Liberal Forum

RichClem » 01 Jan 2014 11:43 am » wrote: I should have used a term other than "emergency." If someone develops cancer or some other sickness or condition that required extensive treatment, I personally would want insurance that covered it.

But I wouldn't want my plan to cover routine tests and treatment, doctor's visits, etc.

Again, which would be more cost effective?
Routine tests and doctor's visits that would diagnose cancers early, or treating cancer in it's advanced stages?
And don't give me some **** about how people should pay out of pocket for routine tests and treatment, doctor's visits, etc.
Unlike you, I live in the real world, where many people are struggling just to put food on the table.

BTW, you never did tell us what kind of health insurance you have Puss?
Sounds to me like when you said, " I personally would want insurance that covered that"
you are speaking hypothetically about health insurance.
So do you even have any?
If not, who do you expect to pay if you come down with a serious illness that is very expensive to treat?

Huey » 01 Jan 2014 3:48 pm » wrote: How did the majority of men and women get contraceptive services prior to those who don't need it paying for it?

If I answer you, you'll only accuse me of stalking you.

Huey » 01 Jan 2014 11:56 am » wrote: Oh, I agree.

Oh look, Clem has found himself a little playmate.

Misty » 01 Jan 2014 3:57 pm » wrote: If I answer you, you'll only accuse me of stalking you.

No, this is a legitimate thread discussion and not what other forums call a personal flame war. Plus, in this case, I asked you. It would be hypocritical, and ignorant, to accuse you of being a stalker in this case.

Huey » 01 Jan 2014 10:32 am » wrote:
I didn't post talking points moron. You came to that thread and asked what does the fact that only so many electric cars will be on the road by 2040 have to do with Obama. You were shown the pledge by Obama that we would have 1 million by 2015. That is not a talking point. That is a fact you were unaware of.

At which time I pointed out that the link golfboy provided explained the reasons why the numbers were adjusted, taking into account unforeseen factors that have nothing to do with Obama- go back and actually read the link imbedded in his article. I also pointed out that it's ludicrous to blame Obama for where the electric car industry goes once he's out of office. You bozo's want to blame Obama if it turns out that less electric cars will be on the road in 2040. He only made a prediction for 2015 that turned out to be wrong, due to factors outside of his control. You totally ignored my points and continued on your merry errant way. I was done with the two of you by then. Partisan idiots who spit in the face of facts don't deserve my continued attention.

We then discussed how under his plan for eliminating coal fired plants he said that electrify costs would necessarily skyrocket and this would be passed on to the consumer. You were shown the quote, with a legitimate link. You ran, never to return.

I didn't discuss anything with you regarding coal. I'd already exited your Obama slam fest before I read this supposed quote, which now that I'm reading it, reminds me that his plan was never to eliminate coal fired plants. His plan was to force the industry to clean up its act. Of course it will entail expensive technology, the cost of which will undoubtedly be passed to the consumer, as is the capitalist way. You would prefer no clean coal efforts and more pollution. Seems to me there's was never anything there to debate, sonny.

What are electrify costs, by the way?

Yet, like a fücking moron you run around here labeling others as uninformed and you are **** unaware of the man's policies spoken with own lips. You, honey, are the idiot that gets her talking points from a master.

[/quote]

So what's your point where electric cars are concerned you ball less coward? Are you outraged that his prediction turned out to be wrong or are you simply indulging in a gloat fest?

Misty » 01 Jan 2014 3:59 pm » wrote: Oh look, Clem has found himself a little playmate.

An now on this yes, I will accuse you of trolling.

I guess you are to ignorant to discuss what that comment you quoted was in reference to.

My bad.

Huey » 01 Jan 2014 3:59 pm » wrote: No, this is a legitimate thread discussion and not what other forums call a personal flame war. Plus, in this case, I asked you. It would be hypocritical, and ignorant, to accuse you of being a stalker in this case.

It was also hypocritical, and ignorant, of you to accuse me of being a stalker when I responded to posts in which you mentioned my name in a disparaging way, but that didn't stop you, did it?

greatnpowerfuloz » 01 Jan 2014 4:00 pm » wrote:
So what's your point where electric cars are concerned you ball less coward? Are you outraged that his prediction turned out to be wrong or are you simply indulging in a gloat fest?

Outraged? Not by a long shot. More of a "we told you so moment" towards Obama..

And as far as you are concerned I am gloating because you deemed it necessary to lecture us on a topic you had no **** idea about. That was priceless.

Misty » 01 Jan 2014 4:01 pm » wrote: It was also hypocritical, and ignorant, of you to accuse me of being a stalker when I responded to posts in which you mentioned my name in a disparaging way, but that didn't stop you, did it?

Big wheels keep on turning, Proud Mary keeps on burning, Rollin', Rollin', Rollin' down the river...........

Huey » 01 Jan 2014 4:01 pm » wrote: An now on this yes, I will accuse you of trolling.

I'm trembling.

I guess you are to ignorant to discuss what that comment you quoted was in reference to.

My bad.

I'm smart enough to know the difference between 'to' and 'too'.

The simple-minded are so easily amused.

Misty » 01 Jan 2014 4:06 pm » wrote: I'm trembling.

I'm smart enough to know the difference between 'to' and 'too'.


The simple-minded are so easily amused.

