coldjoint
 
  -1  
Fri 11 Apr, 2014 04:15 pm
@parados,
Aren't you going to answer the race question?
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Fri 11 Apr, 2014 04:18 pm
@parados,
Quote:
So you are upset when he doesn't use a law that puts brown people in their place but you get upset when he does enforce a law that costs white people money.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/04/07/Local/Images/GQ7A62151396871964.jpg

Does she look white to you? Race baiter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/social-security-treasury-target-hundreds-of-thousands-of-taxpayers-for-parents-old-debts/2014/04/10/74ac8eae-bf4d-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_story.html


Quote:
Why would anyone see you as a racist?


I don't know, you tell me,Shill.http://www.acidpulse.net/images/smilies/rofl1.gif
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Fri 11 Apr, 2014 04:24 pm
Obamacare Headline in Rural Arkansas
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/09/1290727/-Obamacare-Headline-in-Rural-Arkansas?

Comment:
Obamacare put this hospital out of work!

Excerpt posted from link:
In a real life example of how Obamacare is changing everything, our local newspaper ran an article about the closing of the 9th Street Ministry Medical Clinic.

"It was announced last week that 9th Street Ministries will be concluding their medical clinic mission, which had been ongoing monthly to offer free medical services to those in need since first starting in 1998. The final day for the medical clinic will be Thursday, April 24, and that will conclude the mission that has been in place for almost 16 years."

The article tells how the ministry has been operating once a month for years to give people healthcare on a first come, first served basis. This care was provided by volunteers. My mother actually volunteered at the clinic and they would see as many as 300 a day. Many of these people would wait all day for the chance to see a doctor. Most of the patients were people who could not afford to see a doctor, but were not eligible for medicaid or medicare. Why would they close this clinic down?

"We’ve gone from seeing around 300 people a month on a regular basis, but as people were enrolling in Obamacare, the numbers we were seeing have dropped. We were down to 80 people that came through the medical clinic in February, all the way down to three people at the medical clinic in March. Our services won’t be needed anymore, and this will conclude our mission.”

We live in one of the most conservative places in Arkansas. The Repub's want to tell those people that once a month waiting all day for a chance to see a doctor was good enough. Thankfully, President Obama did not think so.

Comment: I was being cynical in my last comment. Obamacare is working even for conservatives... people have easy access to healthcare.

Now isn't that a terrible thing. (cynical)
anonymously99
 
  0  
Fri 11 Apr, 2014 04:28 pm
@coldjoint,
cldjnt wrote:
Quote:
Aren't you going to answer the race question?


anon wrote:
Who's racing? Shocked
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  2  
Fri 11 Apr, 2014 04:51 pm
Investor Speculation and the Housing Bubble
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2011/12/investor-speculation-and-the-housing-bubble.html?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  0  
Fri 11 Apr, 2014 05:20 pm
@RexRed,
It isn't working, half the law has been delayed and hasn't even kicked in yet. Over 20 delays in total and you want to say it is working? My costs didn't come down, my costs went up almost $2400 a year instead of saving that much. Hell we don't even know if 7 million people really got insurance, we won't know until the insurance companies give the finally tally on who has actually paid.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  2  
Fri 11 Apr, 2014 05:31 pm
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
while wiping their behind...


You would think you would be in that line. Is there a reach around line too?http://www.acidpulse.net/images/smilies/rofl1.gif


Haven't got the stomach to exchange fart jokes with you all day CJ. Try one of your reprobate republican buddies perhaps they will participate.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  2  
Fri 11 Apr, 2014 05:53 pm
WTF. Don't women make up half our population?
https://scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1.0-9/164657_868025139889665_1697392457699660707_n.jpg
Baldimo
 
  0  
Fri 11 Apr, 2014 05:58 pm
@panzade,
Ahhh election year politics. You should read this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/04/09/president-obamas-persistent-77-cent-claim-on-the-wage-gap-gets-a-new-pinocchio-rating/
panzade
 
  1  
Fri 11 Apr, 2014 06:21 pm
@Baldimo,
Yeah...memes can be toxic.
Thanks for posting that Wash Post blog.
It was pretty fair.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Fri 11 Apr, 2014 08:10 pm
@panzade,
Quote:
3 Things You Should Know About the Paycheck Fairness Act

Quote:
1. It Could Hurt Women’s Employment Prospects

Quote:
What those who support the act don’t tell you is how it would burden employers with additional liability and regulations......Moreover, the bill would likely reduce the kind of workplace flexibility that allows employees to work from home or keep irregular hours—a highly valued aspect of employment for many working moms.


