So, this is what passes for leadership, now?

[Czernobog]

Says the guy who just got caught calling someone a liar, for posting a true statement...well...an honest opinion, anyway. I mean I have no proof that you are delusional. After all, you might not actually believe the bullshit you're spewing. In which case you wouldn't be delusional, you'd just be a liar.

You didn't post a true statement, you posted a misleading statement based off of some stupid random thought of your. I expect it from you.

So, you didn't say that we were getting by just fine before Obamacare? Because I'll be happy to like to the post where you did.

So you didn't say "I'm glad it don't live there"?

How was anyone to know the context you dishonest nutjob? And when I asked for clarification, you didn't clarify yourself again! You are a dumb dishonest person. Now, do you have anything new to really add?

By employing reading comprehension, which you apparently are incapable of. My comment was made after pointing out that you live in a delusional world, based on your claim that a period of time when 48 million Americans were uninsured was getting by just fine.

It's not my fault that you are incapable of understanding the words that you read.

Back in the 1950s most people got along without health insurance including my very own family. Medical care was cheaper back then of course.

yeah...it's never gonna be the 50's again. I'm pretty sure you know that..

 

[Czernobog]

Oh shit! Since Papageorgio wants to take this time to spew anti-ACA rhetoric, this just in, Trump's own DHHS says that the ACA is humming along famously:

New data have been released contradicting Republican propaganda about the “failing” Affordable Care Act. What may be more embarrassing to the hardliners pushing repeal is that it comes from the government, specifically the Department of Health and Human Services.

Under Secretary Tom Price, the department has been a fount of anti-ACA rhetoric. But in an annual report about the ACA’s risk-management provisions issued Friday, Health and Human Services established that the key programs are “working as intended,” protecting insurers from unexpectedly large risks and moderating premiums for consumers.

Not only that, the data “would seem to refute the commonly held belief that the marketplace population is becoming sicker,” observes health economist Timothy Jost, writing in Health Affairs. In fact, according to the figures from 2016 in the latest report, the customer base is getting healthier and the risk pools have been stabilizing.

"Both the transitional reinsurance program and the permanent risk adjustment program are working as intended.”*-*Department of Health and Human Services

The conclusions in the Department of Health and Human Services report confirm that the ACA marketplace was stabilizing through 2016, despite GOP claims to the contrary. In fact, the marketplace did better than expected.​

Oops...that seems to kinda blow holes in Papageorgio's "We were so much better off before Obamacare" lament...

We will see. Wonder what counties that can't get Obamacare will do this next year? Go without?

There is nothing to "We'll see..." about. The report is out, and your claims are officially bullshit. I mean, "didn't get" Obamacare?!?! Do you even know what Obamacare is? You realise that it isn't insurance that one can get, or not get, right?

I do but in several areas you won't be able to get ACA because it has no providers, they pulled out. That is where I am watching this play out. If insurance companies keep backing out like they have, we are going to Ave a real problem. Too bad the Dems didn't allow insurance companies to cross state lines. If it were me I would have allowed those that participated to offer it in every state. It would have correct the current issue.

Not allowing insurance companies wasn't the problem. Rubio destroying the risk corridors was the problem. That's why Insurance companies are pulling out of high risk states - particularly those that did not opt into the Medicaid expansion. All we need to do to make the ACA 100 times more effective is repeal that stupid Rubio amendment.

 

[Papageorgio]

Oh shit! Since Papageorgio wants to take this time to spew anti-ACA rhetoric, this just in, Trump's own DHHS says that the ACA is humming along famously:

New data have been released contradicting Republican propaganda about the “failing” Affordable Care Act. What may be more embarrassing to the hardliners pushing repeal is that it comes from the government, specifically the Department of Health and Human Services.

Under Secretary Tom Price, the department has been a fount of anti-ACA rhetoric. But in an annual report about the ACA’s risk-management provisions issued Friday, Health and Human Services established that the key programs are “working as intended,” protecting insurers from unexpectedly large risks and moderating premiums for consumers.

Not only that, the data “would seem to refute the commonly held belief that the marketplace population is becoming sicker,” observes health economist Timothy Jost, writing in Health Affairs. In fact, according to the figures from 2016 in the latest report, the customer base is getting healthier and the risk pools have been stabilizing.

