dems afraid to go home

[Butthead]

hell yes, the redneck in me is giddy. when politicans are afraid to go home to their
districts, things might be looking up.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34953.html

[jkhonea]

What's really hilarious is the amount of whining wanting the Republicans to speak up for them.

Its like a kid asking a teacher to tell the bully to leave them alone. :crackup:

[Butthead]

i say grab the pitchforks, the tar and feathers. that bitch pelosi would look better with feathers.

[02ep3]

Uh uh....threats of violence are really awesome.

It must be a redneck that did it, because someone cut the gas lines at Perriello's brother's house. Smart, so smart.

[jkhonea]

Well, if they would listen to the public on occasion, they might not be getting these threats. What a concept. And asking for the Republicans to speak for them is pathetic.

They dug the hole, they can dig themselves out.

[02ep3]

So if someone guns down a senator, it is a reasonable defense that "he taxed my trips to the tanning salon 10%?"

I'm sorry, you're justifying violence or --at least-- the threat of violence against another US citizen. That's wrong. Actually, sounds like the words that come from guys on Al Jezzera and the internet calling for jyhad. Maybe we can call it, tea-had?

[BUD]

Republicans get them all the time too. My dad got them all the time when he was in politics and that was the 60's and 70's. It comes with the territory.

[jkhonea]

So if someone guns down a senator, it is a reasonable defense that "he taxed my trips to the tanning salon 10%?"

I'm sorry, you're justifying violence or --at least-- the threat of violence against another US citizen. That's wrong. Actually, sounds like the words that come from guys on Al Jezzera and the internet calling for jyhad. Maybe we can call it, tea-had?

Or they are getting the same threats the Republicans normally get and are simply whining to the news about it.

Sorry, just can't bring myself to care.

[BUD]

It's just a BS smokescreen because they are such wusses and can't take the heat. They should all quit politics and become florists.

[Dan43]

So if someone guns down a senator, it is a reasonable defense that "he taxed my trips to the tanning salon 10%?"

I'm sorry, you're justifying violence or --at least-- the threat of violence against another US citizen. That's wrong. Actually, sounds like the words that come from guys on Al Jezzera and the internet calling for jyhad. Maybe we can call it, tea-had?Hummm. I seem to remember another government that drove it's citizens to armed resistance.

[derhntr76]

These asshats are the one's always clamoring for attention. They get it and they're still whining. Let them get over it and they're probably scratching their heads wondering "why all the anger?"

[patracy]

I really hope no harm comes upon any of the liberal party. Not for their sake though.

[wbeck257]

I really hope no harm comes upon any of the liberal party. Not for their sake though.

ah man, i forgot since the board crash we can't just link back to the thread that said you would leave the board if obama got elected...

[impalanar]

ah man, i forgot since the board crash we can't just link back to the thread that said you would leave the board if obama got elected...

He did leave the board.

[patracy]

He did leave the board.

Actually that was due to a lot of people being asshats when I tried to show support for our troops.

[impalanar]

Actually that was due to a lot of people being asshats when I tried to show support for our troops.

You still did, just sayin.

[Wheedle]

Well, if they would listen to the public on occasion, they might not be getting these threats.

Yeah... imagine that...

[MrBlah]

These asshats are the one's always clamoring for attention. They get it and they're still whining. Let them get over it and they're probably scratching their heads wondering "why all the anger?"

they did, the support for that bill was within the margin of error for most polls, they did what their voters wanted them to do, they have a majority up in dc

[02ep3]

Hummm. I seem to remember another government that drove it's citizens to armed resistance.

I figured someone would go here. But i guessed the rebuttal would be more Jeffersonian....blood of tyrants and patriots being natural manure and all that. Personally, I think one just needs to take a step back when they start whipping themselves up into such a frenzy. Violence, armed resistence or threats will not have the outcome anybody wants.

It cuts both ways, it ain't right for liberal wackos to threaten republicans either.

[G_MAN]

hell yes, the redneck in me is giddy. when politicans are afraid to go home to their
districts, things might be looking up.



WHAT!!!! I distinctly remember you saying your neck wasn't red (or wasn't red enough) when someone asked you if you would buy a Corvette or a Mustang (can't remember which). Well, I'm glad to know our dear friend Butthead is a true Southerner. Since you are out of the closet as a "Redneck" are you gonna get a big tired pick up truck?

Back to the subject of the post. I like the fact that the past 10 years of GUBMENT rule has cause the public to finally wake up and take to the streets in protest. Regardless of which side it is out there I am always happy to see people trying to make the GUBMENT process work the way THE PEOPLE want it to and not just at the whims of lobbyists.

[Dan43]

I figured someone would go here. But i guessed the rebuttal would be more Jeffersonian....blood of tyrants and patriots being natural manure and all that. Personally, I think one just needs to take a step back when they start whipping themselves up into such a frenzy. Violence, armed resistence or threats will not have the outcome anybody wants.

It cuts both ways, it ain't right for liberal wackos to threaten republicans either.Might not have the outcome anybody wants, but it may very well be a better outcome than rolling over for the criminals currently running the government.

I agree that violence is never the answer. But sometimes, like with coachroaches, it is the only option.

