For the first time, more than 90% of Americans have health insurance

[Arianrhod]

The bronze programs are essentially catastrophic plans and silver programs are essential catastrophic lite!

What's covered in those plans is not essentially different from what it was prior to the PPACA...except for the little things like denial for preexisting conditions, lifetime caps, arbitrary refusal to cover costly surgeries after those surgeries were performed.

The conspicuous difference to the consumer is in the considerably lower monthly premiums. But people who bought the propaganda and refused to go to the online exchanges got to pay full premiums and they're the ones who are hollering.

They and the "I don't need no stinkin' Obozocare" morons yawping in this forum.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Preexisting conditions, lifetime caps, and arbitrary refusals are not little things. They add significantly to the cost of insurance and guarantee that when you or your family are seriously ill with huge medical costs, your medical bills will be paid. In addition there are many other benefits other than what you listed that did not exist in all policies and in all areas prior to Obamacare.

I was being sarcastic. Adults know how serious those things are. Every one of us knows someone who's been denied or capped or abandoned to massive loans if not bankruptcy for health reasons, as well as people who've had to stop life-saving treatment because the insurer arbitrarily decided that six chemo treatments were sufficient despite the doctors' insistence on 12.

But the idiot brigade in this forum has never faced this and doesn't care and the constant and ad hominem instead of adult discussion is getting on my nerves.

Hey, WestWall, is that enough content for you?

Everyone of us does? I don't.

You don't what?

 

[Conservative65]

The bronze programs are essentially catastrophic plans and silver programs are essential catastrophic lite!

What's covered in those plans is not essentially different from what it was prior to the PPACA...except for the little things like denial for preexisting conditions, lifetime caps, arbitrary refusal to cover costly surgeries after those surgeries were performed.

The conspicuous difference to the consumer is in the considerably lower monthly premiums. But people who bought the propaganda and refused to go to the online exchanges got to pay full premiums and they're the ones who are hollering.

They and the "I don't need no stinkin' Obozocare" morons yawping in this forum.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Preexisting conditions, lifetime caps, and arbitrary refusals are not little things. They add significantly to the cost of insurance and guarantee that when you or your family are seriously ill with huge medical costs, your medical bills will be paid. In addition there are many other benefits other than what you listed that did not exist in all policies and in all areas prior to Obamacare.

I was being sarcastic. Adults know how serious those things are. Every one of us knows someone who's been denied or capped or abandoned to massive loans if not bankruptcy for health reasons, as well as people who've had to stop life-saving treatment because the insurer arbitrarily decided that six chemo treatments were sufficient despite the doctors' insistence on 12.

But the idiot brigade in this forum has never faced this and doesn't care and the constant and ad hominem instead of adult discussion is getting on my nerves.

Hey, WestWall, is that enough content for you?

Everyone of us does? I don't.

You don't what?

I don't know or know of personally anyone that has dealt with what you say "every one of us know someone . . ."

 

[Arianrhod]

What's covered in those plans is not essentially different from what it was prior to the PPACA...except for the little things like denial for preexisting conditions, lifetime caps, arbitrary refusal to cover costly surgeries after those surgeries were performed.

The conspicuous difference to the consumer is in the considerably lower monthly premiums. But people who bought the propaganda and refused to go to the online exchanges got to pay full premiums and they're the ones who are hollering.

They and the "I don't need no stinkin' Obozocare" morons yawping in this forum.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Preexisting conditions, lifetime caps, and arbitrary refusals are not little things. They add significantly to the cost of insurance and guarantee that when you or your family are seriously ill with huge medical costs, your medical bills will be paid. In addition there are many other benefits other than what you listed that did not exist in all policies and in all areas prior to Obamacare.

I was being sarcastic. Adults know how serious those things are. Every one of us knows someone who's been denied or capped or abandoned to massive loans if not bankruptcy for health reasons, as well as people who've had to stop life-saving treatment because the insurer arbitrarily decided that six chemo treatments were sufficient despite the doctors' insistence on 12.

But the idiot brigade in this forum has never faced this and doesn't care and the constant and ad hominem instead of adult discussion is getting on my nerves.

Hey, WestWall, is that enough content for you?

Everyone of us does? I don't.

You don't what?

I don't know or know of personally anyone that has dealt with what you say "every one of us know someone . . ."

That explains a lot.

 

[Conservative65]

Preexisting conditions, lifetime caps, and arbitrary refusals are not little things. They add significantly to the cost of insurance and guarantee that when you or your family are seriously ill with huge medical costs, your medical bills will be paid. In addition there are many other benefits other than what you listed that did not exist in all policies and in all areas prior to Obamacare.

