults
> ...



Oh shit.....sorry!!

http://news.yahoo.com/survey-significant-drop-uninsured-young-adults-070307877.html

.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> Survey: Significant drop in uninsured young adults
> 
> 
> 
> ...



DaGoose.....

I know you are smarter than that.
Lets be real here.......2 provisions kicked in FIRST....

Children under 26 years of age get to be on their parents plan FREE OF CHARGE
Pre Existing conditions are no longer acceptable reasons for denial

Gee...ya think anyone is going to say..."wow, those two provisions suck ass"

Do you think it was an accident for those two to kick in first and the "negative" provisions slated to kick in AFTER the 2012 election?


----------



## Conservative (Sep 21, 2011)

thread title...


> Obamacare Kicking In (And The People Like It So Far!!)




from the linked article...


> Public opinion remains divided about Obama's health care overhaul




Thread title is severely misleading.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

Conservative said:


> thread title...
> 
> 
> > Obamacare Kicking In (And The People Like It So Far!!)
> ...



How about this...

Do you like the fact that your children get to be on your policy free of charge until they are 26 years old?......

Answer:

Yes.

Do you like the fact that you can not be denied insurance due to pre existing conditions?

Answer:

Yes

So based on those two provisions ....sure it is preferred by all...

But soon the questions will be...

Do you mind that your premiums have gone up by 20%?

Do you mind being told by the government that you MUST spend your hard earned money on purchasing something you may never actually need?

Do you mind that the deficit is affected to thre tune of about 500 mrillion dollars even though you were promised that it was deficit neutral?

Do you mind having to switch your doctors becuase your insurance company can no longer afford to work with your existing doctors?

I bet the responses wont be as favorable.


----------



## whitehall (Sep 21, 2011)

That's great ain't it. Adults a few years short of 30 can depend on mommy and daddy for health insurance. What happens when they grow up?


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

whitehall said:


> That's great ain't it. Adults a few years short of 30 can depend on mommy and daddy for health insurance. What happens when they grow up?



the law will say they must buy something they very well may not be able to afford...nor may never need.

My 24 year old son ius back on our policy....but in the meantime, he has never made a claim on his original policy...other than for his annuals.....but that should never be part of insurance anyway....for insurance ius INSURANCE.....for the unexpected....

Instead, my son was paying $4000 a year to cover his $300 annual visit.


----------



## Claudette (Sep 21, 2011)

Wait till the rest of Obamacare kicks in. 

Wait till those with insurance see what its going to cost them to cover all those without. 

Wonder if Goosey will be so high on Obamacare then.


----------



## blastoff (Sep 21, 2011)

Did they allow the parents to apply for ObamaCare waivers like a lot of companies and unions have done?  Costs were gonna be so ball busting they were allowed to delay the pain for a while.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

Claudette said:


> Wait till the rest of Obamacare kicks in.
> 
> Wait till those with insurance see what its going to cost them to cover all those without.
> 
> Wonder if Goosey will be so high on Obamacare then.



Just shows you the respect the democrats have for the American People...

1) They push through a bill that is by no means viewed favorably by the majority of American People...and are forced to use an unconventional means...one that has been used before but NEVER for a bill of this magnitude and with such low favorable ratings

2) They march through the plaza celebrating with an oversized gavel in front of thousands of Americans begging that the law not be passed

3) They implement the most favorable provisions first...holding off on the rest that was deemed UNFAVORABLE until after the 2012 election.

Amazing that there are people that support such unethical behavior.

Hey lefties...what is it like to support people that veiw you as naive and irrelevant?


----------



## DaGoose (Sep 21, 2011)

Claudette said:


> Wait till the rest of Obamacare kicks in.
> 
> Wait till those with insurance see what its going to cost them to cover all those without.
> 
> Wonder if Goosey will be so high on Obamacare then.



Guess what? WE'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR THOSE W/O HEALTH CARE. 

If someone who can afford HC chooses not to buy a policy goes to the ER the hospital is REQUIRED to treat them. And what happens? They can sue to get back a little of the costs *but you and I will have to pay the rest of his or her bill*.

By requiring one to purchase HC coverage he or she will have to the personal responsibility (remember those words?) to shoulder their fair share of the costs.

What do you have against requiring personal responsibility? I thought conservatives believed in that.

.


----------



## Zona (Sep 21, 2011)

Skull Pilot said:


> What young punk wouldn't like to get something for nothing?
> 
> You might as well say :
> 
> *Survey Shows People Like To Get Free Shit*



So as a 22 year old college student and you are barely making it financially, you should not take advantage of getting medical insurance on your parents plan....man up and stop getting "free" shit you socialist loving commie.

You sir are an idiot.  An idiot or a hack.  Your choice.


----------



## Claudette (Sep 21, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Wait till the rest of Obamacare kicks in.
> ...




You will need to show me in the Constitution where the Govt can require me to buy anything. 

I'll wait.


----------



## Zona (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > That's great ain't it. Adults a few years short of 30 can depend on mommy and daddy for health insurance. What happens when they grow up?
> ...



your "kid" can get on your tricare now until he is 26.  Its a 500 buy in and then its a little over 100 a month.  That aint to bad and you can thank Obama for this.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

Zona said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



yes....but I also know what it will do to my premiums come a year down the road.

When someone offers me $500 today but I have to return $5000 2 years from now, I am inclined to not want to thank him.

But thanks for your input.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Wait till the rest of Obamacare kicks in.
> ...



yes...you and I will have to pay the rest of the bill.

We have been doing that for years...and I am fine with it as it is designed to help those that can NOT afford healthcare insurance and you will always have some people gaming the game...sort of like welfare...most NEED IT and prefer not to be on it...but we will not stop the system becuase of the few that dont need to be on it but take it anyway.

Why do you refer to the few that game the insurance game (with the ER) but when you talk about welfare you only refer to those that need it and not those that game the game?

Keep consistant goose...you are too good to play the Truthmatters hypocrisy game.


----------



## The Infidel (Sep 21, 2011)

whitehall said:


> That's great ain't it. Adults a few years short of 30 can depend on mommy and daddy for health insurance. What happens when they grow up?



Exactly!!!



We are raising a generation of pussies!


----------



## Sallow (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > thread title...
> ...



Premiums were going up regardless..and at a much faster rate. Additionally this whole deal is a big boon to HMOs who actually like the mandate but hate the inability to kick people for pre-existing conditions.

And the Deficit Neutral thing actually because a deficit negative after 10 or so years when the savings kick in.


----------



## DaGoose (Sep 21, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > That's great ain't it. Adults a few years short of 30 can depend on mommy and daddy for health insurance. What happens when they grow up?
> ...



And you should know. You're too much of a pussy to debate me in public so you chose to "neg" me for my OP in private instead. And for what? Just because I started a thread that you diagreed with? Well you can KMA pussy.

.


----------



## The Infidel (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



There is one thing left out here... we can absorb the cost of AMERICANS. As it stands and will be with Obamacare.... Illegals will be taken care of.
Get rid the criminal aliens and we can easily take care of OUR OWN CITIZENS!

But you are spot on Jarhead


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



lets address this AFTER the rest kicks in.
To debate it now is nothing more than 2 guys saying what they think, not what they know.
Agreed?


----------



## DaGoose (Sep 21, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



Perry seems to be taking care of the illegals just fine though. Right pussy?

.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Did I miss something?
Perry is President?
Perry voted for Obamacare?

Not often I see the starter of a thread divert from the topic itself.


----------



## The Infidel (Sep 21, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



You stupid ass.... here is what I said in private "any 26 yr old on mommies insurance is a FUCKING PUSSY"

How does that differ with what I said in "public"?


----------



## The Infidel (Sep 21, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> Perry seems to be taking care of the illegals just fine though. Right pussy?
> 
> .



Hmm... when did we start talking about Perry?

Besides, do some research... I have said it "publicly" here that I dont like his attitude on criminal aliens.

So again,


----------



## AmericanFirst (Sep 21, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Wait till the rest of Obamacare kicks in.
> ...


Obviously your thinking is screwed up just like all the other socialists. It is totally unconstitutional for the gov't. to mandate you buy a product or service. That is unless you are a libtard socialist like obamaturd, reid, pelosi and the other dimwits.


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 21, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Wait till the rest of Obamacare kicks in.
> ...



Uhhh.. forced participation is not personal responsibility... what fucking drug ingesting universe are you living in??


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



hey...my kid had his own insurance when he was 22....but when the law was passed what were we supposed to do? Stand on ceremonies and make him keep on paying 4000 a year or have him not renew his policy and put him back on mine for free?

He is not a pussy.....we are smart people...if my tax dollars are going to pay for a law....even if I disagree with the law, I may as well capitalize on it....if it is going to cost me, I want to save from it as much as it allows.

But my son is by no means a pussy. The kid started working at the age of 14...he knew how to bank up sheetrock SOLO by the age of 16...and he can take apart and put together any combustible engine....given the time to do so.


----------



## DaGoose (Sep 21, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



On your knees pussy.


----------



## DaGoose (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



Infidels being a real dick today. More than usual anyway. 

.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Sep 21, 2011)

Claudette said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...


You will have to keep waiting, it is not in there. Unless the dimwits rewrite it like they would like.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Sep 21, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...


You are wrong about this just like obamaturd has been wrong about everything, especialy healthcare. Grow up socialist.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Sep 21, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


Only pussies support obamaturd and his policies.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > That's great ain't it. Adults a few years short of 30 can depend on mommy and daddy for health insurance. What happens when they grow up?
> ...



Your post sort of contradicts itself. First you say that people are forced to buy something that they "may never need" but then you go on to point out that insurance is there to cover you for the unexpected. 

So isn't that the point? People should have insurance because you never know. No one is immune to accidents, heart attacks, strokes, cancer, etc...and if you don't have the insurance when unexpected illness/accidents hit, you are in a world of hurt (physically and financially). 

Yeah, this law require people to buy in to a shitty system dominated by private insurance companies, but it's the system we are stuck with.


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 21, 2011)

It like some of you forget how much insurance was raising before the health care was done.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 21, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> Survey: Significant drop in uninsured young adults
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually a vast majority of the bill is well liked by the general population when they are asked about each part one by one. Outside of the mandate which I still believe to be  faux-outrage anyway, there is very little that people dislike about the bill when looking at it line by line. It's FAR from perfect but there are alot of good things in the bill that many people really do like and support.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



it was contradictory...yes....

But my point is my point......

I mean...lets look at it this way...

Do you think there should be a law that everyone who lives within 100 miles of the coast should buy hurrican insurance?

Everyone who lives in tornado alley should buy tornado insurance?

How about this...anyone who lives within 30 miles of a lake, a stream, a river or the ocean should have to, by law, buy flood insurance?

Anyone who lives within 200 miles of a fault line should be forced to buy earthquake insurance?

You know, by the time we are done, we will be spending 75% of our income on insurance....which is something mpost of us will actually NEVER USE.


