Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Obama ignores AfghanistanFollow

#27 Sep 28 2009 at 8:13 AM Rating: Good
The wonderful thing about Obama is that he gets **** done without being all showy about it, until the time is needed. No "mission accomplished" banners with him.

So while everyone ******* about him not doing anything, in the meantime he's letting people do their jobs, and focusing on his.
#28REDACTED, Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 8:56 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Pensive,
#29REDACTED, Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 8:57 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Cat,
#30 Sep 28 2009 at 8:59 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Varus,
Quote:

LMAO!!!

That's some funny sh*t right there.
Toilet gazing again?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#31 Sep 28 2009 at 9:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
COST OF HEALTH INSURANCE - Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance for a family have gone up +131% over the last decade, an increase of +8.7% per year (source: Kaiser Family Foundation).


Seems fairly pernicious to me.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#32 Sep 28 2009 at 9:39 AM Rating: Default
**
559 posts
Obama is too busy having coked-up gay sex to care about black(brown) people.
#33 Sep 28 2009 at 9:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
soulshaver wrote:
Obama is too busy having coked-up gay sex with Kenyans to care about black(brown) people.

True that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#34 Sep 28 2009 at 10:21 AM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Samira wrote:
Quote:
COST OF HEALTH INSURANCE - Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance for a family have gone up +131% over the last decade, an increase of +8.7% per year (source: Kaiser Family Foundation).


Seems fairly pernicious to me.


I remember about 10 years ago I could get family coverage for about $60 a month. Now there's no way in hell I can get it anywhere NEAR that.
#35 Sep 28 2009 at 10:37 AM Rating: Good
publiusvarus wrote:
How is denying coverage for a bad risk based on underwriting guidelines pernicious?


You don't see how denying health insurance coverage can cause harm? You're really that stupid?

#36REDACTED, Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 11:15 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,
#37 Sep 28 2009 at 11:20 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
sure, but that's really not what people are talking about.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#38 Sep 28 2009 at 11:23 AM Rating: Good
publiusvarus wrote:
Tulip,

Quote:
You don't see how denying health insurance coverage can cause harm? You're really that stupid?


Sorry denying health insurance to a bad risk doesn't "cause" harm. Smoking 2 packs a days for 20yrs causes harm. Now if you need to look up the definition of causality feel free to.


How about denying health insurance for someone with a genetic disease? That's considered a "bad risk" as far as the insurance companies go. And believe me, that is what is being denied more than smokers, drinkers, and the obese.
#39REDACTED, Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 11:30 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,
#40 Sep 28 2009 at 11:37 AM Rating: Good
publiusvarus wrote:
Tulip,

Quote:
How about denying health insurance for someone with a genetic disease?


You can answer this yourself. Did the insurance company cause the genetic disease?


Oooh. So insurance companies should only be responsible to pay claims on diseases that they cause... right? Well, perfect! Insurance companies will not have to pay a claim ever again!

Good god, you're fucked up. The way you talk about health insurance makes me really, really worried for any of your insurance clients at whatever company you work for. Pathetic.
#41 Sep 28 2009 at 12:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The Sunday Shows wrote:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet the president is saying that we need to think about the strategy right now. And it really creates the impression of a rift between the civilian leadership, you, as secretary of Defense, the president, and the uniformed military.

GATES: I don’t think that’s the case at all. I talked with -- I had an extensive conversation on the telephone with both General McChrystal and General Petraeus on -- on Wednesday. General McChrystal was very explicit in saying that he thinks this assessment, this review that’s going on right now is exactly the right thing to do. He obviously doesn’t want it to be open-ended or be a protracted kind of thing...

Trying to play the "OMG one phonecall in 70 days!" thing up as though Obama is out of the loop regarding McChrystal is just politics. As I predicted, word is going through the appropriate channels to the appropriate places.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42REDACTED, Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 12:31 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,
#43 Sep 28 2009 at 12:41 PM Rating: Excellent
publiusvarus wrote:
Tulip,

You are a ******. It's a wonder you can manage to feed yourself.

Quote:
Oooh. So insurance companies should only be responsible to pay claims on diseases that they cause... right?


Did I say that anywhere in any posts i've ever posted? Insurance companies should only be responsible for covered loses. Get it! It's not that difficult, even for trailer trash like yourself. Do you even know what the phrase pre-existing means?

Quote:
Well, perfect! Insurance companies will not have to pay a claim ever again!


Insurance companies don't pay for loses that aren't covered in the policy. Does this make sense to you? I know i'm asking a lot. You supported the idiotic idea that insurance companies are evil for not assuming certain pre-existing risks. If companies assume bad risks guess what...they go out of business you f*cking ******.


What you don't seem to be willing to cram through that thick skull of yours is that insurance companies aren't paying for covered losses. They are finding ways to weasel out of everything.

"What was that? You need a $6,000 drug to fix your illness? And you've been a client of our company for ten years? Well, guess what? We just wrote a new law into our company policy that says that drug is not covered for that illness. SO SORRY! Even though we paid for it the first two times, it will no longer be covered. Oh, what? You have to have this drug every other week, and you can't afford to spend $12,000 a month on it? Gosh, that's too bad. But our hands are tied, really! Now, since you happen to now have an illness, we are also raising your premium to over $1,000 a month. Oh, and your lifetime limit is going to be dropped. Oh, what's that? You're about to reach your lifetime limit because of an illness you got while you were covered with us, and you want to know what other policies are available to you? Oh, none. Not here. You see, now you have a pre-existing condition."