I was being sarcastic. Adults know how serious those things are. Every one of us knows someone who's been denied or capped or abandoned to massive loans if not bankruptcy for health reasons, as well as people who've had to stop life-saving treatment because the insurer arbitrarily decided that six chemo treatments were sufficient despite the doctors' insistence on 12.

But the idiot brigade in this forum has never faced this and doesn't care and the constant and ad hominem instead of adult discussion is getting on my nerves.

Hey, WestWall, is that enough content for you?

Everyone of us does? I don't.

You don't what?

I don't know or know of personally anyone that has dealt with what you say "every one of us know someone . . ."

That explains a lot.

It explains that the statement you made was a lie. I have proof you're a liar. Your own words support my claim. YOU said, and I quote, "Every one of us knows someone who's been denied or capped or abandoned to massive loans if not bankruptcy for health reasons . . ." I don't.

Are you going to deny you made that statement or try to twist it to appear as if you meant something other than what YOU said?

 

[Arianrhod]

I was being sarcastic. Adults know how serious those things are. Every one of us knows someone who's been denied or capped or abandoned to massive loans if not bankruptcy for health reasons, as well as people who've had to stop life-saving treatment because the insurer arbitrarily decided that six chemo treatments were sufficient despite the doctors' insistence on 12.

But the idiot brigade in this forum has never faced this and doesn't care and the constant and ad hominem instead of adult discussion is getting on my nerves.

Hey, WestWall, is that enough content for you?

Everyone of us does? I don't.

You don't what?

I don't know or know of personally anyone that has dealt with what you say "every one of us know someone . . ."

That explains a lot.

It explains that the statement you made was a lie. I have proof you're a liar. Your own words support my claim. YOU said, and I quote, "Every one of us knows someone who's been denied or capped or abandoned to massive loans if not bankruptcy for health reasons . . ." I don't.

Are you going to deny you made that statement or try to twist it to appear as if you meant something other than what YOU said?

I was thinking of adults who interact with other adults and who are aware of what's going on around them beyond what affects them personally. My mistake was in assuming, given your passionate defense of how "there was nothing wrong with the health insurance industry before but it's completely fucked up now" your opinions were based on that sort of human interaction, or at least reading up on the subject.

Not a mistake I'll make again.

 

[Conservative65]

Everyone of us does? I don't.

You don't what?

I don't know or know of personally anyone that has dealt with what you say "every one of us know someone . . ."

That explains a lot.

It explains that the statement you made was a lie. I have proof you're a liar. Your own words support my claim. YOU said, and I quote, "Every one of us knows someone who's been denied or capped or abandoned to massive loans if not bankruptcy for health reasons . . ." I don't.

Are you going to deny you made that statement or try to twist it to appear as if you meant something other than what YOU said?

I was thinking of adults who interact with other adults and who are aware of what's going on around them beyond what affects them personally. My mistake was in assuming, given your passionate defense of how "there was nothing wrong with the health insurance industry before but it's completely fucked up now" your opinions were based on that sort of human interaction, or at least reading up on the subject.

Not a mistake I'll make again.

So you chose to twist it when I called you out for being a liar. I knew it would be one or the other.

I deal with people that provide insurance to themselves and pay their damn bills. You deal with freeloaders who think someone else should subsidize it for them and not paying one's bills is acceptable.

You've yet to justify why one person being forced by the government to subsidize another person's insurance is a good thing. You can't justify it because there is no justification for it. You're simply a piece of shit socialist. Enough said.

 

[Arianrhod]

You don't what?

I don't know or know of personally anyone that has dealt with what you say "every one of us know someone . . ."

That explains a lot.

It explains that the statement you made was a lie. I have proof you're a liar. Your own words support my claim. YOU said, and I quote, "Every one of us knows someone who's been denied or capped or abandoned to massive loans if not bankruptcy for health reasons . . ." I don't.

Are you going to deny you made that statement or try to twist it to appear as if you meant something other than what YOU said?

I was thinking of adults who interact with other adults and who are aware of what's going on around them beyond what affects them personally. My mistake was in assuming, given your passionate defense of how "there was nothing wrong with the health insurance industry before but it's completely fucked up now" your opinions were based on that sort of human interaction, or at least reading up on the subject.

Not a mistake I'll make again.

So you chose to twist it when I called you out for being a liar. I knew it would be one or the other.

I deal with people that provide insurance to themselves and pay their damn bills.

So do I.

 

[Conservative65]

I don't know or know of personally anyone that has dealt with what you say "every one of us know someone . . ."

That explains a lot.

It explains that the statement you made was a lie. I have proof you're a liar. Your own words support my claim. YOU said, and I quote, "Every one of us knows someone who's been denied or capped or abandoned to massive loans if not bankruptcy for health reasons . . ." I don't.

