September 10, 200917 yr I'm not sure of all of the details. To me, unless she failed to pay her premium, then this is not acceptable. I doubt that's the case, though. Do you think that the insurance should have to pay out above and beyond the plan's coverage limit?
September 10, 200917 yr In no way, shape, or form is that even close to being accurate.... Sorry, but I don't recall anyone screaming at our former President during a speech.
September 10, 200917 yr So one action, by one idiot, trumps all the disrespect and crap given to Bush over the previous 8 years? I disagree. In any event, I'd rank falling asleep during the President's address just as disrespectful.[/quote] Again, Obama's been in 8 months and already they're giving him crap about speaking to kids. The President of the United States addressing kids. As per the quoted, I really don't believe that you believe that.
September 10, 200917 yr Sorry, but I don't recall anyone screaming at our former President during a speech. Post 83
September 10, 200917 yr Post 83 8 months into office? That's the point I'm trying to make. If they're already doing this to Obama 8 months into his first term, what will they do if/when he deserves it. Give the man a chance for the love of pete.
September 10, 200917 yr 8 months into office? That's the point I'm trying to make. If they're already doing this to Obama 8 months into his first term, what will they do if/when he deserves it. Give the man a chance for the love of pete. Does that really matter?
September 10, 200917 yr All I was speaking about was the fact that the "powers to the states are numerous and indefinite" in regards to the U.S. Constitution, so per the U.S. Constitution, it is unconstitutional for the federal government to force insurance (health or auto), but the states may. This is NOT in regards to state constitutions. I agree. I would like to think that it would be unconstitutional at the state level to mandate unneeded insurance in most states. But it certainly would be at a state-by-state level. It is important to recognize that this bill does not just create universal 'coverage' but also mandatory unversal payment. The bill calls for strong linkages and enforcement via the IRS. From what I read there is no opt out clause. Even if you were independently wealthly and could be 'self insured' I do not believe you would have that option - you must enter the 'the system'. And the Federal health officials, that are appointed by the president and part of the administation would have full and complete access to your tax and financial records. Given the consolidation of power in that scenerio the founding fathers demonstrated great wisdom in supposedly granting the Federal government only limited and enumerated powers.
September 10, 200917 yr Hopefully the lady you mentioned has some family or a friend that she can live with so she isn't homeless. It's the way many of our forefathers got through tough times. Actually I believe that needing to depend on our friends, our churges and family members for help is a very important fiber in the fabric of society. It forces each of us to be more considerate of our friends and families because you never know when you will need their assistance. If forces us to join and get involved in a church because you never know when you will need its help. Those may be rather shallow reasons for doing such, but the end result is a good one. Tighter families; stronger friendships and more people in churches listening to thoughtful sermons. It's been a long held belief of mine that as the govt has become the safety net for Americans, the family, churches and communities have broken down. We've been holding charity events in her honor, trying to help her NOT lose her home AND be able to afford medical care.
September 10, 200917 yr Does that really matter? It does when your initial argument that it never happened to Bush falls apart.
September 10, 200917 yr Do you think that the insurance should have to pay out above and beyond the plan's coverage limit? I don't think that there should be a coverage limit for life threatening illnesses.
September 10, 200917 yr I don't think that there should be a coverage limit for life threatening illnesses. Even when you know that going in? I know that I am covered up to $5,000,000. How can I expect the insurance company to cover me beyond that?
September 10, 200917 yr We've been holding charity events in her honor, trying to help her NOT lose her home AND be able to afford medical care. Awesome!
September 10, 200917 yr http://mediamatters.org/research/200502040014 To me, there is a distinct difference between "booing" and "heckling". One is a non-verbal response. The other is distinctly verbal and in this case accusatory. I stand corrected concerning the "past history" (Clinton and Bush both were subject to audible disagreement) but still feel that last nights was the worst IMO based upon: 1. Content (You Lie) 2. Number (Said it more than once so he could be heard and everyone would know it was him) 3. Example (he looked like the common citizens who speak out at a Town Hall. I expect better from elected officials)
September 10, 200917 yr I don't think that there should be a coverage limit for life threatening illnesses. So you feel the insurance companies should be forced to go bankrupt if need be, even when a known coverage limit existed prior to enrollment?
September 10, 200917 yr "The President's on...he's on every channel!!!" I'm just glad he done it last night instead of tonight. I'd have been angry if he'd knocked me out of the Titans/Steelers.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.