ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Neoteny]

Right. Yet nobody calls it Clintonbudget, for some reason. Probably because liberals realize that makes them sound uneducated and childish.

[GreecePwns]

Right. Yet nobody calls it Clintonbudget, for some reason. Probably because liberals realize that makes them sound uneducated and childish.

I call it a surplus under the Clinton administration. Because that's what it was. Your brush could be a bit broader.

[Neoteny]

Right. Yet nobody calls it Clintonbudget, for some reason. Probably because liberals realize that makes them sound uneducated and childish.

I call it a surplus under the Clinton administration. Because that's what it was. Your brush could be a bit broader.

Good call. Let's remove responsibility from politics entirely. Makes it much easier to demonstrate that one's own opinions are better than everyone else's.

[GreecePwns]

Right. Yet nobody calls it Clintonbudget, for some reason. Probably because liberals realize that makes them sound uneducated and childish.

I call it a surplus under the Clinton administration. Because that's what it was. Your brush could be a bit broader.

Good call. Let's remove responsibility from politics entirely. Makes it much easier to demonstrate that one's own opinions are better than everyone else's.

So who was responsible for the surplus then? Do tell. I really want to know, since you're the authority on all things debate now.

I believe john9blue posted this saying once: "Great Minds Discuss Ideas; Average Minds Discuss Events; Small Minds Discuss People."

[Neoteny]

Right. Yet nobody calls it Clintonbudget, for some reason. Probably because liberals realize that makes them sound uneducated and childish.

I call it a surplus under the Clinton administration. Because that's what it was. Your brush could be a bit broader.

Good call. Let's remove responsibility from politics entirely. Makes it much easier to demonstrate that one's own opinions are better than everyone else's.

So who was responsible for the surplus then? Do tell. I really want to know, since you're the authority on all things debate now.

I really have been pretty on-point recently, haven't I? Look, I'm not really interested in debating the economy. I'll even refrain from making the obvious joke. I'm making the point that the current loudmouths are blaming Obama specifically for "his" budget and healthcare in general, but will then try to avoid a positive connection to Clinton by downplaying his contributions or outright denying them, attributing them to Reagan or whatever. Like how you did. Also, "Obamacare" is a stupid word and people should be ashamed to have said it.

[GreecePwns]

Right. Yet nobody calls it Clintonbudget, for some reason. Probably because liberals realize that makes them sound uneducated and childish.

I call it a surplus under the Clinton administration. Because that's what it was. Your brush could be a bit broader.

Good call. Let's remove responsibility from politics entirely. Makes it much easier to demonstrate that one's own opinions are better than everyone else's.

So who was responsible for the surplus then? Do tell. I really want to know, since you're the authority on all things debate now.

I really have been pretty on-point recently, haven't I? Look, I'm not really interested in debating the economy. I'll even refrain from making the obvious joke. I'm making the point that the current loudmouths are blaming Obama specifically for "his" budget and healthcare in general, but will then try to avoid a positive connection to Clinton by downplaying his contributions or outright denying them, attributing them to Reagan or whatever. Like how you did. Also, "Obamacare" is a stupid word and people should be ashamed to have said it.

I don't try to downplay Clinton's contributions. My response to DangerBoy was because of the sad assertion that professors are inherently liberal. Did Clinton do it? I would say, for the most part yes. But DangerBoy thinks we're constantly lectured that because of some sort of liberal bias (at least that is what was implied).

[Phatscotty]

I call it the result of the Republican Congressional sweep in 94, along with the gov't shutdown of 95, along with compromise by Clinton.

[GreecePwns]

I call it the result of the Republican Congressional sweep in 94, along with the gov't shutdown of 95, along with compromise by Clinton.

I really hope you're rethinking that gov't shutdown part. To call that anything but a massive loss dealt to cranky Gingrich and the Republicans then you've got blinders on.

[Phatscotty]

I call it the result of the Republican Congressional sweep in 94, along with the gov't shutdown of 95, along with compromise by Clinton.

I really hope you're rethinking that gov't shutdown part. To call that anything but a massive loss dealt to cranky Gingrich and the Republicans then you've got blinders on.

The shutdown is what forced Clinton to compromise. If you don't think so, then what is your take on the situation?

[GreecePwns]

I call it the result of the Republican Congressional sweep in 94, along with the gov't shutdown of 95, along with compromise by Clinton.

I really hope you're rethinking that gov't shutdown part. To call that anything but a massive loss dealt to cranky Gingrich and the Republicans then you've got blinders on.

The shutdown is what forced Clinton to compromise. If you don't think so, then what is your take on the situation?

Gingrich himself said that one of the reasons he took such a hard line was because he sat in the back of the plane to Israel for the PM's funeral. Public opinion sided with the President. The crankiness of Gingrich toward the President and Bob Dole was a huge political killer. To say otherwise is flat out revisionist.