I have heard that about you.

Huey » 01 Jan 2014 4:02 pm » wrote:
Outraged? Not by a long shot. More of a "we told you so moment" towards Obama..

Like I said. A gloat fest. All you idiots have is fabricated 'gotcha' moments. You bring nothing of substance to this forum.

And as far as you are concerned I am gloating because you deemed it necessary to lecture us on a topic you had no **** idea about. That was priceless.

I obviously know more than you do. You're under the bizarre impression that Obama will have control over the electric car industry in 2040 and that his plan is to eliminate coal production. I did no lecturing. Simply pointed out the facts. Gotcha!

greatnpowerfuloz » 01 Jan 2014 4:12 pm » wrote:
Like I said. A gloat fest. All you idiots have is fabricated 'gotcha' moments. You bring nothing of substance to this forum.



I obviously know more than you do. You're under the bizarre impression that Obama will have control over the electric car industry in 2040 and that his plan is to eliminate coal production. I did no lecturing. Simply pointed out the facts. Gotcha!

Anytime one side or the other institutes a plan and the other side criticizes it a gotcha moment is in the making if the criticism proves to be correct.

If you know more I, or the other do, carry your *** back to the thread you ran from. No, honey, on this point you did not know more than we did,

I under the impression that on one hand Obama has publicly stated that under his plans for the coal industry electricity prices will necessarily sky rocket. Something you claim to never have heard. I know that his original attempt failed. I know that he has, without congressional approval, approved plans by the FDA to implement regulations that will make it financially difficult for existing plants to exist and virtually impossible for new plants to be built. That is all linked in the thread you refuse to discuss this at.

On the electric car front I know that his IDEA as outlined in his books was to go to the auto unions and industry and offer to subsidize their retirement legacy costs in return for them producing more hybrid and electric vehicles. I know that when he was president he broke 150 years of bankruptcy law to keep the manufacturers going and gave ownership incentive to the unions. I know that he introduced thru congress new CAFE standards increasing it to 50 MPG by I think 2025. And I know he vowed to have 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015.

I never conflated the two issues as you have claimed. My only comment is how in the world does he expect to power those electric cars while simultaneously attempting to shut down the coal industry,

I will bump that thread again for you. To be kind I will say your memory of the conversation is inaccurate.

Misty » 01 Jan 2014 8:51 pm » wrote:

you may have missed it earlier, huey ate the fly swatter, got a tummy ache

Huey » 01 Jan 2014 11:34 am » wrote:

Depends on your definition of a fetus.

Fetus:

N. Fee Tuss

1. A place to harvest stem cells

2. A mass of cells found in a dumpster outside of an abortion clinic

3. Something conservatives love, for nine months, then hate.

Okay, quick - for all the marbles:

What is the very stupidest thing anyone ever said to Glory Hole Clem?

Huey » 01 Jan 2014 11:56 am » wrote:
Oh, I agree.

Well done, my son. Well done.

Misty » 01 Jan 2014 3:45 pm » wrote: WOW! Where to start?
How exactly does providing women with contraception as a routine part of their health care take away your freedom?

For exactly the reason so many companies owned by religious people have filed suit against Obamacare; because federal law forces them to violate their religious beliefs.

You know that, so I assume you're just being deceitful, as usual.

It would be quite easy to coerce individual women to buy their own birth control, if you are truly so concerned about preventing pregnancies.

I see you neglected to respond to my points about preventative care and check-ups being much more cost effective than treating someone who shows up in the ER in an advanced stage of illness.

One way or another, we're paying for it anyway, so I'd rather do it in a more cost-effective way.

The studies I've seen don't show any cost savings at all. You're simply repeating the old liberal-left false claims about endless "investments" saving money, which of course never happens.

As PJ O'Rourke noted, f you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's "free."

You're the one who keeps whining about wanting me to debate, and when I bring up a point, you just ignore it.

Oh gosh, how dare I note be on the board when you wrote the post.

Misty » 01 Jan 2014 3:54 pm » wrote: Again, which would be more cost effective?

Routine tests and doctor's visits that would diagnose cancers early, or treating cancer in it's advanced stages?

Oh gosh, a cherry picked set-up question. No, government programs and free stuff don't save money.

Any more than the War on Poverty solved poverty. It only made the problem vastly worse.

And don't give me some **** about how people should pay out of pocket for routine tests and treatment, doctor's visits, etc.
Unlike you, I live in the real world, where many people are struggling just to put food on the table.

Then we ought to reject Obama's and Dems' destructive leftist policies, duuuh.

We went through a 26-year economic boom because of Free Market policies during which everyone's income went up.

But yes, things really s*** now.

RichClem » 02 Jan 2014 9:31 am » wrote:
Oh gosh, a cherry picked set-up question. No, government programs and free stuff don't save money.

Any more than the War on Poverty solved poverty. It only made the problem vastly worse.



Then we ought to reject Obama's and Dems' destructive leftist policies, duuuh.

We went through a 26-year economic boom because of Free Market policies during which everyone's income went up.

But yes, things really s*** now.

I would have loved to have been in the room when the ACA geniuses were discussing the fact that insurance companies were going to start supplying all of those new "free" services while at the same time increasing their MLR to 80-85% AND reducing the premiums for a family by $2500.00.