First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#21 Feb 21, 2014
Heck, when I get hitched, Y'all are invited! And if I dont ask you to go for a boat ride in the everglades, thats a good thing!

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#22 Feb 21, 2014
edogxxx wrote:
You're right. Okay. Obamacare is the greatest thing since sliced bread, don't know how we ever got along without it. It took off without a hitch. Obama is our hero and savior for blessing us with it.
Yes, this is exactly what I said. <eyeroll>
Pippa

Hancock, NY

#23 Feb 21, 2014
1: Mom may have an impulse control disorder but I suspect there could be any number of causes for her behavior. She needs to see a doctor for a full medical workup and then possibly a psychiatrist and perhaps a neurologist to get the full story. She apparently can't control these outbreaks of temper. It's too bad that she didn't seek help for this on her own years ago.

Regarding the lw's situation, I think she should plan right from the start to stay at a hotel/motel rather than stay at her parents' home if she goes to visit. She should not put her children in the position of seeing their grandmother lose her cool and not have a "safe" place to go immediately. Although I do think the children should not even be present when the lw confronts her mom about her anger issues. I think the lw should just accept that her mom is going to have a royal meltdown when she speaks to her about the temper problem and plan for it. Having her cell phone ready to call for help is a good idea,

Oh, and sister needs to move out. She's in her 20s and should have been working and saving to be able to do this by now. If she's not there, mom can't hit her. Maybe mom got frustrated having her daughter still living at home and making messes for mom to clean up.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#24 Feb 21, 2014
edogxxx wrote:
Maybe I can explain it better, I'm talking about "coverage." Men are required to pay prenatal coverage. A better example would be like requiring you to pay for coverage for testicular cancer
Here's your life scenerio. You get testicular cancer. Your policy group consists of 52% female. They all vote not to cover specific men's medical conditions. So you have to go to medicaid or Obamacare.....but....the only doctor that can cure you is gay and married...and if you use either of these insurance plans you would become a "taker" and part of the 47%. You can't do that, so it's adios....you're a goner. Start planning your memorial.

Are you really that dense and naive as you seem?

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#25 Feb 21, 2014
greenwichvillage wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's your life scenerio. You get testicular cancer. Your policy group consists of 52% female. They all vote not to cover specific men's medical conditions. So you have to go to medicaid or Obamacare.....but....the only doctor that can cure you is gay and married...and if you use either of these insurance plans you would become a "taker" and part of the 47%. You can't do that, so it's adios....you're a goner. Start planning your memorial.
Are you really that dense and naive as you seem?
Guys, you're still missing the point. I'm talking about individual policies, not the concept of insurance as a whole. My individual policy might differ from my female coworker's individual policy. There are things I can "opt out" of. I can't do that with Obamacare. I can chose which plan I want, the silver, gold or platinum, or however it goes, by my individual policy still requires me to have female birth control coverage, prenatal coverage, etc. Get it yet? Geez, you guys don't even understand this thing thing and are calling it a great idea. Or as Pelosi would say, "Let's pass it to see what's in it."

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#26 Feb 21, 2014
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Guys, you're still missing the point. I'm talking about individual policies, not the concept of insurance as a whole. My individual policy might differ from my female coworker's individual policy. There are things I can "opt out" of. I can't do that with Obamacare. I can chose which plan I want, the silver, gold or platinum, or however it goes, by my individual policy still requires me to have female birth control coverage, prenatal coverage, etc. Get it yet? Geez, you guys don't even understand this thing thing and are calling it a great idea. Or as Pelosi would say, "Let's pass it to see what's in it."
Usually when you pick the silver, gold or platinum you are picking things like deductibles and things the medical community believe are optional procedures -- you don't cherry pick which body parts they're covering whether female or male.

You really don't get that?

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#27 Feb 21, 2014
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Guys, you're still missing the point. I'm talking about individual policies, not the concept of insurance as a whole. My individual policy might differ from my female coworker's individual policy. There are things I can "opt out" of. I can't do that with Obamacare. I can chose which plan I want, the silver, gold or platinum, or however it goes, by my individual policy still requires me to have female birth control coverage, prenatal coverage, etc. Get it yet? Geez, you guys don't even understand this thing thing and are calling it a great idea. Or as Pelosi would say, "Let's pass it to see what's in it."
You still don't get it. Even with individual policies usually the only thing you can opt out of is maternity, if that. You also had a level of plans to choose from with a private policy depending on the premium you can pay and the level of deductibles and coverage. It's been that way forever. Sometimes a male can get a lower premium based on medical history and how actuaries determine the risk vs female. It's no different with Obamacare. Those premiums are set by insurance companies.

You still don't get the concept of a pool, doesn't matter if it's a company, private, or any other medical insurance plan. Or maybe you do and you still have to argue differently even if you know how wrong you usually are.