Are you going to deny you made that statement or try to twist it to appear as if you meant something other than what YOU said?

I was thinking of adults who interact with other adults and who are aware of what's going on around them beyond what affects them personally. My mistake was in assuming, given your passionate defense of how "there was nothing wrong with the health insurance industry before but it's completely fucked up now" your opinions were based on that sort of human interaction, or at least reading up on the subject.

Not a mistake I'll make again.

So you chose to twist it when I called you out for being a liar. I knew it would be one or the other.

I deal with people that provide insurance to themselves and pay their damn bills.

So do I.

You also support taxpayers funding it and offsetting the costs for those that don't. That's where we're different.

 

[Arianrhod]

That explains a lot.

It explains that the statement you made was a lie. I have proof you're a liar. Your own words support my claim. YOU said, and I quote, "Every one of us knows someone who's been denied or capped or abandoned to massive loans if not bankruptcy for health reasons . . ." I don't.

Are you going to deny you made that statement or try to twist it to appear as if you meant something other than what YOU said?

I was thinking of adults who interact with other adults and who are aware of what's going on around them beyond what affects them personally. My mistake was in assuming, given your passionate defense of how "there was nothing wrong with the health insurance industry before but it's completely fucked up now" your opinions were based on that sort of human interaction, or at least reading up on the subject.

Not a mistake I'll make again.

So you chose to twist it when I called you out for being a liar. I knew it would be one or the other.

I deal with people that provide insurance to themselves and pay their damn bills.

So do I.

You also support taxpayers funding it and offsetting the costs for those that don't. That's where we're different.

You mean "can't."

 

[Conservative65]

It explains that the statement you made was a lie. I have proof you're a liar. Your own words support my claim. YOU said, and I quote, "Every one of us knows someone who's been denied or capped or abandoned to massive loans if not bankruptcy for health reasons . . ." I don't.

Are you going to deny you made that statement or try to twist it to appear as if you meant something other than what YOU said?

I was thinking of adults who interact with other adults and who are aware of what's going on around them beyond what affects them personally. My mistake was in assuming, given your passionate defense of how "there was nothing wrong with the health insurance industry before but it's completely fucked up now" your opinions were based on that sort of human interaction, or at least reading up on the subject.

Not a mistake I'll make again.

So you chose to twist it when I called you out for being a liar. I knew it would be one or the other.

I deal with people that provide insurance to themselves and pay their damn bills.

So do I.

You also support taxpayers funding it and offsetting the costs for those that don't. That's where we're different.

You mean "can't."

I said what I meant.

It's interesting that you use the word can't. Someone on food stamps is telling the rest of us they demand feed them they can't afford their own food. However, more than once I've seen someone using EBT to buy their food magically have enough money to buy all sort of other necessities like cigarettes and beer. Are you telling me someone that can't afford to buy the basic necessities of life is telling the truth when they can afford to buy non-essential items? You're likely fool enough to believe them.

If someone tells me they can't afford their own food yet can afford non-essential things, I have absolutely no problem letting them go hungry and do without until they can learn priorities. More than once I've been approached in public where someone asked for money to buy food. Usually, it's in locations where multiple restaurants are located. That's where they tend to hang out. I offer to buy them a meal at a place of their choosing in that area. In all the years I've made that offer, I have had ONE that took me up on it and I was glad to do it. For the others, most whined and/or made excuses as to why I should simply give them money. If someone needs food, I'll provide that food but since it's MY money, I set the conditions. If they don't like the condition, tough shit. Do without. I'm not their fucking ATM.

 

[Arianrhod]

I was thinking of adults who interact with other adults and who are aware of what's going on around them beyond what affects them personally. My mistake was in assuming, given your passionate defense of how "there was nothing wrong with the health insurance industry before but it's completely fucked up now" your opinions were based on that sort of human interaction, or at least reading up on the subject.

Not a mistake I'll make again.

So you chose to twist it when I called you out for being a liar. I knew it would be one or the other.

I deal with people that provide insurance to themselves and pay their damn bills.

So do I.

You also support taxpayers funding it and offsetting the costs for those that don't. That's where we're different.

You mean "can't."

I said what I meant.

It's interesting that you use the word can't. Someone on food stamps is telling the rest of us they demand feed them they can't afford their own food. However, more than once I've seen someone using EBT to buy their food magically have enough money to buy all sort of other necessities like cigarettes and beer. Are you telling me someone that can't afford to buy the basic necessities of life is telling the truth when they can afford to buy non-essential items? You're likely fool enough to believe them.

