Barack Obama, our next President

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ... Full Story
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#1017741 Nov 3, 2013
shinningelectr0n wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd love to see him fix a broken condom by placing his mouth over it, though.
I bet you've done that thousands of times son!
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1017743 Nov 3, 2013
Keeping Your Crappy Health Care Plan

The mainstream media's running around like a child with a shiny new toy (story): some people won't be able to keep their insurance because of the Affordable Care Act. They are practically screaming "Liar, liar, pants on fire" at President Obama. This allows them to pat themselves on the back for "balanced coverage" of American politics. If you've been reporting what a gigantic mistake the Republicans have made of things for the past month, now it's time to headline equally negative stories about Democrats.

The media have taken the bait, and reduced an important policy debate to the bite-size of what fits on cable news in between stories about celebrity break-ups and new diet books. The idea they are parroting fits on a bumper sticker. "I want to keep my health plan!" In so doing, they have done us all a disservice, for the millionth time.

It sounds like an easy story: the president promised, and then, oh no he didn't! People are getting notices that their sacred right to keep whatever crappy non-health care plan they have is being taken away by big government. What's really going on is a redefining of what " care" means, as in The Affordable Care Act. It's not The Affordable Crappy Health Care Act, it's the Affordable Care Act. And if you think an insurance plan with a huge deductible that only allows you to see your doctor twice a year is really "care," then you've been duped by Big Insurance.

Insurance companies are more than happy to take a small chunk of your money every month, in return for giving the smallest possible coverage. It's a great deal for them, but if you get more than a cold a year, it's a bad idea for the consumer. And the Affordable Care Act has stepped in and said, "Look, this is not real insurance. Instead, you can buy cheaper insurance (especially if you qualify for one of the many subsidies) that will give you unlimited doctor's visits, cover maternity care, and in general give you real peace of mind."

But the libertarians protest: "I have a God-given right to choose the crappiest insurance, and pay a relatively small amount of my paycheck to get it." Here's the real public policy debate that almost nobody's talking about: What happens to this happy libertarian when she or he gets cancer, or hit by a car? Insurance companies know that people under 40 don't believe these things will happen to them, but we all know better, don't we? And who pays for the libertarian with a crappy non-health care plan who gets cancer or hit by a car? Why, we do. Because they will go to the emergency room, the most expensive kind of care there is, and that cost gets pushed onto all of us.

So I have a simple solution for libertarians who want the freedom to keep their crappy non-health care: let them sign a binding document that they will never use the emergency room unless they can afford to pay for the full bill themselves. Let them sign a binding document that says if they get cancer and go broke trying to pay their medical bills, that they won't declare bankruptcy, which will also pass cost increases onto all of us. And while we're at it, if libertarians want the freedom to drive their motorcycles without a helmet, let them sign a binding document that their brain surgeries will be totally paid for by the freedom-loving motorcyclist and her or his family.

Freedom's just another word for "let the other people pay for my health care when I get a catastrophic illness." Put that on a bumper sticker.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/monica-bauer/ke...
Bud