[Neoteny]

I don't try to downplay Clinton's contributions. My response to DangerBoy was because of the sad assertion that professors are inherently liberal. Did Clinton do it? I would say, for the most part yes. But DangerBoy thinks we're constantly lectured that because of some sort of liberal bias (at least that is what was implied).

That's fair. My initial post wasn't really directed at you anyhow, hence the lack of a direct quote. I just used your post as a springboard to insert my opinion into the topic.

[GreecePwns]

I don't try to downplay Clinton's contributions. My response to DangerBoy was because of the sad assertion that professors are inherently liberal. Did Clinton do it? I would say, for the most part yes. But DangerBoy thinks we're constantly lectured that because of some sort of liberal bias (at least that is what was implied).

That's fair. My initial post wasn't really directed at you anyhow, hence the lack of a direct quote. I just used your post as a springboard to insert my opinion into the topic.

Guess I should stop assuming that everyone on this board thinks its a pissing contest

[Phatscotty]

I call it the result of the Republican Congressional sweep in 94, along with the gov't shutdown of 95, along with compromise by Clinton.

I really hope you're rethinking that gov't shutdown part. To call that anything but a massive loss dealt to cranky Gingrich and the Republicans then you've got blinders on.

The shutdown is what forced Clinton to compromise. If you don't think so, then what is your take on the situation?

Gingrich himself said that one of the reasons he took such a hard line was because he sat in the back of the plane to Israel for the PM's funeral. Public opinion sided with the President. The crankiness of Gingrich toward the President and Bob Dole was a huge political killer. To say otherwise is flat out revisionist.

yeah, um, but, the shutdown...what happened after the shutdown? How did we start the gov't back up?

[Neoteny]

I don't try to downplay Clinton's contributions. My response to DangerBoy was because of the sad assertion that professors are inherently liberal. Did Clinton do it? I would say, for the most part yes. But DangerBoy thinks we're constantly lectured that because of some sort of liberal bias (at least that is what was implied).

That's fair. My initial post wasn't really directed at you anyhow, hence the lack of a direct quote. I just used your post as a springboard to insert my opinion into the topic.

Guess I should stop assuming that everyone on this board thinks its a pissing contest

No, it usually is. I just wasn't pissing on you.

[stahrgazer]

yeah, um, but, the shutdown...what happened after the shutdown? How did we start the gov't back up?

The Republican majority at the time passed a borrow-n-spend bill.

[PLAYER57832]

yeah, um, but, the shutdown...what happened after the shutdown? How did we start the gov't back up?

The Republican majority at the time passed a borrow-n-spend bill.

And in the meantime, it really did not save the government much of anything, just wound up cutting services to many taxpayers for a time. A small example was people who maybe had planned their vacations for years found they could not go to national parks.

All the employees eventually got paid. Since it hit right at Christmastime, it meant a LOT of people got a nice vacation. Many others, others who live "day to day" on their paychecks, found they were not ablet o pay bills. I can still remember Mississippi congressman Gene Taylor stepping forward to offer his personal salary and any other funds he had available to pay bills of any federal employee in need (note that his district include several large military bases). I can remember one family had delayed buyin Christmas presents... we all stepped in to help. (I was single at the time and had money to spare). Of course, federal employees are so widespread that even many credit card companies back then found it expedient to let folks delay payments without payment, nevermind most local merchants.


The truth is that "shutting down the government" and "letting the US go banktrup" are BOTH very stupid options. Still, the current so-called "Tea Party" climate cares so little about the REAL impacts, instead wanting to grandstandin pissing contests, I fear we will see those things happen.

What we really need are congresspeople with the guts to stand up to their constituants and explain that we really HAVE to raise taxes, particularly on the wealthy and corporations (in particular, cutting some of the thousands of deductions, just simplifying the tax code will go a LONG way) AND also cut spending. That is one thing Reagan never was willing to do. And, we have all paid for it ever since!

[Phatscotty]

yeah, um, but, the shutdown...what happened after the shutdown? How did we start the gov't back up?

The Republican majority at the time passed a borrow-n-spend bill.

so, is that what balanced the budget?

[saxitoxin]

Because the kids have "conditions" they have always been eligible. (before Medicaid just paid the co-pays, dental and eye. Now it pays all).

Once Senator Obama's programme takes full effect you won't even have that. It'll be cash or nothing. Better start saving.

No, we will have insurance by then. And because of the law, won't need Medicaid because my kids won't be able to be excluded.

Correct - you won't be able to be excluded from the zero policies available for you to purchase. You will have absolute freedom of choice between "Nothing", "Not Available" and "Non Existent."

PRIVATE insurers, those who decide that they will cover only healthy people, take their money and provdie real care for only a select few sick folks might go away. Insurance and health care never will.