"Both the transitional reinsurance program and the permanent risk adjustment program are working as intended.”*-*Department of Health and Human Services

The conclusions in the Department of Health and Human Services report confirm that the ACA marketplace was stabilizing through 2016, despite GOP claims to the contrary. In fact, the marketplace did better than expected.​

Oops...that seems to kinda blow holes in Papageorgio's "We were so much better off before Obamacare" lament...

We will see. Wonder what counties that can't get Obamacare will do this next year? Go without?

There is nothing to "We'll see..." about. The report is out, and your claims are officially bullshit. I mean, "didn't get" Obamacare?!?! Do you even know what Obamacare is? You realise that it isn't insurance that one can get, or not get, right?

I do but in several areas you won't be able to get ACA because it has no providers, they pulled out. That is where I am watching this play out. If insurance companies keep backing out like they have, we are going to Ave a real problem. Too bad the Dems didn't allow insurance companies to cross state lines. If it were me I would have allowed those that participated to offer it in every state. It would have correct the current issue.

Not allowing insurance companies wasn't the problem. Rubio destroying the risk corridors was the problem. That's why Insurance companies are pulling out of high risk states - particularly those that did not opt into the Medicaid expansion. All we need to do to make the ACA 100 times more effective is repeal that stupid Rubio amendment.

Why should taxpayers bear the burden of an insurance company's shortfalls? If an insurance company cannot afford to keep their doors open, then they need to go by the wayside. Government keeps bailing out businesses and you that rail against crony capitalism are supporting it. Banks, insurance companies, automakers, it all cost the taxpayer trillions of dollars to keep them afloat. Where does it end? If,the Republicans want to change healthcare, take away borders for insurance companies that participate in the exchange program, then reform the tort laws, also standardize all insurance companies to reduce administrative costs. Tighten the time it takes doctors to get paid by insurance companies.

 

[The Derp]

I do but in several areas you won't be able to get ACA because it has no providers, they pulled out. That is where I am watching this play out. If insurance companies keep backing out like they have, we are going to Ave a real problem.

Insurance companies and medical providers are not the same thing. Providers cannot pull out of exchanges because providers aren't in the exchanges, insurers are. Insurers reimburse providers. Your doctor is your provider. Aetna, BCBS, Medicaid are insurers. Obamacare is the exchange where insurers sell their plans.

Too bad the Dems didn't allow insurance companies to cross state lines. If it were me I would have allowed those that participated to offer it in every state. It would have correct the current issue.

First of all, it wasn't Democrats who prohibited insurance across state lines...that's a 10th Amendment thing, which is "states' rights" which you support, no? Secondly, several states already allow insurance to be sold across state lines (My home state of GA is one of those). You know what they found? Because each state regulates insurance differently, it makes little financial sense for an insurer to sell policies across state lines. Thirdly, allowing insurers to go national will only have the effect of fewer choices for consumers because, just like what happened with Wall Street banks, the larger insurers will buy out the smaller ones, consolidate, and merge into TBTF insurance companies that will inevitably need to be bailed out because private insurance is not a sustainable business model if you're guaranteeing universal coverage. Larger insurers can offer those bare bones plans alongside comprehensive plans, whereas smaller insurers can't. So what you have is the same situation like what we have right now with banking; where regional banks are gone and all that remains are large national corporations that are, quite literally, too big to fail.

 

[The Derp]

Why should taxpayers bear the burden of an insurance company's shortfalls?

I would go even one step further and ask; why does the process of how providers are reimbursed for care have to be privatized? What benefits to patients does having a profit motive tied to the administration of reimbursement to providers serve? It's not like insurers are innovating better ways to reimburse providers. In fact, most of them use Medicare as the standard already. Wouldn't it be far more cost effective for everyone if there was just one single entity that reimbursed providers nationwide? That way, providers don't have to hire all that admin staff (and incur those expenses) that come from the different processes and procedures each insurer has. Doesn't that make sense? How your health care is paid is not germane to how your health care is delivered to you. Your doctor doesn't do a crappier job treating you because they personally don't like the insurer you have. Also, the process by which you choose your doctor is completely backwards. You have to get an insurer first, and then you pick your doctor. How is that free market? The insurer is already limiting which provider you can see before you even begin to think about what provider you actually want to see. Add to that the profit motive for insurance companies, and it's easy to see why the system sucks so much.