United States

#1017744 Nov 3, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
Keeping Your Crappy Health Care Plan
The mainstream media's running around like a child with a shiny new toy (story): some people won't be able to keep their insurance because of the Affordable Care Act. They are practically screaming "Liar, liar, pants on fire" at President Obama. This allows them to pat themselves on the back for "balanced coverage" of American politics. If you've been reporting what a gigantic mistake the Republicans have made of things for the past month, now it's time to headline equally negative stories about Democrats.
"I want to keep my health plan!" In so doing, they have done us all a disservice, for the millionth time.
It sounds like an easy story: the president promised, and then, oh no he didn't! People are getting notices that their sacred right to keep whatever crappy non-health care plan they have is being taken away by big government. What's really going on is a redefining of what " care" means, as in The Affordable Care Act. It's not The Affordable Crappy Health Care Act, it's the Affordable Care Act. And if you think an insurance plan with a huge deductible that only allows you to see your doctor twice a year is really "care," then you've been duped by Big Insurance.
Insurance companies are more than happy to take a small chunk of your money every month, in return for giving the smallest possible coverage. It's a great deal for them, but if you get more than a cold a year, it's a bad idea for the consumer. And the Affordable Care Act has stepped in and said, "Look, this is not real insurance. Instead, you can buy cheaper insurance (especially if you qualify for one of the many subsidies) that will give you unlimited doctor's visits, cover maternity care, and in general give you real peace of mind."
But the libertarians protest: "I have a God-given right to choose the crappiest insurance, and pay a relatively small amount of my paycheck to get it." Here's the real public policy debate that almost nobody's talking about: What happens to this happy libertarian when she or he gets cancer, or hit by a car? Insurance companies know that people under 40 don't believe these things will happen to them, but we all know better, don't we? And who pays for the libertarian with a crappy non-health care plan who gets cancer or hit by a car? Why, we do. Because they will go to the emergency room, the most expensive kind of care there is, and that cost gets pushed onto all of us.
So I have a simple solution for libertarians who want the freedom to keep their crappy non-health care: let them sign a binding document that they will never use the emergency room unless they can afford to pay for the full bill themselves. Let them sign a binding document that says if they get cancer and go broke trying to pay their medical bills, that they won't declare bankruptcy, which will also pass cost increases onto all of us. And while we're at it, if libertarians want the freedom to drive their motorcycles without a helmet, let them sign a binding document that their brain surgeries will be totally paid for by the freedom-loving motorcyclist and her or his family.
Freedom's just another word for "let the other people pay for my health care when I get a catastrophic illness." Put that on a bumper sticker.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/monica-bauer/ke...
Why do you assume the plans that have been cancelled were crappy? I got some news for you they weren't. My wife and I had a great Cadillac plan but we received cancellation notice that ACA made it no longer compliant. Now I have a plan with higher deductibles higher co-pays higher premiums. My old plan didn't have a cap. But now I have pre/post natal care though my wife and I are past that part of our life. We don't need pediatric care and the list goes on. We pay for something we will never use.

Plus you have the real risk of loosing your doctor or hospitals you have confidence in.
Bud

United States

#1017745 Nov 3, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
Keeping Your Crappy Health Care Plan
The mainstream media's running around like a child with a shiny new toy (story): some people won't be able to keep their insurance because of the Affordable Care Act. They are practically screaming "Liar, liar, pants on fire" at President Obama. This allows them to pat themselves on the back for "balanced coverage" of American politics. If you've been reporting what a gigantic mistake the Republicans have made of things for the past month, now it's time to headline equally negative stories about Democrats.
The media have taken the bait, and reduced an important policy debate to the bite-size of what fits on cable news in between stories about celebrity break-ups and new diet books. The idea they are parroting fits on a bumper sticker. "I want to keep my health plan!" In so doing, they have done us all a disservice, for the millionth time.
It sounds like an easy story: the president promised, and then, oh no he didn't! People are getting notices that their sacred right to keep whatever crappy non-health care plan they have is being taken away by big government. What's really going on is a redefining of what " care" means, as in The Affordable Care Act. It's not The Affordable Crappy Health Care Act, it's the Affordable Care Act. And if you think an insurance plan with a huge deductible that only allows you to see your doctor twice a year is really "care," then you've been duped by Big Insurance.
Insurance companies are more than happy to take a small chunk of your money every month, in return for giving the smallest possible coverage. It's a great deal for them, but if you get more than a cold a year, it's a bad idea for the consumer. And the Affordable Care Act has stepped in and said, "Look, this is not real insurance. Instead, you can buy cheaper insurance (especially if you qualify for one of the many subsidies) that will give you unlimited doctor's visits, cover maternity care, and in general give you real peace of mind."
But the libertarians protest: "I have a God-given right to choose the crappiest insurance, and pay a relatively small amount of my paycheck to get it." Here's the real public policy debate that almost nobody's talking about: What happens to this happy libertarian when she or he gets cancer, or hit by a car? Insurance companies know that people under 40 don't believe these things will happen to them, but we all know better, don't we? And who pays for the libertarian with a crappy non-health care plan who gets cancer or hit by a car? Why, we do. Because they will go to the emergency room, the most expensive kind of care there is, and that cost gets pushed onto all of us.
So I have a simple solution for libertarians who want the freedom to keep their crappy non-health care: let them sign a binding document that they will never use the emergency room unless they can afford to pay for the full bill themselves. Let them sign a binding document that says if they get cancer and go broke trying to pay their medical bills, that they won't declare bankruptcy, which will also pass cost increases onto all of us. And while we're at it, if libertarians want the freedom to drive their motorcycles without a helmet, let them sign a binding document that their brain surgeries will be totally paid for by the freedom-loving motorcyclist and her or his family.
Freedom's just another word for "let the other people pay for my health care when I get a catastrophic illness." Put that on a bumper sticker.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/monica-bauer/ke...
Don't drink the koolaid...not all plans were crappy you a making assumptions based on democratic talking points.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#1017747 Nov 3, 2013
dont snow me wrote:
<quoted text>
How do yo feel about fatfu*ks waddling down the street stuffed with EBT food gabbing on their Obamaphones?
feed 'em Moochelle's carrots and apple slices...
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#1017748 Nov 3, 2013
dont snow me wrote:
<quoted text>
Good old dead white males, where would we be without them?
no problem...Jay-Z could invent the light bulb...
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#1017749 Nov 3, 2013
EasyEed wrote:
<quoted text>
"lyinglin"
You are saying president nobama is gay?
Peace
KMA
Obama gives Reggie Love a blumpkin....
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#1017751 Nov 3, 2013
Bud wrote:
<quoted text>