P.S. My husband's employer will provide him insurance in late spring.

As previously noted ... below. (Query: Is [1] the reality that no insurance is ever coming to you so terrifying that you are just clinging to the desperate hope that somehow every indicator to the contrary - such as the unprecedented termination of child health insurance in 34 states - is wrong, or, [2] do you actually believe that these are all incidental rough patches that somehow will magically sort themselves out through some inexplicable means and Obama, fresh from lining his pockets with campaign donations from Aetna, has your best interests at heart?)

If you choose to rephrase that as something other than trolling idiocy, I might deign to respond.

Insurance Donors to Obama Campaign Terminate All Health Care for Children; Barack and Mitch Attend Gala Ball and Dinner, Enjoy Fine California Wines / Socialize with Celebrities

Health insurers in 34 states have stopped selling child-only insurance policies as a result of the health reform law, and the market continues to destablize.
Since September, the health reform law has barred insurers from withholding policies to children under 19 who have a pre-existing condition. Rather than take on the burdensome cost of writing policies for potentially-pricey medical conditions, many carriers decided to leave the market altogether.

As noted before, the TRUTH is that insurers stopped offering real coverage a long time ago. People still pay into the system, but the insurers find so many loopholes to not pay many would be better off without any insurance. This reform WILL fix that, already in the case of children and in 2014 in the case of adults.

What is at question is whether these companies will continue to be allowed to take monumental profits, which necessarily come out of the healthcare they are willing provide, OR if the entire industry must change to something that once again offers coverage. This might happen with private companies, such as in Germany and so forth. OR it might happen under an almost entirely public program,(with optional coverage only offered by private insurers) such as is found in France.

At any rate, ANYTHING is an improvement over our current system which just means insurers get to reap profits from "insuring" the healthy and then dumping anyone sick onto the tax payers.

You used 150 words to essentially say you don't care about the fact that child health insurance has just been canceled in 34 states, the Obama Corporate Welfare Bill is "just good" and no facts to the contrary are going to change your mind.

It sounds like this has become a religion for you and the great minds of the day, Ralph Nader (who says he would vote to repeal if he sat in Congress), Howard Dean and others can not present a rational argument that will dissuade you. You are a crusader and will surge forward because of fanatical desperation and nothing more.

I regret you chose not to reply to the reality that people in 34 states can no longer purchase child-only health insurance for their babies, who will be left to die or suffer in emergency rooms because of the greed of Barack Obama who wants to line his pockets with the $ of insurance mega-corporations.

END OF LINE

[saxitoxin]

Under "employee sponsored" back when ss and medicare were established, employers primarily footed the entire bill for their employees as part of their "wages and benefits" packages.

Your source for that gem is what?

Someone as educated as yourself ought to be aware of the real history of employer-based insurance. It began with Blue Cross offering a plan for teachers in Texas. Then, under Truman, wages were frozen. Since employers could not offer higher wages, they began offering other benefits, including health insurance coverage.

Fast forward and employer-provided insurance quickly became the norm.

A link: http://www.articlesnatch.com/Article/Un ... ce/1068821

All I'm asking for is a source. Instead of throwing reply-after-reply at me that lacks a source, just provide a reputable link if it's such common knowledge. I've asked like 4 times now for a simple link and the only reply I get is people screaming at me at the top of their lungs that "it just is." Your refusal to process a source request has overloaded my logic circuits as my programming has accustomed me to lucid and sane people couching argument in fact and replying to critical questions with a referenced reply, not replying to critical questions with shrieking, fist-shaking and going into convulsions on the floor.

This is kind of your M.O. Should I dredge up the "Player Best Of" episodes (i.e. "I can't even prove it was even said, but I know I heard it.") ? Everyone seems to enjoy those.

Twinklestar or whatever his name is reply was most precious - "my source is history - just look it up!" Truly we are really dealing with some intellectual pillars here.

(note: an open-edits website, "articlesnatch.com", does not count as a source)

END OF LINE

[PLAYER57832]

You used 150 words to essentially say you don't care about the fact that child health insurance has just been canceled in 34 states, the Obama Corporate Welfare Bill is "just good" and no facts to the contrary are going to change your mind.

Child health care has not "been cancelled in 34 states". A few insurers are attempting to cancel child policies in those states. Whether they are allowed to do that or not is up in question. In any case, those kids ARE still eligible for CHIP programs. That is often a benefit.

Also, unlike you, I don't lay the blame for this on the new healthcare reform. I leay the blame on insurers that think its perfectly OK to take huge profits and provide almost nothing in return.

Most people don't really and truly have insurance, except the tax-payor kind, they only think they do.

