Lastly: I have never said Obamacare was perfect. If the House had spent any time trying to fix it rather than trying to scrap it, we might have been able to meet somewhere in the reasonable middle.
2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
There are some of us who cringe when our leaders use ill-considered descriptions, words, and phrases. Both sides are guilty. Here's wishing we could forget some of this stuff.
Depends upon what is is. I was for it before I was against it. We can live in peace with fish. You're doing a great job Brownie. And so forth.
2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Thank you, Loco. Same to you. Since "paying work" is not always available, it would be good to tie assistance to some sort of volunteer activity such as cleaning up public parks and roadsides in the spring. Activities which are usually done by volunteers. Many of us who have full time jobs try to do these things in our free time.
The reason I said I doubt some of the claims you have made about providing insurance to your employees is because if you had employees, you would have done research into those things. Many people have decided to "take the part" of complainers, but do not know actual facts.
Bringing health insurance coverage is not a "War on Prosperity." It is a "War for Humanity." It is "for the least of us." Government is the only entity large enough to accomplish the biggest projects. Health insurance, although not necessarily a right, should be a public utility.
mom3, thanks for engaging on this thread. I appreciate the time spent.
I agree that when assistance is truly needed, it's great that it's there. The goal should be "temporary assistance." How to achieve that, when some recipients are fine with "lifetime," would be a difficult matter.
If assistance were somehow tied to work (community service, entry-level jobs, part-time, something), those receiving it will have "earned" the help. In the long run, would that lead to less feelings of entitlement? I don't know (three difficult words for many humans, including me).
Have a happy holiday weekend with your family.
0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Democrats had to pass ACA to find out what was in it, and the whole nation gets to find out what is in it in real time, with real money, not just with ACA supporters' good intentions. It bites, but don't worry, it's good for you, didn't you know that?
It is arrogant and short-sighted to insist that ACA is only good, with no drawbacks to it. Comparing it to Soc. Sec. doesn't really help either. People will react as they realize their pocket has been picked again by those who were "only trying to help."
Those who promote a theory by its good intentions are not that impressive (or realistic). Those who are familiar with a theory's true application are more impressive.
Why didn't the Democrats bother to actually read ACA to find out what was in it? Maybe something would have shown up. Or not.
"Therefore, Loco, I doubt your personal claims..."
What difference does that make?
I've stayed away from some of your personal claims, other than providing a Mary Poppins quote, but go ahead with the "advice." It's based on your own pretense of what might be my life.
It doesn't matter that you have "doubt" about me or any other citizen that MUST deal with the law called Obamacare. Healthcare choices that citizens once had, irresponsible or responsible, were done away with when this law was passed.
If the intention of ACA was to "get the uninsured insured," that intention seems to have been entirely botched. Thousands of folks who were already happy with their coverage and premiums had their plans cancelled by insurance companies, who had to comply with "new" ACA requirements.
"Hold still now - this won't hurt a bit"
Momofthree's Apr-19-14 8:02 AM post about says it all about K(NO)W IT ALL liberals.
1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Landslide: I guess you do not know the right liberals if you don't know any smart ones. We are pretty smart. You call us "uppity" and say "we talk down to you." You call us "professor." How does that compute? You get mad at satire when we make light of your inconsistencies. No, between you and me, it's not me who lacks smarts.
One last point about employer provided benefit of health insurance: I know of NO employer that pays 100% of the premium. All insurance I have ever had through an employer has required an employee contribution. The employer's role is a contribution AND the arrangement of a GROUP POLICY. The "Exchange" provides a platform that is like a GROUP POLICY for people who are not part of a group through their employer. Why don't you just check on setting up a group plan for your employees which also would your family and see what sort of contribution you can ask the employees for? I am sure you can find an insurance rep who would like to have your account.
Therefore, Loco, I doubt your personal claims of inconvenience to your business from Obamacare. If you have children, you ought to insure them. If you do have a business, you ought to protect your assets with health insurance as much as you protect it with fire insurance or auto insurance. The difference is that with fire or auto insurance, you are only protecting yourself. With health insurance, you could lose everything AND you could cost the rest of us our money by using services we have to pay for.
to withhold them from someone who needs them. I wish there were more limits on what could be bought,such as limits to fresh fruit and vegetables, 100% milk products and meat. Food stamps should come with nutritional counselling. It is a shame that anyone on food assistance is obese - that means the money is not well spent. Too much junk.
Obamacare employer mandate does not set in until next year AND it effects employers of MORE THAN 50. With under 10 employees get help. 10-50 get tax credits. So I am not sure what you do or what you know in this regard. Also, it only effects employers of people who access care on the exchanges. If you employ 50 accountants, for example, they will not fall into a range where they would access help on the exchanges.
