If you use the term "crap policies"...

[daveman]

Our founding fathers heavily regulated business and corporations...NOW what pea brain?

Your revisionist history may impress your fellow proglodytes, but it's powerless on intelligent people.

Meanwhile, back in reality:

Conservatives don't advocate anarchy. Conservatives advocate limited government as described in the Constitution.

Game, Set, MATCH.

To proglodytes, government is binary. There is either total government control over each and every individual life (their desired end state), or there is anarchy.

They simply can't comprehend limited government. They're not very bright.

 

[The T]

.

Yeah, I tried on a different thread to get some examples. ANY examples.

Given the amount of people losing their coverage, there must be a ZILLION examples. Because surely these folks wouldn't just be throwing that argument around without plenty of facts to back it up in a transparent attempt to divert from the fact that Obama lied to our faces about his signature legislation.

Weird, huh?

.

You need an example of crap health insurance that someone is using the exchange to replace with something much much better at a very good price?

Here. You can pretend this isn't a good example:

Back in March, Consumer Reports published a study of many of these plans and placed them in a special category: "junk health insurance." Some plans, the magazine declared, may be worse than none at all.

Consumer Reports is right. Plans with monthly premiums in the two figures marketed to customers in their 30s, 40s, or even 50s invariably impose ridiculously low coverage limits. They've typically been pitched to people who couldn't find affordable insurance because of their age or preexisting conditions, or who were so financially strapped that they were lured by the cheap upfront cost.

"People buy a plan that's terrible," says Nancy Metcalf, CR's senior project editor for health, "and if they get sick, they don't even know they don't have insurance."

An example from CR: A plan costing $65 a month held by Judith Goss, 48, a Michigan department store employee. When Goss was diagnosed with breast cancer, she discovered the drawbacks of the policy's coverage limits of $1,000 a year for outpatient treatment and $2,000 for hospitalization -- barely enough to cover a day and half a Tylenol in the hospital. She delayed treatment, so her cancer got much worse before she finally opted for surgery. Those sorts of coverage limits are illegal come Jan. 1.

and this:

Consider the case of Diane Barrette, the 56-year-old Florida woman whose cancellation horror story was reported by a credulous CBS News and picked up by Fox News, which has been a one-stop shop for your Obamacare misinformation needs. (We mentioned the Barrette case on Tuesday.)

CR's Metcalf examined Barrette's Blue Cross Blue Shield policy and made two discoveries: how junky it really is, and how badly her insurer may have misled her about her options. Barrette's $54 monthly premium bought her almost nothing. The policy pays $50 per office visit (which can run two or three times that) and $15 per prescription (which can run to thousands of dollars a month); above that she's on her own. Nothing for a colonoscopy. Nothing for mental health treatment. Up to $50 for hospital and ER services -- and then only if her treatment is for "complications of pregnancy." Nothing for outpatient services.

"She's paying $650 a year to be uninsured," said an insurance expert Metcalf consulted. If she ever had a serious medical problem, "she would have lost the house she's sitting in."

As for the replacement plan her insurer offered, at a shocking $591 a month? Barrette has much better options via the government insurance exchange. (Or she will once the federal system gets running.) Metcalf estimated that she'll be eligible for "real insurance that covers all essential health benefits" for as little as $165 a month -- a higher premium than she's paying now, sure, but one that won't cost her her home.

Obamacare hysteria: Don't believe the canceled insurance hype - latimes.com

Speaking of hysteria, now you get to prove that these tiny few examples are representative of ALL the policies Obamacare has cancelled.

And just so you know, "Because I said so, and I really really really really want it to be true" are less than compelling.

Sorry if that disarms you.

OUCH!

 

[daveman]

Who is 'emotional' pea brain?

You just hate to get schooled...as usual.

You're emotional. And you've never schooled me. You've ranted, raved, screeched, and parroted your programming, but you've never offered a single original thought.

But, in your defense, I have to say it's because you're incapable.