You people seem to forget that this was modeled on a Republican plan because they were so against a single payer system, which would have worked better.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#28 Feb 21, 2014
greenwichvillage wrote:
You people seem to forget that this was modeled on a Republican plan because they were so against a single payer system, which would have worked better.
A Republican plan totally rejected by Democrats during Clinton. A plan cherry-picked by Democrats which ZERO Republicans voted for. Yet you try to label this as a "Republican plan." Nothing I can say will convince you that Obamascare is a BAD idea. Just like nothing you say can convince me it's a good thing. Republicans have predicted the failures of this thing from the get-go and have been proven right since it's implementation. Yet you people will STILL claim those dam obstructionists Republicans are wrong.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#29 Feb 21, 2014
Toj wrote:
Usually when you pick the silver, gold or platinum you are picking things like deductibles and things the medical community believe are optional procedures -- you don't cherry pick which body parts they're covering whether female or male.
Work on your reading comprehension. This is EXACTLY what I said!
Julie

Chicago, IL

#30 Feb 21, 2014
LW1: Your mother is mentally ill. This doesn't seem to have occurred to you and your Genius Family. Get your sister out of there permanently. It's too late for your father--your mother has likely been abusing him for decades. You should have called the authorities *years* ago to get your Mother the help she needed. It's too late now, since she's already destroyed her family.

LW2: OMFG. GET OVER YOURSELF.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#31 Feb 21, 2014
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
A Republican plan totally rejected by Democrats during Clinton. A plan cherry-picked by Democrats which ZERO Republicans voted for. Yet you try to label this as a "Republican plan." Nothing I can say will convince you that Obamascare is a BAD idea. Just like nothing you say can convince me it's a good thing. Republicans have predicted the failures of this thing from the get-go and have been proven right since it's implementation. Yet you people will STILL claim those dam obstructionists Republicans are wrong.
I never said it was a good plan. I never said it was a Repub plan, I said it was modeled after their plan, that's not the same. Could have been a lot better. Who do you think had the most to contribute writing that bill? The politicians? Nope, the insurance companies and lobbyists. That is true of most bills passed on both sides. Insurance companies pretty much wrote the Medicare plan for prescriptions under Bush and it was a confusing mess at the beginning, but settled down now to an easier to understand and from my knowledge of it not too expensive, except for the so-called doughnut hole costs.

I have to say the one thing you're good at is to deflect from the original conversation.

You resent that your premium pays for women's medical needs, even though it's been that way forever. You had to turn it into a political issue as if that was something new after many people telling you that you were wrong or misunderstood how insurance works.

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#32 Feb 21, 2014
http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20140131/N...

Anyone agree with the arrest of these guys? I think this is nonsense. No one forces anyone to pledge a fraternity. No one prevents them from quitting. They could have quit any time.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#33 Feb 21, 2014
greenwichvillage wrote:
Who do you think had the most to contribute writing that bill? The politicians? Nope, the insurance companies and lobbyists. That is true of most bills passed on both sides. Insurance companies pretty much wrote the Medicare plan for prescriptions under Bush and it was a confusing mess at the beginning, but settled down now to an easier to understand and from my knowledge of it not too expensive, except for the so-called doughnut hole costs.
So... again it's Bush's fault?...$1500 deductible with the silver plan is not too expensive?
greenwichvillage wrote:

I have to say the one thing you're good at is to deflect from the original conversation.


That's how it used to be around here. The letters are just a starting point for discussion. And hey, YOU'RE the one who engaged me in discussion of Obamacare. And why are you stalking me anyway?
greenwichvillage wrote:
You resent that your premium pays for women's medical needs, even though it's been that way forever. You had to turn it into a political issue as if that was something new after many people telling you that you were wrong or misunderstood how insurance works.
Again, I understand how insurance works. I couldn't afford my car being totaled. I couldn't afford a spine replacement. But if either of those things happened, I'm glad I have insurance. But why should I have to pay for the chance I might get pregnant?

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#34 Feb 21, 2014
squishymama wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah! Because she got pregnant all by herself!
Just WHERE in the ACA is the requirement he is claiming?? Most states have laws already in place to compel parents to provide for their children, or for men to support women they impregnated, so why would the ACA have anything about that in it? It is about medical INSURANCE, not support of minors.
I think he's just making stuff up again.
It's what he does.

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#35 Feb 21, 2014
Oh, I get it now. He doesn't understand how insurance works in the first place!
Dumber than even I thought.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#36 Feb 22, 2014
NWmoon wrote:
Just WHERE in the ACA is the requirement he is claiming??
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/10/31/sebeli...

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

#37 Feb 22, 2014
NWmoon wrote:
Oh, I get it now. He doesn't understand how insurance works in the first place!
Dumber than even I thought.
You obviously haven't been following along.
As dumb as I imagined

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#38 Feb 22, 2014
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously haven't been following along.
As dumb as I imagined
Wrong again. I simply misunderstood the first comment. Yeah, should have read ahead, but that doesn't make your idiot claim any more clear, or correct.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min leosnana 1,395,442
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 10 min Ringo7 216,792
Paul Weston from 12Tribe Films. 1 hr NO UNVETTED ILLEGALS 3
News Fight Or Flight: Taking Back Chicago's Violent ... 1 hr bozo 1
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 2 hr RACE 102,485
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 2 hr RACE 1,675
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 2 hr RACE 2,700
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages