Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 31 Dec 2013 6:57 am » wrote: yet you felt a need to tick off a list of various perversions - a typical attempt at slut shaming, - rather than arguing the actual issue.

Exactly. Notice how they always go right to the animal ****.

Cannonpointer » 31 Dec 2013 6:57 am » wrote: I could care less if you want to murder every brown person that ever walked the face of the earth - but why should I have to pay for it?
By the way - that's my attempt at contard shaming.

Huey » 31 Dec 2013 7:20 am » wrote: If you feel the need to **** a women, a man, a sheep, a goat, etc. that is your choice. I don't care. Have at it.

You sure do talk about **** animals a lot.
Did you grow up on a farm?

Huey » 31 Dec 2013 7:49 am » wrote: When the topic is who pays for condoms, yes that is what I discuss.

So who pays for nation building in ****?
I don't see you railing about that.

RichClem » 31 Dec 2013 8:57 am » wrote: Insurance was meant to be for emergencies. Adding on endless routine care has made it unaffordable.

If someone wants birth control or any other routine, elective medicine or procedure, let them pay out of pocket or pay extra for the coverage; not have it mandated by Beltway politicians by federal law.

What you can't seem to get into your pointy little head is that routine or preventative care is cost effective in the long run.
If you prevent someone from developing an illness, or diagnose an illness early on, it costs far less than treating the illness later on.

And riddle me this Kitten, which is cheaper.......paying for contraception, or paying for pre-natal care, labor and delivery?

Huey » 31 Dec 2013 6:49 am » wrote:
From who? Could you link to this bit of information. And if that is true why is the administration not advertising this? Please give us theinformation.

The administration does advertise it you troll. Remember you guys trying to debunk it? He said millions of checks would be issued back to customers this year? He's said it over and over. The law says if the insurance company doesn't spend at least 80% of your premiums on your health care, you will get a check. STFU on your lying talking points regarding paying for something you don't need, because you don't!

bingster » 31 Dec 2013 11:21 am » wrote:
The administration does advertise it you troll. Remember you guys trying to debunk it? He said millions of checks would be issued back to customers this year? He's said it over and over. The law says if the insurance company doesn't spend at least 80% of your premiums on your health care, you will get a check. STFU on your lying talking points regarding paying for something you don't need, because you don't!

That is not what I am talking about. And it is not on an individual basis. Additionally, that has always been the law in all states. You and I had this discussion on the other forum. I posted for you the law that say an Insurance company must spend a certain amount of its premiums paying claims. Not per person. It ranged from 60 to 75% of it total premiums collected. The new law bumped that to 80-85%. It is called the MLR, the medical loss ratio.

I suggest you educate yourself on these subjects prior to making a bigger *** of yourself than you already are. No, we are not getting checks if we do not use those services.

You really make me laugh. Some of the stuff you post is priceless.

Educate yourself:


Many insurance companies spend a substantial portion of consumers’ premium dollars on administrative costs and profits, including executive salaries, overhead, and marketing.
The Affordable Care Act requires health insurance issuers to submit data on the proportion of premium revenues spent on clinical services and quality improvement, also known as the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR). It also requires them to issue rebates to enrollees if this percentage does not meet minimum standards. MLR requires insurance companies to spend at least 80% or 85% of premium dollars on medical care, with the review provisions imposing tighter limits on health insurance rate increases. If they fail to meet these standards, the insurance companies will be required to provide a rebate to their customers starting in 2012.

http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Programs-and-Initiatives/Health-Insurance-Market-Reforms/Medical-Loss-Ratio.html

I wonder why Conservatives/Right wingers are incapable of having a discussion without insulting people?

There's my little Pumpkin now, probably coming to wish me a Happy New Year.



That's very sweet of you Kitten, but I already saw your message on Facebook.

Misty » 31 Dec 2013 3:55 pm » wrote:I wonder why Conservatives/Right wingers are incapable of having a discussion without insulting people?

Probably because of this when no one was talking to him:

The administration does advertise it you troll. Remember you guys trying to debunk it? He said millions of checks would be issued back to customers this year? He's said it over and over. The law says if the insurance company doesn't spend at least 80% of your premiums on your health care, you will get a check. STFU on your lying talking points regarding paying for something you don't need, because you don't!

Want to rethink your insult?