If someone tells me they can't afford their own food yet can afford non-essential things, I have absolutely no problem letting them go hungry and do without until they can learn priorities. More than once I've been approached in public where someone asked for money to buy food. Usually, it's in locations where multiple restaurants are located. That's where they tend to hang out. I offer to buy them a meal at a place of their choosing in that area. In all the years I've made that offer, I have had ONE that took me up on it and I was glad to do it. For the others, most whined and/or made excuses as to why I should simply give them money. If someone needs food, I'll provide that food but since it's MY money, I set the conditions. If they don't like the condition, tough shit. Do without. I'm not their fucking ATM.

So you've stated you don't know anyone who was ever denied coverage prior to 2014, but I'm sure you can cite all the people you know who do what you claim in this post, amiright?

 

[Conservative65]

So you chose to twist it when I called you out for being a liar. I knew it would be one or the other.

I deal with people that provide insurance to themselves and pay their damn bills.

So do I.

You also support taxpayers funding it and offsetting the costs for those that don't. That's where we're different.

You mean "can't."

I said what I meant.

It's interesting that you use the word can't. Someone on food stamps is telling the rest of us they demand feed them they can't afford their own food. However, more than once I've seen someone using EBT to buy their food magically have enough money to buy all sort of other necessities like cigarettes and beer. Are you telling me someone that can't afford to buy the basic necessities of life is telling the truth when they can afford to buy non-essential items? You're likely fool enough to believe them.

If someone tells me they can't afford their own food yet can afford non-essential things, I have absolutely no problem letting them go hungry and do without until they can learn priorities. More than once I've been approached in public where someone asked for money to buy food. Usually, it's in locations where multiple restaurants are located. That's where they tend to hang out. I offer to buy them a meal at a place of their choosing in that area. In all the years I've made that offer, I have had ONE that took me up on it and I was glad to do it. For the others, most whined and/or made excuses as to why I should simply give them money. If someone needs food, I'll provide that food but since it's MY money, I set the conditions. If they don't like the condition, tough shit. Do without. I'm not their fucking ATM.

So you've stated you don't know anyone who was ever denied coverage prior to 2014, but I'm sure you can cite all the people you know who do what you claim in this post, amiright?

I don't personally know anyone that was denied coverage ever. Unlike you make it out, it's not the doom and gloom you want to portray.

Same time you provide your list. It would be easier to provide the list of those I know that have been denied. In fact, I already have.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So do I.

You also support taxpayers funding it and offsetting the costs for those that don't. That's where we're different.

You mean "can't."

I said what I meant.

It's interesting that you use the word can't. Someone on food stamps is telling the rest of us they demand feed them they can't afford their own food. However, more than once I've seen someone using EBT to buy their food magically have enough money to buy all sort of other necessities like cigarettes and beer. Are you telling me someone that can't afford to buy the basic necessities of life is telling the truth when they can afford to buy non-essential items? You're likely fool enough to believe them.

If someone tells me they can't afford their own food yet can afford non-essential things, I have absolutely no problem letting them go hungry and do without until they can learn priorities. More than once I've been approached in public where someone asked for money to buy food. Usually, it's in locations where multiple restaurants are located. That's where they tend to hang out. I offer to buy them a meal at a place of their choosing in that area. In all the years I've made that offer, I have had ONE that took me up on it and I was glad to do it. For the others, most whined and/or made excuses as to why I should simply give them money. If someone needs food, I'll provide that food but since it's MY money, I set the conditions. If they don't like the condition, tough shit. Do without. I'm not their fucking ATM.

So you've stated you don't know anyone who was ever denied coverage prior to 2014, but I'm sure you can cite all the people you know who do what you claim in this post, amiright?

I don't personally know anyone that was denied coverage ever. Unlike you make it out, it's not the doom and gloom you want to portray.

Same time you provide your list. It would be easier to provide the list of those I know that have been denied. In fact, I already have.

It's too bad we don't have those facts. I do know people who were denied coverage, but they were pretty rare.

You can't have tens of millions of people getting the same product and not have a few screw ups. I mean...look at how many supposedly die in the hospital (bet they are not happy they had insurance).

And we hear all these one-offs.

I do know lot's of people who could not afford coverage when their small company pulled it. But plans eventually became more reasonable. Things seemed to work out.

Then Obama had to come and fix it.

 

[Arianrhod]

So do I.

You also support taxpayers funding it and offsetting the costs for those that don't. That's where we're different.

You mean "can't."

I said what I meant.

It's interesting that you use the word can't. Someone on food stamps is telling the rest of us they demand feed them they can't afford their own food. However, more than once I've seen someone using EBT to buy their food magically have enough money to buy all sort of other necessities like cigarettes and beer. Are you telling me someone that can't afford to buy the basic necessities of life is telling the truth when they can afford to buy non-essential items? You're likely fool enough to believe them.