[Butthead]

i just heard that there is a provision in the bill which opts out congress and the executive branch employees. can anyone confirm?

[MrBlah]

i just heard that there is a provision in the bill which opts out congress and the executive branch employees. can anyone confirm?

not sure what it would mean, because they already get better coverage than the minimums the bills require

[Butthead]

the point is will they be taxed as "cadilac plans"?


not sure what it would mean, because they already get better coverage than the minimums the bills require

[Butthead]

found it -- see new thread......

[Butthead]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/25/congressional-staffers-complain-double-standard-health-care-law/

if i controlled the republican's budgets the exempted names would be on a billboard in every
city in the country. fu**tards.

[02ep3]

What if they just targeting law enforcement agents and other federal officials regardless of political affiliation?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304370304575151663088415470.html

These guys sound a little kooky to me. But maybe they're just true patriots willing to ante up?

[winmutt]

These guys sound a little kooky to me. But maybe they're just true patriots willing to ante up?

What makes you think there is a difference?

[charismatic1]

how can any of you advocate violence against any one of our elected officials?? these people are PEOPLE first....and have families! would you think it to be fair if someone threw bricks through your parents window??

The bill has passed...like it or not...if you are really FOR the US and want to see America succeed...the crying, bickering, and pouting of the republicans and republican congressmen/women needs to stop! Get back to work for the American people!! At this rate...the republicans are doing more harm to themselves than good! propose some good legislation on WHATEVER issue...get it passed and think about the constituents...not your political careers!!

NO ONE LIKES A SORE LOSER!

[Butthead]

rules for radicals 101 -- always play the victim. no one likes a socialist either.


how can any of you advocate violence against any one of our elected officials?? these people are PEOPLE first....and have families! would you think it to be fair if someone threw bricks through your parents window??

The bill has passed...like it or not...if you are really FOR the US and want to see America succeed...the crying, bickering, and pouting of the republicans and republican congressmen/women needs to stop! Get back to work for the American people!! At this rate...the republicans are doing more harm to themselves than good! propose some good legislation on WHATEVER issue...get it passed and think about the constituents...not your political careers!!

NO ONE LIKES A SORE LOSER!

[winmutt]

rules for radicals 101 -- always play the victim. no one likes a socialist either.

http://www.kwikmyspacecomments.com/images/Other/THUMBNAILS/CAT00056T.jpg


propose some good legislation on WHATEVER issue...get it passed and think about the constituents...not your political careers!!

I wish all of our politicians would do this. Way to much time has been wasted on healthcare without enough research.

[MrBlah]

how can any of you advocate violence against any one of our elected officials?? these people are PEOPLE first....and have families! would you think it to be fair if someone threw bricks through your parents window??

one of the congressman that had threats and had people arrested over it, was a REPUBLICAN

[charismatic1]

one of the congressman that had threats and had people arrested over it, was a REPUBLICAN

republican...democrat...independent....it doesn't matter....no one should be advocating violence against anyone! that's just like rooting on the thieves, muderers, carjackers!

[MrBlah]

republican...democrat...independent....it doesn't matter....no one should be advocating violence against anyone! that's just like rooting on the thieves, muderers, carjackers!

they are terrorists, just like the ones over the iraq war, just like the ones in the 60's over vietnam, all terrorists

[charismatic1]

rules for radicals 101 -- always play the victim. no one likes a socialist either.

who's a radical? who's playing the victim? i'm just acting like an adult instead of a 8yr old kid who just got his butt kicked in basketball...then takes his ball home...pouting!...then goes and gets all of his buddies to come over and pick fights with the team that just beat them!

people need to grow up....did most americans want to go war with iraq...no...but congress voted we should and we did....the people moved on! as a whole...we elect our officials to act on our behalf...some did and some didn't (dependant on your district congressman/woman)...and if you feel like your voice or views weren't properly expressed...vote someone else in for the next term!! but in the mean time....united we stand!!!

[wbeck257]

Not everyone has moved on about the war in Iraq.
Hence why a lot of people voted for Obama.

[charismatic1]

they are terrorists, just like the ones over the iraq war, just like the ones in the 60's over vietnam, all terrorists

no arguments from me....just like the catholic priest who are "terrorizing" these kids...but that's different thread

[impalanar]

how can any of you advocate violence against any one of our elected officials?? these people are PEOPLE first....and have families! would you think it to be fair if someone threw bricks through your parents window??

The bill has passed...like it or not...if you are really FOR the US and want to see America succeed...the crying, bickering, and pouting of the republicans and republican congressmen/women needs to stop! Get back to work for the American people!! At this rate...the republicans are doing more harm to themselves than good! propose some good legislation on WHATEVER issue...get it passed and think about the constituents...not your political careers!!

NO ONE LIKES A SORE LOSER!

Who is advocating violence? And yelling that no one likes a sore loser is a very "adult" thing to do.

