Who do you support for Governor in Oh...

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#31393 Jul 12, 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.
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. Now they complain because they are having to live on $1000/month.

As far as being "stuck" in a job, people who want good insurance are still stuck in those same jobs because they can't afford the better plans, even on the exchanges. Besides which, hasn't anyone told you life isn't fair and it's full of choices and consequences?

I'm not at all certain you are doing your homework here.

PS - I have used COBRA as a stopgap between jobs and was grateful for it.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#31394 Jul 12, 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.
States are bailing out of this. Is it because so many people are happy with it? Really? Yo do realize that someone with a chronic illness will need to purchase the most expensive health insurance plan (gold or platinum) for which there are no subsidies, right?

BTW, you haven't addressed those who could afford insurance but chose or are choosing not to.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#31395 Jul 12, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, Pops, it's the old "General Welfare" clause, the meaning of which has been disputed quite a bit over the years, but here's where it's at right now:
"Prior to 1936, the United States Supreme Court had imposed a narrow interpretation on the Clause, as demonstrated by the holding in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.,[21] in which a tax on child labor was an impermissible attempt to regulate commerce beyond that Court's equally narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This narrow view was later overturned in United States v. Butler. There, the Court agreed with Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Story had concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not a general grant of legislative power, but also dismissed Madison's narrow construction requiring its use be dependent upon the other enumerated powers. Consequently, the Supreme Court held the power to tax and spend is an independent power and that the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. However, the Court did limit the power to spending for matters affecting only the national welfare.
Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[22] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, disavowing almost entirely any role for judicial review of Congressional spending policies, thereby conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to Congress's own discretion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_...
Do you read your own links? Have you heard of Corporate Fascism?

Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[4][6] but a qualification on the taxing power[4][7][8] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.

KEY TERM - OF GENERAL INTEREST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Since when is my health the business of the federal government?

And have you read your medical releases yet? Read the fine print if you're at all interested in privacy. Oh, wait...
lazy bones

Peebles, OH

#31396 Jul 13, 2014
Alfred bitchcock
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31398 Jul 13, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
The legislative process is a bit more complicated than you understand.
Seems to me it's you that doesn't understand it. NOT ONE VOTE! I know that may be complicated for you, but for the rest of us, it's really quite simple.
woo-boy

Van Wert, OH

#31399 Jul 13, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
We all understand that you are a troll, but why would you chime in on matters you know absolutely nothing about?
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/medical/driver-medic...
Leran something for a change instead of acting like you've learned something.
I'm not the one who made the statement that "no major CARRIER will HIRE ME because of my MEDICAL CONDITIONS". That would have been you. It's not hard to read between the lines. I know small plane pilots who lost their license over condition's not as bad as yours. It's in that section under public safety. You don't drive a big rig. That private education you bragged about was just good enough to get you a job as a delivery boy. Any other job wouldn't give you the time to slobber over Limberdick like you love to do.
woo-boy

Van Wert, OH

#31400 Jul 13, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Seems to me it's you that doesn't understand it. NOT ONE VOTE! I know that may be complicated for you, but for the rest of us, it's really quite simple.
Yet they filed 721 amendments, with 161 of them being passed. Then they all voted against it and blamed the Dems as always.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Medina, OH

#31401 Jul 13, 2014
Pops wrote:
<quoted text> But there is NO Federal governmental responsability, Constitutionally or otherwise to provide health care. NONE!
They have exceeded their lawful authority. Does no one care about that FACT?
You are wrong Pops. Congress passed a bill and the President signed it. That equals lawful authority (to use your term).
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31402 Jul 13, 2014
woo-boy wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not the one who made the statement that "no major CARRIER will HIRE ME because of my MEDICAL CONDITIONS". That would have been you. It's not hard to read between the lines. I know small plane pilots who lost their license over condition's not as bad as yours. It's in that section under public safety. You don't drive a big rig. That private education you bragged about was just good enough to get you a job as a delivery boy. Any other job wouldn't give you the time to slobber over Limberdick like you love to do.
I think I understand the problem here: you are mentally retarded.

I've tried to explain this over and over again, but it's like talking to a brick liberal.

I've even posted the site explaining it all to you since Topix doesn't give us the ability to draw big color pictures for people as inept as yourself, and you still can't figure it out.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Medina, OH

#31403 Jul 13, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Seems to me it's you that doesn't understand it. NOT ONE VOTE! I know that may be complicated for you, but for the rest of us, it's really quite simple.
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.
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

Medina, 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

Mason, 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

Mason, 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.

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.

Westlake Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Maple Heights drug dealer sold fatal heroin dos... (Jan '17) Wed Daddy 10
News Timothy Sheline sentenced for having his murder... (Mar '09) Dec 13 Cdubbs 3
News Physician Somnath Roy is accused of sex crimes (Nov '07) Dec 5 Big Red 72
Sheline (Dec '16) Nov '17 Juror 3
News Obituaries 10/26/11 (Nov '11) Oct '17 Roger Terri 50
Steve Dewitt realtor Oct '17 Patrick Fussell 1
Patty Yarchow Collins Sep '17 MyGod 1

Westlake Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Westlake Mortgages