Huey » 31 Dec 2013 4:05 pm » wrote: Probably because of this when no one was talking to him:

The administration does advertise it you troll. Remember you guys trying to debunk it? He said millions of checks would be issued back to customers this year? He's said it over and over. The law says if the insurance company doesn't spend at least 80% of your premiums on your health care, you will get a check. STFU on your lying talking points regarding paying for something you don't need, because you don't!

Want to rethink your insult?

Was that meant for Bingster or me?
I don't think I insulted you.

Yes I was making a generalization, but it seems to me that the right wingers here engage much more in insults than the Libs, and they are the ones who usually start it.
Browse through this thread and tell me who insults whom more, Clem or myself.

Misty » 31 Dec 2013 4:21 pm » wrote: Was that meant for Bingster or me?
I don't think I insulted you.

Yes I was making a generalization, but it seems to me that the right wingers here engage much more in insults than the Libs, and they are the ones who usually start it.
Browse through this thread and tell me who insults whom more, Clem or myself.

I generally wait for the progs insult.

And I posted bingster's comments in response to yours because I thought you were speaking about my post. If you weren't my bad and apologies if you feel slighted.

Misty » 31 Dec 2013 3:55 pm » wrote:I wonder why Conservatives/Right wingers are incapable of having a discussion without insulting people?

Because they are ***?

Huey » 31 Dec 2013 4:05 pm » wrote:
Want to rethink your insult?

]
She can, but I'm sticking and doubling down.

They are BOY-TOUCHING ***.

Cannonpointer » 31 Dec 2013 5:11 pm » wrote: ]
She can, but I'm sticking and doubling down.

They are BOY-TOUCHING ***.

You left put toe tapping. Toe tapping, boy touching ***.

Huey » 31 Dec 2013 5:15 pm » wrote:
You left out toe tapping. Toe tapping, boy touching ***.

Thank you. Also, wide-standing, and monkey-blinking.

And vogueing.

Cannonpointer » 31 Dec 2013 5:29 pm » wrote:
Thank you. Also, wide-standing, and monkey-blinking.

And vogueing.

So what we are saying is don't let your son go to the rest room alone at a right wing conservative convention.

Huey » 31 Dec 2013 5:31 pm » wrote:
So what we are saying is don't let your son go to the rest room alone at a right wing conservative convention.

Unless he is gay, and a chubby chaser. Then, why cock block?

Huey » 31 Dec 2013 5:00 pm » wrote:
I generally wait for the progs insult.

And I posted bingster's comments in response to yours because I thought you were speaking about my post. If you weren't my bad and apologies if you feel slighted.

this is a classic example gay boy touching kind of talk. I wonder of anyone can see why?

Kelliak » 11 Mar 2011 3:09 pm » wrote:Another lie, the president has put forth proposals for major cuts.Everytime a republican mentions the word "deficit" they look like such a fool b/c every single one of their heroes were for EXPLODING the deficitby pushing the Bush tax cuts for the rich to the tune of $3.9 trillion.$3.9 TRILLION.That's the name of that tune.Utterly pathetic that you still can't get it through your thick skull that our deficit is caused by the government spending without restraint. Not only spending wastefully, but as if its funding is in an abundance. All of which is fueled by taxpayer money. Yet despite this, you want the taxpayer to pay even MORE into their foolish ways? Yes, this makes absolute sense!Your wife always charges up your credit card. You're constantly being left with more and more debt via these credit cards. Rather than her coming to the realization she is spending far too much on ridiculous things, she demands that you get a better paying position and continue to bleed out for her spending needs as you near your debt ceiling.Use your brain for once. It IS quite useful and it DOES serve a purpose besides spouting the same crap over, and over, and over, and over, and over - Mr. bad wordBROKENRECORD.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

I don't know what is more appalling about this...the barely concealed sexism or ignorance on the history of government financing.

Misty » 31 Dec 2013 11:09 am » wrote: So who pays for nation building in ****?
I don't see you railing about that.

Start a thread with that as the topic. You don't see, on this thread, railing against Paul Ryan's budget deal either but that is because it is not the topic of discussion. If you want it to be start a thread. You tactics never change misty. You change to a completely disparate topic and accuse the other person of not addressing it.

Are you saying that we should change topics on a whim?