[Butthead]

you're not keeping up. barry et. al. play by the rules for radicals handbook. they push through this crap h/care that is wildly unpopular
and then cry that they are the true victims because their own voters are violent. they should be violent. this is the bigest takeover
of private enterprise ever. it is socialism 101. if this were 100 years ago, reed would have gotten his old ass kicked on the senate floor.


who's a radical? who's playing the victim? i'm just acting like an adult instead of a 8yr old kid who just got his butt kicked in basketball...then takes his ball home...pouting!...then goes and gets all of his buddies to come over and pick fights with the team that just beat them!

people need to grow up....did most americans want to go war with iraq...no...but congress voted we should and we did....the people moved on! as a whole...we elect our officials to act on our behalf...some did and some didn't (dependant on your district congressman/woman)...and if you feel like your voice or views weren't properly expressed...vote someone else in for the next term!! but in the mean time....united we stand!!!

[charismatic1]

Who is advocating violence? And yelling that no one likes a sore loser is a very "adult" thing to do.

the people on this thread...the GSB'ers...who are saying..."good"...."they deserve it"...."maybe they'll think more about their decisions"....which are most in this current thread...go back and read it again

[impalanar]

the people on this thread...the GSB'ers...who are saying..."good"...."they deserve it"...."maybe they'll think more about their decisions"....which are most in this current thread...go back and read it again

Butthead is the only one I can find. "Maybe they'll think more about their decisions" is not advocating unless you are of the school that unless you decry it you advocate it.

[charismatic1]

you're not keeping up. barry et. al. play by the rules for radicals handbook. they push through this crap h/care that is wildly unpopular
and then cry that they are the true victims because their own voters are violent. they should be violent. this is the bigest takeover
of private enterprise ever. it is socialism 101. if this were 100 years ago, reed would have gotten his old ass kicked on the senate floor.

how do you figure that this is wildly unpopular??? try watching something other than fox news...or better yet...listen someone other than rush or hannity! the polls were about half and half....legislation was put forth...it was voted on in the senate...and passed...then voted on in the house....and passed! that's the lawmaking process is it not??

if you take the time to look at the un-insured rate for every state (which i've done)...and then for every district of each state (which i haven't done but will only assume)...most of the people who voted against the health care bill is not being representiative of their constituents!! and that's just the facts!

[charismatic1]

Butthead is the only one I can find. "Maybe they'll think more about their decisions" is not advocating unless you are of the school that unless you decry it you advocate it.

just reading the forum...


hell yes, the redneck in me is giddy. when politicans are afraid to go home to their
districts, things might be looking up.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34953.html


Well, if they would listen to the public on occasion, they might not be getting these threats. What a concept. And asking for the Republicans to speak for them is pathetic.

They dug the hole, they can dig themselves out.



Might not have the outcome anybody wants, but it may very well be a better outcome than rolling over for the criminals currently running the government.

I agree that violence is never the answer. But sometimes, like with coachroaches, it is the only option.

[02ep3]

Butthead is the only one I can find. "Maybe they'll think more about their decisions" is not advocating unless you are of the school that unless you decry it you advocate it.

It certainly brings your morals into question. And if just reminding you of this isn't good enough, let's break it down logically with an example.


Burning down houses is wrong.
A trait of moral person is one who reduces wrongs.
Speaking out against burning down houses will reduce a wrong.
therefore: speaking out against burning down houses provides one with a trait of morality.

One could light a house on fire. One could --by choice-- stand idley, watching the house be consumed in flames. In either case, the result is the same. In the bounds of our example, we could say that putting out the fire is a moral response, but we're not even expecting this far a reaction. All one would reasonably expect is that those with influence would speak out against pyromaniacs and --if only insignificantly-- reduce the amount of homes being set on fire.

It is much the same case with republican leaders refusing to denounce those who advocate violence against democrats (or anyone for that matter).


If speaking out against those who light fires

[Butthead]

when you mention rush and hannity your debate skills suck. for the record, i work for a living and only in the rarest times ever hear limbaugh. and i do not watch hannity -- although i did listen to his radio show when he was local atlanta. that was > 10 years ago. for the record.

the polls i saw showed slighly lower than 50% approval. once this thing gets going and people really understand (most liberals are sheep) the taxes, the rationing of care, the IRS control, the fact that barry et al are exempted out of the program, the fines, etc. those numbers will go down. i find it amusing that most of the bill does not go into effect until the january of the next presidential election. that should tell you something.

i don't give a crap how many uninsured there are in any district. any congressional member or senator with any backbone or understanding of the constitution should have been against this pile of poo because it is blatent socialism and wrong.


how do you figure that this is wildly unpopular??? try watching something other than fox news...or better yet...listen someone other than rush or hannity! the polls were about half and half....legislation was put forth...it was voted on in the senate...and passed...then voted on in the house....and passed! that's the lawmaking process is it not??

if you take the time to look at the un-insured rate for every state (which i've done)...and then for every district of each state (which i haven't done but will only assume)...most of the people who voted against the health care bill is not being representiative of their constituents!! and that's just the facts!

[impalanar]

just reading the forum...

Thank your for proving what I had previously said.

[Dan43]

just reading the forum...
Might not have the outcome anybody wants, but it may very well be a better outcome than rolling over for the criminals currently running the government.

I agree that violence is never the answer. But sometimes, like with coachroaches, it is the only option.First, you quoted me out of context. I was refering to armed resistance to the government as a whole and not to acts of violence being directed at any specific individual.