If someone tells me they can't afford their own food yet can afford non-essential things, I have absolutely no problem letting them go hungry and do without until they can learn priorities. More than once I've been approached in public where someone asked for money to buy food. Usually, it's in locations where multiple restaurants are located. That's where they tend to hang out. I offer to buy them a meal at a place of their choosing in that area. In all the years I've made that offer, I have had ONE that took me up on it and I was glad to do it. For the others, most whined and/or made excuses as to why I should simply give them money. If someone needs food, I'll provide that food but since it's MY money, I set the conditions. If they don't like the condition, tough shit. Do without. I'm not their fucking ATM.

So you've stated you don't know anyone who was ever denied coverage prior to 2014, but I'm sure you can cite all the people you know who do what you claim in this post, amiright?

I don't personally know anyone that was denied coverage ever. Unlike you make it out, it's not the doom and gloom you want to portray.

Same time you provide your list. It would be easier to provide the list of those I know that have been denied. In fact, I already have.

That wasn't what I asked you. I asked you to name the people you know who do what you claim:

"It's interesting that you use the word can't. Someone on food stamps is telling the rest of us they demand feed them they can't afford their own food. However, more than once I've seen someone using EBT to buy their food magically have enough money to buy all sort of other necessities like cigarettes and beer. Are you telling me someone that can't afford to buy the basic necessities of life is telling the truth when they can afford to buy non-essential items? You're likely fool enough to believe them.

If someone tells me they can't afford their own food yet can afford non-essential things, I have absolutely no problem letting them go hungry and do without until they can learn priorities. More than once I've been approached in public where someone asked for money to buy food. Usually, it's in locations where multiple restaurants are located. That's where they tend to hang out. I offer to buy them a meal at a place of their choosing in that area. In all the years I've made that offer, I have had ONE that took me up on it and I was glad to do it. For the others, most whined and/or made excuses as to why I should simply give them money. If someone needs food, I'll provide that food but since it's MY money, I set the conditions. If they don't like the condition, tough shit. Do without. I'm not their fucking ATM."

 

[Conservative65]

You also support taxpayers funding it and offsetting the costs for those that don't. That's where we're different.

You mean "can't."

I said what I meant.

It's interesting that you use the word can't. Someone on food stamps is telling the rest of us they demand feed them they can't afford their own food. However, more than once I've seen someone using EBT to buy their food magically have enough money to buy all sort of other necessities like cigarettes and beer. Are you telling me someone that can't afford to buy the basic necessities of life is telling the truth when they can afford to buy non-essential items? You're likely fool enough to believe them.

If someone tells me they can't afford their own food yet can afford non-essential things, I have absolutely no problem letting them go hungry and do without until they can learn priorities. More than once I've been approached in public where someone asked for money to buy food. Usually, it's in locations where multiple restaurants are located. That's where they tend to hang out. I offer to buy them a meal at a place of their choosing in that area. In all the years I've made that offer, I have had ONE that took me up on it and I was glad to do it. For the others, most whined and/or made excuses as to why I should simply give them money. If someone needs food, I'll provide that food but since it's MY money, I set the conditions. If they don't like the condition, tough shit. Do without. I'm not their fucking ATM.

So you've stated you don't know anyone who was ever denied coverage prior to 2014, but I'm sure you can cite all the people you know who do what you claim in this post, amiright?

I don't personally know anyone that was denied coverage ever. Unlike you make it out, it's not the doom and gloom you want to portray.

Same time you provide your list. It would be easier to provide the list of those I know that have been denied. In fact, I already have.

That wasn't what I asked you. I asked you to name the people you know who do what you claim:

"It's interesting that you use the word can't. Someone on food stamps is telling the rest of us they demand feed them they can't afford their own food. However, more than once I've seen someone using EBT to buy their food magically have enough money to buy all sort of other necessities like cigarettes and beer. Are you telling me someone that can't afford to buy the basic necessities of life is telling the truth when they can afford to buy non-essential items? You're likely fool enough to believe them.

If someone tells me they can't afford their own food yet can afford non-essential things, I have absolutely no problem letting them go hungry and do without until they can learn priorities. More than once I've been approached in public where someone asked for money to buy food. Usually, it's in locations where multiple restaurants are located. That's where they tend to hang out. I offer to buy them a meal at a place of their choosing in that area. In all the years I've made that offer, I have had ONE that took me up on it and I was glad to do it. For the others, most whined and/or made excuses as to why I should simply give them money. If someone needs food, I'll provide that food but since it's MY money, I set the conditions. If they don't like the condition, tough shit. Do without. I'm not their fucking ATM."

You also support taxpayers funding it and offsetting the costs for those that don't. That's where we're different.

You mean "can't."

I said what I meant.

