Liberal Forum

Huey » 02 Jan 2014 9:57 am » wrote: 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.

I think the more important conversation would have been among the political operatives salivating over how making Americans serfs to Beltway politicians would give them permanent political power.

A**holes.

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?

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.

How about answering Misty's question, Clem? It's a perfectly legitimate one. This is why you have no credibility on this forum. You avoid any question posed to you by slithering into your cockroach infested nest and pulling out one insult after another, just to avoid having to answer a question that might cause you to think objectively.

You're a very dishonest and disturbed man, Clem. I'd be frightened to have you as my neighbor and I'd be very wary of you around my children, my pets and my possessions.

greatnpowerfuloz » 02 Jan 2014 11:11 am » wrote: How about answering Misty's question, Clem? It's a perfectly legitimate one.

I answered her question, moonbat.

Are you blind?

This is why you have no credibility on this forum. You avoid any question posed to you by slithering into your cockroach infested nest and pulling out one insult after another, just to avoid having to answer a question that might cause you to think objectively.

I have great credibility among those members whose judgment I respect.

Doesn't include imbeciles like you.

You're a very dishonest and disturbed man, Clem. I'd be frightened to have you as my neighbor and I'd be very wary of you around my children, my pets and my possessions.

Get some mental health counseling, moonbat.

RichClem » 02 Jan 2014 9:31 am » wrote: Oh gosh, a cherry picked set-up question.

Where is the 'set-up' Kitten?
It's a very simple question, which you apparently do not want to answer.
Tell me again how you long for meaningful debate? LOL

It's a whole lot cheaper to provide check-ups and routine tests than it is to pay to treat someone who shows up in the ER in an advanced stage of illness.
Do you not understand that either way we pay?
For people like me who have health insurance, my premiums are higher because I am paying for the uninsured.

I guess you don't have health insurance, because you refuse to answer that question as well.
So who is going to pay for your sorry *** when you show up sick or hurt in the ER?
Me, that's who.

RichClem » 02 Jan 2014 11:47 am » wrote:
I answered her question, moonbat.

this is the standard troll dance... YOU DID NOT ANSWER YOU **** TROLL SCUM!!! AND you are caught in it. YOU ARE BUSTED and exposed. dance worm

HAHAHAHAHHAAA... awwwwwww the troll dance isn't working anymore scum boy? we just can't see it. we are all dazzled by the insidious dishonest crap. your CREDIBILITY is ZERO among civilized humans.

Misty » 02 Jan 2014 12:32 pm » wrote: Where is the 'set-up' Kitten?
It's a very simple question, which you apparently do not want to answer.

I answered the question, moonbat.

And it's a set up, because it's not at all typical of health care treatment.

I'm referring to far less serious testing and treatment.

Tell me again how you long for meaningful debate? LOL

As I've noted many times, it's impossible to debate with a shameless liar, a deceitful troll.

It's a whole lot cheaper to provide check-ups and routine tests than it is to pay to treat someone who shows up in the ER in an advanced stage of illness.
Do you not understand that either way we pay?
For people like me who have health insurance, my premiums are higher because I am paying for the uninsured.

Your premiums are primarily higher because of rich Democrat-supported trial lawyers, because of huge cost over runs from Democrat-protected Medicare and Democrat-protected Medicaid and because of the Big Business Insurance Industry with whom Obama worked to screw Americans.

As well as the Democrat-written law that mandates treatment of the indigent in emergency rooms, even for non-emergencies.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to complain about that.

I guess you don't have health insurance, because you refuse to answer that question as well.
So who is going to pay for your sorry *** when you show up sick or hurt in the ER?
Me, that's who.

Oh look, a dishonest smear on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. What a suprise.

Golfboy accuses Melissa Harris-Perry and her panel of racism, yet he couldn't seem to articulate what they said that was actually racist.

golfboy » 31 Dec 2013 9:50 am » wrote:Once more, liberals proudly display their own racism.

Misty » 31 Dec 2013 1:32 pm » wrote: So why don't you tell us Golfboy.
What exactly did she say that you took objection to?

GailyBee » 31 Dec 2013 3:20 pm » wrote: I'm curious--seriously: what did she say that you specifically objected to?

GailyBee » 31 Dec 2013 3:33 pm » wrote: I'm hoping he comes back with specifics, and not name-calling. I'd really like to know, exactly, what it was that caused him to cry 'racism'...

golfboy » 01 Jan 2014 11:43 am » wrote:I'm loving watching these leftys here STILL defending this racism, and blaming Limbaugh for what MSNBC did.
Hilarious.

GailyBee » 01 Jan 2014 1:55 pm » wrote: I haven't defended anyone--I've asked you a couple of times to state where YOU think the racism is...and I'm still waiting for you to answer...
Where, specifically, do YOU see/hear racism in the video?

Misty » 01 Jan 2014 2:10 pm » wrote: No answer yet, huh?