Quote:
2. Equal Pay for Women Is a Smokescreen for Washington Setting Economy-Wide Pay Rates.

Quote:
A comparable worth scheme imposed on private sector employers would arbitrarily and effectively abolish the role of supply and demand in the labor market. Conditions in the market wouldn’t matter, because some authority’s “calculation” of the value of one job compared to another would take their place by force of law.


Quote:
3. The Act Is Based on Bad Statistics.

Quote:
This study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.


It boils down to tricking low information voters into supporting more government control of the economy. And of course demonize those who do not agree.

http://blog.heritage.org/2014/04/09/3-things-know-paycheck-fairness-act/<br />
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Fri 11 Apr, 2014 08:18 pm
Quote:
Does anyone want to bet the networks don't touch this(the last post) story? They completely ignored the Lerner contempt story except for a short blurb on the CBS morning show. This is a huge omission and a gutless move. I think this story will be another non-news or what we don't want Americans to hear story. Low information voters are the Democrats friend and they intend, with the help of the media, to keep them that way.


NBC said nothing about the IRS and the SSA story tonight. Breaking news my ass.http://www.acidpulse.net/images/smilies/fap1.gif
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Fri 11 Apr, 2014 08:18 pm
The Real Story Behind the Phony Canceled Health Insurance Scandal - MotherJones
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/obamacare-canceled-health-insurance

In 2009, when President Barack Obama first promised that people who liked their insurance coverage would be able to keep it under the Affordable Care Act, he overlooked one critical fact: Many of the health policies that Americans like are terrible insurance plans that were created to scam consumers.

Over the past few weeks, insurers have been sending out hundreds of thousands of notices alerting customers that their current plans won't comply with the ACA as of January 1 and that the owners of these plans need to find alternatives. Republicans and conservatives pointed to the development as evidence that Obama lied. Several prominent right-wingers who were covered under these plans, including Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin, have helped fuel this outcry. When Malkin got her cancelation notice, she went on the Twitter warpath. She later wrote a piece for the National Review slugged, "Obama lied. My health plan died." Malkin had a high-deductible plan from Anthem Blue Cross that doesn't meet the minimum coverage requirements created by the ACA. So she has to get a new plan on the state health exchange. Malkin blamed Obamacare for destroying the individual insurance market.

The media have covered these complaints with gusto, as if the cancelations are a genuine crisis and indication of a failure of Obama's health care law. The ACA was designed specifically to prevent insurance companies from peddling lousy insurance plans and to force these firms to replace these subpar products with affordable plans providing better and effective coverage. The plans being canceled are ending because they offered insufficient coverage—and only a few years ago both Rs and Ds were upset about these kinds of plans. But there's been collective amnesia about the shoddy plans that GOPers have happily exploited in recent days. Perhaps Obama should have said, "Those of you who obtain insurance on the individual market can keep your plans unless it’s the sort of rip-off plan the ACA will forbid. Otherwise, you will be offered new options that actually give you decent coverage at a decent price."


Here's what led to the current situation: In the early aughts, the number of people with employer-based coverage declined dramatically. That left an increasing number of Americans uninsured and about 30 million adults underinsured and at serious financial risk. The Commonwealth Fund estimates that between 2003 and 2010, the number of underinsured Americans nearly doubled.

The fastest growing group of underinsured was people in households around the national median income, the $40,000 to $50,000 annual income range—folks who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but who don't have employer-sponsored plans or who can't afford the ones they're offered. Insurance companies jumped into the void with a lot of products Consumer Reports dubbed "junk insurance." These were plans that barely qualified as insurance because they had very low caps on coverage or weren't even really insurance at all. Many were merely medical discount programs that didn't protect against health-related financial calamity. Insurance companies, including many of the biggest, marketed these products aggressively and often misleadingly—which was made easier by the lack of disclosure requirements in the sale of health insurance. Regulators struggled to protect consumers because so many of the junk plans were perfectly legal.

Take the case of HealthMarkets Inc., a company owned by the Goldman Sachs Group and Blackstone Group, two Wall Street giants. It had run-ins with state regulators repeatedly regarding its sale of junk health insurance on the individual market. The company paid out more than $40 million in settlements with state attorneys general over its deceptive sales practices between 2008 and 2010. In 2009, for example, after a long investigation, the Massachusetts attorney general fined the company $17 million and banned it from doing business in the state for five years.