It's interesting that you use the word can't. Someone on food stamps is telling the rest of us they demand feed them they can't afford their own food. However, more than once I've seen someone using EBT to buy their food magically have enough money to buy all sort of other necessities like cigarettes and beer. Are you telling me someone that can't afford to buy the basic necessities of life is telling the truth when they can afford to buy non-essential items? You're likely fool enough to believe them.

If someone tells me they can't afford their own food yet can afford non-essential things, I have absolutely no problem letting them go hungry and do without until they can learn priorities. More than once I've been approached in public where someone asked for money to buy food. Usually, it's in locations where multiple restaurants are located. That's where they tend to hang out. I offer to buy them a meal at a place of their choosing in that area. In all the years I've made that offer, I have had ONE that took me up on it and I was glad to do it. For the others, most whined and/or made excuses as to why I should simply give them money. If someone needs food, I'll provide that food but since it's MY money, I set the conditions. If they don't like the condition, tough shit. Do without. I'm not their fucking ATM.

So you've stated you don't know anyone who was ever denied coverage prior to 2014, but I'm sure you can cite all the people you know who do what you claim in this post, amiright?

I don't personally know anyone that was denied coverage ever. Unlike you make it out, it's not the doom and gloom you want to portray.

Same time you provide your list. It would be easier to provide the list of those I know that have been denied. In fact, I already have.

That wasn't what I asked you. I asked you to name the people you know who do what you claim:

"It's interesting that you use the word can't. Someone on food stamps is telling the rest of us they demand feed them they can't afford their own food. However, more than once I've seen someone using EBT to buy their food magically have enough money to buy all sort of other necessities like cigarettes and beer. Are you telling me someone that can't afford to buy the basic necessities of life is telling the truth when they can afford to buy non-essential items? You're likely fool enough to believe them.

If someone tells me they can't afford their own food yet can afford non-essential things, I have absolutely no problem letting them go hungry and do without until they can learn priorities. More than once I've been approached in public where someone asked for money to buy food. Usually, it's in locations where multiple restaurants are located. That's where they tend to hang out. I offer to buy them a meal at a place of their choosing in that area. In all the years I've made that offer, I have had ONE that took me up on it and I was glad to do it. For the others, most whined and/or made excuses as to why I should simply give them money. If someone needs food, I'll provide that food but since it's MY money, I set the conditions. If they don't like the condition, tough shit. Do without. I'm not their fucking ATM."

I'll do you one better. I'll have everyone of them personally come and show you. All we need is your address.

 

[Arianrhod]

You mean "can't."

I said what I meant.

It's interesting that you use the word can't. Someone on food stamps is telling the rest of us they demand feed them they can't afford their own food. However, more than once I've seen someone using EBT to buy their food magically have enough money to buy all sort of other necessities like cigarettes and beer. Are you telling me someone that can't afford to buy the basic necessities of life is telling the truth when they can afford to buy non-essential items? You're likely fool enough to believe them.

If someone tells me they can't afford their own food yet can afford non-essential things, I have absolutely no problem letting them go hungry and do without until they can learn priorities. More than once I've been approached in public where someone asked for money to buy food. Usually, it's in locations where multiple restaurants are located. That's where they tend to hang out. I offer to buy them a meal at a place of their choosing in that area. In all the years I've made that offer, I have had ONE that took me up on it and I was glad to do it. For the others, most whined and/or made excuses as to why I should simply give them money. If someone needs food, I'll provide that food but since it's MY money, I set the conditions. If they don't like the condition, tough shit. Do without. I'm not their fucking ATM.

So you've stated you don't know anyone who was ever denied coverage prior to 2014, but I'm sure you can cite all the people you know who do what you claim in this post, amiright?

I don't personally know anyone that was denied coverage ever. Unlike you make it out, it's not the doom and gloom you want to portray.

Same time you provide your list. It would be easier to provide the list of those I know that have been denied. In fact, I already have.

That wasn't what I asked you. I asked you to name the people you know who do what you claim:

"It's interesting that you use the word can't. Someone on food stamps is telling the rest of us they demand feed them they can't afford their own food. However, more than once I've seen someone using EBT to buy their food magically have enough money to buy all sort of other necessities like cigarettes and beer. Are you telling me someone that can't afford to buy the basic necessities of life is telling the truth when they can afford to buy non-essential items? You're likely fool enough to believe them.

If someone tells me they can't afford their own food yet can afford non-essential things, I have absolutely no problem letting them go hungry and do without until they can learn priorities. More than once I've been approached in public where someone asked for money to buy food. Usually, it's in locations where multiple restaurants are located. That's where they tend to hang out. I offer to buy them a meal at a place of their choosing in that area. In all the years I've made that offer, I have had ONE that took me up on it and I was glad to do it. For the others, most whined and/or made excuses as to why I should simply give them money. If someone needs food, I'll provide that food but since it's MY money, I set the conditions. If they don't like the condition, tough shit. Do without. I'm not their fucking ATM."