----------



## Liberty (Sep 21, 2011)

the government can kiss my ass i am not buying insurance unless I can afford it.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 21, 2011)

Zona said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > What young punk wouldn't like to get something for nothing?
> ...



OOH I think I struck a nerve.

Why don't you man up as you say and pay your own fucking way after all at 22 you are supposed to be an adult and not still sucking mommy's tit.


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 21, 2011)

U.S. Health Premiums Outstrip Income Gains: Chart of the Day - Bloomberg


U.S. health-insurance costs are rising more quickly than the ability of U.S. families to pay and the gap is widening, according to the Commonwealth Fund. 

The CHART OF THE DAY shows that private-insurance premiums for families rose three times faster than median household income over six years, the New York-based non-profit fund said in a report. Deductibles, the amount that policy holders have to pay before insurance coverage kicks in, rose almost five times faster, the fund said. 

&#8220;Families are being priced out of the market,&#8221; said Cathy Schoen, an economist with the fund, in an interview. &#8220;The consequences are less adequate insurance coverage, costlier insurance coverage, higher rates of no coverage and growing stress on the family.&#8221;


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



I hear what you're saying. And I don't like the system we have. Insurance is way to intertwined in to our lives. However, too many people were not getting adequate care because of that system. Unless we had radical change to the system we needed to figure out a way to at least make sure everyone was able to gain access to the shit system we have decided to keep.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 21, 2011)

Liberty said:


> the government can kiss my ass i am not buying insurance unless I can afford it.



So do you not have health insurance now?


----------



## DaGoose (Sep 21, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> U.S. Health Premiums Outstrip Income Gains: Chart of the Day - Bloomberg
> 
> 
> U.S. health-insurance costs are rising more quickly than the ability of U.S. families to pay and the gap is widening, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
> ...



But as the Neo-Cons would reply, "Tough shit".

.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 21, 2011)

Re constitutionality: the only penalty for not buying health insurance is a tax. Congress obviously does have the power to lay and collect taxes.

Re popularity of the AMA: as noted above, most features of the AMA taken individually are quite popular. Also, I remember as the vote was going on in Congress and Republicans were arguing it was unpopular, an invalid mingling of poll numbers was used to show this. Basically, the number of people who disliked the AMA because it was _not liberal enough_ (no public option, no single-payer) was lumped together with those who disliked it because it was too liberal or because they disapproved of health-care reform in itself. The percentage of people who wanted the ACA _or something more liberal_ was a clear majority.

My personal opinion is that the ACA sucks ass -- compared to the health care systems in every other advanced democracy on the planet. On the other hand, it looks pretty good compared to what went before it. I wish we had gotten a single-payer system or at least a public option, but hey, we didn't. This will do until we can fix it.

A single payer system would be wildly popular. How do I know? Because Medicare is wildly popular and that's a single-payer system, just one restricted to old people. The best and simplest way to reform our health-care system would have been to expand Medicare into a universal health-insurance system, and use the resulting bargaining power to lower the prices of medical procedures and pharmaceuticals.

My big complaint against the ACA is that it didn't do that, and my big complaint against Obama is that he didn't even try to do that. Single-payer should have been the starting position. We wouldn't have gotten it, most likely, but bargaining down from the idea would have put is in a better position than we are now.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Thats where we most definitely disagree.

The way the system was as it pertained to those who could not afford insurance was working fine.
The ER was adequate....they got the care they needed...and yes, the tax payer had to foot the bulk of the bill....but I was OK with that.
Contrary to the rhetoric, no one was denied care in the ER due to lack of insurance...no one died.....yes, there was that one poor sould who died due to begligence of the RN who ignored her...but that was human error....not due to lack of insurance.

As for pre existing conditions...that is another story. That was actually created by the greed of the public. Some could afford insurance but did not buy it until they needed it....gaming the game in other words...so what were the insurance companies supposed to do?

And the fix for that?

If you have a pre existing condition, you are not to be denied if you can prove that you had existing insurance when you were diagnosed with the condition.

For those that cant afford insurance but come down with a serious ailment? You must prove you can not afford insurance and the tax payer will pay for your care.

Yes, it may prove to be costly....but there is no mandate to buy something by the government.

As for me....I am not all wrapped up in the cost to the tax payer....I am a conservative...I am wrapped up in the government telling me that I must buy something...even though I will buy it anyway. It is the principle of it......and it can open some really ugly doors as well.


----------



## DaGoose (Sep 21, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > the government can kiss my ass i am not buying insurance unless I can afford it.
> ...



Many people don't even if they can afford it. They can simply get their treatment and let the rest of us pay for it. But most conservatives don't even bat an eye about that.

.


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 21, 2011)

Any complaint of premiums going up is to ignore what the problem etailed BEFORE the recent changes


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty said:
> ...




Likewise...many people dont need to be on welfare and/or unemployment....they simply collect their check and are happy not working

But most liberals dont even bat an eye about that.


----------



## DaGoose (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



In other words, "I am willing to pay for $50,000 worth of medical treatment for someone but damn if I'll pay for $50 worth of food stamps so they can feed their kids".

.


----------



## DaGoose (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Tell that to the 200 people standing in line for 25 minimum wage jbs.

.


----------



## CaféAuLait (Sep 21, 2011)

Zona said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



If I may ask where are you getting your numbers? 


I was quoted 278 a month for our daughter ( yes TriCare, yes college, no pre-existing conditions or health issues). What you have just said is a lot lower than what I was told for our daughter. Any information you have would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



dont be an ass.

I am 100% for welfare and made that statement many times on here.
Despite the fact that some are gaming the game.

Just as I am 100% for the tax payer paying for the ER...even though some are gaming that game as well.

they are both systems that are working for the better of the people despite the fact that there is a small minority in both systems that game the game.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



get off it goose...

Those 200 people are why I support the system. I dont let the 5 people that abuse the system give me reason to dispute the system.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 21, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> Survey: Significant drop in uninsured young adults
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you're 32, a miserable failure, still living at home with Mommy, and you get extended healthcare benefits. My aren't you blessed.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > Survey: Significant drop in uninsured young adults
> ...



he may be all of that...

but ya gotta love his avatar.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



You're right we do disagree. The system was anything but "working fine". The system was forcing more and more people out every year. Every year more and more people were declaring bankruptcy because of medical bills, and a majority of those HAD insurance. So the system was FAR from working fine. It needed a dramatic overhaul. This legislation didn't go far enough but it did address some of the issues that people faced. I just wished it addressed more.

And the ER was far from an adequate solution for those without insurance. The ER is there to stabilize, not treat. How many people do know get their chemotherapy at the ER? On top of that, getting your care through the ER is one of the most costly ways of going about it. That cost which can't be picked up by the millions of people who don't have insurance is passed on to the rest of us through increased premiums. So yeah, we definitely will have to disagree on just how well the "solution" of using the ER as a catch-all solution for the uninsured was working.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 21, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



I guessed he was 30-something, still in Mommy's basement. He's 26? Hell, he's eligible to grow a set and enlist. We have seven or eight wars going on he can help win for Obama.


----------



## Claudette (Sep 21, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Wait till the rest of Obamacare kicks in.
> ...



Your right about us having to pay. 

But then we have no choice in the matter. 

The Clowns in our Govt have decided that those of us that have need to take care of those that don't have not matter the reason. May work for you but it doesn't for me. 

Believe me. If I had my way not one dime of my money would go to take care of anyone. 

I do believe in personal responsibility which is why I take care of me and mine. Always have and always will.


----------



## Claudette (Sep 21, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...




Don't hold your breath for that one W.

Its fun to talk about war. Not so much fun to actually fight in one.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 21, 2011)

Claudette said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



And that's what separates people like you from people with compassion and the understanding of what it's like to live in a society.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



yeah....

well....

uh.....

......You are ugly and a stupid head.


----------



## California Girl (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > Survey: Significant drop in uninsured young adults
> ...



It's impressive, isn't it... just how damned gullible some Americans can be.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

Claudette said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



I must believe you think like I do......I dont need governemnt to make me pay.....for I will gladly do it on my own.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

California Girl said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



our politicians play us as fools...

And sadly, many of us fall for it.


----------



## Claudette (Sep 21, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



Excuse me if I don't agree. 

If someone comes to me and ASKS me for a contribution for someone then I would be the first to step up to the plate. 

If I CHOOSE to give my money to a charity then its my choice. 

When I choose to give its because I chose to give not because some Clown in Govt decides that I should support every freeloader in America. 

Sorry if thats not how your world rolls but its definetly how mine does.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



Yeah, you would but unfortunately we can't rely on solutions that "hope" people will donate to charity. You can see peoples greed on full display in this thread alone. People only care about themselves, which is why we need some sort of system that ensures people get the care they need.


----------



## Claudette (Sep 21, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...




Well RD there must be plenty of likeminded folks around. 

Start your own charity. 

Whip out your wallets and checkbooks and take care of business. 

By all means put YOUR money out there  and kindly leave the rest of us out of it.

Hell. If asked I would probably donate.


----------



## Claudette (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...




Bingo.


----------



## Iridescence (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > thread title...
> ...


*
Do you mind that in your tirade of blasphemies criticizing something potentially productive for more than the average American you have misspelled some of the most basic words possible?*


----------



## grunt11b (Sep 21, 2011)

Conservative said:


> dagoose said:
> 
> 
> > survey: Significant drop in uninsured young adults
> ...



 None of it's kicked in yet, he just likes stirring shit up. It wont kick in until after the 2012 elections are over, you dont honestly think obama would put himself and his failed policy out there before 2012 do you? 
 People will however realize it when it kicks in because there will be alot more people being layed off and everyone elses insurance premiums will sky rocket until they can no longer afford their own insurance. That's how you will know when it kicks in.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

1melissa3 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



yes...they are typical typos as I am not an accomplished typist. I tuype pretty much wioth about 4 fingers total.

You know.....there are many things in this world that could prove to be potentially productive for more than the average American...but not in the overall best interest of the long term good for America.

For example....we could simply freeze all bank accounts of every American with deposits totalling over 500K (including investment portfolios) and take half from each account and ration it out to the poor.

Would I be wrong to offer my thoughts on such a law if such a law were to be proposed?


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

Claudette said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



just as I thought..

Yet for some reason. liberals say that THEY are the ones that beliueve in human nature and beliueve in the good of all people.

So if this were true, then why do liberals believe that the government must take our money and give to the needy for us?

You know...I spent days down in the pit after the building toppled...at no pay...no prompting.....and no credit...I did it as it was my responsibility as an American.....

yet the government ASKS FOR and gets credit for the wonderful job FEMA did in regard to hurrican Irene. We had administration speopkespeople ranting and raving at what a great job they did.

Something just isnt right.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 21, 2011)

Claudette said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



No you wouldn't. You've made that clear. 

And we're trying to solve a problem that is affecting 30+ million people. This isn't something that can be solved through your local charity. Sorry.


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > That's great ain't it. Adults a few years short of 30 can depend on mommy and daddy for health insurance. What happens when they grow up?
> ...