Maybe Rabbi was correct? Education or lack there of? Maybe this creep is a crowning jewel of colossal ignorance as leftists usually tend to be?

He may be educated. But "educated" is not synonymous with "intelligent".

Lots of supremely stupid people believe it is.

 

[francoHFW]

Well they have 750k bankruptcies a year related to health care, and 3/4 of those had insurance- great insurance I'M SURE lol.

Obama should have said people who have good insurance instead of ''that they like'''....As usual . he underestimated the gullibility of the Pub dupe...This should also end all those benifits thrown for dying people. I suppose the dupes will miss those too, having never heard of lifetime caps, cutoffs, and scams...

 

[Katzndogz]

Do people really think that all contingencies will be covered under obamacare and the free sky will be the limit ? There's the bronze plan, the silver plan, and if you need that cancer surgery you better have paid for a platinum plan.

 

[The T]

Your revisionist history may impress your fellow proglodytes, but it's powerless on intelligent people.

Meanwhile, back in reality:

Conservatives don't advocate anarchy. Conservatives advocate limited government as described in the Constitution.

Game, Set, MATCH.

To proglodytes, government is binary. There is either total government control over each and every individual life (their desired end state), or there is anarchy.

They simply can't comprehend limited government. They're not very bright.

And they forget what the Founders stated IF we were to survive as a nation...and the limited scope of the Constitution...They were to protect liberty of the individual...Governments MAIN focus...MAYBE they bought into Obama's argument of NEGATIVE Liberties...ECONOMIC JUSTICE? REDISTRIBUTION? Good GOD the man told us what he was about...Let he who has ears HEAR...But yet they have the attention span of a gnat...and elect a man that doesn't CARE about them at all...as he destroys the middle class he pretends to care about...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr9mLB3yKs"]Obama Constitution Negative Liberties.flv - YouTube[/ame]

He's making it come to fruition.

 

[The T]

Do people really think that all contingencies will be covered under obamacare and the free sky will be the limit ? There's the bronze plan, the silver plan, and if you need that cancer surgery you better have paid for a platinum plan.

What? No DIAMOND Plan?

 

[NYcarbineer]

.

Yeah, I tried on a different thread to get some examples. ANY examples.

Given the amount of people losing their coverage, there must be a ZILLION examples. Because surely these folks wouldn't just be throwing that argument around without plenty of facts to back it up in a transparent attempt to divert from the fact that Obama lied to our faces about his signature legislation.

Weird, huh?

.

You need an example of crap health insurance that someone is using the exchange to replace with something much much better at a very good price?

Here. You can pretend this isn't a good example:

Back in March, Consumer Reports published a study of many of these plans and placed them in a special category: "junk health insurance." Some plans, the magazine declared, may be worse than none at all.

Consumer Reports is right. Plans with monthly premiums in the two figures marketed to customers in their 30s, 40s, or even 50s invariably impose ridiculously low coverage limits. They've typically been pitched to people who couldn't find affordable insurance because of their age or preexisting conditions, or who were so financially strapped that they were lured by the cheap upfront cost.

"People buy a plan that's terrible," says Nancy Metcalf, CR's senior project editor for health, "and if they get sick, they don't even know they don't have insurance."

An example from CR: A plan costing $65 a month held by Judith Goss, 48, a Michigan department store employee. When Goss was diagnosed with breast cancer, she discovered the drawbacks of the policy's coverage limits of $1,000 a year for outpatient treatment and $2,000 for hospitalization -- barely enough to cover a day and half a Tylenol in the hospital. She delayed treatment, so her cancer got much worse before she finally opted for surgery. Those sorts of coverage limits are illegal come Jan. 1.

and this:

Consider the case of Diane Barrette, the 56-year-old Florida woman whose cancellation horror story was reported by a credulous CBS News and picked up by Fox News, which has been a one-stop shop for your Obamacare misinformation needs. (We mentioned the Barrette case on Tuesday.)

