If you use the term "crap policies"...

[daveman]

Well then you post those millions, one by one, with proof, and then you'll have standing to claim that posting ALL the evidence is better than posting a few representative examples.

But you don't have any proof that those are representative samples, do you?

Hint: No, you don't.

Why wouldn't they be? It's not as if that woman's situation was particularly unique. Use your head.

Oh, this should be interesting.

Okay, then, Stalin and Lenin are representative of all progressives.

Right, Comrade?

 

[daveman]

Junk health insurance
Stingy plans may be worse than none at all
Consumer Reports magazine: March 2012

It might seem to be health insurance, if you don’t look too closely, and most people don’t. The premiums are surprisingly affordable. And so millions of unemployed people, service industry workers, and those taken in by fast-talking telemarketers sign up. They may think they’re insured—until they have a medical problem and find out that their coverage is as skimpy as a hospital gown.

The Affordable Care Act was supposed to usher in a new era of consumer-friendly health care. For instance, insurers are no longer allowed to put outrageously low limits on the amount they pay out for medical care in a year or lifetime.

While millions of Americans have benefited from that and other reforms, many are still prey to the kind of skimpy “junk” plans the new law was designed to eliminate. Some plans, known as mini-meds, are operated by employers and brand-name insurance companies with special dispensation from the federal government. Others, such as health discount cards and fixed benefit indemnity plans, from companies you’ve probably never heard of, are so meager that regulators don’t consider them to be health insurance at all—though that’s frequently not clear to consumers. And some of the companies operate one step ahead of the law.

Cheap Health Insurance - Consumer Reports

Just like they tried to cover up how few were enrolling, they are also trying to cover up how few of the cancelled policies were what they called junk policies.

Honestly, how can you still trust these lying assholes after this?

WTF is wrong with you??

Hundreds of thousands of BlueCross BlueShield members had their policies cancelled. Is Blue Cross selling junk policies????

Anyone who is transitioned from a pre-Obamacare plan to an Obamacare compliant plan that is comparable for the same price or lower has no complaint.

What if the plan is higher in price and has a higher deductible? Do those people have a complaint?

 

[daveman]

A sincere apology is not delivered with a ration of shit included.

So...you've never apologized for being wrong.

But then, you're NEVER wrong, are you?

You really need me to dig up a post showing me acknowledging that I was factually incorrect?

Yes. Because I don't remember it ever happening.

 

[daveman]

Anyone who is transitioned from a pre-Obamacare plan to an Obamacare compliant plan that is comparable for the same price or lower has no complaint.

Of course not.

Do you know of any??????

Yes, but if I post one daveman will say I need to post millions, one by one.

When have I ever said you need to post millions of anything, one by one?

Oh, that's right, never. That's you being typically dishonest and factually incorrect.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Our founding fathers heavily regulated business and corporations...NOW what pea brain?

The founding fathers believed that corporations had a government guaranteed right to kill anyone that competed with them. I am pretty sure you don't want that, but feel free to prove me wrong.

You are WRONG...

PROOF...

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What caused the Progressive movement

We tried unregulated corporations in America. The closest experiment to total deregulation in this country occurred between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the 19th century...it was called the Gilded Age; an era where America was as far from our founder's intent of a democratic society and closest to an aristocracy that our founder's were willing to lay down their lives to defeat.

It was opposition to that same Gilded Age that was the genesis of the Progressive movement in this country. When you study history, almost always just cause is behind it.

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
Me[

Is there anything in there that is different from the last time you ranted about me being wrong without actually addressing the point I made?

 

[The T]

The founding fathers believed that corporations had a government guaranteed right to kill anyone that competed with them. I am pretty sure you don't want that, but feel free to prove me wrong.

You are WRONG...

PROOF...

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What caused the Progressive movement

We tried unregulated corporations in America. The closest experiment to total deregulation in this country occurred between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the 19th century...it was called the Gilded Age; an era where America was as far from our founder's intent of a democratic society and closest to an aristocracy that our founder's were willing to lay down their lives to defeat.

It was opposition to that same Gilded Age that was the genesis of the Progressive movement in this country. When you study history, almost always just cause is behind it.

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
Me[

Is there anything in there that is different from the last time you ranted about me being wrong without actually addressing the point I made?

That would be a huge NO. I guess BuFu likes going around in circles and digging tire tracks in the MUD here at USMB to make himself feel better. (While the rest of laugh at the spin).

 

[The T]

Of course not.