Also, allowing insurers to sell across state lines will have the exact same effect it did for banking; the creation of a handful of TBTF entities that will inevitably need to be bailed out because the business model is unsustainable.

 

[The Derp]

Enabled who Hillary? Trump? I have been accused by both sides. If I don't go along with establishment assholes I get labeled. I got labeled that when Obama beat McCain, but he was a terrible candidate. I am good with that your labeling, I figure when I piss off both ignorant sides I am doing something right. Actually if the Dems weren't such dumb shits I would have voted for Bernie. I would have broke and voted Bernie. Kasich was my first choice, but Sanders was ahead of Cruz, Trump, Clinton and one other guy but I can't remember who he was off hand, it was a Republican.

So, I'm wondering why you said you would have voted Bernie if you oppose single payer health care, more government regulation, and higher taxes on the rich. Do you actually not oppose those things?

 

[The Derp]

Back in the 1950s most people got along without health insurance including my very own family. Medical care was cheaper back then of course.

Those people without insurance ended up broke at the end of their lives because of medical costs.

 

[jasonnfree]

You didn't post a true statement, you posted a misleading statement based off of some stupid random thought of your. I expect it from you.

So, you didn't say that we were getting by just fine before Obamacare? Because I'll be happy to like to the post where you did.

So you didn't say "I'm glad it don't live there"?

How was anyone to know the context you dishonest nutjob? And when I asked for clarification, you didn't clarify yourself again! You are a dumb dishonest person. Now, do you have anything new to really add?

By employing reading comprehension, which you apparently are incapable of. My comment was made after pointing out that you live in a delusional world, based on your claim that a period of time when 48 million Americans were uninsured was getting by just fine.

It's not my fault that you are incapable of understanding the words that you read.

Back in the 1950s most people got along without health insurance including my very own family. Medical care was cheaper back then of course.

yeah...it's never gonna be the 50's again. I'm pretty sure you know that..

We could practice some of what was happening in the '50s. We didn't have extremely overweight people in stores driving around on golf carts buying more of the kinds of food that made them so fat in the first place. In the last at least 30 or more years I haven't seen a kid mow a lawn or wash a car or walk anywhere. I'm 72 and seem in better shape than some people 25 years or even younger than me. America's eating habits and the sedentary practices of it's people add a lot to our problems. If a person eats and eats till he's a blimp till he needs a golf cart to get around, and people keep cranking out babies that they can't afford to raise, why should society have to take care of them?

 

[The Derp]

We could practice some of what was happening in the '50s. We didn't have extremely overweight people in stores driving around on golf carts buying more of the kinds of food that made them so fat in the first place. In the last at least 30 or more years I haven't seen a kid mow a lawn or wash a car or walk anywhere. I'm 72 and seem in better shape than some people 25 years or even younger than me. America's eating habits and the sedentary practices of it's people add a lot to our problems. If a person eats and eats till he's a blimp till he needs a golf cart to get around, and people keep cranking out babies that they can't afford to raise, why should society have to take care of them?

It's no coincidence that Americans' health started declining as more sugar was added to our diets.

 

[Papageorgio]

Enabled who Hillary? Trump? I have been accused by both sides. If I don't go along with establishment assholes I get labeled. I got labeled that when Obama beat McCain, but he was a terrible candidate. I am good with that your labeling, I figure when I piss off both ignorant sides I am doing something right. Actually if the Dems weren't such dumb shits I would have voted for Bernie. I would have broke and voted Bernie. Kasich was my first choice, but Sanders was ahead of Cruz, Trump, Clinton and one other guy but I can't remember who he was off hand, it was a Republican.

So, I'm wondering why you said you would have voted Bernie if you oppose single payer health care, more government regulation, and higher taxes on the rich. Do you actually not oppose those things?

Because Sanders was not part of the establishment of the corrupt two party system, Trump, wasn't either however his campaign lies reminded of Obama's campaign lies.

I don't oppose higher taxes on all if it pays down the debt, the issue is the left wants to raise taxes on a specific class to spend more, we need a reduction in spending if you want to raise taxes on anyone.