That is AWFULLY high.  I pay $5088.00 for a very comprehensive plan for myself AND two other employees combined...


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > Survey: Significant drop in uninsured young adults
> ...



You grossly overestimate his mental abilities.


----------



## Iridescence (Sep 21, 2011)

_*No one is wrong for expressing their concerns but in doing so it seems too many have deaf ears toward the neediest within our land. The issue with healthcare may need to be addressed in more ways than one and perhaps there are things about his proposal that is worth consideration from even the harshest critics.*_


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 21, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > That's great ain't it. Adults a few years short of 30 can depend on mommy and daddy for health insurance. What happens when they grow up?
> ...



Pussies or not, when they show up at the ER with that shattered kneecap and no insurance, we alllllll pay for it...


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



you sure about that Mr.Ugly Stupid Head? eusa_angel

When those poor sould in Haiti suffered a devastating earthquake, american citizens gave more money to their needs than all other countries combined. And this did NOT include the money the US Government gave.

When in a debate, things are taken out of context.

But the truth is...Americans are a very giving people...we have proven it time and time again.

When government forces us to do somethuing, we resist....but it is not becuase we dont want to help people...it is becuase we dont want government making us do it. We want to do it our way. Sort of what freedom and liberty is all about?


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



yes we do...and it is my pleasure to do it.

I thought liberals dont mind paying for other peoples problems?


----------



## grunt11b (Sep 21, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



 Exactly, so that being said why is there a need for a trillion dollar monstrosity? Anyone can be treated at the ER, so why make it even more expensive then it already is?


----------



## francoHFW (Sep 21, 2011)

Well you dittohead/foxbots are totally FOS as always...hoping for your recovery.
A. This not free for 26 year olds- but companies are picking up the difference...
B. The good stuff starts in 2014- People with preexisting at same cost as peers. medicaid for those making less than 130% of poverty level, subsidies for up to 88k for family of four, lowering cost over time, then no more 45k deaths  and 750k bankruptcies - what ever happened to the tort reform and national exchange the BS Pubs wanted?
c. It does cost more when you care is guaranteed, no cutoffs EVER, but just a bump, then it comes down-send your ideas to your A-hole Pubs...


----------



## Avorysuds (Sep 21, 2011)

This is what happens when stupid threads backfire.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



When there is a crisis event people do have the tendency to step up and help out. But that's easy to do, that's a one time check you write out and you're done. The problem is, our healthcare system needs an ongoing solution on a MUCH larger scale than any single crisis you can try and compare this too. People will become disillusioned and lazy about continually donating, causing us to end up right back where we were with a broken system and people not getting adequate care.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



We don't. We just want it to be done in the smartest way possible. The smartest way doesn't involve relying on the ER or charities. Neither are sustainable over the long term.


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 21, 2011)

grunt11b said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



Because the system is broken.  If everyone has insurance, everyone's rates go down.

Pneumonia is a better example than the kneecap.  If he didn't avoid the doctor for fear of the bill, they could'a caught it when it was bronchitis and a $7 Z-pack would knock it out.

But now he's got a $20,000 stay in the ICU to stick the hospital with, and they subsidize it by raising prices on paying customers.

The kneecap works as well; 50 guys have insurance, one shatters his kneecap, bill paid, wash for the insurance company.  50 guys have no insurance, 1 shatters his kneecap, bill goes unpaid and hospital subsidizes it by raising prices.

Perhaps you'd prefer to go a different way, but there's a valid argument to be made for requiring health insurance.

Honest question - Nobody has answered 'yes' yet - Would any among you advocate doing the 'true conservative' thing - To deny services to those unlikely to be able to pay?


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



if you believe this, then you are taking Claudettes comments out of context.
Claudette believes in helping others as I do.
But we believe that should come from the heart...as it does...and should not be forced on us by government.

Let me ask you this....

If you had a close friened die of leukemia....and you wanted to donate to the Luekemia society in his memory...but you had a tough year and no extra money to donate....and you paid your taxes like you should...

And the government donation report came out..

And you saw 1 billion of your tax dollars donated to "save the whales" and a mere 500K to the leukemia society...

And you then read reports from years prior...and you saw that save the whales ALWAYS got a billion and Leukemia society rarely got more than 500K...regardless of democratic or republican congress....

How would you feel?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Your example actually hits very close to home for me. My first wife died from Leukemia almost exactly 5 years ago. I donate and volunteer as much as I can every year but I always wish I could do more. It's never enough until there is a cure. 

With that said, I'm not quite sure I follow your sample, but of course I would like to see more tax dollars go to something like Leukemia as opposed to saving the whales.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



I was not just referring to healthcare...I was referring to the cxomment about government doing for Americans what Americans would do on their own.

Helathcare is brooken in many areas....but the ER part of it was one of the working parts in my eyes.
Personally, I dont know a solution....but I know I was very much taken aback by a government mandate to purchase something.

I am a conservative...it is not faux outrage...mandate to buy is a very big step for government and it can open doors tro many more mandates down the road.

Like the folks who got slammed by Katrina....many did not have insurance..and I was happy to help them out...and for their sake...I would STILL fight a mandate for them to buy insurance...especially if they can not afford it.

And please do not copmapre it to auto insurance...I hated that argument.

They are not at all similar.

If yopu opt to own a car, then you must have liability insurance. The wrod "opt" is the key word there.

Compared to....

The minute you are born the government mandates that you have health insurance...no choice...no word "opt". You must.....UNDER PENALTY OF LAW.

They are different


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



oh hell...Im sorry RDD...I certainly didnt intend to hit home like that.

The point I am making is...I prefer to donate to whomever I deem warrants it.

The government has decided to make those decisions for me.

Yes, I can still donate from my net...and I do.....

but if 20% of my tax dollars went to non profits...that would be THAT MUCH MORE that I could donate to the charities of my choice.


----------



## Claudette (Sep 21, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Thats just it RD you  don't know me at all. 

I have no problem giving to a worthy cause when its my choice. I have given and will continue to give when I chose to. 

The problems of 30+ milion people are not my problem and they are only yours because you chose to let them be yours. 

You are not responsible for those 30+ million any more than I am. 

Thats the difference between you and me RD. You want to carry that burden and I refuse to.


----------



## grunt11b (Sep 21, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



 I pay $3776.64 a year for my medical,dental and vision plan through Blue cross blue shield federal employee program, but it will go even higher after I add the new wifey on it. 
 I even pay for other people SSI and Medicare also "I say other peoples because it's sure as hell not going into a health savings account for me, it's being used right now as soon as it's taken from my check" , so if you add that in, it's even more. It's gonna suck to not get a return on my SSI investment, that shit will be gone by the time I could use it.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



It's ok. I just shared since it was relevant to the conversation. The reason I am so passionate about this topic is because I was knee-deep in this very issue. I saw what it was like to have to deal with insurance companies and hospitals when dealing with a major illness. I saw the hoops someone has to jump through in order to get the simplest but important test or procedure done. I saw how we had to fight tooth and nail for anything to be paid for. And the worst part of it all...we had some of the best insurance someone could possibly have and that didn't change the fact that dealing with insurance was a nightmare. Even with the best coverage possible, when she passed away I still had bills totaling close to $300,000 dollars. That's just not right, no matter what way you slice it. 

Sure charities could help, but that's alot of money and we were just one case. There is no way that charities can ever be expected to cover the costs for everyone who truly needs help. It's simply impossible. 

I understand you feel threatened by the mandate and the potential harm it may cause one day by setting a precedent that you dont like. But we need a solution and unless you support a public option or all out Universal healthcare, I don't see any better (and realistic) options so solve our mess.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 21, 2011)

Skull Pilot said:


> What young punk wouldn't like to get something for nothing?
> 
> You might as well say :
> 
> *Survey Shows People Like To Get Free Shit*



Wait until the real cost come back to the tax payer thenl this "freebie" won't seem so free after all.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 21, 2011)

Claudette said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



I am only going based upon what you've said. If you tell me you don't want to help pay a single cent for anyones healthcare then I will have to assume thats what you mean. 

I guess the difference is I want to live in a society where we don't have to fear getting sick because of not only the disease itself but if it will wipe us out financially.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

Claudette said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



I recall one time I was at my parents house....with my wife, my two boys...my sister and her kids...and my brother..

All are very liberal...except for me, my wife and my younger son.

We were all having dinner...nice conversation....and I told a joke..

Now mind you...this was about a month after the Haiti earthquake...

All laughed at my joke....except my brother. He stood up and began to reprimand me for :telling jokes when there are so many people suffering in Haiti"...

And then my sister joined him in reprimanding me....even though she laughed at my joke.

My response?

If I were to suffer some devastating event...I would hope you will be there to assist me, but I would never feel it was your responsibility to assist me....I would appreicate your compassion....but I would expect you to live your life as you normally would for you spending your time only worrying about me is not going to help me any more than I can help myself...so why should we all be miserable.

My brother mumbled something about me being a greedy rich business owner and left.

My sister asked me if it truly were devastating and I were to die, can she move in with my wife and get half ownership of the house...and we all started to laugh again.


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 21, 2011)

grunt11b said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



We have vision, no dental though.  We're also 29, 26, and 27, respectively.  But 2 smoke and the third has a family history of skin cancer.  

I personally was shocked at how low the price was and just how comprehensive the plan is.  Better by miles than my girlfriend gets from a HUGE group rate through her job at a major department store.  Cheaper too.

FYI it is through Geisinger, I don't know if they offer wherever you're at but it might be worth looking at.  The big names, Aetna, blue cross, amerihealth, etc, were marginally more expensive, but nowhere near what you and Jarhead's son are paying.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



you know...an earthquake can wipe you out fianncially as well....especially if you dont have the appropriate insurance....like "act of God" provisions.

Just sayin'


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Thats my point! I and many others HAVE the proper insurance and we're STILL going bankrupt because of medical bills.


----------



## driveby (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > Survey: Significant drop in uninsured young adults
> ...



No, he isn't.....


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 21, 2011)

driveby said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



That was pretty witty. Good thing you decided to make your first appearance in this thread with that amazingly insightful post.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



what is your deductible?
Also...my son had a very comprehensive plan with no deductible and minimal co-pay It was through his company...and althoiugh they paid about 50% of the premium, he had only one choice...take their plan or not.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



i understand and feel your pain.

But my point is...whats next?

How many more FEMA bailouts until we are told we MUST by law purchase flood insurance...whether you rent or own YOU MUST PURCHSE FLOOD INSURANCE. It is against the law for anyone at any age to live anywhere without having flood insurance.

You do realize...this law opens the door to that as well.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Perhaps it does. Does that mean you support something like the public option? Or *gasp* universal health care? Since your main hold up seems to be the mandate, either of those options would eliminate that worry for you and would actually be more effective at controlling costs. 