GailyBee » 01 Jan 2014 6:04 pm » wrote:Well...silly me for waiting for an adult, reasoned, honest response from Golfboy...I won't make that mistake again.

golfboy » 02 Jan 2014 8:44 am » wrote: Typical liberal, waiting to be spoon fed.
Suck it up lib, untuck, put on your big boy panties and figure it out for yourself.
If you don't understand the racism involved, the problem is with you, not anyone else.

GailyBee » 02 Jan 2014 10:54 am » wrote: You've convinced me that there is no racism in that video clip. Thank you.

golfboy » 02 Jan 2014 10:56 am » wrote: As though you needed "convincing".
There is nothing so sad as you, the willfully ignorant.

GailyBee » 02 Jan 2014 11:00 am » wrote: I wanted you to have a modicum of integrity, Golfboy...that's all.
You don't.
That's...all.

golfboy » 02 Jan 2014 11:24 am » wrote: It's not me lacking integrity here, it's you demanding proof of the obvious.
She's already apologized, but you idiots are still here defending them.

GailyBee » 02 Jan 2014 11:35 am » wrote:I have asked repeatedly for YOU to state where YOU found the racism in that clip.
YOU are refusing to answer a seemingly simple question.
This shows a lack of integrity on your part.

Golfboy posted two more times in that thread, but neither of those posts was in response to GailyBee.
Typical.

Misty » 02 Jan 2014 12:32 pm » wrote: Where is the 'set-up' Kitten?
It's a very simple question, which you apparently do not want to answer.
Tell me again how you long for meaningful debate? LOL

It's a whole lot cheaper to provide check-ups and routine tests than it is to pay to treat someone who shows up in the ER in an advanced stage of illness.
Do you not understand that either way we pay?
For people like me who have health insurance, my premiums are higher because I am paying for the uninsured.

I guess you don't have health insurance, because you refuse to answer that question as well.
So who is going to pay for your sorry *** when you show up sick or hurt in the ER?
Me, that's who.

There were people not like you who carried major medical, catestrophic and long term care with but paid out of pocket for routine check ups and tests. They CHOSE to do so and used the money saved on premiums for their retirement, their business or whatever they wanted to use it for. A good many of those people no longer have that choice and are paying hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of dollars more in premium costs.

So if they did show up at the emergency room they were covered.

Misty » 02 Jan 2014 12:55 pm » wrote:Golfboy accuses Melissa Harris-Perry and her panel of racism, yet he couldn't seem to articulate what they said that was actually racist.

It absolutely was race-baiting.

Go ahead and bleat about the difference.

RichClem » 02 Jan 2014 12:42 pm » wrote: I answered the question, moonbat.
And it's a set up, because it's not at all typical of health care treatment.
I'm referring to far less serious testing and treatment.

No, Puss, you did not answer the question, and the rest of your answer makes no sense.
You know that we pay for the uninsured who show up very ill in the ER.
So since we are paying anyway, it would make a lot more sense to diagnose their illnesses early, so they can be treated in a much more cost effective way.
You know that's just plain common sense, so you're just dancing around the question.

Misty: Tell me again how you long for meaningful debate? LOL

Clem: As I've noted many times, it's impossible to debate with a shameless liar, a deceitful troll.

I've learned that lesson very well trying to have any kind of a debate with you all these years.

Misty: It's a whole lot cheaper to provide check-ups and routine tests than it is to pay to treat someone who shows up in the ER in an advanced stage of illness. Do you not understand that either way we pay?
For people like me who have health insurance, my premiums are higher because I am paying for the uninsured.

Clem: Your premiums are primarily higher because of rich Democrat-supported trial lawyers, because of huge cost over runs from Democrat-protected Medicare and Democrat-protected Medicaid and because of the Big Business Insurance Industry with whom Obama worked to screw Americans.
As well as the Democrat-written law that mandates treatment of the indigent in emergency rooms, even for non-emergencies.

****. The average family (or their employer) pays just over $1,000 a year extra in premiums to cover the uninsured. It's basically a hidden tax.

Misty: I guess you don't have health insurance, because you refuse to answer that question as well.
So who is going to pay for your sorry *** when you show up sick or hurt in the ER?
Me, that's who.

Clem: Oh look, a dishonest smear on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. What a suprise.

You refuse to tell us what kind of health care coverage you carry Puss, and you seem to speak about health insurance in a hypothetical manner, so if you won't tell us then what am I to assume other than you have none?

Clem: As well as the Democrat-written law that mandates treatment of the indigent in emergency rooms, even for non-emergencies.

That's not the first time you have written that crap, proving once again that you would be in favor of letting uninsured people die in the street.

Huey » 02 Jan 2014 12:58 pm » wrote: There were people not like you who carried major medical, catestrophic and long term care with but paid out of pocket for routine check ups and tests. They CHOSE to do so and used the money saved on premiums for their retirement, their business or whatever they wanted to use it for. A good many of those people no longer have that choice and are paying hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of dollars more in premium costs.

And there were (are) a good many people who can't afford to pay out of pocket for routine check-ups and tests and would show up already very sick in the ER.
We end up paying way more after they are in the advanced stages of illness, than we would if we provided preventative care and the ability to diagnose their illnesses early.