CR's Metcalf examined Barrette's Blue Cross Blue Shield policy and made two discoveries: how junky it really is, and how badly her insurer may have misled her about her options. Barrette's $54 monthly premium bought her almost nothing. The policy pays $50 per office visit (which can run two or three times that) and $15 per prescription (which can run to thousands of dollars a month); above that she's on her own. Nothing for a colonoscopy. Nothing for mental health treatment. Up to $50 for hospital and ER services -- and then only if her treatment is for "complications of pregnancy." Nothing for outpatient services.

"She's paying $650 a year to be uninsured," said an insurance expert Metcalf consulted. If she ever had a serious medical problem, "she would have lost the house she's sitting in."

As for the replacement plan her insurer offered, at a shocking $591 a month? Barrette has much better options via the government insurance exchange. (Or she will once the federal system gets running.) Metcalf estimated that she'll be eligible for "real insurance that covers all essential health benefits" for as little as $165 a month -- a higher premium than she's paying now, sure, but one that won't cost her her home.

Obamacare hysteria: Don't believe the canceled insurance hype - latimes.com

Speaking of hysteria, now you get to prove that these tiny few examples are representative of ALL the policies Obamacare has cancelled.

And just so you know, "Because I said so, and I really really really really want it to be true" are less than compelling.

Sorry if that disarms you.

Funny how Foxnews had no problem using the example of Ms. Barrette above, when they thought it worked for the Obama haters,

and funny how it was posted by rightwingers on this forum,

and funny how you didn't refer to it as one of a tiny few examples when it was being misrepresented as a case of someone being harmed by Obamacare.

You massive ****.

 

[NYcarbineer]

.

Yeah, I tried on a different thread to get some examples. ANY examples.

Given the amount of people losing their coverage, there must be a ZILLION examples. Because surely these folks wouldn't just be throwing that argument around without plenty of facts to back it up in a transparent attempt to divert from the fact that Obama lied to our faces about his signature legislation.

Weird, huh?

.

You need an example of crap health insurance that someone is using the exchange to replace with something much much better at a very good price?

Here. You can pretend this isn't a good example:

Back in March, Consumer Reports published a study of many of these plans and placed them in a special category: "junk health insurance." Some plans, the magazine declared, may be worse than none at all.

Consumer Reports is right. Plans with monthly premiums in the two figures marketed to customers in their 30s, 40s, or even 50s invariably impose ridiculously low coverage limits. They've typically been pitched to people who couldn't find affordable insurance because of their age or preexisting conditions, or who were so financially strapped that they were lured by the cheap upfront cost.

"People buy a plan that's terrible," says Nancy Metcalf, CR's senior project editor for health, "and if they get sick, they don't even know they don't have insurance."

An example from CR: A plan costing $65 a month held by Judith Goss, 48, a Michigan department store employee. When Goss was diagnosed with breast cancer, she discovered the drawbacks of the policy's coverage limits of $1,000 a year for outpatient treatment and $2,000 for hospitalization -- barely enough to cover a day and half a Tylenol in the hospital. She delayed treatment, so her cancer got much worse before she finally opted for surgery. Those sorts of coverage limits are illegal come Jan. 1.

and this:

Consider the case of Diane Barrette, the 56-year-old Florida woman whose cancellation horror story was reported by a credulous CBS News and picked up by Fox News, which has been a one-stop shop for your Obamacare misinformation needs. (We mentioned the Barrette case on Tuesday.)

CR's Metcalf examined Barrette's Blue Cross Blue Shield policy and made two discoveries: how junky it really is, and how badly her insurer may have misled her about her options. Barrette's $54 monthly premium bought her almost nothing. The policy pays $50 per office visit (which can run two or three times that) and $15 per prescription (which can run to thousands of dollars a month); above that she's on her own. Nothing for a colonoscopy. Nothing for mental health treatment. Up to $50 for hospital and ER services -- and then only if her treatment is for "complications of pregnancy." Nothing for outpatient services.