I get that you don't like the mandate, but you can't just ignore the problem because you don't like one aspect of the bill, as major an aspect as you believe it to be. We NEEDED to come up with some sort of solution and this, unfortunately, is what we ended up with.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



I dont know enough about a public option to say yes or no to it. I dont like universal healthcare as it is run by the government and politics will get in the way of efficiency.

Besides...government pays 700 for a hammer and invests a half a billion dollars in a company that its own analysts say will be drained of cash by the exact date it was drained of cash.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Sure the government is wildly inefficient, but I'd take that over a company who is setup to make a profit and the expense of peoples health. 

Look up the public option. I liked it because it would introduced REAL competition in to the marketplace. And it would have allowed for people to choose if they wanted a private or government run plan. Choice....what you guys love.


----------



## Claudette (Sep 21, 2011)

Thanks for a great discussion RD. 

Nice to have a discussion with someone who doesn't call you fucking stupid or a fucking idiot. LOL

We don't agree my friend but I respect your opinion and your right to that opinion. 

Have a great rest of the  day.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 21, 2011)

Claudette said:


> Thanks for a great discussion RD.
> 
> Nice to have a discussion with someone who doesn't call you fucking stupid or a fucking idiot. LOL
> 
> ...



Haha, likewise.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 21, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for a great discussion RD.
> ...



well...you are still ugly and a stupid head.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



I can't deny that.


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > grunt11b said:
> ...



$500 in network, $1000 non-network. PCP $20, Specialist $40, ER $75.

I've never even _heard of_ a plan with zero deductible, that's probably a big part of the cost right there.

FWIW I pay half as the employer as well, and Obama's tax credit helped tremendously in making this plausible.


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 21, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



I don't agree that the government is as inefficient as people say. 

But you hit it right on the head - Efficiency is not the issue here.  The issue is that private insurers make more money - They make MORE MONEY! - By intentionally finding ways not to do what they said they were going to do.

Inefficient?  Beats an extremely efficient machine that screws you by design!


----------



## driveby (Sep 21, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...





Thanks, i'll be here all week, be sure to tip your waitress......


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Sep 21, 2011)

New survey just released....

People are happy to get unemployment for 2 years ongoing....
People are happy in getting more back from the IRS than they gave in...
People are happy to get grants to pay for college for 4 years, including room and board even if they didn't graduate high school...

.... In other news...the nations debt will be $15 Trillion by years end.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 21, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Nominees for most ridiculous post of the month:
The one I am repling to.



> Sure the government is wildly inefficient, but I'd take that over a company who is setup to make a profit and the expense of peoples health.



The difference between a company that operats on a profit and the government
If a company doesn't make a profit they will shut down
If the government runs short of money they raise taxes.
If the company that needs a profit no longer exist all that will be left is the government.
Damn your fucking stupid.


----------



## Amelia (Sep 21, 2011)

Obamacare = cauldron of unintended consequences

The SCOTUS ruling on it cannot come too soon.


----------



## blu (Sep 21, 2011)

I just dont get why people wont go for single payer. we are already paying for other people's health care as well as lining the pockets of insurance companies unnecesarily. simply get rid of insurance companies and put all payments towards treatments and care.

would also get rid of corporate health insurance polciies which is just a backdoor way of scaring people from starting their own business since individual poliies are so ridiculous


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 21, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Obamacare = cauldron of unintended consequences
> 
> The SCOTUS ruling on it cannot come too soon.



And you have based this assertion on.........


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 21, 2011)

blu said:


> I just dont get why people wont go for single payer. we are already paying for other people's health care as well as lining the pockets of insurance companies unnecesarily. simply get rid of insurance companies and put all payments towards treatments and care.
> 
> would also get rid of corporate health insurance polciies which is just a backdoor way of scaring people from starting their own business since individual poliies are so ridiculous



The insurence company's need that extra money to line the pockets of politicans.


----------



## Amelia (Sep 21, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare = cauldron of unintended consequences
> ...





If you have to ask you wouldn't be able to appreciate the answer.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 21, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



I'm honored. Thank you for the recognition. 

I'm especially touched that someone obviously as educated such as yourself takes the time to critique my post with a beautifully thought out response.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 21, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



if spelling is all you have to talk about I guess you have nothing to talk about. Your argument is dead in the water.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 21, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



My argument was made in countless posts throughout this thread. I noticed you didn't reply to any of those posts.


----------



## Liberty (Sep 21, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > the government can kiss my ass i am not buying insurance unless I can afford it.
> ...



gee, how did you figure that out?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 21, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



No you lost tat argument when you posted this


RDD_1210 said:


> Sure the government is wildly inefficient, but I'd take that over a company who is setup to make a profit and the expense of peoples health.



holy shit idiot pull your fucking head out of obama's ass for a second to comprehend what you posted. You know the government is a fuck up but yet you still think they should be in charge of your healthcare? Just as long as those "EVIL" profiteers don't have anything to do with you.
WAKE THE FUCK UP


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 21, 2011)

Amelia said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



You can give it a try.  I can't possibly appreciate it any less than the non-answer.


----------



## Rozman (Sep 21, 2011)

whitehall said:


> That's great ain't it. Adults a few years short of 30 can depend on mommy and daddy for health insurance. *What happens when they grow up?*





> What happens when they grow up?



They become Democrats and bitch and moan that they don't have anything and want government to get them more free stuff.


----------



## The Infidel (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...




Look... no disrespect was intended towards you or your son, but answer me this....
*
Why cut them off at 26? Why not forever??? *

I mean come on man.... I get your point though. I really do.





As for DaGoo, screw you ya dummy.... Im sick of all your homo-erotic requests you faggot!


----------



## Flopper (Sep 21, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > That's great ain't it. Adults a few years short of 30 can depend on mommy and daddy for health insurance. What happens when they grow up?
> ...


  Three years ago my neighbor's son was a healthy young 22 year old with no need for health insurance, at least not until he slipped on a roof and suffered a brain injury and was paralyzed. His parents declared bankruptcy last year.  Now you and I are paying his Medical bills thru Medicaid and will the rest of his life because he was a young healthy 22 year old with no need for health insurance.


----------



## Flopper (Sep 21, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


Zero deductibles were very common with HMOs until a few years ago.


----------



## bassho (Sep 21, 2011)

What's that old saying, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."  Wait till the bill comes in for all of the freebies.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 21, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


With obamacare you will still be paying for his care so whats the difference?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 21, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Yup. Thanks for rephrasing what I said. Gold star for you.


----------



## DaGoose (Sep 21, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I've never heard of Medicare saying that they won't pay for a needed operation. Or refuse someone due to a pre-existing condition. Or kick some out because they suddenly developed a serious disease. Or skyrocket someone's premiums. Or put a limit someone's nursing home care due to inability to pay.

You're childlike trust and belief that insurance companies only look out for your best interests and really care about you is frightening. 

.


----------



## Flopper (Sep 21, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


Under Obamacare, he would have been required to carry insurance.


----------



## logical4u (Sep 21, 2011)

People always like the "free trials/samples".  When they find out what it really costs, they try to ditch it, but with "free trials/samples", there is always a hook.  Once it is started, it is very hard to stop.  So will Obamacare, that is more about controlling the population, than keeping people "healthy".


----------



## Flopper (Sep 21, 2011)

logical4u said:


> People always like the "free trials/samples".  When they find out what it really costs, they try to ditch it, but with "free trials/samples", there is always a hook.  Once it is started, it is very hard to stop.  So will Obamacare, that is more about controlling the population, than keeping people "healthy".


controlling the population??


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 21, 2011)

bassho said:


> What's that old saying, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."  Wait till the bill comes in for all of the freebies.



But that's the thing - It _doesn't_ 'sound too good to be true.'  It 'sounds like' sensible regulatory reform - Because that's really all it is; Nothing less, nothing more - Sensible, politically moderate regulatory reform.

I constantly hear cons talking about how people love the freebies.  What freebies do you think there are?  I think the eligibility criteria for Medicaid was slightly relaxed, but besides that?  

Judging from the responses, I often wonder if half you really understand what "Obamacare" is, or if you just hate it because you've heard a strong message that you're 'supposed' to hate it.


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 21, 2011)

Flopper said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> > People always like the "free trials/samples".  When they find out what it really costs, they try to ditch it, but with "free trials/samples", there is always a hook.  Once it is started, it is very hard to stop.  So will Obamacare, that is more about controlling the population, than keeping people "healthy".
> ...



Yeah, I'm not sure I'm seeing the dots connected between the beginning of that post and the end...


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Sep 21, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> bassho said:
> 
> 
> > What's that old saying, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."  Wait till the bill comes in for all of the freebies.
> ...



Uhm, fining me when I file my tax return if I don't <gasp> purchase something is regulatory reform?


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 21, 2011)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > bassho said:
> ...



That's the mandate, which is of course unpopular. But it's not designed to be popular.  It's designed to stop paying customers from subsidizing non-paying customers.

It doesn't address my question about what you peeps think all the freebies are?

And what the hell do you care?  Do you not already have insurance?


----------



## Listening (Sep 21, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Wait till the rest of Obamacare kicks in.
> ...




Please stay with the subject.

As near as  I can tell, your OP is being shredded for not being square with the information in your link.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 21, 2011)

Zona said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > What young punk wouldn't like to get something for nothing?
> ...



wow, first at 21 they want to be AN ADULT, then at 26 they still want to suck off their parents money tits. GO FIGURE

It is YOU who is a hysterical raving idiot. sorry

A parent can do all this TODAY without ObamaCare. sheesh


----------



## Maple (Sep 21, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> Survey: Significant drop in uninsured young adults
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 It's coming to a screeching halt in Nov of 2012 when we kick the liberals to the curb and into an unemployment line. Did you happen to notice the 2010 congressional landslide to the GOP, did you also happen to miss the Republican pick-up in a congressional district that has not been Republican since 1923.. You libs have shown your true colors, the country is on to you and the majority want none of it. You are toast, it's too bad your light has not turned on yet, but it will in a short 14 months.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 21, 2011)

Flopper said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



You're still going to pay for it period. After all isn't that what obamacare was for in the first place to pay for those who are uninsured?


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 21, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



1. No Reb.  If the guy has insurance, you're not going to pay for it period.

2. No Reb. 'Obamacare' was to reduce the number of uninsured and curb industry abuse.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 21, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


What I quoted is exactly what you wrote. I did not make any changes to your comment.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 21, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Medicare Denies Coverage Of CT Colonography For Cancer Screening 
Medical Devices Today: Medicare Denies Coverage Of CT Colonography For Cancer Screening

Even though the mother denied the  child the operation medicare would not cover it.

But Zayna said a Columbus, Ohio, hospital can perform the surgery without any chance of a transfusion. *The only problem is that Georgias Medicare program won't pay for it.*

Mother Denies Heart Surgery For Infant, Cites Religion - News Story - WSB Atlanta

Now you were saying?