Second, pointing out what you feel is an inevitable outcome is not the same as advocating for that outcome.

As for my personal opinion of the threats of violence against any individual member of the government, I think they are uncalled for. However, if somebody follows through on those threats, I can not think of a single elected member of the federal government currently in office that I would feel any sympathy for. When you read about these threats, you see people making threats against elected officials. When I read about them, I see people making threats against criminals who are using the cover of being an elected offical to abuse their positions and the power the people have placed in them.

[Butthead]

so our founding fathers were without morals? because they burned down a lot of british houses.

and in your example, your imagainary yet moral friend is denouncing house burning with his words but stealing your liberty with his deeds? is that moral?


It certainly brings your morals into question. And if just reminding you of this isn't good enough, let's break it down logically with an example.


Burning down houses is wrong.
A trait of moral person is one who reduces wrongs.
Speaking out against burning down houses will reduce a wrong.
therefore: speaking out against burning down houses provides one with a trait of morality.

One could light a house on fire. One could --by choice-- stand idley, watching the house be consumed in flames. In either case, the result is the same. In the bounds of our example, we could say that putting out the fire is a moral response, but we're not even expecting this far a reaction. All one would reasonably expect is that those with influence would speak out against pyromaniacs and --if only insignificantly-- reduce the amount of homes being set on fire.

It is much the same case with republican leaders refusing to denounce those who advocate violence against democrats (or anyone for that matter).


If speaking out against those who light fires

[impalanar]

It certainly brings your morals into question. And if just reminding you of this isn't good enough, let's break it down logically with an example.


Burning down houses is wrong.
A trait of moral person is one who reduces wrongs.
Speaking out against burning down houses will reduce a wrong.
therefore: speaking out against burning down houses provides one with a trait of morality.

One could light a house on fire. One could --by choice-- stand idley, watching the house be consumed in flames. In either case, the result is the same. In the bounds of our example, we could say that putting out the fire is a moral response, but we're not even expecting this far a reaction. All one would reasonably expect is that those with influence would speak out against pyromaniacs and --if only insignificantly-- reduce the amount of homes being set on fire.

It is much the same case with republican leaders refusing to denounce those who advocate violence against democrats (or anyone for that matter).


If speaking out against those who light fires

I don't speak out against people burning down houses (and to date, I have never seen speak out on the subject either) so I guess that means I (and you) support people burning down houses. Is that your logical example? And Republican leaders did denounce violence, although you would not have read that on the Huffington Post.

[MrBlah]

so our founding fathers were without morals? because they burned down a lot of british houses.

and in your example, your imagainary yet moral friend is denouncing house burning with his words but stealing your liberty with his deeds? is that moral?

the 5th congress also passed a law requiring sailors to buy insurance, look who signed it into law

http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/1StatL605.pdf

[charismatic1]

so our founding fathers were without morals? because they burned down a lot of british houses.

and in your example, your imagainary yet moral friend is denouncing house burning with his words but stealing your liberty with his deeds? is that moral?

YES!! our founding fathers WERE without morals...they owned slaves and intentionally killed native americans to take over their resources!

[Butthead]

well, you should move your ass somewhere else. venezuela or cuba or china might work for you.


YES!! our founding fathers WERE without morals...they owned slaves and intentionally killed native americans to take over their resources!

[charismatic1]

the polls i saw showed slighly lower than 50% approval. once this thing gets going and people really understand (most liberals are sheep) the taxes, the rationing of care, the IRS control, the fact that barry et al are exempted out of the program, the fines, etc. those numbers will go down. i find it amusing that most of the bill does not go into effect until the january of the next presidential election. that should tell you something.

i don't give a crap how many uninsured there are in any district. any congressional member or senator with any backbone or understanding of the constitution should have been against this pile of poo because it is blatent socialism and wrong.

initially you...or someone on here said that the VAST majority did not want this bill to pass....now you concede that the polls that you saw were slightly less than 50%...which i said in the beginning

as far as the congressmen/women not having to have this plan...they are members of the GOV already..they...just like the armed forces already have a GOV health care plan...i'm prior military and it's pretty good

and all of your other points are just assumptions!...maybe like my assumption that you're a hannity and rush fan

[02ep3]

I don't speak out against people burning down houses (and to date, I have never seen speak out on the subject either) so I guess that means I (and you) support people burning down houses. Is that your logical example? And Republican leaders did denounce violence, although you would not have read that on the Huffington Post.

OK. Now you're being deliberately obtuse. I was making an EXAMPLE. We all know that we're not ACTUALLY talking about burning down houses.

And, you need to stay within the universe of this argument. If republican leaders did denounce violence, that's great. But you made the point that deliberatly remaining silent on the subject was OK, which it is not.

[charismatic1]

well, you should move your ass somewhere else. venezuela or cuba or china might work for you.

don't shy away from the truth...it shall set you free! i happen to love it here...i support the US and the GOV....sounds like YOU'RE the one who should move sir!

[02ep3]

well, you should move your ass somewhere else. venezuela or cuba or china might work for you.

Well, they certainly weren't perfect. Nor is anyone. But perhaps you like your founding fathers to be idealized like mythical superheros?