"She's paying $650 a year to be uninsured," said an insurance expert Metcalf consulted. If she ever had a serious medical problem, "she would have lost the house she's sitting in."

As for the replacement plan her insurer offered, at a shocking $591 a month? Barrette has much better options via the government insurance exchange. (Or she will once the federal system gets running.) Metcalf estimated that she'll be eligible for "real insurance that covers all essential health benefits" for as little as $165 a month -- a higher premium than she's paying now, sure, but one that won't cost her her home.

Obamacare hysteria: Don't believe the canceled insurance hype - latimes.com

Speaking of hysteria, now you get to prove that these tiny few examples are representative of ALL the policies Obamacare has cancelled.

And just so you know, "Because I said so, and I really really really really want it to be true" are less than compelling.

Sorry if that disarms you.

It's two more real life examples than you have posted, you big flamer.

 

[bripat9643]

.

Yeah, I tried on a different thread to get some examples. ANY examples.

Given the amount of people losing their coverage, there must be a ZILLION examples. Because surely these folks wouldn't just be throwing that argument around without plenty of facts to back it up in a transparent attempt to divert from the fact that Obama lied to our faces about his signature legislation.

Weird, huh?

.

You need an example of crap health insurance that someone is using the exchange to replace with something much much better at a very good price?

Here. You can pretend this isn't a good example:

Back in March, Consumer Reports published a study of many of these plans and placed them in a special category: "junk health insurance." Some plans, the magazine declared, may be worse than none at all.

Consumer Reports is right. Plans with monthly premiums in the two figures marketed to customers in their 30s, 40s, or even 50s invariably impose ridiculously low coverage limits. They've typically been pitched to people who couldn't find affordable insurance because of their age or preexisting conditions, or who were so financially strapped that they were lured by the cheap upfront cost.

"People buy a plan that's terrible," says Nancy Metcalf, CR's senior project editor for health, "and if they get sick, they don't even know they don't have insurance."

An example from CR: A plan costing $65 a month held by Judith Goss, 48, a Michigan department store employee. When Goss was diagnosed with breast cancer, she discovered the drawbacks of the policy's coverage limits of $1,000 a year for outpatient treatment and $2,000 for hospitalization -- barely enough to cover a day and half a Tylenol in the hospital. She delayed treatment, so her cancer got much worse before she finally opted for surgery. Those sorts of coverage limits are illegal come Jan. 1.

and this:

Consider the case of Diane Barrette, the 56-year-old Florida woman whose cancellation horror story was reported by a credulous CBS News and picked up by Fox News, which has been a one-stop shop for your Obamacare misinformation needs. (We mentioned the Barrette case on Tuesday.)

CR's Metcalf examined Barrette's Blue Cross Blue Shield policy and made two discoveries: how junky it really is, and how badly her insurer may have misled her about her options. Barrette's $54 monthly premium bought her almost nothing. The policy pays $50 per office visit (which can run two or three times that) and $15 per prescription (which can run to thousands of dollars a month); above that she's on her own. Nothing for a colonoscopy. Nothing for mental health treatment. Up to $50 for hospital and ER services -- and then only if her treatment is for "complications of pregnancy." Nothing for outpatient services.

"She's paying $650 a year to be uninsured," said an insurance expert Metcalf consulted. If she ever had a serious medical problem, "she would have lost the house she's sitting in."

As for the replacement plan her insurer offered, at a shocking $591 a month? Barrette has much better options via the government insurance exchange. (Or she will once the federal system gets running.) Metcalf estimated that she'll be eligible for "real insurance that covers all essential health benefits" for as little as $165 a month -- a higher premium than she's paying now, sure, but one that won't cost her her home.

Obamacare hysteria: Don't believe the canceled insurance hype - latimes.com

I've had Blue-Cross/Blue Shield, and I don't believe this crap for a second. They are one of the largest insurers in the country. I doubt that would be the case if people knew they got nothing when they filed a claim. I don't recall them offering any plan with the benefits described.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You need an example of crap health insurance that someone is using the exchange to replace with something much much better at a very good price?

