What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Foxton said:
Bull****. Please show where all these great but canceled plans are, and not just misleading unvetted stories about how amazing some cheap junk plan was.

Your entire post is just more drivel that shows you really don't understand how insurance works.
Click to expand...


Aren't people on a flood plain placed in a different bucket, so to speak?

That was always my understanding and the idiocy of worrying about paying for women's health issues when we have a few parts that they don't...


Why should a single woman have to pay (through her insurance risk sharing) for some dude's prostate cancer or testicular cancer? The humanity!

Coz that's how insurance works, idiots.
 
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Priceless said:
I can explain this to you but I can't understand it for you. Let me try again. I'm not making decisions for anyone. The individual is free to decide. If they want to continue dining on Alpo that's entirely their decision. I don't want to take away anyone's Alpo. On the other hand, if people would rather not have Alpo anymore, they can choose to eat hamburger for roughly the same price (or maybe even less) as they pay for Alpo. In my opinion, that would be more intelligent and I would recommend that option, but by no means do I want to stop people from eating Alpo if they so desire.
Click to expand...

If that really is true, you are going against the common take in your party. The lefties want to take away options they deem bad/unworthy/unsafe/etc... How else do you explain banning trans fats, gun free zones, no super size soft drinks, cancelling health insurance policies, and the list goes on.

I'd keep this opinion quiet so you aren't seen as going against the group.
 
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Gurtholfin said:
Aren't people on a flood plain placed in a different bucket, so to speak?

That was always my understanding and the idiocy of worrying about paying for women's health issues when we have a few parts that they don't...


Why should a single woman have to pay (through her insurance risk sharing) for some dude's prostate cancer or testicular cancer? The humanity!

Coz that's how insurance works, idiots.
Click to expand...


Most conservatives haven't been laid since the Reagan administration, so their hostility towards women, who they blame for their "celibate not by choice" situation, isn't terribly surprising. :D
 
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Tiggsy said:
If that really is true, you are going against the common take in your party. The lefties want to take away options they deem bad/unworthy/unsafe/etc... How else do you explain banning trans fats, gun free zones, no super size soft drinks, cancelling health insurance policies, and the list goes on.

I'd keep this opinion quiet so you aren't seen as going against the group.
Click to expand...

I'm not really concerned about going against my group. If you read the old budget thread, you'd see that I'm willing to COMPROMISE on just about everything. Unfortunately, that is a dirty word to many Republicans (who wouldn't take a plan that was 99% cuts and 1% tax increase) and leaders in the Democratic Party will not allow meaningful negotiations either. I attempted to take over the party from the inside by becoming local party chair and was planning to run for office when this minor health issue stepped in and ended any hope of that. Now I'm just an observer and commentator.
 
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Tiggsy said:
If that really is true, you are going against the common take in your party. The lefties want to take away options they deem bad/unworthy/unsafe/etc... How else do you explain banning trans fats, gun free zones, no super size soft drinks, cancelling health insurance policies, and the list goes on.

I'd keep this opinion quiet so you aren't seen as going against the group.
Click to expand...
NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who did the whole thing with banning a soft drink over X oz., is a Republican.
 
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Priceless said:
I can explain this to you but I can't understand it for you. Let me try again. I'm not making decisions for anyone. The individual is free to decide. If they want to continue dining on Alpo that's entirely their decision. I don't want to take away anyone's Alpo. On the other hand, if people would rather not have Alpo anymore, they can choose to eat hamburger for roughly the same price (or maybe even less) as they pay for Alpo. In my opinion, that would be more intelligent and I would recommend that option, but by no means do I want to stop people from eating Alpo if they so desire.
Click to expand...

You figure repeating your "Alpo" meme twenty or thirty more times will get you on Mt. Rushmore? Face it, in your little pea brain, the only explanation for disagreement with you (and any other libtard smart a*s) is stupidity. Nothing else computes. Your crawfishing notwithstanding, you've made that abundantly clear.
 
Gurtholfin said:
Aren't people on a flood plain placed in a different bucket, so to speak?

That was always my understanding and the idiocy of worrying about paying for women's health issues when we have a few parts that they don't...


Why should a single woman have to pay (through her insurance risk sharing) for some dude's prostate cancer or testicular cancer? The humanity!

Coz that's how insurance works, idiots.
Click to expand...

Because it is not FAIR. And fair means equal to most of the posters on here. Unless we're talking taxes.
 
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

pirate said:
Because it is not FAIR. And fair means equal to most of the posters on here. Unless we're talking taxes.
Click to expand...
There are type of insurance (auto and life come to mind) that do distinguish between sexes, age, and marital status

It COULD be done (if the actuaries want to crunch numbers) that could come up with different rates for single males under 25, single females under 25, marrieds, and old farts and fartesses.
 
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

joecct said:
There are type of insurance (auto and life come to mind) that do distinguish between sexes, age, and marital status

It COULD be done (if the actuaries want to crunch numbers) that could come up with different rates for single males under 25, single females under 25, marrieds, and old farts and fartesses.
Click to expand...

Correct, it could be. But politics isn't an actuarial science, almost the opposite. So, it isn't fair to make some people pay more in the eyes of many, thus we all pay.
Imagine the uproar if they said there were differences in the healthcare needs of certain special interest groups and therefore they should pay less than others, or more than others.

No, they'll spread that risk out and make it fair. We no doubt could debate this for days, we've already done so for years...it isn't a political position I speak from. I honestly don't think it is right to lower everyone to the lowest common denominator. In my view, as soon as they say B's are ok they better start typing the policies to make C's ok.


When the government starts trying to rectify every imagined injustice or force every opportunity on every person (such as the joys of home ownership or a college degree) we get unintended consequences that beget more acts of 'fairness'. And the mortar holding all of these acts of kindness together is politics.
 
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

We should definitely force these lowlifes to submit to drug tests before they receive any benefits.
 
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Priceless said:
We should definitely force these lowlifes to submit to drug tests before they receive any benefits.
Click to expand...

If it weren't for middle school "irony," you'd be rendered mute. Anyway, it's okay by me. I've got no use for junkies on the public teat. Of course, that would include many more than just the occasional dope fiend in congress, wouldn't it?
 
Re: 2nd Term, Part VI: Burnin' down the House

Old Pio said:
If it weren't for middle school "irony," you'd be rendered mute. Anyway, it's okay by me. I've got no use for junkies on the public teat. Of course, that would include many more than just the occasional dope fiend in congress, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Since I have it on good authority that you have framed pictures of all Teabaggers in Congress on your bedroom wall, are we to assume you've taken this guy's photo down (and put in the drawer next to Mark Foley's)? :D :D :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top