Plus you have the real risk of loosing your doctor or hospitals you have confidence in.
ObamaKKKare doesn't care about that...the fools think that doctors from Bangladesh are as good as those trained in America...
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#1017752 Nov 3, 2013
Awwwww..... too bad cons don't know many overseas doctors are already being used to save money and time...

“no one told me”

Since: Dec 07

Denver

#1017753 Nov 3, 2013
Bernard Forand wrote:
<quoted text>
Snowblind has no conception of what is LIBERAL. Yet we know what such creatures are that support austerity for their constituents.
I am a LIBEERAL as defined by the dictionary. Not by the intoxicated opinionated Teabaggers Foxy Tabloids.
Liberal adj
1. broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others
2. progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual
3. generous: freely giving money, time, or some other asset
My great-aunt was liberal in her bequests.
4. generous in quantity: large in size or amount
a liberal helping
5. not literal: not limited to the literal meaning in translation or interpretation
a liberal interpretation of the rules
6. culturally oriented: concerned with general cultural matters and broadening of the mind rather than professional or technical study
a liberal education
7. of political liberalism: relating to a political ideology of liberalism
n (plural lib·er·als)
liberal person: somebody who favors tolerance or open-mindedness
[14th century. Via French < Latin liberalis < liber "free"]
Word Key: Synonyms
See generous.
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Now to define the state of existence for Tea addicts, we just have to access the acronyms of these definitions. For example #1 “Broad Minded” acronym “Closed Minded”
#2 “tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others” acronym; Intolerant of the views of others and standards of behavior in others. LOL That sure sounds like a BIGOT to me.
Now I think you can do the rest all by yourself and expose yourself as to what you really are.
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.” Winston Churchill. LOL sounds like a liberal…
Todays "libs" are nazis.

LIV libs can't cut it in the real world, they need their masters to dictate their every step.
Oblama is the new Hitler.

“no one told me”

Since: Dec 07

Denver

#1017754 Nov 3, 2013
shinningelectr0n wrote:
<quoted text>
Hard to imagine what calamities would have befallen this land had Jesse Sharptons and Magic Negros been running things during the Revolutionary period in America.
We are only now getting a small taste of it.
I can imagine. it's called Zimbabwe.

“no one told me”

Since: Dec 07

Denver

#1017755 Nov 3, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
feed 'em Moochelle's carrots and apple slices...
Don't forget the arugula
LCNLin

United States

#1017756 Nov 3, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
ObamaKKKare doesn't care about that...the fools think that doctors from Bangladesh are as good as those trained in America...
Galt's proctologist is from India?
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#1017757 Nov 3, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
Galt's proctologist is from India?
Patrick illustrates why people dislike homosexuals...

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#1017760 Nov 4, 2013
LoisLane59 wrote:
Changes to Social Security are on the horizon because the massive retirement and disability program is projected to run dry in 2033. At that point, Social Security would only collect enough taxes to pay about three-fourths of benefits. If Congress doesn't act, benefits automatically would be cut by about 25 percent.
http://news.msn.com/us/poll-older-americans-n...
Now let's see...who keeps saying Social Security is a great government-run program and doesn't need reform? And accused their opposition of wanting to kill grandma for suggesting it?
And who keeps saying it must be reformed to be sustained?
Why do most liberals willfully ignore the obvious?
Why is it that ringers always focus on waste from social welfare yet totally ignore waste elsewhere.