Here. You can pretend this isn't a good example:

Back in March, Consumer Reports published a study of many of these plans and placed them in a special category: "junk health insurance." Some plans, the magazine declared, may be worse than none at all.

Consumer Reports is right. Plans with monthly premiums in the two figures marketed to customers in their 30s, 40s, or even 50s invariably impose ridiculously low coverage limits. They've typically been pitched to people who couldn't find affordable insurance because of their age or preexisting conditions, or who were so financially strapped that they were lured by the cheap upfront cost.

"People buy a plan that's terrible," says Nancy Metcalf, CR's senior project editor for health, "and if they get sick, they don't even know they don't have insurance."

An example from CR: A plan costing $65 a month held by Judith Goss, 48, a Michigan department store employee. When Goss was diagnosed with breast cancer, she discovered the drawbacks of the policy's coverage limits of $1,000 a year for outpatient treatment and $2,000 for hospitalization -- barely enough to cover a day and half a Tylenol in the hospital. She delayed treatment, so her cancer got much worse before she finally opted for surgery. Those sorts of coverage limits are illegal come Jan. 1.

and this:

Consider the case of Diane Barrette, the 56-year-old Florida woman whose cancellation horror story was reported by a credulous CBS News and picked up by Fox News, which has been a one-stop shop for your Obamacare misinformation needs. (We mentioned the Barrette case on Tuesday.)

CR's Metcalf examined Barrette's Blue Cross Blue Shield policy and made two discoveries: how junky it really is, and how badly her insurer may have misled her about her options. Barrette's $54 monthly premium bought her almost nothing. The policy pays $50 per office visit (which can run two or three times that) and $15 per prescription (which can run to thousands of dollars a month); above that she's on her own. Nothing for a colonoscopy. Nothing for mental health treatment. Up to $50 for hospital and ER services -- and then only if her treatment is for "complications of pregnancy." Nothing for outpatient services.

"She's paying $650 a year to be uninsured," said an insurance expert Metcalf consulted. If she ever had a serious medical problem, "she would have lost the house she's sitting in."

As for the replacement plan her insurer offered, at a shocking $591 a month? Barrette has much better options via the government insurance exchange. (Or she will once the federal system gets running.) Metcalf estimated that she'll be eligible for "real insurance that covers all essential health benefits" for as little as $165 a month -- a higher premium than she's paying now, sure, but one that won't cost her her home.

Obamacare hysteria: Don't believe the canceled insurance hype - latimes.com

Speaking of hysteria, now you get to prove that these tiny few examples are representative of ALL the policies Obamacare has cancelled.

And just so you know, "Because I said so, and I really really really really want it to be true" are less than compelling.

Sorry if that disarms you.

Funny how Foxnews had no problem using the example of Ms. Barrette above, when they thought it worked for the Obama haters,

and funny how it was posted by rightwingers on this forum,

and funny how you didn't refer to it as one of a tiny few examples when it was being misrepresented as a case of someone being harmed by Obamacare.

You massive ****.

Want to know what is even funnier?
You.

 

[daveman]

You need an example of crap health insurance that someone is using the exchange to replace with something much much better at a very good price?

Here. You can pretend this isn't a good example:

Back in March, Consumer Reports published a study of many of these plans and placed them in a special category: "junk health insurance." Some plans, the magazine declared, may be worse than none at all.

Consumer Reports is right. Plans with monthly premiums in the two figures marketed to customers in their 30s, 40s, or even 50s invariably impose ridiculously low coverage limits. They've typically been pitched to people who couldn't find affordable insurance because of their age or preexisting conditions, or who were so financially strapped that they were lured by the cheap upfront cost.

"People buy a plan that's terrible," says Nancy Metcalf, CR's senior project editor for health, "and if they get sick, they don't even know they don't have insurance."