And I'd love to hear you try to tell me that the above doesn't happen. Because that's pretty much exactly what has happened to more than one of our clients.

Now, Varrus. Tell me again about how wonderful these companies are? Tell me again how everything is peachy and we don't need to fix anything? Tell me again how TORT REFORM on MALPRACTICE is the only way out of this mess?

Tell me again who the ******, trailer trash is who can't seem to grasp the situation as it stands?
#44 Sep 28 2009 at 12:47 PM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Tulip,

You are a ******. It's a wonder you can manage to feed yourself.

Quote:
Oooh. So insurance companies should only be responsible to pay claims on diseases that they cause... right?


Did I say that anywhere in any posts i've ever posted? Insurance companies should only be responsible for covered loses. Get it! It's not that difficult, even for trailer trash like yourself. Do you even know what the phrase pre-existing means?


Mmmm... but you were the one who said it.
Quote:
You can answer this yourself. Did the insurance company cause the genetic disease?


Don't get huffy because you posted something idiotic and then complain it didn't mean what you wrote.


Quote:
Quote:
Well, perfect! Insurance companies will not have to pay a claim ever again!


Insurance companies don't pay for loses that aren't covered in the policy. Does this make sense to you? I know i'm asking a lot. You supported the idiotic idea that insurance companies are evil for not assuming certain pre-existing risks. If companies assume bad risks guess what...they go out of business you f*cking ******.



Let's see... Ctrl F, type in "evil." One result found: posted by Varus. Looks like you're wrong again. The only one even mentioning evil here is you (and now me, in response to you). Besides, what are you arguing here? You already said there should be an option for those with genetic diseases, because insurance companies won't cover them. I mean, you agree with us that the insurance system that currently exists doesn't help people with genetic diseases, and you agree that there should be some sort of a non-private (call, it, say, public) option for this reason. You just don't think the current plan on the table works (although you didn't give a reason, presumably because you're against any Democratic healthcare reform, not because you have an alternative in mind).

You know, your line of thinking there ALMOST made sense. I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day!
#45REDACTED, Posted: Sep 28 2009 at 2:17 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
#46 Sep 28 2009 at 2:21 PM Rating: Good
publiusvarus wrote:
Locked,

Quote:
I mean, you agree with us that the insurance system that currently exists doesn't help people with genetic diseases, and you agree that there should be some sort of a non-private (call, it, say, public) option for this reason. You just don't think the current plan on the table works


Those with pre-existing genetic conditions are few and far in between, they're the exceptions not the rule. Are you telling me we can't come up with something to deal with these rare exceptions besides totally revamping the entire industry?


It's not just that, Varrus. We're talking conditions that crop up while you are a client of the insurance company, and they do everything they can to get out of it. Go up a few posts and read what I posted. Are you going to tell me that doesn't happen? Or did you pointedly ignore it because you have no excuse this time?

And these are not the exceptions! These are the rules! All insurance companies are concerned with is making money. They will do whatever they possibly can to deny claims in the interest of keeping that money in their own pockets.

And, no. This cannot be fixed without a massive overhaul of the current system. There is little to no part of the current system that is working.

Edited, Sep 28th 2009 5:22pm by Belkira
#47 Sep 28 2009 at 2:25 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
How is denying coverage for a bad risk based on underwriting guidelines pernicious?


Anyone with the slightest bit of moral sensibility and compassion for his fellow man can understand how that is pernicious.

Quote:
Sorry denying health insurance to a bad risk doesn't "cause" harm. Smoking 2 packs a days for 20yrs causes harm. Now if you need to look up the definition of causality feel free to.


Causality can mean many different things. Denying coverage does, absolutely, cause harm, by at least two notions of causality that I can think of, and I could perhaps think of more if I cared to think for more than five seconds.

Edited, Sep 28th 2009 6:31pm by Pensive
#48 Sep 28 2009 at 4:30 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Jophed,

Quote:
Increased troop levels from 36k to their current levels of around 60k


That's right. Now if the higher troop levels needed weren't enough why not follow the advice of the military commanders in charge and increase them again?

Still in the process of rotating troops out of Iraq.



I think I had something else to say but Thom wanted oranges.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#49 Sep 28 2009 at 8:11 PM Rating: Good
Varus wrote:
why not follow the advice of the military commanders in charge and increase them (troops) again?


That's funny, W & Rumsfeld did NOT listen to their commanders on the ground during the initial invasion of Iraq & overthrew their government with many, many less troops than were recommended.

Now, in hindsight those "missing" troops would have been very useful for the whole "securing the country" thing, but the winning "the war" for Iraq with so many less troops than were recommended was an accomplishment in & of itself.

"More troops" is pretty much the answer to any military situation, but at some point you've got to make do with what you have. Which, in fact, Marines are trained to do.

Army? Not so much.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#50 Sep 28 2009 at 8:31 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
"More troops" is pretty much the answer to any military situation

More defense spending is also an acceptable answer.

Although I really shouldn't complain about this.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#51 Sep 28 2009 at 8:42 PM Rating: Good
More air strikes, obviously.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 279 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (279)