KAWDUP said:

<<It is no secret that is exactly what most "conservatives" want to be eliminated, and denied mainly to all of those gold-toothed, diamond-earring, mink-coated, Cadillac Escalade driving, steak and lobster (via bridgecard) buying welfare moms.>>

Just more BS. You shouldn't make that generalization because your sample size is infinitesimally small. Well, of course you can make it, but it just proves your ignorance on the matter.

. . .and what viewpoint are you putting forth except for the complete ignorant generalizations that have no basis whatsoever in truth? You are right about one thing. It does not deserve much more than an attack. It is based on false assumptions and projections onto me of I don't know what.

Lastly, show me where I called you stupid? Quite the contrary, I don't think you are unintelligent in any way. The comment was stupid, and still is.

No one is taking any of that support away, and you have 0 proof of anything, but some right-wing nuts opinions that you disagree with.

Goodie for you. I bet you are proud of your ignorance too.

Click to expand...

turok said:

Well, in Republicans' "defense", they apparently would "grandfather" Medicare so that those who are age 55 or older would not be affected by thier proposed changes to it
...

Click to expand...

michchamp said:

You did the same thing in this post he accused you of in the last post.

Are you really not aware of the push to dump social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.? Were you in a cave the last time they fought over the debt ceiling?

Click to expand...

turok said:

Well, in Republicans' "defense", they apparently would "grandfather" Medicare so that those who are age 55 or older would not be affected by thier proposed changes to it, of course after removing Obamacare..of which I feel does not go nearly far enough in making it possible for every US citizen over 18 to obtain affordable and thorough major medical healthcare coverage with reasonable annual co-pays and deductibles, regardless of their having "pre-existing" conditions or not.

It seems that the GOP still adheres to a plan that somewhat mimics McCain's proposal when he was the Republican candidate for POTUS, being "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence" state/region shopping for health insurance. I was an independent insurance agent for several years in the mid-80s, focusing mainly on group and small business here in SE MI, however the insurance company's HQ was located in a suburb of Cleveland, Ohio. So the idea that introducing "new" competition from insurance companies located perhaps nationwide, instead of statewide, being a means of lowering premiums puzzles me.

How would a health insurer, located in for example, Bismarck, ND, be willing to insure an individual and/or his/her family, who lives in say, Trenton, NJ? The insurer that is located in a small city within a relatively sparsely populated state, would be very reluctant to insure a non-resident who lives that distant, IMO, and ignores the fact that some are non-profits such as HMOs and/or PPOs, where the insurance company/provider expects the insured to visit only THEIR limited range of participating doctors, clinics, hospitals, and healthcare facilities such as physical rehabs that are part and parcel of their limited healthcare groups, except in emergencies...but the insured must be transferred ASAP to one of "their" covered treatment facilities, soon after being triaged and he or she becomes stablized.

Seems to me that flies in the face of "less" government intrusion in business and would require, if not force health insurers to accept new participants/insureds, regardless of their location nationwide. Also, their Medicare proposal would include a FIXED amount each year of funds available to pay premiums, using some arbitrary means of calculating the annual funding, probably being the same amount to each, regardless of their age or health (with any annual increase perhaps tied to the so-called cost of living) to Medicare recipients in the form of vouchers...yikes!!

Click to expand...

turok said:

Yes, it does.

The US is trillions in debt, and can ill afford to continue to be spending millions/billions on space vehicles such as this, when ~a quarter of the nation's population is struggling to make ends meet, and while it continues to hemorrhage tens, if not hundreds of thousands of jobs annually to outsourcing, off-shoring, and the repercussions that result the loss of them, due to lack of (spendable) EARNED income by those who are now un/under-employed, and who cannot afford the costs of healthcare, many waiting until they are so ill, that an emergency room visit becomes inevitable. By doing so, their ER visit(s) end up being an entirely unrecoverable cost from the (indigent/impoverished) patient, (often in the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars) that is ultimately passed on to those businesses-employees who have healthcare coverage, in the form of ever-rising premiums, deductibles, and co-pays.

It is truly pathetic and laughable that the US continues its 50 year trade embargo with tiny Cuba, while permitting communist mainland China to retain "favored nation "trade status. Meanwhile the "commie bastards" continue to increasingly spy on and have successfully have hacked, or attempted to hack into virtually every single business in the US, as well as many if not most local, state, and federal government's databases. Most rightwingers/conservatives/Republicans continue to trumpet the idea of "free" trade...haha!!...while completely ignoring the fact that at best, only a handful of nations globally actually do so in practice. They despise liberal socialists and socialism itself, yet apparently have little if any problems or issue(s) whatsoever with their corporate capitalist heroes doing business with the "worst" of them, many who use slave labor to produce products and provide services offered and sold here in the US...and that is simply pure hypocrisy, IMO.

Click to expand...