Government regulations are necessary, they help keep order and fairness. I am against senseless over regulation that amounts to nothing more than power and leads to a government abuse of power. FMCSA who I deal with are a great example of government over reach, they help regulate a safe transportation industry but they put in laws and regulations that have very little to do with safety and gives one single government employee the power to put a company out of business because their interpretation on a DOT rule.

 

[The Derp]

Because Sanders was not part of the establishment of the corrupt two party system, Trump, wasn't either however his campaign lies reminded of Obama's campaign lies.

What campaign lies from Obama? Not sure what you're referring to.

I don't oppose higher taxes on all if it pays down the debt, the issue is the left wants to raise taxes on a specific class to spend more, we need a reduction in spending if you want to raise taxes on anyone.

Why does there need to be a reduction in spending? This is what I never understand about you people. You are so consumed with spending, why? Spending isn't what caused our current deficits; tax cuts are. And furthermore, who cares if we run deficits? Government debt never has to be paid off because the government never "dies". Conservatives tried to say in 2010 that once debt reached 90% of GDP the economy "falls off a cliff". Which sounds nice, even though it was completely wrong and the conclusion was only reached if you exclude all the data that contradicts it. So why do you care what the debt is? Why do you care what the deficit is? It doesn't affect you.

Government regulations are necessary, they help keep order and fairness. I am against senseless over regulation that amounts to nothing more than power and leads to a government abuse of power. FMCSA who I deal with are a great example of government over reach, they help regulate a safe transportation industry but they put in laws and regulations that have very little to do with safety and gives one single government employee the power to put a company out of business because their interpretation on a DOT rule.

So, I see a lot of generalized stuff here, what example do you actually have of this? And isn't "senseless over regulation" really a subjective judgement?

 

[Papageorgio]

So, you didn't say that we were getting by just fine before Obamacare? Because I'll be happy to like to the post where you did.

So you didn't say "I'm glad it don't live there"?

How was anyone to know the context you dishonest nutjob? And when I asked for clarification, you didn't clarify yourself again! You are a dumb dishonest person. Now, do you have anything new to really add?

By employing reading comprehension, which you apparently are incapable of. My comment was made after pointing out that you live in a delusional world, based on your claim that a period of time when 48 million Americans were uninsured was getting by just fine.

It's not my fault that you are incapable of understanding the words that you read.

Back in the 1950s most people got along without health insurance including my very own family. Medical care was cheaper back then of course.

yeah...it's never gonna be the 50's again. I'm pretty sure you know that..

We could practice some of what was happening in the '50s. We didn't have extremely overweight people in stores driving around on golf carts buying more of the kinds of food that made them so fat in the first place. In the last at least 30 or more years I haven't seen a kid mow a lawn or wash a car or walk anywhere. I'm 72 and seem in better shape than some people 25 years or even younger than me. America's eating habits and the sedentary practices of it's people add a lot to our problems. If a person eats and eats till he's a blimp till he needs a golf cart to get around, and people keep cranking out babies that they can't afford to raise, why should society have to take care of them?

I was 10 years old out picking strawberries, beans and cherries and making summer money. I had a paper route in the afternoon and rode my bicycle to deliver the papers. Took turns with my brothers to mow our lawn and our neighbors lawn because she was a widow. When we moved to the country, I milk cows, goats, bucked hay, chopped wood and the rest of the time I was outdoors playing hard.

Today 10 year olds can't go out and earn money. Lemonade stands have all but disappeared and now government over reach has banned them in most places. Our portions for food in America are huge, and lend to overeating. We way over use sugars and over process our foods. When my wife and I first got married, I was out washing my car, now we live in a neighborhood where the HOA doesn't allow us to wash cars in the driveway. WTF? We were healthier by far, we went to the doctor less, didn't have all the prescription medications with all the side effects that are worse than the actual problem. We ate balanced, not so much processed foods. The way cattle and chickens are raised, injected with steroids and antibiotics is absolutely criminal.

I am very conscious of the food I by, the ingredients, the process in which it is made. I buy mainly organic, of organic is no guarantee of healthy. Americans have a responsibility to themselves to educate themselves and eat properly and live a healthy lifestyle.