An example from CR: A plan costing $65 a month held by Judith Goss, 48, a Michigan department store employee. When Goss was diagnosed with breast cancer, she discovered the drawbacks of the policy's coverage limits of $1,000 a year for outpatient treatment and $2,000 for hospitalization -- barely enough to cover a day and half a Tylenol in the hospital. She delayed treatment, so her cancer got much worse before she finally opted for surgery. Those sorts of coverage limits are illegal come Jan. 1.

and this:

Consider the case of Diane Barrette, the 56-year-old Florida woman whose cancellation horror story was reported by a credulous CBS News and picked up by Fox News, which has been a one-stop shop for your Obamacare misinformation needs. (We mentioned the Barrette case on Tuesday.)

CR's Metcalf examined Barrette's Blue Cross Blue Shield policy and made two discoveries: how junky it really is, and how badly her insurer may have misled her about her options. Barrette's $54 monthly premium bought her almost nothing. The policy pays $50 per office visit (which can run two or three times that) and $15 per prescription (which can run to thousands of dollars a month); above that she's on her own. Nothing for a colonoscopy. Nothing for mental health treatment. Up to $50 for hospital and ER services -- and then only if her treatment is for "complications of pregnancy." Nothing for outpatient services.

"She's paying $650 a year to be uninsured," said an insurance expert Metcalf consulted. If she ever had a serious medical problem, "she would have lost the house she's sitting in."

As for the replacement plan her insurer offered, at a shocking $591 a month? Barrette has much better options via the government insurance exchange. (Or she will once the federal system gets running.) Metcalf estimated that she'll be eligible for "real insurance that covers all essential health benefits" for as little as $165 a month -- a higher premium than she's paying now, sure, but one that won't cost her her home.

Obamacare hysteria: Don't believe the canceled insurance hype - latimes.com

Speaking of hysteria, now you get to prove that these tiny few examples are representative of ALL the policies Obamacare has cancelled.

And just so you know, "Because I said so, and I really really really really want it to be true" are less than compelling.

Sorry if that disarms you.

Funny how Foxnews had no problem using the example of Ms. Barrette above, when they thought it worked for the Obama haters,

and funny how it was posted by rightwingers on this forum,

and funny how you didn't refer to it as one of a tiny few examples when it was being misrepresented as a case of someone being harmed by Obamacare.

You massive ****.

So...you got nothin'.

By the way, you babbling, fool, I've never referenced Ms. Barrette.

 

[daveman]

It's two more real life examples than you have posted, you big flamer.

Boy, I mention that some people can't think for themselves, and you take it all personal-like.

 

[MeBelle]

So, as I understand it, in an effort to "insure 18 million uninsured Americans" we have (thus far) added (by this report with less than 50% of states responding) 3.5 million MORE Americans with, probably another 10-30 million more americans coming once American business begins canceling their work-force policies. All this to be "socially just" for the less than 1% of the population that was too stupid to have health insurance.

Sounds like a plan to me! Way to go Barry!!

And it STILL does not address the big elephant in the room:

Illegal immigrant healthcare.

I remember that Barry claimed that "once we get past this shutdown, I wii take on immigration reform".

Funny how strangely silent the WH is these days, wouldn't you agree?

It's almost like, with this horse hockey that is Obarrycare, Barry decided that he better not make an even bigger fool of himself right now.....

McCain has taken over the reins...

McCain: Immigration Can Level 'Playing Field' for Republicans - Bloomberg

 

[Bfgrn]

Conservatives don't advocate anarchy. Conservatives advocate limited government as described in the Constitution.

So stop telling that lie.

Our founding fathers heavily regulated business and corporations...NOW what pea brain?

The founding fathers believed that corporations had a government guaranteed right to kill anyone that competed with them. I am pretty sure you don't want that, but feel free to prove me wrong.

You are WRONG...

PROOF...

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What caused the Progressive movement

We tried unregulated corporations in America. The closest experiment to total deregulation in this country occurred between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the 19th century...it was called the Gilded Age; an era where America was as far from our founder's intent of a democratic society and closest to an aristocracy that our founder's were willing to lay down their lives to defeat.