----------



## francoHFW (Sep 21, 2011)

Putting them on medicaid is cheaper than ER care, not to mention the 45k dead and the 750k bankruptcies...you people are brainwashed...control the people? LOL!! IDIOT!!!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 21, 2011)

francoHFW said:


> Putting them on medicaid is cheaper than ER care, not to mention the 45k dead and the 750k bankruptcies...you people are brainwashed...control the people? LOL!! IDIOT!!!



you really haven't gotten a clue. people who are on medicare still will go to the hospital or emergency room medicare just pays for it.


----------



## francoHFW (Sep 21, 2011)

@151- MEDICAID! They get their own doctor, preventive medicine, checkups- it's cheaper than ER care, and low cost clinics are part of the deal- Read up, learn something, and stop parroting your Pub brainwash....


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 21, 2011)

francoHFW said:


> @151- MEDICAID! They get their own doctor, preventive medicine, checkups- it's cheaper than ER care, and low cost clinics are part of the deal- Read up, learn something, and stop parroting your Pub brainwash....




I would suggest yoiu do the same but I doubt you will
More Medicaid patients going to ER, study finds

More Medicaid patients going to ER, study finds - USATODAY.com


----------



## francoHFW (Sep 21, 2011)

Medicaid under health refom will make it more attractive to DOCTORS.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 21, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> Survey: Significant drop in uninsured young adults
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The GOP's intention to repeal the healthcare bill and kicking those million young people off their parents' policies should play real well in 2012 campaign.  

I suspect we'll hear plenty of well, uh, err, um, and yeah but.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2011)

francoHFW said:


> Medicaid under health refom will make it more attractive to DOCTORS.



no it want because they lose money when they accepta medicade person


----------



## Claudette (Sep 22, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



LMAO you fucking idiot.  

My whole family until this last generation was in the military. Those folks earn  and  deserve everything and more that this country can give them.   

My sentiments apply to the freeloaders out there. Those that expect someone else to foot the bills for their responsibilities. 

I believe you fall into that category. Fuck off idiot.


----------



## DaGoose (Sep 22, 2011)

Claudette said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Sorry, but the GOP conservatives disagree with you............



> As President Obama in August pledged to protect Veterans programs from budget cuts, the GOP in Congress and bureaucrats in the DoD are still pushing for cuts in pensions and health care for active and retired troops.



GOP demands benefits for the military be on chopping block | Veterans News Now

.


----------



## Claudette (Sep 22, 2011)

Seems Leon Paneta feels the same. 

While I agree everything should be on the chopping block  I'm more than happy to exclude retirement and pensions for the military from that list.

As stated in the article we need to stop the military adventurism and unfunded wars which would save more pentagon money than chopping retirements and pensions. 

Coming from a military background I know how tough it is for our military families. Hitting their retirement and pensions ain't the way to go.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 22, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Whose insurance are your kids on?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2011)

claudette said:


> plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > claudette said:
> ...



you must remember who you're talking to he plays with transformers
those with some brains and common sense knew exactly what you were talking about.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 22, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



No they can't. That's the point.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 22, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



LOL.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 22, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > What young punk wouldn't like to get something for nothing?
> ...



I don't have kids.  

The so called survey is meaningless or did that point sail over your pointy head.

EVERYONE likes to get free shit.  So of course a bunch of slacker college pukes or lazy slobs who don't have a job at age 25 and still live with mommy and daddy are going to say they like Obammy care because it gives them more of an excuse to slack off and not have to take care of themselves.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 22, 2011)

Skull Pilot said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



I'm going to take a wild stab and guess you never went to college.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 22, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



Swing and a miss

I have 2 bachelors and a Masters.  But I paid my own way through college and didn't have mommy breastfeeding me until I was 26.

And what's that got to do with the bogus nature of a survey asking the recipients of free shit if they like getting free shit?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 22, 2011)

Skull Pilot said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Interesting. I find it hard to believe that someone with 2 bachelors and a masters would make such asinine generalizations. I guess you showed me.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 22, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



And what generalization was that?

Are you saying people don't like to get free shit?


----------



## Full-Auto (Sep 22, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



What part of people like free stuff do you not understand?  What part of this appears free because of waivers hiding the true cost of where premiums should be?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Much better


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2011)

Full-Auto said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



He's an idiot who knows the government will fuck it up but would whether have the government giving him his healthcare just as long as those evil profitters leave him alone.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 22, 2011)

Skull Pilot said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



That people who can't afford insurance are "pukes" or "lazy slobs". 

The only thing that is lazy is coming to a conclusion like that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2011)

It's been said but I will say it again 

"people like freebies until they have to pay the bill"


You know those 30 day risk free offers but you keep it one day over the 30 days and you're stuck with the bill.


----------



## keee keee (Sep 22, 2011)

Skull Pilot said:


> What young punk wouldn't like to get something for nothing?
> 
> You might as well say :
> 
> *Survey Shows People Like To Get Free Shit*



Nothing in life is free anything the government gives out is taken from someone else. the government has no money all their money they have is taken from someone who earned it and it was confiscated from them, or they got it loaned to them. Once Obamacare is instituted and the rotten service or rationed service is felt by people the people will know what a mistake Obamacare is.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 22, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



And you are assuming they're what?

What do you call a 26 year old "adult" who still lives at home with mommy?


----------



## Amelia (Sep 22, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> It's been said but I will say it again
> 
> "people like freebies until they have to pay the bill"
> 
> ...






Good analogy.


----------



## Flopper (Sep 22, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > Survey: Significant drop in uninsured young adults
> ...


No matter what's said, if Republicans capture House, Senate, & Whitehouse, they will not really repeal it.  They will amend it. It will be to late to repeal it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2011)

Flopper said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...



What do you mean to late? Republican's have their orders they better follow those orders repeal all of obamas liberal agenda. Thats their mandate thats what they will be sent to do. If they don't they will be replaced by someone who will do it.


----------



## Amelia (Sep 22, 2011)

Flopper said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > DaGoose said:
> ...





You think SCOTUS won't throw it out?


----------



## Flopper (Sep 22, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


They can call it a repeal, but in reality it will be a replacement.  The replacement would have to include the following or some people that have insurance would loose coverage.  Also these are provisions of the law that have always had strong support by the public.   In addition, I would think Republicans would add tort reform.  

Access to high risk pools for those that can not get insurance

Bar insurers from denying people coverage when they get sick and from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.

Bars insurers from imposing lifetime caps on coverage.

Requires insurers to let people stay on their parents' policies until age 26.

Requires individual and small group market plans to spend 80 percent of premium dollars on medical services. Large group plans would have to spend at least 85 percent.


----------



## Trajan (Sep 22, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> Survey: Significant drop in uninsured young adults
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I am sure tyhe lik,e iot 'so far'...like the guy who falls from a high rise, on the way day you can hear him...."so far....so good"..


----------



## Trajan (Sep 22, 2011)

Skull Pilot said:


> What young punk wouldn't like to get something for nothing?
> 
> You might as well say :
> 
> *Survey Shows People Like To Get Free Shit*



qft  +1 and all that jazz..




now, DuGuuse...go ask greenbeard, whats the cost to us for this manna from heaven for the young and dumb ?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2011)

Flopper said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



you can call it what ever you want to I call it gone


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 22, 2011)

Skull Pilot said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Struggling, like MANY people are. Staying at home in this day makes a lot of financial sense for many people.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 22, 2011)

And what exactly is the problem with parents letting children stay on their policy until 26? You would think that you would be happy that these people are at least insured and not uninsured, "mooching" and adding to the problem we have. You people argue just to argue, even when what you're arguing makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> And what exactly is the problem with parents letting children stay on their policy until 26? You would think that you would be happy that these people are at least insured and not uninsured, "mooching" and adding to the problem we have. You people argue just to argue, even when what you're arguing makes no sense whatsoever.



Should we raise the voting age since children are now considered to be 26 years of age?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 22, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



Are you so puritan in your thoughts that you don't realize people can have sex and not have kids?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 22, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Call the fucking whaaambulance.

Maybe if they stopped sucking mommy's tit and turned off the fucking x box they could get a job or 2 or 3 and start taking care of themselves.

But that's right, no one should have to work more than one job right?


----------



## Amelia (Sep 22, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > And what exactly is the problem with parents letting children stay on their policy until 26? You would think that you would be happy that these people are at least insured and not uninsured, "mooching" and adding to the problem we have. You people argue just to argue, even when what you're arguing makes no sense whatsoever.
> ...





Interesting question.  Perhaps voting privileges shouldn't be based on age. 

For example, if you are 17 and in the military, you should certainly be allowed to vote.  

But if you're a  drop out playing video games while letting your parents support you?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 22, 2011)

Amelia said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



That would be a meritocracy and that's not fair


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2011)

Amelia said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


Children shouldn't be allowed to vote or drink or buy a home or car or make a binding agreement.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 22, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > And what exactly is the problem with parents letting children stay on their policy until 26? You would think that you would be happy that these people are at least insured and not uninsured, "mooching" and adding to the problem we have. You people argue just to argue, even when what you're arguing makes no sense whatsoever.
> ...



yep. I think that would be a good idea.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 22, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > And what exactly is the problem with parents letting children stay on their policy until 26? You would think that you would be happy that these people are at least insured and not uninsured, "mooching" and adding to the problem we have. You people argue just to argue, even when what you're arguing makes no sense whatsoever.
> ...



You can be 70 years old and still be someones child. What is your point?


----------



## Flopper (Sep 22, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> And what exactly is the problem with parents letting children stay on their policy until 26? You would think that you would be happy that these people are at least insured and not uninsured, "mooching" and adding to the problem we have. You people argue just to argue, even when what you're arguing makes no sense whatsoever.


When I was in my early 20's, I was invincible.  Insurance was for old folks, not me.   There is no way I would waste my money on health insurance.  I needed to save my money for a new car and a trip to Europe.  

For parents this option really buys peace of mind, knowing if your kids get seriously ill, they will be able to afford medical care and you won't have to spend your life savings trying to provide it.  

For insurance companies it's not that big a deal.   This age group is basically very healthy.  They are rarely diagnosed with the really serious diseases and they are less likely to go to the doctor with minor problems.

For tax payers it's a win, because when young people without insurance get injured or seriously ill, they often end up on Medicaid and we all pay the costs.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 22, 2011)

Skull Pilot said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Look who is generalizing again. That's a nasty habit you got there.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 22, 2011)

Flopper said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > And what exactly is the problem with parents letting children stay on their policy until 26? You would think that you would be happy that these people are at least insured and not uninsured, "mooching" and adding to the problem we have. You people argue just to argue, even when what you're arguing makes no sense whatsoever.
> ...



Did you notice that none of the crying nut-jobs answered why exactly they are against 26 year olds being allowed to be insured on their parents plan. They don't know why they're upset, they just like to bitch and moan.


----------



## francoHFW (Sep 22, 2011)

Brainwashed dittoheads? LOL!