Other factors may prevent viability. In an otherwise normal baby, lung maturity is the final piece of viability. A ventilator will not save a baby with undeveloped lungs. Whether or not you agree with science does not matter. Fact is fact.
So you don't get FOX news, Loco? So you depend upon AM Radio? That's almost worse.
Jackie, Supreme Court does not consider merits in any case. Supreme Court determines Constitutionality. As I have said, CJ Roberts did not want to be on the wrong side of history. He found a way to give life to Obamacare while shooting it in the foot a little and tying one hand behind its back.
I was not familiar with that line from Mary Poppins, but I certainly agree.
Kudos for not taking food stamps when you could have. Had you actually needed food stamps, I am glad they would have been available to you. None of mine (before me, me, or after me) has ever come close to needing OR qualifying for food stamps. This does not make me want (Cont)
1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
"Say something you have not heard on FOX."
Guess what? I don't get Fox News - just the regular TV channels one doesn't have to pay for (I'm a cheapskate in some areas of life).
So the tired old accusation is even more worn out on me. In other words, it don't apply. As to any similarity between what Fox News says and what I say is purely coincidental.
How about you, mom3? Should I continue to rib you about tired old talking points? Or will you dispense with the junk?
My post about having 50 employees or not means that I'm not telling whether I have 50 employees or not.
That's clear as mud...and the way it's going to be about personal info. Hypotheticals and opinions, c/p of others' info or opinions, fine.
BTW, I agree that lung maturity is a huge factor when talking about premature births. I know of many preemies who were helped through breathing equipment, therapies, etc. I know many mothers who remained on bed rest to allow their preemies as much time as possible to keep growing in utero. I've heard that the lungs are the last major organ to mature during a baby's development. It's great that modern medicine can help in the preemie situations. Not all births are those special situations, requiring the specialized equipment, therapies, and intervention.
According to mom3, "viability is related to lung maturity."
Is lung maturity the only determinant of "viability?"
"So, you have more than 50 employees?"
Being "honest" over the internet in an online newspaper comments section would be a fool's game.
Yes, no, maybe so, maybe not.
mom3: "When you said anyone may access healthcare just proves the truth of what Ginsberg wrote. The uninsured are so bold because they know they can take what they will not contribute to."
Would this argument work with the variety of social services available for people?
Years ago, I was informed by a distant relative that our family should apply for assistance (food stamps, heat, etc.), because we were "entitled to it" by virtue of our income level at the time.
Uh, no. We thought our needs were already met. We did not feel "entitled to it" so we didn't apply. I guess we were sure dumb, huh?
OK, here's the walk-through, just once...
mom3: "One more thing about the market, Landslide. It is important not to be greedy. One must decide what is enough."
Then I said: "Mary Poppins advice on stock market gains: Enough is as good as a feast."
Is that enough of a walk-through?
"Science reliably tells us when a viable human life starts. Medical advances have pushed that date earlier, which is another reason for increased medical costs."
This doesn't make sense. Medical advances can aid in determining viability, or "when life begins," etc., but why would it be an absolute that those advances make everything cost more? I don't get how this conclusion is reached.
VIABILITY is related to lung maturity. If the lungs cannot function, the baby will die no matter what is done for him. Lung maturity is the one thing that cannot be moved beyond an end point. It costs more because the less mature the baby is, the more intense the care must be, the longer the baby remains hospitalized, and the more apparatus are required to keep baby alive.
CJ Roberts is to blame for finding Obamacare Constitutional while disabling it and causing discord among us. He knew it was Constitutional in all those aspects. He only needed one reason to approve it and he chose the reason which would cause the most trouble. When you said anyone may access healthcare just proves the truth of what Ginsberg wrote. The uninsured are so bold because they know they can take what they will not contribute to. I am doing some math here. So, you have more than 50 employees? And you are not insured? And you confidently own something of value that you do not fear losing should unfortunate health circumstances strike you or your family? And you have until 2015 to start paying? But you had to pay something already? Really? I am having trouble computing and collating these facts. So, why don't you get honest since you want politicians to be honest. Why can't they be honest? Why can't you?
0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Loco: But it would not be true. Say something new. Say something you have not heard on FOX. You don't really think that a person could look at Landslide's comments and say, "There is a Christian to emulate." I am not familiar with Mary Poppins' references about feasts. I know that a spoonful of sugar helps, though. If you are going to be funny, you are going to have to make some connection for your audience. Could you explain your joke? Maybe I will think it is funny once I understand it.
"They are badly informed and cannot think beyond reciting what they have heard."
Any mean-spirited Republican could say this easily about Democrats.
mom3, that Mary Poppins thing was an attempt at humor, if you had read to the end of my sentence.
Mary Poppins advice on stock market gains:
Enough is as good as a feast.
301 4th St SE , Minot, ND 58703 | 701-857-1900