Do you know of any??????

Yes, but if I post one daveman will say I need to post millions, one by one.

When have I ever said you need to post millions of anything, one by one?

Oh, that's right, never. That's you being typically dishonest and factually incorrect.

Carbonated isn't familiar with ASSUME...He sure illustrates it way too much. (But what Statist doesn't second guess their opponents, and introduce non consequential crap into a debatefor the sake of obfuscation to make themselves look good despite the truth)?

 

[The T]

policies...???

foreign policies, domestic policies, insurance policies,...???

Personal policies?

LOL!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are WRONG...

PROOF...

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What caused the Progressive movement

We tried unregulated corporations in America. The closest experiment to total deregulation in this country occurred between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the 19th century...it was called the Gilded Age; an era where America was as far from our founder's intent of a democratic society and closest to an aristocracy that our founder's were willing to lay down their lives to defeat.

It was opposition to that same Gilded Age that was the genesis of the Progressive movement in this country. When you study history, almost always just cause is behind it.

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
Me[

Is there anything in there that is different from the last time you ranted about me being wrong without actually addressing the point I made?

That would be a huge NO. I guess BuFu likes going around in circles and digging tire tracks in the MUD here at USMB to make himself feel better. (While the rest of laugh at the spin).

It is the exact same cut and paste he uses every time he goes off on corporations, despite the fact that the corporations he is comparing them to only existed as arms of the government.

 

[mudwhistle]

Just like they tried to cover up how few were enrolling, they are also trying to cover up how few of the cancelled policies were what they called junk policies.

Honestly, how can you still trust these lying assholes after this?

WTF is wrong with you??

Hundreds of thousands of BlueCross BlueShield members had their policies cancelled. Is Blue Cross selling junk policies????

Anyone who is transitioned from a pre-Obamacare plan to an Obamacare compliant plan that is comparable for the same price or lower has no complaint.

What if the plan is higher in price and has a higher deductible? Do those people have a complaint?

The statement was an attempt to avoid that.

Of course nobody would complain if they had to pay less or the same for better coverage, but they cannot provide examples. We have a ton of examples of folks that are getting screwed but none of folks getting a good deal.

 

[The T]

Is there anything in there that is different from the last time you ranted about me being wrong without actually addressing the point I made?

That would be a huge NO. I guess BuFu likes going around in circles and digging tire tracks in the MUD here at USMB to make himself feel better. (While the rest of laugh at the spin).

It is the exact same cut and paste he uses every time he goes off on corporations, despite the fact that the corporations he is comparing them to only existed as arms of the government.

And that is his aim isn't it? Government tyranny...and the new slavery he supports.

 

[Bfgrn]

Is there anything in there that is different from the last time you ranted about me being wrong without actually addressing the point I made?

That would be a huge NO. I guess BuFu likes going around in circles and digging tire tracks in the MUD here at USMB to make himself feel better. (While the rest of laugh at the spin).

It is the exact same cut and paste he uses every time he goes off on corporations, despite the fact that the corporations he is comparing them to only existed as arms of the government.

IF that were true, which it isn't, THAT would be 100 times worse. That would make our founding fathers beyond 'statists', they would be communists.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That would be a huge NO. I guess BuFu likes going around in circles and digging tire tracks in the MUD here at USMB to make himself feel better. (While the rest of laugh at the spin).

It is the exact same cut and paste he uses every time he goes off on corporations, despite the fact that the corporations he is comparing them to only existed as arms of the government.

IF that were true, which it isn't, THAT would be 100 times worse. That would make our founding fathers beyond 'statists', they would be communists.

Lets take this one step at a time.

First you can start by proving your point with verifiable facts.

 

[Bfgrn]

It is the exact same cut and paste he uses every time he goes off on corporations, despite the fact that the corporations he is comparing them to only existed as arms of the government.

IF that were true, which it isn't, THAT would be 100 times worse. That would make our founding fathers beyond 'statists', they would be communists.

Lets take this one step at a time.

First you can start by proving your point with verifiable facts.

I DID, you are welcome to try to disprove them. If our founding fathers were 'laissez-faire' capitalists, there should be plenty of proof. Show me where our founding fathers extolled the virtues of 'laissez-faire' capitalism? Show me where the word corporation' appears in the Constitution or Bill of Rights?

The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That would be a huge NO. I guess BuFu likes going around in circles and digging tire tracks in the MUD here at USMB to make himself feel better. (While the rest of laugh at the spin).