----------



## Flopper (Sep 22, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


I agree.  Some people just like to argue about anything.  However, I think most people that oppose this, and I don't think there are many, do so on general principal.  It's part of Obamacare which they hate, introduced by Obama, who they hate, and passed the Democrats who they hate.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> DaGoose.....
> 
> I know you are smarter than that.
> Lets be real here.......2 provisions kicked in FIRST....
> ...



Anyone who believes it's actually "FREE OF CHARGE" just failed the intelligence test.



Jarhead said:


> Gee...ya think anyone is going to say..."wow, those two provisions suck ass"
> 
> Do you think it was an accident for those two to kick in first and the "negative" provisions slated to kick in AFTER the 2012 election?



All the provisions are negative.  The downside of those two will take a few years to become manifest, however.  People will discover why it's a loser when all the insurance companies start going broke.


----------



## EriktheRed (Sep 22, 2011)

Flopper said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > And what exactly is the problem with parents letting children stay on their policy until 26? You would think that you would be happy that these people are at least insured and not uninsured, "mooching" and adding to the problem we have. You people argue just to argue, even when what you're arguing makes no sense whatsoever.
> ...



Not to mention that with the economy being as it is right now, more and more kids are staying home longer.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 22, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Did you notice that none of the crying nut-jobs answered why exactly they are against 26 year olds being allowed to be insured on their parents plan. They don't know why they're upset, they just like to bitch and moan.



We kick them out of the house when they are 21.  Why would we want to continue paying their bills?


----------



## CaféAuLait (Sep 22, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



How about I tell you why I am bitching, double standards by the government.

For the same plan the military are required to pay through the nose. 

For standard one "child" cost is 187 a month and that is a 80/20 payout without a dental option. For Prime it is 220 a month with one "child" and no dental. 




> The monthly premium for TYA Prime will be $213, or $2,556 a year, not counting Prime co-pays. That is more than five times what a military family pays to enroll in Tricare Prime.




AND the same standards were not applied as they are in the civilian world:




> Congress imposed two other limitations unique to young adult Tricare users versus other American young adults: only unmarried dependents are eligible for TYA; and young adult dependents are disqualified if they are eligible for medical coverage through an employer-sponsored insurance program



Read more: Tricare for young adults carries high premium | islandpacket.com

So military kids have to pay more, they are not covered if they are married and they have to get the employer insurance as opposed to civilian kids who can remain on their parents policies if married and if employed. 


So what irks me more than an adult child being covered is the fact that not all adult children are treated equal ( as people claimed this bill would do) when it's the government being forced to pay for it as opposed to forcing private carries to pay more and cover in a different manner.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 22, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



You may be stupid or naive enough to think that a 26 year old able bodied person can't support themselves but I sure as hell am not.


----------



## Flopper (Sep 22, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Did you notice that none of the crying nut-jobs answered why exactly they are against 26 year olds being allowed to be insured on their parents plan. They don't know why they're upset, they just like to bitch and moan.
> ...


I never kicked my kids out of the house.  They are all grown now, have families, and have never needed my help.  If they had, it would be there for the asking.  If my kids were in their early 20's and didn't have insurance, I would welcome the opportunity to be able to carry them as dependents on my insurance.  If they got seriously ill, I would spend my last dime on them.  This provision in law is as much about protecting parents as it is the kids.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 22, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Not a dependent child


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 22, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> Survey: Significant drop in uninsured young adults
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yeah, It sounds all nice and fuzzy, and parts of it are ok. However the Price tag is to much, Even if you use Obama's Funny math where he writes MC a 500 Billion dollar IOU and does not count that as part of the cost. And there are parts of it that are Horrible. 

As a whole it is destined to fail to do what it was promised to do. It will not Insure Everyone, it Will not allow most people to stay in their private plans, It Will not be as cheap as we were told, it will not lower costs, and has already increased the cost of Private Insurance, It does nothing to address tort Reform, or the Insanely high costs of health care. (something is wrong when you go to the Walk In Clinic for a bad ear infection, the doctor is in the room for about 45 seconds, rights you a script and leaves, and sends you a bill for 450 dollars, Happened to me)

I am not a advocate of Single Payer, However I think Passing Single Payer would have been less damaging and more helpful than this mess we have.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 22, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



And? Whats the problem?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 22, 2011)

Skull Pilot said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



I'm still waiting for you to explain what the problem is with a 26 year old being on their parents insurance. In what way does this affect you? It only helps you, but you're too pig-headed to realize it. Three degrees and you can't figure this out. I'd ask for a refund on that education.


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 22, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Did you notice that none of the crying nut-jobs answered why exactly they are against 26 year olds being allowed to be insured on their parents plan. They don't know why they're upset, they just like to bitch and moan.
> ...



Errr... The bill doesn't _*make you* _keep them on your insurance.  It* lets you* keep them on your insurance.

I neither understand the provision of the bill, nor understand your guys' outrage.  It says you can stay on your parents policy.  It doesn't, to my knowledge, address the price of that service.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 22, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



It's more fake outrage from people whose sole purpose in life it seems is to find things to bitch about.


----------



## Vanquish (Sep 22, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > Survey: Significant drop in uninsured young adults
> ...



1. The mess you have has been brought to you by Big Pharma and Healthcare Robberbarons, Inc. who have driven up the cost of healthcare for the last 40 years.

2. Tort Reform is ridiculous. Multiple, independent studies have been done, check by peer review that show that the costs of healthcare aren't caused by med mal cases.

3. You've offered nothing but your opinion for what you think will happen, not citing any proof in that direction. The fact is, as it has been enacted, Obamacare will cover the gap between the poor we already pay for and those who can pay for themselves. It will allow people to stay on their private plans and even bring new people into the healthcare market.

4. Glenn Beck loves to talk about how people aren't dying in the streets in need of healthcare. Actually they are. There are lots of people who die, never having been diagnosed with diseases or being treated for illnesses. Those who can make it to a hospital use emergency care which is many many many times more expensive than _preventative care_.  You're already paying for them...why not pay for them and pay less.

5. Biden's crazy ass even explained how many of the ideas in the bill were Republican ideas first...but yet he got stalled when it came to the vote.  Don't blame Obama for forcing a vote through...you tried to stop it...and he won. Your rules.


----------



## grunt11b (Sep 23, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



 Haiti sealed their fate when they made a deal with the devil to get out from under French rule. I feel no sorrow for them. Anyone who cuts a deal with the devil deserves no remorse or sympathy. 
 Do I know any Haitians that are very good people? Yes I do, but as a whole, when shit happens there...it is for a reason.


----------



## grunt11b (Sep 23, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


 
 I like Blue Cross, they take care of me for the most part. And I am sure blue cross has a bigger provider list than some of the other smaller less expensive ones, so it would not be worth it I dont think to go elsewhere. I appreciate the info though, I may look into it in the near future if things go downhill some with BCBS.


----------



## grunt11b (Sep 23, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> grunt11b said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


 
 Also, I may pay more a year, but it covers more on deductible and what not. For example, I have sleep apnea, and BCBS paid $1500 for my cpap machine and my replacement masks and parts and what not, plus they cover all my appointments every 6 months. I have not paid a red cent yet. So even though I pay more a year I get more return on my investment.


----------



## grunt11b (Sep 23, 2011)

Claudette said:


> Thanks for a great discussion RD.
> 
> Nice to have a discussion with someone who doesn't call you fucking stupid or a fucking idiot. LOL
> 
> ...



 Hey, no peacemaking in this thread. Just listen to this song and get back to work. 
 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO_QntXc-c4]Drowning Pool - Bodies (Let The Bodies Hit The Floor) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## grunt11b (Sep 23, 2011)

Jarhead, a public option is not an option at all. It is basically the gubment telling you that you have to buy it, whether you want to or not. Because if you buy it "The collective" will all benefit from it in the end. It's bullshit, and unconstitutional. It's actually not an option, it's an individual mandate where you are forced to pay into it. They only called it an option so it would sound less intrusive when they where trying to pass it.

 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye1V62UVYK0]Obama-Care Unconstitutional Mandate - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 23, 2011)

Flopper said:


> I never kicked my kids out of the house.  They are all grown now, have families, and have never needed my help.  If they had, it would be there for the asking.  If my kids were in their early 20's and didn't have insurance, I would welcome the opportunity to be able to carry them as dependents on my insurance.  If they got seriously ill, I would spend my last dime on them.  This provision in law is as much about protecting parents as it is the kids.



In other words, there's no need for this bill since parents will pay for their kid's insurance anyway.  Is that what you're saying?


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 23, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Errr... The bill doesn't _*make you* _keep them on your insurance.  It* lets you* keep them on your insurance.
> 
> I neither understand the provision of the bill, nor understand your guys' outrage.  It says you can stay on your parents policy.  It doesn't, to my knowledge, address the price of that service.



What a moron.  If 'A' get's to keep his kids on his insurance, then 'B,' 'C' and 'D' have to pay for it.  Nothing is free.  Someone always has to pay.  As usual, the govenrment boondoggle shifted the costs to others.  Of course, those others are also shifing their costs back to you.  

Anyone who believes they're getting something "FOR FREE" failed the intelligence test.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 23, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> It's more fake outrage from people whose sole purpose in life it seems is to find things to bitch about.



As opposed to numskulls like you who enjoy getting bent over and fucked up the ass.


----------



## bripat9643 (Sep 23, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> I'm still waiting for you to explain what the problem is with a 26 year old being on their parents insurance. In what way does this affect you? It only helps you, but you're too pig-headed to realize it. Three degrees and you can't figure this out. I'd ask for a refund on that education.



It doesn't help me if I'm single, have no kids and have my insurance rates jacked up because we all have to pay the cost of you covering your kid's insurance until they are 26.

It also doesn't help me if my kids are paying for their own insurance when they are 21.

The stupidity of Democrat drones defies comprehension.


----------



## francoHFW (Sep 23, 2011)

It appears employers are picking up the cost so far- but carry on with the brainwashed hysterics...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 23, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Their's something wrong with a person if they are still depending on their parents at age 70 theirs something wrong with a person if they are still dependant on their parents at age 21. I like how the birds do it 6 weeks after the young break the egg shell they are kicked out of the nest to defend for themself


----------



## Claudette (Sep 23, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...




Wow. Nice to know you think anyone in the military is a freeloader. 

I know they aren't so common sense dictates they aren't included in that freeloader category. 

Boy. Guess that makes you the anti-American scum without a lick of Common Sense. Can't say that surprises me any. 

BTW Fuck off yet again. 

What an imbecile you are.


----------



## Cuyo (Sep 23, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Errr... The bill doesn't _*make you* _keep them on your insurance.  It* lets you* keep them on your insurance.
> ...



OH. MY. GOD.

Are you under the impression that the bill allows children to stay on their parents' policy... _*For free*_? 

Nah, nah, seriously, is that what you think?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 23, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Why can't an adult at agr 22 get their own insurence?


----------



## JimH52 (Sep 23, 2011)

Here is the GOP response to you!

Tea Party Debate Crowd on Uninsured Sick Americans: Let Them Die!


----------



## rdean (Sep 23, 2011)

People other than Republicans want healthcare.