Or perhaps it is one to be realistic with their understanding of history, recognize choices that --in hindsight-- were imperfect, and change our actions of today to acehive a better form?

[Butthead]

the vast majority of the people who have any working knowledge of this legislation hate it. the only people who seem to love it are the liberal elite and those who think they will get something for free. mark my words -- the numbers on this will get increasingly worse.

and no, barry and congress have private insurance paid for by the government and have been opted out of this plan.


initially you...or someone on here said that the VAST majority did not want this bill to pass....now you concede that the polls that you saw were slightly less than 50%...which i said in the beginning

as far as the congressmen/women not having to have this plan...they are members of the GOV already..they...just like the armed forces already have a GOV health care plan...i'm prior military and it's pretty good

and all of your other points are just assumptions!...maybe like my assumption that you're a hannity and rush fan

[charismatic1]

the vast majority of the people who have any working knowledge of this legislation hate it. the only people who seem to love it are the liberal elite and those who think they will get something for free. mark my words -- the numbers on this will get increasingly worse.

and no, barry and congress have private insurance paid for by the government and have been opted out of this plan.

there again you're being pretty assumptious... as far as the number of people hating this bill increases...

my assumption is...once the people realize that they ..nor their unborn kid...cannot be denied health insurance because of life's curveballs... or they won't be facing any 39% increases on their premiums like anthem is trying to do....people who were initially against the bill..will begin to love it

[charismatic1]

Well, they certainly weren't perfect. Nor is anyone. But perhaps you like your founding fathers to be idealized like mythical superheros?

Or perhaps it is one to be realistic with their understanding of history, recognize choices that --in hindsight-- were imperfect, and change our actions of today to acehive a better form?

well said!

[Dan43]

YES!! our founding fathers WERE without morals...they owned slaves and intentionally killed native americans to take over their resources!The Founding Fathers were not without morals. Morals are what society uses to define acceptable behavior. At that time that they lived the Founding Fathers behavior was within the acceptable framework of the society they lived in. In otherwords they followed the morals of that time. Much of what todays society considers to be immoral behavior was not only accepted but expected in that period of history.

[Dan43]

don't shy away from the truth...it shall set you free! i happen to love it here...i support the US and the GOV....sounds like YOU'RE the one who should move sir!You do realize that supporting the United States and supporting the government of theUnited States are not neccessarily the same thing don't you? Furthermore, I put forth the notion that at times supporting both the United States and the government of the United States are at times mutually exclusive endevours.

[winmutt]

well, you should move your ass somewhere else. venezuela or cuba or china might work for you.
He's right of course. The difference is what was considered moral then and what is considered moral now.

[winmutt]

Much of what todays society considers to be immoral behavior was not only accepted but expected in that period of history.
The reverse is quite true as well. Alot of moral behavior today would be seen quite the opposite back then. RockNRoll baby!

[Dan43]

there again you're being pretty assumptious... as far as the number of people hating this bill increases...

my assumption is...once the people realize that they ..nor their unborn kid...cannot be denied health insurance because of life's curveballs... or they won't be facing any 39% increases on their premiums like anthem is trying to do....people who were initially against the bill..will begin to love itCould you show me where in the healthcare bill it says that you won't have to face 39% increases?

[charismatic1]

The Founding Fathers were not without morals. Morals are what society uses to define acceptable behavior. At that time that they lived the Founding Fathers behavior was within the acceptable framework of the society they lived in. In otherwords they followed the morals of that time. Much of what todays society considers to be immoral behavior was not only accepted but expected in that period of history.

you can try all you want to justify it or minimalize it...they were without morals in my opinion!

[Butthead]

well while we are at it why don't we guarnatee your wages will increase 10% per year, the value of your homw will increase 6% per year and your cable bill will decrease 15% per year. all are possible is someone is willing to pay for it. why should you be able to steal from me to pay for your healthcare? why would un unborn child be denied healthcare? why cover millions of people who decided they don't want health insurance even though it is available to them? why not cut out all the crap in "insurance" to make it affordable, such as chiropractors, marriage counseling, drug rehab, herbal remedies, and the like? why cannot people get a high deductible plan? where is the constitution is insurance a right?


there again you're being pretty assumptious... as far as the number of people hating this bill increases...

my assumption is...once the people realize that they ..nor their unborn kid...cannot be denied health insurance because of life's curveballs... or they won't be facing any 39% increases on their premiums like anthem is trying to do....people who were initially against the bill..will begin to love it

[Dan43]

you can try all you want to justify it or minimalize it...they were without morals in my opinion!Your opinion is showing a lack of intelligence and common sense.

[Butthead]

AT&T just booked a $1 billion (with a B) charge to earnings. You liberals think that will not have consequences to the future offerings to AT&T employees?


Could you show me where in the healthcare bill it says that you won't have to face 39% increases?

[charismatic1]

Your opinion is showing a lack of intelligence and common sense.

how so? by you trying to minimalize the fact that our forefathers enslaved men, women, and kids...raped women at will...intentionally gave the native americans polo to kill them off...you sir are laking common sense ...and intelligence if you honestly believe they had any moral compass whatsoever!!

[charismatic1]

Could you show me where in the healthcare bill it says that you won't have to face 39% increases?

