Canton

Canton, OH

#31404 Jul 13, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, it's happening all over our state. In fact, I was discussing this issue with my nephew who stopped over for a visit tonight. He also works for a small company and his employee contributions are out of the world. His employer too cannot keep up with the steep increasing premium costs. They are burdening their employees with much of the increases.
He is discussing this serious issue with his new wife that secured a new job. He may have to drop his coverage to go on hers depending how the numbers work out.
It's just a real shame this Communist took over the White House and is placing all these problems on the American people when he could have left a sleeping dog lie. Before DumBama and Democrats leadership in both houses, we were able to figure out problems on our own.
We don't need a government that runs our businesses and our lives. That's not what our founders intent was.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right or expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794
Oh boy. Here we go with the old Fox News trick "some people are saying". We've all heard your personal, front line stories before. You know, the one's you pull out of your ass because the facts don't line up with your absurd claims.
Canton

Canton, OH

#31405 Jul 13, 2014
It's funny. For a second there, I thought you mentioned our "founder's intent." I wonder if it was our founder's intent to call money speech and corporations people? I wonder how the founder's would feel about religion being dictated by the courts? I wonder if they indented to allow out of country corporations to donate as much as they want to America's political campaigns without having to disclose their source or the amount, like what Citizen's United did?
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#31406 Jul 13, 2014
woo-boy wrote:
<quoted text>Yet they filed 721 amendments, with 161 of them being passed. Then they all voted against it and blamed the Dems as always.
Seems to me that the dems did much the same thing when they wrote a primarily funding bill that GHWB signed because he saw it as more good than bad. Then the dems turned around & busted him on his "Read my lips"...pledge.
We need term limits so the power hungry can't get so entrenched. Take away the cushy cushy benefits, or at least reduce them, & some incentive to stay forever will be lessened.
I believe that there are many well meaning politicians but when they get elected & join the others, the entrenched over power them & make them 'join' the status quo or they get no cooporation. sic That's politics! And it Stinks, doesn't it?
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#31407 Jul 13, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
And who will we blame the success on? When it turns out that most folks like being able to purchase their own insurance, and not be dependent upon their employer?
Some were stuck in jobs they didn't want, but they needed the health insurance.(Especially those with pre-existing conditions. Many older workers have some kind of pre-existing condition. Getting insurance outside of your employer in that case is too expensive for most folks. That limits your ability to change jobs. Knowing that you are diabetic, I would think you might have had to dealt with this at some point.)
COBRA was the Reagan era solution to this problem. It allowed you to continue coverage in between jobs, but the individual rates were sky high versus the group plans. It was also limited to 18 months.
"Only 10% of Americans eligible for COBRA insurance in 2006 used it, many because they were unable to afford to pay the full premium after their job loss. While some employers may voluntarily help subsidize or fully cover the cost of COBRA insurance as part of a termination or exit package, it is more common for the ex-employee to cover the entire cost."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_Omn...
Remember those brave men that resisted that horrible, terrible Social Security?
Me, neither. And I'm older than you.
The intent is admirable. But when a House leader can & does say..."you have to vote for it to find out what is in it" , it still boils down to a snow job by one or more INEPT so called representative.
The Dems gave so many deferments & waivers to get the needed votes that the whole ACA started out corrupted & has gotten no better.
The Federal Gov does NOT need to control it. Most of it's properties could have been to the existing, efficiently run companies. Properties such as buying across state lines, pre-existing conditions, & more. That would have likely improved & increased the number of coverages. It would also reduced this bickering polorazation that exist today.
It seems to be a power grab, dependency issue to me & others.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#31408 Jul 13, 2014
Pops wrote:
<quoted text> The intent is admirable. But when a House leader can & does say..."you have to vote for it to find out what is in it" , it still boils down to a snow job by one or more INEPT so called representative.
The Dems gave so many deferments & waivers to get the needed votes that the whole ACA started out corrupted & has gotten no better.
The Federal Gov does NOT need to control it. Most of it's properties could have been to the existing, efficiently run companies. Properties such as buying across state lines, pre-existing conditions, & more. That would have likely improved & increased the number of coverages. It would also reduced this bickering polorazation that exist today.
It seems to be a power grab, dependency issue to me & others.
She didn't say that, Pops. You really should do some research on what she said and who she was addressing. You probably still won't understand it, but you should try.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31409 Jul 13, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it's simple for you. You are a truck driver with a high school education. If the GOP wanted to block the ACA, it could have done it. The GOP cut deals to allow the bill to come to the floor and then washed its hands so idiots like you would think it passed over their mighty resistance. You believe anything your masters tell you to believe.
No, they couldn't have stopped it. How could they when they were outvoted? If they could have stopped it, they would have.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31410 Jul 13, 2014
Canton wrote:
It's funny. For a second there, I thought you mentioned our "founder's intent." I wonder if it was our founder's intent to call money speech and corporations people? I wonder how the founder's would feel about religion being dictated by the courts? I wonder if they indented to allow out of country corporations to donate as much as they want to America's political campaigns without having to disclose their source or the amount, like what Citizen's United did?
I don't know, but it would be interesting if we could somehow ask them.