 

[Papageorgio]

Because Sanders was not part of the establishment of the corrupt two party system, Trump, wasn't either however his campaign lies reminded of Obama's campaign lies.

What campaign lies from Obama? Not sure what you're referring to.

I don't oppose higher taxes on all if it pays down the debt, the issue is the left wants to raise taxes on a specific class to spend more, we need a reduction in spending if you want to raise taxes on anyone.

Why does there need to be a reduction in spending? This is what I never understand about you people. You are so consumed with spending, why? Spending isn't what caused our current deficits; tax cuts are. And furthermore, who cares if we run deficits? Government debt never has to be paid off because the government never "dies". Conservatives tried to say in 2010 that once debt reached 90% of GDP the economy "falls off a cliff". Which sounds nice, even though it was completely wrong and the conclusion was only reached if you exclude all the data that contradicts it. So why do you care what the debt is? Why do you care what the deficit is? It doesn't affect you.

Government regulations are necessary, they help keep order and fairness. I am against senseless over regulation that amounts to nothing more than power and leads to a government abuse of power. FMCSA who I deal with are a great example of government over reach, they help regulate a safe transportation industry but they put in laws and regulations that have very little to do with safety and gives one single government employee the power to put a company out of business because their interpretation on a DOT rule.

So, I see a lot of generalized stuff here, what example do you actually have of this? And isn't "senseless over regulation" really a subjective judgement?

First off Obama promised transparency and was worse than the previous administration in that regard. But this is an issue that has been hashed over a million times here. Here are some more broken promises.

The Obameter: Campaign Promises that are Promise Broken | PolitiFact

So, you don't think the government has an obligation to payback debt. Interesting.

As far as the FMCSA, one person can walk into a transportation company and shut it down in one day. No, due process, no notice, by the time you get a decision reversed, you lose your customer's because you are unreliable and small businesses are usually put out of business. No fault of the company, but one guy that decides you are in violation of a rule.

The overreach of Regulatory Power- How far can it go? - Ask The Trucker

FMCSA postpones lease and interchange rule until 2019 - Bus & Motorcoach News

http://safetracsolutions.com/speed-limiters-really/

Currently, the FMCSA is rolling back many of its rulings like the lease interchange rule and others because of the current administration being told to do so.

 

[The Derp]

First off Obama promised transparency and was worse than the previous administration in that regard.

Well, Obama didn't lie in order to invade a country that was no threat to us. Obama didn't delete millions of e-mails regarding 9/11 and the Iraq War ahead of the 9/11 Commission. Obama didn't fire US Attorneys for political reasons. So it's really all about subjectivity, not objectivity with you, I find. So what else ya got?

o, you don't think the government has an obligation to payback debt. Interesting.

It doesn't, and furthermore, you need to explain the significance of the debt and how it either affects the economy, employment, or borrowing rates. In the last 8 years, you Conservatives screeched about debt endlessly, but just like the other question I asked you yesterday with regard to people who have no cash to pay for health care, you Conservatives completely, 100% avoid explaining why the debt matters to you so much. You've never been able to answer that question because you can't. Government debt is not the same thing as individual debt, and you need to stop pretending they are.

As far as the FMCSA, one person can walk into a transportation company and shut it down in one day. No, due process, no notice, by the time you get a decision reversed, you lose your customer's because you are unreliable and small businesses are usually put out of business. No fault of the company, but one guy that decides you are in violation of a rule.

So again, you avoid specifics, choosing instead to rely on vague generalities and crossing your fingers that I don't do due diligence on what you're saying. You're assuming I'm as lazy a person as you.

So let's look at each of your links and see how ridiculous they are, starting with this one:

FMCSA postpones lease and interchange rule until 2019 - Bus & Motorcoach News

Actual regulation: "The rule would affect “charters, farm-outs, contracting or subcontracting” by requiring operators that contract with other carriers to provide buses on a temporary basis to execute formal leases. They also would be fully responsible for the subcontractor’s insurance and violations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, even though they have no direct oversight or control over the carrier’s business operations. FMCSA said the purpose of the rule was to shut down illegal carriers trying to skirt federal oversight by operating under the cloak of another carrier."

So the rule was to catch people who were trying to skirt the rule. So how does this impact anything other than the profits of these companies? It doesn't.