California's largest for-profit health insurer is moving to dramatically raise rates for customers with individual policies, setting off a furor among policyholders and prompting state insurance regulators to investigate.

Anthem Blue Cross is telling many of its approximately 800,000 customers who buy individual coverage -- people not covered by group rates -- that its prices will go up March 1 and may be adjusted "more frequently" than its typical yearly increases. The insurer declined to say how high it is increasing rates. But brokers who sell these policies say they are fielding numerous calls from customers incensed over premium increases of 30% to 39%, saying they come on the heels of similar jumps last year

this health care bill is designed to deter this kind of behavior!

[impalanar]

OK. Now you're being deliberately obtuse. I was making an EXAMPLE. We all know that we're not ACTUALLY talking about burning down houses.

And, you need to stay within the universe of this argument. If republican leaders did denounce violence, that's great. But you made the point that deliberatly remaining silent on the subject was OK, which it is not.

If we are not talking about burning down houses, why did you bring it up? You said that because I did not denounce the burning down of houses I was advocating it, and by proxy anything that I don't speak out against I must be advocating.

I have remained deliberately silent on the subjects of both the burning down of houses and violence, and I am OK with that. Call me immoral, call me what ever you want, just don't call me late to dinner.

[charismatic1]

well while we are at it why don't we guarnatee your wages will increase 10% per year, the value of your homw will increase 6% per year and your cable bill will decrease 15% per year. all are possible is someone is willing to pay for it. why should you be able to steal from me to pay for your healthcare? why would un unborn child be denied healthcare? why cover millions of people who decided they don't want health insurance even though it is available to them? why not cut out all the crap in "insurance" to make it affordable, such as chiropractors, marriage counseling, drug rehab, herbal remedies, and the like? why cannot people get a high deductible plan? where is the constitution is insurance a right?

i won't address the first portion of your statement cause its obvious that you're talkin out the side of your face! there are hundreds of kids born with diseases that make them "high risk and un-inisurable"...even people that develop those diseases as an adult....thousands of people....as far as the people who don't want insurance...that's their proragotive...but in order for this particular plan to work....there needs to be mandatory participation....not doing so...there is a fine to be levied...reason being...people without insurance "generally" tend to use the emergency room as health insurance...which again drives up costs

some of the obscure health options such as chiropractors are pretty useful...look at farah facet...her last few years she did nothing but holistic (spelling) treatments for her cancer and that's all that worked for her....i say...to each his own

[Dan43]

California's largest for-profit health insurer is moving to dramatically raise rates for customers with individual policies, setting off a furor among policyholders and prompting state insurance regulators to investigate.

Anthem Blue Cross is telling many of its approximately 800,000 customers who buy individual coverage -- people not covered by group rates -- that its prices will go up March 1 and may be adjusted "more frequently" than its typical yearly increases. The insurer declined to say how high it is increasing rates. But brokers who sell these policies say they are fielding numerous calls from customers incensed over premium increases of 30% to 39%, saying they come on the heels of similar jumps last year

this health care bill is designed to deter this kind of behavior!I hate to break this to you but there is nothing in the recently passed bill that puts any kind of limit or cap on premiums.

[MONICA]

California's largest for-profit health insurer is moving to dramatically raise rates for customers with individual policies, setting off a furor among policyholders and prompting state insurance regulators to investigate.

Anthem Blue Cross is telling many of its approximately 800,000 customers who buy individual coverage -- people not covered by group rates -- that its prices will go up March 1 and may be adjusted "more frequently" than its typical yearly increases. The insurer declined to say how high it is increasing rates. But brokers who sell these policies say they are fielding numerous calls from customers incensed over premium increases of 30% to 39%, saying they come on the heels of similar jumps last year

this health care bill is designed to deter this kind of behavior!

I believe part of the reason that Anthem raised their prices in California had a lot to do more with the policies and procedures that California set in place. For one thing, California cut back on payments to health care providers, and enrolled a lot more people (millions) in their own "free" program like medicaid. The health care providers then shifted their costs to those that actually pay (like Anthem), so Anthem raised their premiums. That was my understanding as to why the rates in California went up by such a large percent, so before you go saying it's the evil insurance companies fault, maybe you should look for a reason as to why. They didn't just do it, because they felt like it.

[impalanar]

California's largest for-profit health insurer is moving to dramatically raise rates for customers with individual policies, setting off a furor among policyholders and prompting state insurance regulators to investigate.

Anthem Blue Cross is telling many of its approximately 800,000 customers who buy individual coverage -- people not covered by group rates -- that its prices will go up March 1 and may be adjusted "more frequently" than its typical yearly increases. The insurer declined to say how high it is increasing rates. But brokers who sell these policies say they are fielding numerous calls from customers incensed over premium increases of 30% to 39%, saying they come on the heels of similar jumps last year

this health care bill is designed to deter this kind of behavior!

And yet, after back to back jumps in premiums of 30%+, their profit margin is still 3%. Evil insurance companies.