It sounds like this has become a religion for you and the great minds of the day, Ralph Nader (who says he would vote to repeal if he sat in Congress), Howard Dean and others can not present a rational argument that will dissuade you.

typical. I disagree with your wild assertions and so I am "not listening to reason".

Ralph Nadar has some good ideas, but tends to be an "all or nothing" guy. I wish congress would vote his ideas in. However, I am not going to sit back and criticize any and all change just because it falls short of that ideal. As for Howard Dean.. I have no respect for that guy at all and therefore have not paid any attention to what he says.

I regret you chose not to reply to the reality that people in 34 states can no longer purchase child-only health insurance for their babies, who will be left to die or suffer in emergency rooms because of the greed of Barack Obama who wants to line his pockets with the $ of insurance mega-corporations.

I regret that you have bought into the right wing arguments of untruths and falsities. You may claim to be a leftist, but in reality you are anything but.

[GabonX]

Twinklestar or whatever his name is reply was most precious - "my source is history - just look it up!" Truly we are really dealing with some intellectual pillars here.

Twinklestar... Lulz

[saxitoxin]

You used 150 words to essentially say you don't care about the fact that child health insurance has just been canceled in 34 states, the Obama Corporate Welfare Bill is "just good" and no facts to the contrary are going to change your mind.

[SAXI EDIT FOR CLARITY] Child health care child only health insurance [SAXI EDIT FOR CLARITY] has not "been cancelled in 34 states". A few insurers are attempting to cancel child policies in those states. Whether they are allowed to do that or not is up in question.

If you repeat something loudly enough that doesn't make it a fact. Once again:

• politico.com: Health insurers in 34 states have stopped selling child-only insurance policies as a result of the health reform law, and the market continues to destablize.

Why did Mr. Obama enact a plan that will cause children to lose their healthcare and die? I don't understand it. At least he is getting campaign contributions from UHC and Aetna.

It sounds like this has become a religion for you and the great minds of the day, Ralph Nader (who says he would vote to repeal if he sat in Congress), Howard Dean and others can not present a rational argument that will dissuade you.

typical. I disagree with your wild assertions and so I am "not listening to reason".

Ralph Nadar has some good ideas, but tends to be an "all or nothing" guy. I wish congress would vote his ideas in. However, I am not going to sit back and criticize any and all change just because it falls short of that ideal. As for Howard Dean.. I have no respect for that guy at all and therefore have not paid any attention to what he says.

Correct, you haven't been paying attention to what many people say. You may want to start. Your uni-dimensional worldview would be amusing if it weren't so utterly frightening.

Also, I've asked you many times to spell Ralph Nader's name correctly. You are either (1) too stupid to spell correctly the name of a very well known person or (2) know very well that "nadar" is considered a slur in Lebanon. I don't believe the former, you know very well the racist inuendo you are schilling. You have been cautioned at least thrice. If you can't argue facts you have a choice to continue shaking your fist and convulsing but do not engage in racism, please.

I regret you chose not to reply to the reality that people in 34 states can no longer purchase child-only health insurance for their babies, who will be left to die or suffer in emergency rooms because of the greed of Barack Obama who wants to line his pockets with the $ of insurance mega-corporations.

I regret that you have bought into the right wing arguments of untruths and falsities. You may claim to be a leftist, but in reality you are anything but.

For, now the fifth time, you are choosing to name-call instead of source your claim.

This is a forum for discussions, not wild convulsions on the ground. Please wipe the foam off your mouth and choose to act in a mature and rational manner. Most of us here are adults and would appreciate interacting with others in our age group.

END OF LINE

[PLAYER57832]

You used 150 words to essentially say you don't care about the fact that child health insurance has just been canceled in 34 states, the Obama Corporate Welfare Bill is "just good" and no facts to the contrary are going to change your mind.

[SAXI EDIT FOR CLARITY] Child health care child only health insurance [SAXI EDIT FOR CLARITY] has not "been cancelled in 34 states". A few insurers are attempting to cancel child policies in those states. Whether they are allowed to do that or not is up in question.

If you repeat something loudly enough that doesn't make it a fact.

Exactly! yet, you persist in trying. 34 private insurers do not constitute ALL insurers. Furthermore, CHIP exists, CHIP is actually a better deal for most parents anyway. It covers more and is cheaper.

[Phatscotty]

because someone else pays for it?

[PLAYER57832]

because someone else pays for it?

"someone else" pays for ALL insurance, excluding a few who actually wind up getting very sick and manage to stay covered. That is one of those points you keep discounting.

The insurers keep costs low by conveniently disgarding/excluding most people who truly need coverage, who are actually sick. That doesn't mean you are getting a good deal. It just means you are lucky. This is particularly true since, as I continually point out, we ALL do pay for the sickest and poorest through our taxes.

So, again, this is just a case of insurers making profits off those cheapest to insure and leaving the rest to be covered by taxes/other payors.