You mean "can't."

I said what I meant.

It's interesting that you use the word can't. Someone on food stamps is telling the rest of us they demand feed them they can't afford their own food. However, more than once I've seen someone using EBT to buy their food magically have enough money to buy all sort of other necessities like cigarettes and beer. Are you telling me someone that can't afford to buy the basic necessities of life is telling the truth when they can afford to buy non-essential items? You're likely fool enough to believe them.

If someone tells me they can't afford their own food yet can afford non-essential things, I have absolutely no problem letting them go hungry and do without until they can learn priorities. More than once I've been approached in public where someone asked for money to buy food. Usually, it's in locations where multiple restaurants are located. That's where they tend to hang out. I offer to buy them a meal at a place of their choosing in that area. In all the years I've made that offer, I have had ONE that took me up on it and I was glad to do it. For the others, most whined and/or made excuses as to why I should simply give them money. If someone needs food, I'll provide that food but since it's MY money, I set the conditions. If they don't like the condition, tough shit. Do without. I'm not their fucking ATM.

So you've stated you don't know anyone who was ever denied coverage prior to 2014, but I'm sure you can cite all the people you know who do what you claim in this post, amiright?

I don't personally know anyone that was denied coverage ever. Unlike you make it out, it's not the doom and gloom you want to portray.

Same time you provide your list. It would be easier to provide the list of those I know that have been denied. In fact, I already have.

That wasn't what I asked you. I asked you to name the people you know who do what you claim:

"It's interesting that you use the word can't. Someone on food stamps is telling the rest of us they demand feed them they can't afford their own food. However, more than once I've seen someone using EBT to buy their food magically have enough money to buy all sort of other necessities like cigarettes and beer. Are you telling me someone that can't afford to buy the basic necessities of life is telling the truth when they can afford to buy non-essential items? You're likely fool enough to believe them.

If someone tells me they can't afford their own food yet can afford non-essential things, I have absolutely no problem letting them go hungry and do without until they can learn priorities. More than once I've been approached in public where someone asked for money to buy food. Usually, it's in locations where multiple restaurants are located. That's where they tend to hang out. I offer to buy them a meal at a place of their choosing in that area. In all the years I've made that offer, I have had ONE that took me up on it and I was glad to do it. For the others, most whined and/or made excuses as to why I should simply give them money. If someone needs food, I'll provide that food but since it's MY money, I set the conditions. If they don't like the condition, tough shit. Do without. I'm not their fucking ATM."

I'll do you one better. I'll have everyone of them personally come and show you. All we need is your address.

So you'd be willing to pay their airfare to Australia, but you resent contributing the tiny portion of your taxes that provides them with affordable health insurance. I suppose you think that makes sense.

Save your money and just tell me who they are, how many there are, and how you've personally come to know them so intimately that you can vouch for the fact that they're lazy and that they deliberately refuse to earn as much money as you do and if they get sick it's their fault.

I'm betting at least one of them is your brother-in-law.

And, go...

 

[Sun Devil 92]

And over seven months after House Speaker Ryan promised to reveal the GOP's super-special replacement, Congressional Republicans are still whining and doing nothing.

ObamaCare propels number of insured Americans above 90%

For the first time ever, fewer than 10% of Americans lack health insurance, according to data released Tuesday by the CDC. And CNBC calls that "a clear sign of ObamaCare's impact." In 2015, only 9.1% of Americans—about 28.6 million people—were uninsured. That's down from 14.2% in 2013 when ObamaCare really started to go into effect, the Hill reports. That drop amounts to another 16.2 million Americans who now have health insurance. "Today's report is further proof that our country has made undeniable and historic strides thanks to the Affordable Care Act." Sylvia Burwell, secretary of health and human services, tells CNBC. "Our country ought to be proud of how far we've come and where we're going."

But regardless of ObamaCare's success in reducing the ranks of the uninsured—the Obama administration estimates more than 20 million Americans have gained insurance since the ACA passed in 2010—the Hill reports that Republicans still plan to use it as a wedge issue in November. Donald Trump and Senate Republicans believe hitting Hillary Clinton over ObamaCare will propel them to victories. “This healthcare law has been devastating to the Democratic Party," John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, tells the Hill.

The report from the CDC is attached for anyone who's interested:

How many that have it now do so because someone else was forced to pay the taxes that help fund it for those freeloaders?

We can't be paying the same amount out....and say things are better.

 

[Arianrhod]

And over seven months after House Speaker Ryan promised to reveal the GOP's super-special replacement, Congressional Republicans are still whining and doing nothing.