[charismatic1]

I believe part of the reason that Anthem raised their prices in California had a lot to do more with the policies and procedures that California set in place. For one thing, California cut back on payments to health care providers, and enrolled a lot more people (millions) in their own "free" program like medicaid. The health care providers then shifted their costs to those that actually pay (like Anthem), so Anthem raised their premiums. That was my understanding as to why the rates in California went up by such a large percent, so before you go saying it's the evil insurance companies fault, maybe you should look for a reason as to why. They didn't just do it, because they felt like it.

ok...i may buy a little of that argument...but by 39%????? all at once!!! and if your argument is true...how do you explain this:

[charismatic1]

And yet, after back to back jumps in premiums of 30%+, their profit margin is still 3%. Evil insurance companies.

i never said anything about the insurance companies being evil...i happen to like having insurance...i just don't like some of their tactics...health or car or house insurance....god forbid we don't get any torrential down pours that drastically floods peoples homes that are not in a flood plane...you think your home owners insurance will ante up??....oh wait....that's already happened in GA!

[winmutt]

And yet, after back to back jumps in premiums of 30%+, their profit margin is still 3%. Evil insurance companies.

Depends all on how they calculate that profit margin. Not sure how insurance accounting works but I'd assume a good amount of money goes into future vestments.

[impalanar]

i never said anything about the insurance companies being evil...i happen to like having insurance...i just don't like some of their tactics...health or car or house insurance....god forbid we don't get any torrential down pours that drastically floods peoples homes that are not in a flood plane...you think your home owners insurance will ante up??....oh wait....that's already happened in GA!

And anyone who doesn't know that Homeowners doesn't cover flooding has been living under a rock. I am pretty sure you sign a piece a paper when you buy a house that states what flood plain you are in and that you are not covered if you get flooded. (Although it has been a number of years since I went through that process)

[impalanar]

Depends all on how they calculate that profit margin. Not sure how insurance accounting works but I'd assume a good amount of money goes into future vestments.

Not sure either. I know the last time we had a premium increase here (2008 for plan year 2009) it was becuse the previous year everyone decided to have a baby and our premiums did not cover what insurance paid out. We actually had a premium decrease for this year (no one had a baby), it is not looking so good for next year.

[MONICA]

ok...i may buy a little of that argument...but by 39%????? all at once!!! and if your argument is true...how do you explain this:

I think Impalanar pretty much clarified why it was by 39%, when he said "and yet, after back to back jumps in premiums of 30%+, their profit margin is still 3%". They have to make money too, and if the cost of health care services rise, then the cost of health insurance will too. There seems to be some misconception out there that if you reduce the PRICE of health insurance, you will reduce the COST of health care, and that just is not true. You can't just demand that the price of an MRI be reduced, and it magically makes the cost of MRI's go down. It costs money to have an MRI machine, and qualified people to run and maintain it. Just because Medicare will only pay a certain price for it, does not make those costs go down, so someone has to pay, somewhere. (That's just an example, and I am in no way an expert in MRI's or anything.)

[charismatic1]

And anyone who doesn't know that Homeowners doesn't cover flooding has been living under a rock. I am pretty sure you sign a piece a paper when you buy a house that states what flood plain you are in and that you are not covered if you get flooded. (Although it has been a number of years since I went through that process)

flood plane or not...the insurance companies will not pay...and i just used that analogy because of the recent floodings that happened in the metro ATL area...alot of those families who's homes were flooded...the insurance companies abandoned them

[MONICA]

flood plane or not...the insurance companies will not pay...and i just used that analogy because of the recent floodings that happened in the metro ATL area...alot of those families who's homes were flooded...the insurance companies abandoned them

As far as I know, flood insurance has always been sold as a separate policy. Did these families purchase flood insurance policies?

[impalanar]

flood plane or not...the insurance companies will not pay...and i just used that analogy because of the recent floodings that happened in the metro ATL area...alot of those families who's homes were flooded...the insurance companies abandoned them

Flood plane or not NO homeowners company insurance covers floods, the insurance companies didn't abandon them, they were not insured for floods. There is essentially only one company that deals with Flood Insurance and that is the Federal Government. It is a bad analogy.

[02ep3]

I think Impalanar pretty much clarified why it was by 39%, when he said "and yet, after back to back jumps in premiums of 30%+, their profit margin is still 3%". They have to make money too, and if the cost of health care services rise, then the cost of health insurance will too. There seems to be some misconception out there that if you reduce the PRICE of health insurance, you will reduce the COST of health care, and that just is not true. You can't just demand that the price of an MRI be reduced, and it magically makes the cost of MRI's go down. It costs money to have an MRI machine, and qualified people to run and maintain it. Just because Medicare will only pay a certain price for it, does not make those costs go down, so someone has to pay, somewhere. (That's just an example, and I am in no way an expert in MRI's or anything.)

We've been over this before... The price of an MRI must factor in a certain amount of credit risk of the person to which they are giving an MRI. If i give 10 MRI's, and 3 of those guys don't have insurance and don't pay me, i have to charge the 7 paying people incrementally higher. Those 7 people's insurance plans will bear the costs of the 3 that didn't have insurance.

If more people have insurance, more people a bearing the risk that exists in the system. If everyone has insurance, the total amount of credit risk in the health care system will be reduced and therefore reduce the price of healthcare for those who pay.

This is how insurance works.