And then I would ask them if they intended unions to infiltrate our governments sending states into hell holes of debt. And I would ask them if they intended for unions to take money from people so they could influence elections. I mean, I can't see any of the founders saying that corporations should not be allowed to fund politics but unions could because unions are people and corporations are not.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#31411 Jul 13, 2014
Nickled Dimed wrote:
<quoted text>
They were right to resist it. Social security does not provide for an adequate retirement, and too many people counted on it and refused to save.
Yes, let's return to the "good old days" before Social Security, when more than half of senior citizens lived in poverty.

"Today, Social Security is the nation’s single most important anti-poverty tool – lifting about 21.4 million people of all ages out of poverty. Social Security lifts about 35 percent of older Americans (almost 14.5 million) out of poverty by providing a regular, guaranteed retirement income. Thanks to Social Security, only about 8.7 percent of Americans aged 65 and over—and many of these are not beneficiaries—fall below the Census Bureau’s poverty thresholds ."

http://blog.aarp.org/2013/07/01/social-securi...
Nickled Dimed wrote:
<quoted text>
Besides which, hasn't anyone told you life isn't fair and it's full of choices and consequences?
Yes, and the choice to enact Social Security had the consequence of lifting million out of poverty.
Nickled Dimed wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not at all certain you are doing your homework here.
Those who have been here for a while know that I almost always document my statements with links to nonpartisan sources.

You, on the other hand, seem to have a lot of strong opinions, but little evidence for what you say.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#31412 Jul 13, 2014
Pops wrote:
<quoted text> The intent is admirable. But when a House leader can & does say..."you have to vote for it to find out what is in it" , it still boils down to a snow job by one or more INEPT so called representative.
That statement was taken out of context, Pops.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-part...
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>
The Federal Gov does NOT need to control it. Most of it's properties could have been to the existing, efficiently run companies. Properties such as buying across state lines, pre-existing conditions, & more.
How, exactly, Pops? Those problems existed for many years, and the "free market" never solved them. Obamacare is a plan, originally proposed by Heritage Foundation, to deal with these problems. As opposed to the "single payer" system, it kept the individual insurance companies intact. Mitt Romney demonstrated that it could work in Massachusetts.
Canton

Canton, OH

#31413 Jul 13, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know, but it would be interesting if we could somehow ask them.
And then I would ask them if they intended unions to infiltrate our governments sending states into hell holes of debt. And I would ask them if they intended for unions to take money from people so they could influence elections. I mean, I can't see any of the founders saying that corporations should not be allowed to fund politics but unions could because unions are people and corporations are not.
Or w could just take a look at what working conditions were like before unions in America, and then stop and wonder how long a civilized nation would tolerate it.
Canton

Canton, OH

#31414 Jul 13, 2014
Yah, it was the unions that created the "hell holes" in America. Not the corporations with the one armed child working 18 hours a day for a company store nickel in the asbestos factory. Hey, while we're at it, let's make George Washington a robot and make it so the south actually won the civil war. Rewriting history is fun. Just ask Rush Limbaugh's children book.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#31415 Jul 13, 2014
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>
Seems to me that the dems did much the same thing when they wrote a primarily funding bill that GHWB signed because he saw it as more good than bad. Then the dems turned around & busted him on his "Read my lips"...pledge.
GHWB did get a bad rap on those words. He was forced into saying it by Grover Norquist and the conservative wing of the Republican party, but he was never an anti-tax person at heart. I think he made the right move when he signed the bill, for the reasons you gave. But people like Pat Buchanan used it to hammer him pretty hard in the primaries, and Clinton used it in the general election. It was a dumb thing to say, and that was recognized at the time by some of Bush's own advisers.

"Bush had firmly secured the nomination by the time of the convention, but his advisers still worried about the lack of enthusiasm for Bush in the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Taxes were one issue that, in the words of Bush adviser James Pinkerton, "unified the right and didn't antagonize anybody else."[3] Thus a firm no-new-tax pledge was included in Bush's acceptance speech at the New Orleans convention. The full section of the speech on tax policy was:

“ And I'm the one who will not raise taxes. My opponent now says he'll raise them as a last resort, or a third resort. But when a politician talks like that, you know that's one resort he'll be checking into. My opponent won't rule out raising taxes. But I will. And the Congress will push me to raise taxes and I'll say no. And they'll push, and I'll say no, and they'll push again, and I'll say, to them,‘Read my lips: no new taxes.’”

