Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yep. There's that. Not that it'll do much good for the kid with the brain tumor but no access to a pediatric oncologist because there isn't one in his plan's network. But, an Obamacare insurance plan, he'll have.
They are too dumb to react, thus the election of Obama in 2012.
Keep in mind that the 2012 election was one guy who had signed government socialized medicine into law, against another guy who had signed government socialized medicine into law.
The people who normally like the first guy, also like socialism, so they turned out in larger numbers.
The people who normally like the second guy, didn't like socialism, so a lot of them stayed home.
So the first guy won.
A contest of "conservatism vs. liberalism", it wasn't.
Yep. There's that. Not that it'll do much good for the kid with the brain tumor but no access to a pediatric oncologist because there isn't one in his plan's network. But, an Obamacare insurance plan, he'll have.
Your "fact" was not relevant. It was vapid partisan drivel. There are a relative few of us on the forum who are capable of having an intelligent discourse on matters on which we do not agree without hurling insults, asking how "old" the other is, and bringing up partisan talking points as some sort of fact while demanding that the other respond to it. I respond to the posts as I see fit and ignore posts like yours.
Nothing that I said was 'partisan drivel' or insulting in any way. I was telling you the historic reason behind companies being involved in providing health insurance in the first place. History has a lot to teach us, and apparently you choose to ignore it. There are many on this forum who are capable of intelligent conversation. Responding to someone who brings up the historical reason that caused the issues on the table would be the intelligent thing to do. Sticking your head in the sand and not responding to pertinent issues is the opposite of intelligent. You attacking anyone you disagree with claiming they are using 'partisan talking points' is a very convenient way to say 'I don't have an answer'.
Let's have that intelligent conversation you so wish for. What are your thoughts of the imposed wage ceilings in the manufacturing sector during WWII and how do you think it relates to the current issue of employers providing health insurance as a benefit to employees?
That question isn't 'partisan drivel', it is a fundamental question attempting to get at the root of the issues we see today. Also, as a side note, I am not a republican. I didn't vote for Bush (either time, and I actively spoke out against him on this forum when he was in office), have never voted for a republican congressman in my life. Sorry to burst your 'partisan attack' bubble.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