 

[Papageorgio]

First off Obama promised transparency and was worse than the previous administration in that regard.

Well, Obama didn't lie in order to invade a country that was no threat to us. Obama didn't delete millions of e-mails regarding 9/11 and the Iraq War ahead of the 9/11 Commission. Obama didn't fire US Attorneys for political reasons. So it's really all about subjectivity, not objectivity with you, I find. So what else ya got?

o, you don't think the government has an obligation to payback debt. Interesting.

It doesn't, and furthermore, you need to explain the significance of the debt and how it either affects the economy, employment, or borrowing rates. In the last 8 years, you Conservatives screeched about debt endlessly, but just like the other question I asked you yesterday with regard to people who have no cash to pay for health care, you Conservatives completely, 100% avoid explaining why the debt matters to you so much. You've never been able to answer that question because you can't. Government debt is not the same thing as individual debt, and you need to stop pretending they are.

As far as the FMCSA, one person can walk into a transportation company and shut it down in one day. No, due process, no notice, by the time you get a decision reversed, you lose your customer's because you are unreliable and small businesses are usually put out of business. No fault of the company, but one guy that decides you are in violation of a rule.

So again, you avoid specifics, choosing instead to rely on vague generalities and crossing your fingers that I don't do due diligence on what you're saying. You're assuming I'm as lazy a person as you.

So let's look at each of your links and see how ridiculous they are, starting with this one:

FMCSA postpones lease and interchange rule until 2019 - Bus & Motorcoach News

Actual regulation: "The rule would affect “charters, farm-outs, contracting or subcontracting” by requiring operators that contract with other carriers to provide buses on a temporary basis to execute formal leases. They also would be fully responsible for the subcontractor’s insurance and violations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, even though they have no direct oversight or control over the carrier’s business operations. FMCSA said the purpose of the rule was to shut down illegal carriers trying to skirt federal oversight by operating under the cloak of another carrier."

So the rule was to catch people who were trying to skirt the rule. So how does this impact anything other than the profits of these companies? It doesn't.

You asked for campaign promises Obama lied about. I gave them to you, they are subjective, he didn't fulfill his promises, that is a fact.

If I give you specific examples I get called a liar. So why should I?

You have no clue what the FMCSA ruling will do and I don't think you have the capacity to understand it since you are not in the industry.

 

[The Derp]

You asked for campaign promises Obama lied about. I gave them to you, they are subjective, he didn't fulfill his promises, that is a fact.

Ummm...they are "subjective"...there is no such thing as a subjective fact.

If I give you specific examples I get called a liar. So why should I?

Because you ask that of me, so now that the shoe's on the other foot, suddenly you clam up? What gives?

You have no clue what the FMCSA ruling will do and I don't think you have the capacity to understand it since you are not in the industry.

Jesus ******* Christ...I just quoted from the link you provided showing that rule wasn't so much about over-regulation as it was to prevent immoral, un-American, cheating businesses from skirting the law.

 

[Czernobog]

Why should taxpayers bear the burden of an insurance company's shortfalls?

They aren't. Again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of how the risk pools were suppose to work. It is the insurance companies that support one another. The way it was supposed to work, is that anything over a 80% profit margin got donated to a risk pool. Then anyone who made less than that 80% profit margin would be paid out of the pool to equalize them. Furthermore, the measure was only supposed to be temporary, while the insurance companies worked out the actuarial risk assessments for the new dynamics, and worked out their premiums based on the new dynamics.

Then Rubio, knowing full well that this one feature of the ACA, more than any other, would lead to the success of the measure, of course decided that the best thing to do for Republicans was break it. So, he forced through an amendment that set hard limits on the risk corridor distributions, destroying the safety net that insurance companies were promised while learning to function in the new market. The result, not surprisingly, was pull-outs of insurance providers in higher risk markets.

And, what do ya know? Republicans now point to all of the pull outs of insurance companies, calling it a failing of the ACA, conveniently forgetting that it was Rubio's amendment that is causing the panicked pull outs.

 

[jasonnfree]

We could practice some of what was happening in the '50s. We didn't have extremely overweight people in stores driving around on golf carts buying more of the kinds of food that made them so fat in the first place. In the last at least 30 or more years I haven't seen a kid mow a lawn or wash a car or walk anywhere. I'm 72 and seem in better shape than some people 25 years or even younger than me. America's eating habits and the sedentary practices of it's people add a lot to our problems. If a person eats and eats till he's a blimp till he needs a golf cart to get around, and people keep cranking out babies that they can't afford to raise, why should society have to take care of them?