The passage was written by leading speechwriter Peggy Noonan, with Jack Kemp having suggested the basic idea.[4] Including the line caused some controversy, as some Bush advisers felt the language was too strong. The most prominent critic was economic adviser Richard Darman, who crossed the phrase out on an initial draft calling it "stupid and dangerous."[5] Darman was one of the architects of Reagan's 1982 tax increase, and expected to have a major policy role in the Bush White House. He felt that such an absolute pledge would handcuff the administration."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_my_lips:_no...

Darman was right.
Canton

Canton, OH

#31416 Jul 13, 2014
It's funny to listen to all these kooks cry about the government dictating to them about health care, but in reality, they want a Christian government, passing Christian laws that dictate Biblical "morality". They cry about communism while gleefully pushing a fascist agenda.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31417 Jul 13, 2014
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
Or w could just take a look at what working conditions were like before unions in America, and then stop and wonder how long a civilized nation would tolerate it.
So because they did some good, they are given permission to be part of the political process but corporations not?

Before you look over the fence to see what your opponents are doing, you better look behind you and see what your side is doing before you say Nya, nya, nya, nya.

Most corporations give to both sides. In most cases, one side more than the other, but both parties get it.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31418 Jul 13, 2014
Canton wrote:
Yah, it was the unions that created the "hell holes" in America. Not the corporations with the one armed child working 18 hours a day for a company store nickel in the asbestos factory. Hey, while we're at it, let's make George Washington a robot and make it so the south actually won the civil war. Rewriting history is fun. Just ask Rush Limbaugh's children book.
Oh, so you read Rush Limbaugh's books? Tell us now, how did you like them?
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#31419 Jul 13, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they couldn't have stopped it. How could they when they were outvoted? If they could have stopped it, they would have.
You are wrong, TR. They cut deals to let it go to the floor in both houses. Someone already posted that info for you.
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#31420 Jul 13, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
That statement was taken out of context, Pops.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-part...
<quoted text>
How, exactly, Pops? Those problems existed for many years, and the "free market" never solved them. Obamacare is a plan, originally proposed by Heritage Foundation, to deal with these problems. As opposed to the "single payer" system, it kept the individual insurance companies intact. Mitt Romney demonstrated that it could work in Massachusetts.
Nancy's statement, even out of content, stands on it's own. There is no way that a responsible person/representative would or should ever 'buy a pig in a poke'. 2000 pages! and no one really understood what was there? Rediculous, irresponsible, idiotic & more to vote for such a bill.
It was just a rush to get something through before the numbers changed in congress. AND it was not on the web for the period of time that Obama said that all bills would be for feedback. I find that questionable at best.
As to your question,Health Ins companies were limited by law pertaining to selling across state lines. Then there's the very real possibility that legislation could have compelled the pre-existing condition issue, covering birth control (even for those that will not be procreating), dependent youths coverage etc without creating an entire & likely inept political dept that creates a new shell for a government shell game of tax payer funds. A shell that expands the already suspicious autocratic IRS.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#31421 Jul 13, 2014
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>Nancy's statement, even out of content, stands on it's own. There is no way that a responsible person/representative would or should ever 'buy a pig in a poke'. 2000 pages! and no one really understood what was there? Rediculous, irresponsible, idiotic & more to vote for such a bill.
It was just a rush to get something through before the numbers changed in congress. AND it was not on the web for the period of time that Obama said that all bills would be for feedback. I find that questionable at best.
As to your question,Health Ins companies were limited by law pertaining to selling across state lines. Then there's the very real possibility that legislation could have compelled the pre-existing condition issue, covering birth control (even for those that will not be procreating), dependent youths coverage etc without creating an entire & likely inept political dept that creates a new shell for a government shell game of tax payer funds. A shell that expands the already suspicious autocratic IRS.
You still don't understand what she said.
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#31422 Jul 13, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
You still don't understand what she said.

Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#31423 Jul 13, 2014
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =QV7dDSgbaQ0XX
Exactly. You should now compare what you wrote earlier that you thought she said with what she actually said. Once you get that corrected, we can move on to analyzing what she said to see that it doesn't mean anything close to what you are claiming it does.

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.

Fairborn Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: Saint Francis Thrift Store Apr 15 mblodgett11 1
News Ohio attorney general appoints special prosecut... (Aug '14) Mar '15 Le Jimbo 44
Local Politics Do you approve of Joan Dautel as Mayor? (May '12) Feb '15 Happy Citizen 3
zurial Payne you are not the father Feb '15 erica 1
News No indictment in Ohio Wal-Mart shooting (Sep '14) Dec '14 HighSchoolCops Di... 3
News Ferguson creates talking points in Dayton Dec '14 Akingu 2
Anyone know Chris Day? Dec '14 curiousgeorgina 1
More from around the web

Fairborn People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]