We don't even have to get into how doctors are compensated for delivering more services thereby raising costs or the requirements of using defensive medicine that raises costs. Simply, if we all have health insurance, the cost we each individually pay for health insurance will go down.

[impalanar]

We've been over this before... The price of an MRI must factor in a certain amount of credit risk of the person to which they are giving an MRI. If i give 10 MRI's, and 3 of those guys don't have insurance and don't pay me, i have to charge the 7 paying people incrementally higher. Those 7 people's insurance plans will bear the costs of the 3 that didn't have insurance.

If more people have insurance, more people a bearing the risk that exists in the system. If everyone has insurance, the total amount of credit risk in the health care system will be reduced and therefore reduce the price of healthcare for those who pay.

This is how insurance works.

We don't even have to get into how doctors are compensated for delivering more services thereby raising costs or the requirements of using defensive medicine that raises costs. Simply, if we all have health insurance, the cost we each individually pay for health insurance will go down.

I don't disagree with your basic premise and my actual premiums may very well go down, but I am sure I will end up paying more in other places. TINSTAAFL

[Hammerhead]

YES!! our founding fathers WERE without morals...they owned slaves and intentionally killed native americans to take over their resources!

First of all, in the time of our founding fathers, slave ownership was the norm pretty much world wide. Whites owned blacks, blacks owned blacks, whites owned whites, etc. I'm not saying it was right but it was an accepted practice in most places on the globe.

Second, you're living on the very land that native Americans once occupied so, like it or not, you're benefiting from their deaths. Now, if it really bothers you that much, you find a native American family, give your property back to them, & move to another country.

[Hammerhead]

I hate to break this to you but there is nothing in the recently passed bill that puts any kind of limit or cap on premiums.

+1 I read somewhere (I'll try to find the link) that insurance premiums will increase now that people are required to have insurance. The ins. companies now have us by the walnuts.

[charismatic1]

As far as I know, flood insurance has always been sold as a separate policy. Did these families purchase flood insurance policies?

these people weren't in flood planes!

[charismatic1]

First of all, in the time of our founding fathers, slave ownership was the norm pretty much world wide. Whites owned blacks, blacks owned blacks, whites owned whites, etc. I'm not saying it was right but it was an accepted practice in most places on the globe.

Second, you're living on the very land that native Americans once occupied so, like it or not, you're benefiting from their deaths. Now, if it really bothers you that much, you find a native American family, give your property back to them, & move to another country.

again...i'm not bothered at all how i got here...the fundamentals on which the US was founded...or none of that...i was asked a question...i answered...and you guys are disagreeing with my answer by trying to trivialize slavery...rape...and murder as being moral...."because of the time it happened"

doesn't matter what the norm was...it's still not morally correct!! why do you think that they're still prosecuting nazi guards??

[charismatic1]

We've been over this before... The price of an MRI must factor in a certain amount of credit risk of the person to which they are giving an MRI. If i give 10 MRI's, and 3 of those guys don't have insurance and don't pay me, i have to charge the 7 paying people incrementally higher. Those 7 people's insurance plans will bear the costs of the 3 that didn't have insurance.

If more people have insurance, more people a bearing the risk that exists in the system. If everyone has insurance, the total amount of credit risk in the health care system will be reduced and therefore reduce the price of healthcare for those who pay.

This is how insurance works.

We don't even have to get into how doctors are compensated for delivering more services thereby raising costs or the requirements of using defensive medicine that raises costs. Simply, if we all have health insurance, the cost we each individually pay for health insurance will go down.

i'm glad to see someone here has some sort of business sense!

[Hammerhead]

why do you think that they're still prosecuting nazi guards??

Because, exterminating millions of people is not a socially acceptable behavior.

[Hammerhead]

Here's a related link on healthcare...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/good-news-premiums-go-17-young-people

[Dan43]

these people weren't in flood planes!What part of "HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE DOES NOT COVER FLOODS" do you not understand. It does not matter if you live in a flood plain or not. The purpose of flood plain designations is so the lenders can make determine what properties have enough of a probability of flood damage that they can require the homeowner to purchase flood insurace. Flood plain designation has NOTHING to do with weather your homeowners insurace covers you in the case of a flood. No homeowners policy covers flood reguardless of the flood plain designation of your property.

[Dan43]

again...i'm not bothered at all how i got here...the fundamentals on which the US was founded...or none of that...i was asked a question...i answered...and you guys are disagreeing with my answer by trying to trivialize slavery...rape...and murder as being moral...."because of the time it happened"

doesn't matter what the norm was...it's still not morally correct!! why do you think that they're still prosecuting nazi guards??Attempted genocide was not accepted behavior by society at the time.

By you definition, I doubt that there were enough moral people living in the world at the time this nation was founded to supply a sufficent gene pool to propogate the human race if all the immoral (by your definition) had dropped dead.

[impalanar]

these people weren't in flood planes!

All that this means is that you are not required by your mortgage company to have flood insurance. There are things in your homeowners policy that are specifically excluded one of those is external flood damage i.e. flooding not from you commode. That exclusion applys whether you live in a flood plane or not. FFS

[impalanar]

i'm glad to see someone here has some sort of business sense!

tinstaafl