It was opposition to that same Gilded Age that was the genesis of the Progressive movement in this country. When you study history, almost always just cause is behind it.

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
Me[

 

[RandallFlagg]

And it STILL does not address the big elephant in the room:

Illegal immigrant healthcare.

I remember that Barry claimed that "once we get past this shutdown, I wii take on immigration reform".

Funny how strangely silent the WH is these days, wouldn't you agree?

It's almost like, with this horse hockey that is Obarrycare, Barry decided that he better not make an even bigger fool of himself right now.....

McCain has taken over the reins...

McCain: Immigration Can Level 'Playing Field' for Republicans - Bloomberg

And this is the primary reason I have grown to despise this man. Always at the ready to kiss the ass of his democrat buddies while he pisses on the American people. John McCain - go the hell away while you still have SOME dignity left.

 

[bripat9643]

Our founding fathers heavily regulated business and corporations...NOW what pea brain?

The founding fathers believed that corporations had a government guaranteed right to kill anyone that competed with them. I am pretty sure you don't want that, but feel free to prove me wrong.

You are WRONG...

PROOF...

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents

Truth-out.org? enough said.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What caused the Progressive movement

We tried unregulated corporations in America. The closest experiment to total deregulation in this country occurred between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the 19th century...it was called the Gilded Age; an era where America was as far from our founder's intent of a democratic society and closest to an aristocracy that our founder's were willing to lay down their lives to defeat.

It was opposition to that same Gilded Age that was the genesis of the Progressive movement in this country.

The Communist Manifesto is what caused the progressive movement. All you did is post communist propaganda.

Furthermore, our standard of living improved more rapidly during the so-called "Gilded Age" than at any other time in any nation in history.

When you study history, almost always just cause is behind it.

Bullshit. What was the "just cause" behind imperialism? Fascism? Communism?

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
Me

In other words, the only enemies of the Constitution are those who respect it and try to follow it.

How beautifully Orwellian!

 

[Mac1958]

.

Yeah, I tried on a different thread to get some examples. ANY examples.

Given the amount of people losing their coverage, there must be a ZILLION examples. Because surely these folks wouldn't just be throwing that argument around without plenty of facts to back it up in a transparent attempt to divert from the fact that Obama lied to our faces about his signature legislation.

Weird, huh?

.

You need an example of crap health insurance that someone is using the exchange to replace with something much much better at a very good price?

Here. You can pretend this isn't a good example:

Back in March, Consumer Reports published a study of many of these plans and placed them in a special category: "junk health insurance." Some plans, the magazine declared, may be worse than none at all.

Consumer Reports is right. Plans with monthly premiums in the two figures marketed to customers in their 30s, 40s, or even 50s invariably impose ridiculously low coverage limits. They've typically been pitched to people who couldn't find affordable insurance because of their age or preexisting conditions, or who were so financially strapped that they were lured by the cheap upfront cost.

"People buy a plan that's terrible," says Nancy Metcalf, CR's senior project editor for health, "and if they get sick, they don't even know they don't have insurance."

An example from CR: A plan costing $65 a month held by Judith Goss, 48, a Michigan department store employee. When Goss was diagnosed with breast cancer, she discovered the drawbacks of the policy's coverage limits of $1,000 a year for outpatient treatment and $2,000 for hospitalization -- barely enough to cover a day and half a Tylenol in the hospital. She delayed treatment, so her cancer got much worse before she finally opted for surgery. Those sorts of coverage limits are illegal come Jan. 1.

and this:

Consider the case of Diane Barrette, the 56-year-old Florida woman whose cancellation horror story was reported by a credulous CBS News and picked up by Fox News, which has been a one-stop shop for your Obamacare misinformation needs. (We mentioned the Barrette case on Tuesday.)