It's no coincidence that Americans' health started declining as more sugar was added to our diets.

If people work at it a little, they can keep weight down. People are lazy basically. Then when they're grossly overweight and start having serious problems like diabetes, knee replacement etc. this overloads the health care budgets. Then of course, our immigration policy of allowing the poor, needy, and unskilled from the third world to come here and get on health and welfare programs just so they can vote for the hillarys and obamas, is helping bankrupt us.

 

[jasonnfree]

So you didn't say "I'm glad it don't live there"?

How was anyone to know the context you dishonest nutjob? And when I asked for clarification, you didn't clarify yourself again! You are a dumb dishonest person. Now, do you have anything new to really add?

By employing reading comprehension, which you apparently are incapable of. My comment was made after pointing out that you live in a delusional world, based on your claim that a period of time when 48 million Americans were uninsured was getting by just fine.

It's not my fault that you are incapable of understanding the words that you read.

Back in the 1950s most people got along without health insurance including my very own family. Medical care was cheaper back then of course.

yeah...it's never gonna be the 50's again. I'm pretty sure you know that..

We could practice some of what was happening in the '50s. We didn't have extremely overweight people in stores driving around on golf carts buying more of the kinds of food that made them so fat in the first place. In the last at least 30 or more years I haven't seen a kid mow a lawn or wash a car or walk anywhere. I'm 72 and seem in better shape than some people 25 years or even younger than me. America's eating habits and the sedentary practices of it's people add a lot to our problems. If a person eats and eats till he's a blimp till he needs a golf cart to get around, and people keep cranking out babies that they can't afford to raise, why should society have to take care of them?

I was 10 years old out picking strawberries, beans and cherries and making summer money. I had a paper route in the afternoon and rode my bicycle to deliver the papers. Took turns with my brothers to mow our lawn and our neighbors lawn because she was a widow. When we moved to the country, I milk cows, goats, bucked hay, chopped wood and the rest of the time I was outdoors playing hard.

Today 10 year olds can't go out and earn money. Lemonade stands have all but disappeared and now government over reach has banned them in most places. Our portions for food in America are huge, and lend to overeating. We way over use sugars and over process our foods. When my wife and I first got married, I was out washing my car, now we live in a neighborhood where the HOA doesn't allow us to wash cars in the driveway. WTF? We were healthier by far, we went to the doctor less, didn't have all the prescription medications with all the side effects that are worse than the actual problem. We ate balanced, not so much processed foods. The way cattle and chickens are raised, injected with steroids and antibiotics is absolutely criminal.

I am very conscious of the food I by, the ingredients, the process in which it is made. I buy mainly organic, of organic is no guarantee of healthy. Americans have a responsibility to themselves to educate themselves and eat properly and live a healthy lifestyle.

You delivered papers? I was the one who threw the big bundles of papers from the truck on to the paperboy's lawn early in the a. m. Course this was around 1960. There was always a buck to be made back then if you weren't lazy or your parents made sure you didn't grow up lazy.

 

[Papageorgio]

You asked for campaign promises Obama lied about. I gave them to you, they are subjective, he didn't fulfill his promises, that is a fact.

Ummm...they are "subjective"...there is no such thing as a subjective fact.

If I give you specific examples I get called a liar. So why should I?

Because you ask that of me, so now that the shoe's on the other foot, suddenly you clam up? What gives?

You have no clue what the FMCSA ruling will do and I don't think you have the capacity to understand it since you are not in the industry.

Jesus ******* Christ...I just quoted from the link you provided showing that rule wasn't so much about over-regulation as it was to prevent immoral, un-American, cheating businesses from skirting the law.

See, you have no clue how a law affects the industry, you quote a law, don't read the details of the law and then make some really stupid comment. The intent of the rule is good as I stated. The way they want to execute it is wrong and puts the burden on honest companies.

As far as the Obama, I meant to say they are not subjective, the facts are he lied, the proof is there the fact you are a ******* idiot has no bearing on it.