Republicans figure if they can last until they are old enough, they will get "Medicare".


----------



## Conservative (Sep 23, 2011)

rdean said:


> People other than Republicans want healthcare.
> 
> Republicans figure if they can last until they are old enough, they will get "Medicare".



http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/06/09/healthcare.pdf


> As you may know, a bill that makes major changes to the country's health care system became law last year. Based on what you have read or heard about that legislation, do you generally favor or generally oppose it?
> 
> Favor: 39%
> Oppose: 56%
> ...


----------



## rdean (Sep 23, 2011)

Conservative said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > People other than Republicans want healthcare.
> ...



How many Americans don't want to pay for car insurance?

I guess you have a point.  Not sure what it was.  But my original statement stands.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 23, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



No it doesn't help me.

You realize that the more people on a so called family insurance plan the more that cost is transferred to those with fewer people on their family insurance plan and those on single insurance plans or are you too thick to understand the concept of insurance and shared risk?

I pay for family insurance to cover me and my wife.  You and your gaggle of rug rats including your slacker adult child pay the same premium as I do.

Tell me who is using the pooled resources of premiums more?

Idiot.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 23, 2011)

grunt11b said:


> Jarhead, a public option is not an option at all. It is basically the gubment telling you that you have to buy it, whether you want to or not. Because if you buy it "The collective" will all benefit from it in the end. It's bullshit, and unconstitutional. It's actually not an option, it's an individual mandate where you are forced to pay into it. They only called it an option so it would sound less intrusive when they where trying to pass it.



Did you intentionally get everything wrong in your post?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 23, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still waiting for you to explain what the problem is with a 26 year old being on their parents insurance. In what way does this affect you? It only helps you, but you're too pig-headed to realize it. Three degrees and you can't figure this out. I'd ask for a refund on that education.
> ...



So you're saying you have no clue how the legislation works. Because you seem to think that these 26 year olds get to stay on their parents insurance at no cost. LOL. Their parents still have to pay for them, all this bill allows them to do is have the option to continue to keep them on their policy, AND PAY FOR THEM, until the age of 26. 

A real mean would apologize for being dead fucking wrong and acting like an asshole about it, but we both know you won't apologize because well....


----------



## Claudette (Sep 23, 2011)

I can also hardly wait for 2012 so Barry boy gets booted and a  new POTUS can repeal this clusterfuck of a bill. 

God help us if he wins re-election.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 23, 2011)

Skull Pilot said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



So using your "logic" your wife is costing ME more money because she doesn't go out and get her own plan. Tell that "freeloader" she needs to get her own plan.

I love now their argument isn't that people don't have insurance is that they don't have their own individual plans. Bwhaahahahahahahahah!


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 23, 2011)

Claudette said:


> I can also hardly wait for 2012 so Barry boy gets booted and a  new POTUS can repeal this clusterfuck of a bill.
> 
> God help us if he wins re-election.



Two things

1) There is no god

2) There is no way this bill ever gets outright repealed. 


So if you're waiting for either of those things to happen, you're setting yourself up for severe disappointment.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 23, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...




Hahahaha, Yup. That's what he actually thinks. I'm glad what he said has been quoted so he can't edit it now. These are the majority of the idiots that inhabit this board and the far right wing of the republican party. Completely uninformed, raving idiots who have nothing better to do than to bitch, bitch, bitch about things they don't understand one bit.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 23, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > I can also hardly wait for 2012 so Barry boy gets booted and a  new POTUS can repeal this clusterfuck of a bill.
> ...





> There is no god


Would you bet your life on it? I'm not a christian and I would bet my life that there is a God. Are you so cemented in  your views that you would take that be?


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 23, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > I can also hardly wait for 2012 so Barry boy gets booted and a  new POTUS can repeal this clusterfuck of a bill.
> ...



1) God exisits within for those that believe in God. So there may not be God in your life, but it does not mean God does not existr in the lives of others.

2) If..and yes, a big if....we elect a republican President and the GOP captures majorities in both houses, an outright repeal and then a "rewrite/restructure" is likely.


----------



## JimH52 (Sep 23, 2011)

Claudette said:


> I can also hardly wait for 2012 so Barry boy gets booted and a  new POTUS can repeal this clusterfuck of a bill.
> 
> God help us if he wins re-election.



*There are some great properties in Canada!*


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 23, 2011)

JimH52 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > I can also hardly wait for 2012 so Barry boy gets booted and a  new POTUS can repeal this clusterfuck of a bill.
> ...



You haven't left yet?


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 23, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



excuse me....it is not limited to the far right by any means.
And being far right or far left does not make an idiot.....there are as many idiots and unifomred in the middle, soft left and soft right.
An idiot is what makes an idiot. Unifomred is what makes one uninformed.
Ideology does not make one uninformed or an idiot.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 23, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Nah, I don't like to gamble, especially on things I have no control over.

Sure there is a chance there is a god, but I'm 99% sure there isn't, but I will allow for the possibility that I'm wrong.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 23, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Agreed. But as far as this site goes, the extremists for the most part are idiots. And you're right, there are idiots everywhere. But I am talking about the loud mouthed idiots on this site in particular.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 23, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


lol...this site?
I thought I made myself clear about that y7esterday...

To recant...

You are ugly
You are an idiot
It was Bush's fault
Read the bill then debate it
You dont know how to read
You have comrpehension issues
you are a liar
Palin is a slut
Obama is a socialist
get your head out of your ass
Rushbo
Bachman is a lesbian
It was the GOP's fault
The dems pnly care about enslaving every American
He is not a citizen.
You are a racist.
Cheney is a warmongerer
Haliburton
Solyndra
I am right
You are wrong
retard
libtard
teatard

There......

Im pretty much summed up the next weeks worth of debates.


----------



## Claudette (Sep 23, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > I can also hardly wait for 2012 so Barry boy gets booted and a  new POTUS can repeal this clusterfuck of a bill.
> ...



And you know this how??

RD explain my friend.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 23, 2011)

Claudette said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Which part?

God - Sheer logic combined with the crap I've seen in my life tells me there can't be a god. Not a competent one that cares at least.

It doesn't get repealed because despite the outcry here over the entire bill, the rest of the country isn't so passionately against it. People may not love it, but good luck explaining to people that yeah, we are going to allow insurance companies to start denying based upon pre-existing conditions again, etc... Unless like Jarhead said and the repubs take the White House, The house and senate, I don't see how it will ever even come close to being repealed. Altered, sure. But that's to be expected.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 23, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



chickenshit


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 23, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



This is how the left justifies their no moral stance. no God.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Sep 23, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Why not just let everyone stay on mommy's insurance until mommy croaks then?

And I seriously doubt that my wife and I use more insurance than you your wife and your rug rats including the 26 yr old still sucking on your wife's tit.

Sooner or later you idiots have to grow up and that means you support yourself.

Just because you don't want to take responsibility for your own sorry ass and you don't want to teach your fuck up of an adult child to take care of himself, that's your fucking problem.

Don't ask me to pay for it.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 23, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



the left is not an ideology of no morals.
Sure, some take it to that level...but so do many on the right.

RDD is a man of convictions and I can attest that they do not compromise morals.


----------



## Claudette (Sep 23, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



You have a point on the insurance companies denying coverage and I can see your point. So perhaps your right and it would be amended in some way.  

I would rather they scrap the whole thing and start over with some actual reform as to cost which is the main problem with HC IMO. 

As for God?? I could care. Each person believes or disbelieves in his own way.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 23, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



NOBODY and I mean nobody calls me chickenshit.....

ooooh, now you've done it. You've made me angry. I'm warning you, you probably won't like me when I'm angry.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 23, 2011)

Skull Pilot said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



LOL. You make me smile.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 23, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



so you are ugly, a stupid head AND angry.
Wow....


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 23, 2011)

Claudette said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Yeah I can see it being amended in a variety of ways, but all out repeal is highly unlikely. 

I would like to scrap it as well and seriously look at a public option. But there's little chance thats happening either.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 23, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



haha, I was just kidding. I think bigreb was trying to get under my skin, so I gave him what he wanted and tried to incorporate some movie references while I was at it. 

Nothing anyone on this or any website says will ever make me angry. Life is too short to be pissed off all the time.


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 23, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



thats what keeps me sane. I let things roll off my shoulders...well...except Truthmatters...something about her approach really irks the hell out of me.

But on the most part, I am even keeled on this site...actually have learned a lot.

However, sad to say, I am likely going to be leaving here soon....for a couple of reasons...first, I am starting to see that for the most part, this is a rant site...not a debate site...
And secondly....now that my clients fiscal years are winding down and new budegts implemented, I am going to start getting way too busy to sit here and rant and rave.

And I will admit...when I sign on here, I get addicted and have trouble signing off...so I may have to just stop signing on.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 23, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Oh man, I'm sorry to hear that. If you leave I really won't have anyone left to have a reasonable debate with. I'm in the same boat though, I've been getting busier and busier and I probably should step away from here for a bit. There's just too much comedy gold here though, it's tough.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 23, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



That white little speck on top of chickenshit is still chickenshit.
Who said I cared if you liked me or not?


----------



## Claudette (Sep 23, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...




LOL I agree. I try not to let anyone get under my skin though on occasion it does happen. 

I agree 110% about TDM. Was there ever a more patisan hack??

Hope you don't leave permenantly there JH. I for one will miss your RANTS. LOL


----------



## Jarhead (Sep 23, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Aww...cmon...you and claudette have a great thing going.
To be honest...I think I may be a bit jealous.
Maybe thats why I am going to leave....Im jealous....cant watch it anymore...it is so....so....so....hurtful


----------



## RDD_1210 (Sep 23, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Why are we kidding ourselves? There is obviously some real sexual tension between us. I feel it, I know you feel it. Send me a PM and we'll let nature take over.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 23, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Don't flatter yourself your fantsy is your's and your's alone


----------



## MiddleClass (Sep 23, 2011)

Once Healthcare Reform really starts to kick in, the vast majority of Americans will favor it, as most have favored the best parts of it all along. The part some don't like about fining those who do not purchase health insurance was originally a Republican idea. There is nothing unconstitutional about it, as we all are required to pay into medicare. The Supreme Court will decide this and it will take a Republican President, a large majority in the House and Senate to repeal our Health Care Reform Law, all of which will come at a political cost, as the majority of Americans are now in favor of the law.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 23, 2011)

MiddleClass said:


> Once Healthcare Reform really starts to kick in, the vast majority of Americans will favor it, as most have favored the best parts of it all along. The part some don't like about fining those who do not purchase health insurance was originally a Republican idea. There is nothing unconstitutional about it, as we all are required to pay into medicare. The Supreme Court will decide this and it will take a Republican President, a large majority in the House and Senate to repeal our Health Care Reform Law, all of which will come at a political cost, as the majority of Americans are now in favor of the law.



This is what pisses me off, people will like until they get the bill, and when the government starts to cut back on services.
Hell the government has been cutting back on services now and we don't have obamacare working full blast.