I thought you right wingers were fiscal conservatives?
Since we're going to pay for the uninsured one way or another, isn't it better to do it in the more cost effective way?

BTW, many of the people who had the kind of policies you mentioned, were dropped by their insurance carrier once they got sick.

Misty » 02 Jan 2014 1:09 pm » wrote: No, Puss, you did not answer the question, and the rest of your answer makes no sense.

I answered the first question and the one about emergency room visits too.

So deal with your two lies before I respond to the rest of what you wrote.

Who knows how many other lies you wrote?

You refuse to tell us what kind of health care coverage you carry Puss, and you seem to speak about health insurance in a hypothetical manner, so if you won't tell us then what am I to assume other than you have none?

"What are you to assume?" Another pathetically tiny fig leaf to justify more lies and smears.

You can assume it's none of your troll business.

Misty » 02 Jan 2014 1:09 pm » wrote: That's not the first time you have written that crap, proving once again that you would be in favor of letting uninsured people die in the street.

Oh gosh, yet another dishonest smear from the troll.
What do the following words mean?

"even for non-emergencies."

So who would die in the street if they weren't treated in an emergency room for a non-emergency?

RichClem » 02 Jan 2014 1:27 pm » wrote: Oh gosh, yet another dishonest smear from the troll.
What do the following words mean?

"even for non-emergencies."

So who would die in the street if they weren't treated in an emergency room for a non-emergency?

You can't cover your callousness by hiding behind the fact that you are advocating that there be no law that mandates treatment for the poor in Emergency Rooms.
Adding the weasel words, 'even for non-emergencies' doesn't cut it.

RichClem » 02 Jan 2014 1:25 pm » wrote: I answered the first question and the one about emergency room visits too.

No, you never did.
The question was, "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?

Misty: You refuse to tell us what kind of health care coverage you carry Puss, and you seem to speak about health insurance in a hypothetical manner, so if you won't tell us then what am I to assume other than you have none?

Clem: "What are you to assume?" Another pathetically tiny fig leaf to justify more lies and smears.
You can assume it's none of your troll business.

It is my business if you have no insurance and show up sick in the ER, because I pay for it in the form of higher premiums.
It's also my business if my tax dollars are going to pay for whichever gov't program provides you care.

Misty » 02 Jan 2014 2:26 pm » wrote: No, you never did.

I wrote it, so f*** off, troll.

I think I even answered twice, at least in a general sense.

It is my business if you have no insurance and show up sick in the ER, because I pay for it in the form of higher premiums.
It's also my business if my tax dollars are going to pay for whichever gov't program provides you care.

And if pigs grow wings, you'd better get a heavy duty umbrella.

Misty » 02 Jan 2014 2:20 pm » wrote: You can't cover your callousness by hiding behind the fact that you are advocating that there be no law that mandates treatment for the poor in Emergency Rooms.
Adding the weasel words, 'even for non-emergencies' doesn't cut it.

Oh gosh, yet another lie from perhaps the biggest troll on the forum.

I never advocated that someone poor with an actual emergency shouldn't get treatment.


Quote me saying otherwise. Typical that you'd distort what I wrote, then bleat dishonestly about "weasel words."

So f*** you and your lie about "callousness."

RichClem » 02 Jan 2014 2:48 pm » wrote: I never advocated that someone poor with an actual emergency shouldn't get treatment.

No, you only said that there should be no law that mandates that the indigent be treated in the ER.
IOW, the hospital should have the option of turning them away.

I don't see any difference there.

Misty » 02 Jan 2014 1:17 pm » wrote: And there were (are) a good many people who can't afford to pay out of pocket for routine check-ups and tests and would show up already very sick in the ER.
We end up paying way more after they are in the advanced stages of illness, than we would if we provided preventative care and the ability to diagnose their illnesses early.

I thought you right wingers were fiscal conservatives?
Since we're going to pay for the uninsured one way or another, isn't it better to do it in the more cost effective way?

BTW, many of the people who had the kind of policies you mentioned, were dropped by their insurance carrier once they got sick.

I was not talking about those can't pay out of pocket for routine costs. I am talking about those that could afford it and used their freedom of CHOICE to do it.

So now people who made a responsible fiscal CHOICE to structure their insurance in that manner are now paying thousands of dollars annually for a service they do not want. You are ok with that? Having middle income people pay thousands more annually is not the cost effective way to do it.

I know quite a few people in that boat and those that did suffer major medical issues were not dropped. Since you made the argument it is incumbent upon YOU to prove it with legitimate links and stats. My wife was in that category and she was not dropped for her issues. And like many, many people we make just a little too much to get a subsidy, this law needs to be repealed.

Three of the people I know are small business owners. 2 of them are not following thru on their plans to hire another worker or two and the other laid off one worker because of this bill and talk of increased min wage.

I thought you self described liberals were all about choice? Hell, I am more liberal than you could ever hope to be, from abortion to government mandates, I firmly believe in freedom of choice in ALL areas, not just abortion.



.

Oh, no. Not this Jackhole again.