ObamaCare propels number of insured Americans above 90%

For the first time ever, fewer than 10% of Americans lack health insurance, according to data released Tuesday by the CDC. And CNBC calls that "a clear sign of ObamaCare's impact." In 2015, only 9.1% of Americans—about 28.6 million people—were uninsured. That's down from 14.2% in 2013 when ObamaCare really started to go into effect, the Hill reports. That drop amounts to another 16.2 million Americans who now have health insurance. "Today's report is further proof that our country has made undeniable and historic strides thanks to the Affordable Care Act." Sylvia Burwell, secretary of health and human services, tells CNBC. "Our country ought to be proud of how far we've come and where we're going."

But regardless of ObamaCare's success in reducing the ranks of the uninsured—the Obama administration estimates more than 20 million Americans have gained insurance since the ACA passed in 2010—the Hill reports that Republicans still plan to use it as a wedge issue in November. Donald Trump and Senate Republicans believe hitting Hillary Clinton over ObamaCare will propel them to victories. “This healthcare law has been devastating to the Democratic Party," John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, tells the Hill.

The report from the CDC is attached for anyone who's interested:

How many that have it now do so because someone else was forced to pay the taxes that help fund it for those freeloaders?

We can't be paying the same amount out....and say things are better.

And since those smart enough to use the exchanges for the most part are paying less, it's only you Luddites who persist in spreading mythology.

 

[Conservative65]

And over seven months after House Speaker Ryan promised to reveal the GOP's super-special replacement, Congressional Republicans are still whining and doing nothing.

ObamaCare propels number of insured Americans above 90%

For the first time ever, fewer than 10% of Americans lack health insurance, according to data released Tuesday by the CDC. And CNBC calls that "a clear sign of ObamaCare's impact." In 2015, only 9.1% of Americans—about 28.6 million people—were uninsured. That's down from 14.2% in 2013 when ObamaCare really started to go into effect, the Hill reports. That drop amounts to another 16.2 million Americans who now have health insurance. "Today's report is further proof that our country has made undeniable and historic strides thanks to the Affordable Care Act." Sylvia Burwell, secretary of health and human services, tells CNBC. "Our country ought to be proud of how far we've come and where we're going."

But regardless of ObamaCare's success in reducing the ranks of the uninsured—the Obama administration estimates more than 20 million Americans have gained insurance since the ACA passed in 2010—the Hill reports that Republicans still plan to use it as a wedge issue in November. Donald Trump and Senate Republicans believe hitting Hillary Clinton over ObamaCare will propel them to victories. “This healthcare law has been devastating to the Democratic Party," John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, tells the Hill.

The report from the CDC is attached for anyone who's interested:

How many that have it now do so because someone else was forced to pay the taxes that help fund it for those freeloaders?

We can't be paying the same amount out....and say things are better.

And since those smart enough to use the exchanges for the most part are paying less, it's only you Luddites who persist in spreading mythology.

My insurance, because I provide something worthwhile to my employer, costs me nothing.

How many of those freeloaders using the exchanges get a subsidy? Have them pay for their own. No matter how much your heart bleeds for the lazy and irresponsible, it's still and never will be another person's responsibility to be forced to provide anything for anyone.

 

[Conservative65]

And over seven months after House Speaker Ryan promised to reveal the GOP's super-special replacement, Congressional Republicans are still whining and doing nothing.

ObamaCare propels number of insured Americans above 90%

For the first time ever, fewer than 10% of Americans lack health insurance, according to data released Tuesday by the CDC. And CNBC calls that "a clear sign of ObamaCare's impact." In 2015, only 9.1% of Americans—about 28.6 million people—were uninsured. That's down from 14.2% in 2013 when ObamaCare really started to go into effect, the Hill reports. That drop amounts to another 16.2 million Americans who now have health insurance. "Today's report is further proof that our country has made undeniable and historic strides thanks to the Affordable Care Act." Sylvia Burwell, secretary of health and human services, tells CNBC. "Our country ought to be proud of how far we've come and where we're going."

But regardless of ObamaCare's success in reducing the ranks of the uninsured—the Obama administration estimates more than 20 million Americans have gained insurance since the ACA passed in 2010—the Hill reports that Republicans still plan to use it as a wedge issue in November. Donald Trump and Senate Republicans believe hitting Hillary Clinton over ObamaCare will propel them to victories. “This healthcare law has been devastating to the Democratic Party," John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, tells the Hill.

The report from the CDC is attached for anyone who's interested:

How many that have it now do so because someone else was forced to pay the taxes that help fund it for those freeloaders?

We can't be paying the same amount out....and say things are better.

And since those smart enough to use the exchanges for the most part are paying less, it's only you Luddites who persist in spreading mythology.

Using subsidies makes them freeloaders.