----------



## Vanquish (Sep 23, 2011)

Jarhead said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Jarhead, just take a break and come back.  I like what you have to say and how you say it. We need more people who can post a disagreement without resorting to the lowest common denominator *cough*Rabbi*cough*.

I used to get so worked up reading the things people would write here so I took a 4 or 5 month break. A lot of days I sit at my computer writing letters, briefs, or other paperwork when I'm not in court and would reply furiously all day. Eventually, I realized that a break was needed.

I took the break...came back...and while I do get a little perturbed sometimes I realize that if there's someone saying stupid stuff...they're really not having an effect on mass amounts of people being a keyboard cowboy. It's not like they're changing hearts and minds.  There is no winning. And even the insults dont matter in the big picture. (That's not to say that treating poorly well is excusable)

I am sad to agree that most of this board is just people ranting, using the same insults on each other (libs/repugs dont like facts!!) and thinking they are winning something. But hey, as you pointed out, this board is very up-to-the-minute when it comes to world events. At least use it for that, right?


----------



## Flopper (Sep 23, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > I never kicked my kids out of the house.  They are all grown now, have families, and have never needed my help.  If they had, it would be there for the asking.  If my kids were in their early 20's and didn't have insurance, I would welcome the opportunity to be able to carry them as dependents on my insurance.  If they got seriously ill, I would spend my last dime on them.  This provision in law is as much about protecting parents as it is the kids.
> ...


No.  How easily you forget.  Without the healthcare bill, preexisting conditions apply, so a separate policy may not be an option because of cost.  Young people in their early 20s are often working in low paid temp or part time positions where there is no group policy and full coverage policies are well beyond their income.  So yes, there is a need for this feature of the law.


----------



## Brutus (Sep 23, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> and thinking they are winning something.



Actually democracy is debate. Here and in the voting booth we have a choice: freedom versus government. Can you tell us which is correct and why??


----------



## Flopper (Sep 23, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > and thinking they are winning something.
> ...


An how long do think your freedom would last without government?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 23, 2011)

Flopper said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...





So a insurance company will give someone insurance even though they have cancer, or a heart condition?  Should we also force insurance company's to give life insurance to people who are in coma?


----------



## Vanquish (Sep 24, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still waiting for you to explain what the problem is with a 26 year old being on their parents insurance. In what way does this affect you? It only helps you, but you're too pig-headed to realize it. Three degrees and you can't figure this out. I'd ask for a refund on that education.
> ...



You being a partisan shill doesnt make you any better.

By the way...it does help you, dumbass.  If they're not on their parents plan getting _preventative care_ then you're already paying for their *emergency care!!*

If you can't acknowledge that emergency care is more expensive than preventative care, there's no hope for you.


----------



## chikenwing (Sep 24, 2011)

By the way...it does help you, dumbass. If they're not on their parents plan getting preventative care then you're already paying for their emergency care!!


You ass sume that people don't pay their bills??? Big assumption, whats interesting ,that just a week ago there was a headline stating that there has been a large drop in young people being  insured.???!!!

I would expect that this is just propaganda and has no real merit.


----------



## Vanquish (Sep 24, 2011)

chikenwing said:


> By the way...it does help you, dumbass. If they're not on their parents plan getting preventative care then you're already paying for their emergency care!!
> 
> 
> You ass sume that people don't pay their bills??? Big assumption, whats interesting ,that just a week ago there was a headline stating that there has been a large drop in young people being  insured.???!!!
> ...



You didn't use the quote box, but you quoted me so I'll respond.

I didn't assume that ALL people don't pay their bills. If you're going to debate me, figure out what I actually said before you go ranting half-cocked.

I was responding to britpat's situation where HE was assuming that this theoretical kid wasn't paying his bill. It was a hypothetical. Back the fuck up.

Even in the worst situation where some 26 year old is on their parents' healthcare...that's still preventative and not emergency. Costs less. Proving that Obamacare is better.  I know you'll probably hate to hear that and not accept it..but it's a fact.

1. Before Obamacare, everyone gets free emergency healthcare
2. Obamacare means those who don't already have their own insurance get preventative heathcare.
3. Preventative healthcare costs less than emergency healthcare.

Therefore...Obamacare is better.


----------



## driveby (Sep 24, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > By the way...it does help you, dumbass. If they're not on their parents plan getting preventative care then you're already paying for their emergency care!!
> ...



1. Strawman

2. Strawman

3. Strawman


Therefore.....You need a lot more than three weak strawman points to even remotely prove Obamacare is better.....


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



21 year olds could offered their own healthcare coverage if they would stop buying those new electronic gadets or the latest video game.


----------



## Vanquish (Sep 24, 2011)

driveby said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > chikenwing said:
> ...



That's one of the weakest replies I've ever seen on this board. And that's saying a lot with Rabbi and USArmy hanging around.

Either respond or don't. Otherwise you're a waste of space.


----------



## driveby (Sep 24, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...



Did i set up a bunch of weak ass strawmen?  Nope, that was you, rdeanlite.......

Post something concrete to support the bullshit YOU posted or go back to your haberdashery business.........


----------



## Vanquish (Sep 24, 2011)

driveby said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > driveby said:
> ...



Weaksauce...again.

Translation:

I can't attack any of the shit you said, so I'll just throw terms around that I think make me sound cool.

Oh wait! You called me on my shit. I'll repeat the same shit again.

Either respond or don't dude. No one's holding a gun to your head. Otherwise you're a waste of space.

I'm sorry that I blew your mind and proved to you that Obamacare is better than the current system of healthcare...and did it so succinctly.  I know it's hard to grasp that much awesome when you can't really think for yourself.  That's not my problem.

If you can attack something I said...do it. I welcome it. I'll listen...and address what you say directly. Otherwise, get the fuck out of the thread and stop wasting my time.


----------



## driveby (Sep 24, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...



To quickly sum up your lame bullshit:


----------



## Full-Auto (Sep 24, 2011)

driveby said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > driveby said:
> ...


----------



## Flopper (Sep 24, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


If you are a high risk, you buy your insurance through a high risk pool.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2011)

flopper said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > flopper said:
> ...





after someone dies it places a hardship on the family without life insurence should we also force people to buy life insurence that are on their death beds?


----------



## Flopper (Sep 24, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> flopper said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


If someone dies without life insurance it may or may not be devastating to the family.  If someone contracts a serious disease and has no insurance, it's not just the family that's hurt, it's often the medical service providers who pass the cost on to all patients and the tax payer.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 24, 2011)

Flopper said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > flopper said:
> ...



Horse fucking shit  plain old everyday fucking horse shit.
If a loved one dies it places hardship on the family fincally at least. No money coming in that use to be there, kind of like America's tax payers. So who will pay for their debt? House payment cedit cards? Replacement of the income thats no longer there?


----------



## Vanquish (Sep 25, 2011)

Full-Auto said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > Vanquish said:
> ...



Why are you applauding someone who can't make a decent argument?

Somone who posts a weak-ass cartoon because they can't even explain their assertion that I'm posting straw men.

Clapping for this guy only makes your forum worse. Good fucking job.

It's entertaining to post something and have someone oppose it without being able to attack what you actually said. It means they suck.


----------



## Full-Auto (Sep 25, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > driveby said:
> ...



A picture is worth a thousand words. The left creating strawman arguments I have witnessed time and again.  An example would be 46 to 50 million uninsured.


----------



## Vanquish (Sep 25, 2011)

Great deflection, FA.

I never said that. Making what you're saying it's OWN straw man.

How about someone actually addressing what the fuck I said...not some extraneous bullshit.

Great job making your forum an even crappier place.


----------



## Brutus (Sep 28, 2011)

DaGoose said:


> Obamacare Kicking In (And The People Like It So Far!!)



you mean the people not paying like it because they are ripping off others that do pay!! Last year costs went up 9%; an average family now pays $15,000 a year!

Its perfect socialist redistribution with not a hint of Republican capitalist cost savings. Health care is the perfect example of socialism for the whole world to see. It can sink our entire economy!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 28, 2011)

driveby said:


> Vanquish said:
> 
> 
> > driveby said:
> ...



where's the gun? That isn't a real GOP strawman unless it's holding a gun


----------



## Brutus (Sep 28, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> proved that Obamacare is better than the current system of healthcare...and did it so succinctly.



could you prove that again please. Thanks


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 28, 2011)

Brutus said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > proved that Obamacare is better than the current system of healthcare...and did it so succinctly.
> ...



You need to read who posted the comment you have me quoting something I never said.


----------



## Brutus (Sep 28, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



sorry, does anyone care to defend BO care?


----------



## Zona (Sep 28, 2011)

Flopper said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > flopper said:
> ...



Wow..can someone from the right dispute this?  Seriously, can you?


----------



## Zona (Sep 28, 2011)

Brutus said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Brutus said:
> ...



WEll, everyone who had pre existing conditions who were not turned away will defend...even it they are republicans.

People who are 23 or 24 and who had a hard..hard time getting it because they were in school, or whatever, appreciate it. Now they can get on their parents policy. 

What say you to them?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 28, 2011)

Zona said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I did stupid



bigrebnc1775 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


----------



## Flopper (Sep 28, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


I don't have a nickels worth of life insurance because my family doesn't need it.  My wife is provide for and my kids earn more money than me.  Why does a single person with no liabilities need life insurance?  Millions of Americans have no life insurance because they don't need.

Health insurance is quite different.  Unless you have millions to cover a possible devastating illness.  Healthcare bills can wipe out everything the family has and leave unpaid bills that we will all end up paying through higher healthcare cost.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 28, 2011)

Flopper said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



OH I see the old worn out liberal talking point doesn't work with this equation.

What aboput all those medical bills for people without healthcare coverage? How will all those other bills get taken care of when a lose income due to death?


----------



## Flopper (Sep 28, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Do actually have a point or you just babbling?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 28, 2011)

Flopper said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



This is where I get pissed and start cussing at how stupid some people can be, but I won't.  Bills are bills and have to be repaid. Without life insurence who's going to pay for the house payment? because of the lose of an income? Since liberals thinks it's ok for the government to try and force people to buy healthcare coverage, because of healthcare cost and bills shouldn't the government aso force people to buy life insurence?

Don't stutter bitch I'll await your answer.


----------



## Flopper (Sep 30, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


A young single person with no dependents or liabilities that dies without life insurance will cost society nothing other than a cheap burial.  That same person who contracts a serious chronic disease can easy cost society hundreds of thousands of dollars and possibly millions.   There are very few people that can afford to pay all their health care bills if they contract a very serious disease and don't have healthcare coverage.  There are many people that have no dependents and no liabilities and thus have no need for  life insurance and their death would be no financial burden for society.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 30, 2011)

Flopper said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...




Horseshit who will pay for his bills? will the company they owe money to absorb the lose or pass the loss off to the consumer with higher prices?


----------



## Listening (Nov 22, 2011)

It's working ?

Bump.


----------