Fact (1) America and most western countries have an aging population. The birth rates are in negative territory so unless you open the borders to Mexico & have mass migration the balance of those working will not be enough to finance those who don't.
Countries with the same problems have increased the retirement age.
For every self funded retiree will be 10 that rely on social welfare.

Fact (2) Why is it that ringers totally ignore Wall St Welfare to concentrate on poor. Leaving the 4%'ers a free ride ??? WHY
The GFC cost on average around $120,000 each American household and the best answer you can come up with is Obama wastes on welfare or its government run program so Wall St would do better.

Well we all have seen how Wall St does better, then asks taxpayers to bail them. I think your money would be safer with the government!

Since: May 11

Chambersburg, PA

#1017761 Nov 4, 2013
dont snow me wrote:
<quoted text>
Lying fool, every attempt to limit the power of the trial lawyers was beaten back by dums.$100K a year for medical malpractice insurance, you own it.
The Republicans idea of tort reform was to cap awards for malpractice.

In other words, you want the government to tell you what your eyesight is worth, what your daughter's life is worth.

As long as Republicans insist on caps, there will be no deal with Democrats on tort reform.

Since: May 11

Chambersburg, PA

#1017762 Nov 4, 2013
killtaker wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are admirable beliefs....
But can you speak for all the people who CLAIM to need help?
Do they all need help or are some just loafers?
My educational background is in ethics and the social sciences.
And I can tell you that people cheat. And it does not matter what socio-economic group they are in.
The better angels of our nature nudge us to ignore the cheaters...
To press on...
But for how long RealDave? I have a family too...
I am not going to sacrifice my family just to allow someone to cheat...will you?
No one is in favor of cheats. Show me a single post where someone defends cheaters.

But you people trash the entire programs. You know it so don't try to pretend you don't.

Read the posts here about the "moochers". They aren't talking cheats, they are talking recipients.

Just like the Food Stamp debate in Congress. The Republicans claim there are too many cheats & cut funding when they should increase funding for compliance enforcement.

Why not complain about the cheats in government contracting in general. How much do military contractors cheat. How do Senators & Congressmen "cheat" by directing projects to their supporters?

Right Whiner posters here want Food Stamp recipients to wear a neon sign on their head identifying them as "moochers".

What bout the people "stealing" millions through income tax fraud.

The entire Republican Party has taken up the cause of the evil, moochers, worthless 47%. You know it.

I

Since: May 11

Chambersburg, PA

#1017763 Nov 4, 2013
dont snow me wrote:
<quoted text>
How do yo feel about fatfu*ks waddling down the street stuffed with EBT food gabbing on their Obamaphones?
I'm evidently not a bigoted f*ck like you, Since I don't know what this person's situations is so I don't pass judgement.

.

Since: May 11

Chambersburg, PA

#1017764 Nov 4, 2013
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
at your age, Medicare for sure....
Nope. No SS, No Medicare.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#1017765 Nov 4, 2013
Bud wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you assume the plans that have been cancelled were crappy? I got some news for you they weren't. My wife and I had a great Cadillac plan but we received cancellation notice that ACA made it no longer compliant. Now I have a plan with higher deductibles higher co-pays higher premiums. My old plan didn't have a cap. But now I have pre/post natal care though my wife and I are past that part of our life. We don't need pediatric care and the list goes on. We pay for something we will never use.
Plus you have the real risk of loosing your doctor or hospitals you have confidence in.
spam

and not very good spam. must be a right wing chain email. again.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 16 min wojar 182,111
For a meat-centric dinner, meet at Skrine Chops (Jan '08) 30 min Reddog 6
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr litesong 49,333
delhi female 2 hr yatharth 1
Fight at Navy Pier 3 hr joey 1
abby 12-26 3 hr Mister Tonka 4
amy 12-26 3 hr Mister Tonka 4
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:00 am PST

Bleacher Report 4:00AM
Colts' Complete Week 17 Preview vs. Titans
Bleacher Report 6:00 AM
Bears vs. Vikings: What Experts Are Saying About Chicago
NBC Sports 6:03 AM
Jim Caldwell: No concerns about starting a rookie center
Bleacher Report 8:46 AM
What Are Experts Saying About Vikings?
NBC Sports11:28 AM
Bears extend Roberto Garza through 2015