CR's Metcalf examined Barrette's Blue Cross Blue Shield policy and made two discoveries: how junky it really is, and how badly her insurer may have misled her about her options. Barrette's $54 monthly premium bought her almost nothing. The policy pays $50 per office visit (which can run two or three times that) and $15 per prescription (which can run to thousands of dollars a month); above that she's on her own. Nothing for a colonoscopy. Nothing for mental health treatment. Up to $50 for hospital and ER services -- and then only if her treatment is for "complications of pregnancy." Nothing for outpatient services.

"She's paying $650 a year to be uninsured," said an insurance expert Metcalf consulted. If she ever had a serious medical problem, "she would have lost the house she's sitting in."

As for the replacement plan her insurer offered, at a shocking $591 a month? Barrette has much better options via the government insurance exchange. (Or she will once the federal system gets running.) Metcalf estimated that she'll be eligible for "real insurance that covers all essential health benefits" for as little as $165 a month -- a higher premium than she's paying now, sure, but one that won't cost her her home.

Obamacare hysteria: Don't believe the canceled insurance hype - latimes.com

I've had Blue-Cross/Blue Shield, and I don't believe this crap for a second. They are one of the largest insurers in the country. I doubt that would be the case if people knew they got nothing when they filed a claim. I don't recall them offering any plan with the benefits described.

I'm aware of the phony "health plans" referred to in that article, I had client ask about them a couple of years back so I checked them out. You'll see emails and faxes for them, "Famly Health Coverage for $69 a Month!", and evidently a FEW people have fallen for them. I know I've gotten at least one fax at the office with one of these plans, a few weeks ago.

When I checked them out for my client, I called a few (I think three) doctors on the "network" and the their claims/billing people had never even heard of the plans. Not a big surprise, I had never heard of the companies offering them and I know that you simply cannot get real coverage for that price. Their websites lay claim to some vague set of "discounts" rather than co-pays and co-insurance, which says it all for someone who knows what to look for. They're pretty much a scam.

So yes, those few scam policies that naive people bought are "crap policies". However...

Very few people have fallen for this bullshit and bought these "policies". But what's happening here is that the Obamacare apologists are trying to pretend that these policies are the lion's share of the REAL policies having to be dropped by the REAL health insurance companies because of new regulations imposed by the ACA, and of course that's not true. I think they know that.

But as usual when it comes to trying to deal with partisan ideologues, I don't know if these people are just naive or simply parroting what MSNBC and the Huffington Post tells them without checking anything out. Either way, they are ideologically obligated to defend it somehow, and evidently they have decided that this is their best shot.

Okay, whatever.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Speaking of hysteria, now you get to prove that these tiny few examples are representative of ALL the policies Obamacare has cancelled.

And just so you know, "Because I said so, and I really really really really want it to be true" are less than compelling.

Sorry if that disarms you.

Funny how Foxnews had no problem using the example of Ms. Barrette above, when they thought it worked for the Obama haters,

and funny how it was posted by rightwingers on this forum,

and funny how you didn't refer to it as one of a tiny few examples when it was being misrepresented as a case of someone being harmed by Obamacare.

You massive ****.

So...you got nothin'.

By the way, you babbling, fool, I've never referenced Ms. Barrette.

You referenced her in your post above, claiming her case was one of a tiny few examples.

The poster I responded to, btw, was ASKING for examples.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Speaking of hysteria, now you get to prove that these tiny few examples are representative of ALL the policies Obamacare has cancelled.

And just so you know, "Because I said so, and I really really really really want it to be true" are less than compelling.

Sorry if that disarms you.

Funny how Foxnews had no problem using the example of Ms. Barrette above, when they thought it worked for the Obama haters,

and funny how it was posted by rightwingers on this forum,

and funny how you didn't refer to it as one of a tiny few examples when it was being misrepresented as a case of someone being harmed by Obamacare.

You massive ****.

So...you got nothin'.

By the way, you babbling, fool, I've never referenced Ms. Barrette.

Well, actually you have, about 5 days ago:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8068055-post58.html

See, it's that kind of shameless, outright, and easily provable LYING that so clearly and unequivocally separates you from those of us with integrity.