It is the exact same cut and paste he uses every time he goes off on corporations, despite the fact that the corporations he is comparing them to only existed as arms of the government.

IF that were true, which it isn't, THAT would be 100 times worse. That would make our founding fathers beyond 'statists', they would be communists.

It is true.

From your link.

State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

Corporations could not operate in other states because their charter was only good for the state that issued it, and they were required to provide a public good or benefit. They were more like modern utilities than modern corporations, but you are so stupid you can't tell the difference.

 

[The T]

That would be a huge NO. I guess BuFu likes going around in circles and digging tire tracks in the MUD here at USMB to make himself feel better. (While the rest of laugh at the spin).

It is the exact same cut and paste he uses every time he goes off on corporations, despite the fact that the corporations he is comparing them to only existed as arms of the government.

IF that were true, which it isn't, THAT would be 100 times worse. That would make our founding fathers beyond 'statists', they would be communists.

really? WHY didn't YOU go the distance and call them TERRORISTS like your brothers and sisters on here of like mind?

And YOU don't know the word STATIST because if you did? YOU wouldn't paste it ON the Founders...they were far from it you dolt.

 

[MeBelle]

I'll bet none of you know that one of the reasons some insurance companies cancelled policies instead of simply modifying them to be compliant is that some STATES required that.

Link


They already had modified the policies they cancelled........that's why they weren't grandfathered in.....dumbass.

ICYMI ? CNN: Some States Require Health Plans to Cancel Policies that Don?t Meet ACA Requirements | AHIP Coverage

3 states tell insurers to scrap plans that don't comply with Obamacare - CNN.com


(CNN) -- President Obama may have promised Americans that they can keep their insurance if they like it, but that's not the case in at least three states where insurance companies are required to discontinue plans that don't meet Obamacare's new coverage standards.

Virginia, Kentucky and Idaho have told insurance companies that they must scrap insurance plans that don't meet the minimum coverage requirements laid out in the Affordable Care Act.
Some states allow insurers to amend their current plans to include the new benefits, such as maternity care and prescription drug coverage, required under Obamacare.

But these three states have determined that with so many changes required under Obamacare, it's easier to start over than to try to bring existing plans into compliance.

[MENTION=18701]NYcarbineer[/MENTION] who doesn't seem to understand that

a) All 50 states have different laws regarding Health Insurance

and

b) NO State would have to change anything if ACA was not a FEDERAL law.

 

[MeBelle]

So where's the proof that ALL policies currently being cancelled due to Obamacare are "junk policies"?

Never mind. We both know there is no such proof.

This morning I heard on MSNBC, or maybe it was CNN, that ALL policies under ACA were considered "junk policies" because they include things like maternity care for men and prostate checks for women.

 

[Bfgrn]

It is the exact same cut and paste he uses every time he goes off on corporations, despite the fact that the corporations he is comparing them to only existed as arms of the government.

IF that were true, which it isn't, THAT would be 100 times worse. That would make our founding fathers beyond 'statists', they would be communists.

It is true.

From your link.

State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

Corporations could not operate in other states because their charter was only good for the state that issued it, and they were required to provide a public good or benefit. They were more like modern utilities than modern corporations, but you are so stupid you can't tell the difference.

Then...that is 100 times worse. That would make our founding fathers way beyond 'statists', they would be communists.

LOL...a stupid person would believe somehow our founding fathers subscribed to 'laissez-faire' capitalism, when they governed by complete government control of corporations and commerce.

That would be YOU pea brain...

 

[Bfgrn]

It is the exact same cut and paste he uses every time he goes off on corporations, despite the fact that the corporations he is comparing them to only existed as arms of the government.

IF that were true, which it isn't, THAT would be 100 times worse. That would make our founding fathers beyond 'statists', they would be communists.

really? WHY didn't YOU go the distance and call them TERRORISTS like your brothers and sisters on here of like mind?

And YOU don't know the word STATIST because if you did? YOU wouldn't paste it ON the Founders...they were far from it you dolt.

Pretty funny how REALLY stupid you right wing turds are. You folks have NO problem using government to invade sovereign nations, demand people piss in a cup and have government decide their fate, bust unions, take state control of a woman's uterus, send swat teams into people's homes and undermining the justice system and the right to a trial by your peers by pushing 'tort' reform, a.k.a, government DICTATING what a jury can or can't do.

That my REALLY stupid friend IS STATISM...