HealthMarkets was also plagued with individual consumer lawsuits and class actions. Among those who sued the company was Doug Christensen, a cancer survivor who bought a HeathMarkets plan from the National Association for the Self-Employed. A sales rep had knocked on the door of his office and offered him a policy for $434 a month that would cover him and his wife, and include $100,000 worth of chemotherapy coverage. He didn't realize that the bargain policy had a host of limitations, including a cap on drug expenses at $1,000 per day, which wasn't close to what the treatment ended up costing when his bone cancer returned. Doug eventually died, and his widow was left with $450,000 in unpaid medical bills because the policy was so bad. She won a $1.7 million settlement with the company in 2005.

Stories like these had been standard fare for years before Obamacare. Even Republicans got outraged. In 2008, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) launched an investigation into AARP's limited benefit health plans and held a hearing on junk insurance plans. He was inspired by a Wall Street Journal article about a Texas woman, Lisa Kelly, who was diagnosed with leukemia and required cancer treatment. She was referred to the M.D. Anderson Center in Houston. When she called to schedule her first chemo appointment, the hospital told her to bring with her a check for $45,000. Kelly had a limited-benefit policy sold by AARP that required her to pay all of the medical costs up front. Then it would reimburse her $7,500 per procedure, which didn't cover the treatment cost.

Grassley's staff investigated the AARP's plan and discovered that the insurance company was using highly deceptive marketing practices. When he made the results public, Grassley decried the evils of the individual health insurance marketplace saying, "It's not better than nothing to encourage people to buy something described as 'health security' when there's no basic protection against high medical costs."

AARP ended up discontinuing some, but not all, of the plans. Today, the individual market is still plagued by consumer abuses that have left many people at risk of medical bankruptcy or lack of access to care. "A lot of insurance that is sold today is like a Swiss cheese insurance policy. It's insurance that doesn't really insure,” says Ron Pollack, the executive director of Families USA, a health care advocacy group that supports the ACA.

Many of the plans on the individual market are so bad that people who have them might as well be uninsured. "The only people who like those plans are people who have never needed them," says Nancy Metcalf, a senior editor at Consumer Reports. "They haven't figured out yet how terrible they are. They think they have good coverage but they don't."

A good example might be Dianne Barrette, 56, who appeared on CBS News with Jan Crawford last week for a segment about the wave of cancelations. Barrette, a realtor in Florida, was upset because her $54 a month insurance plan was being canceled. She believed a new one would cost her more than $500 a month due to Obamacare. "What I have right now is what I'm happy with," she said. "I just want to know why I can't keep what I have. Why do I have to be forced into something else?"

But here’s the rub: Barrette's $54 plan wasn't even insurance. When I talked to her, she was unsure of what her plan covered. But she said it was what Blue Cross calls a "supplemental" or discount plan, which only pays $50 toward doctor's office visits and a few other out-patient services, including mammograms. What her plan doesn’t cover: hospitalization. Not at all. So if she gets hit by a car, the people ultimately picking up the tab will be the hospital and everyone else (by way of higher medical costs). If she gets cancer, she’s basically out of luck. "It's all I could afford," she told me.

Blue Cross was selling these plans in malls and other retail insurance "shops" in an effort to target young people who don't have or don't think they need health insurance, luring them in with cheap premiums of between $24 to $54 a month. The plans came with a not-well-disclosed caveat that they were not designed to replace hospital-surgical plans, which Blue Cross encouraged people to buy—provided the purchasers could get past all the exclusions for preexisting conditions.

Blue Cross is now canceling 300,000 plans in Florida, and, no doubt, a lot of them are such "Go Blue" plans. (A spokesman from Blue Cross of Florida wouldn't answer any specific questions about which plans are getting canceled.) The ACA was designed to replace plans like the one Barrette bought. And every plan sold on the Obamacare exchanges must provide a minimum and meaningful level of coverage, including free preventive care, mental health and maternity coverage, hospitalization, and rehabilitation services that are indispensable for anyone who has a disability, who becomes injured in a bad accident, or who has a degenerative disease such as multiple sclerosis. These plans don't have annual or lifetime coverage limits of any sort. And the insurance companies selling plans on the exchange must disclose coverage terms in such a way that people know what they're getting and can compare similar plans.

Much of the recent media coverage treats the old junk plans as a national treasure, their loss a true scandal. Far from being a victim of Obamacare, Barrette should have been a story about someone who will benefit immensely from the Affordable Care Act. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation premium calculator, Barrette, who makes about $30,000 a year, is eligible for an annual tax credit of up to $3,967 a year, which could get her a silver plan on the exchange for $234 a month (in cost to her), or a bronze plan, with slightly higher out of pocket costs, for $97 a month. True, with the bronze plans, she’d be paying $43 a month more, but in return, she would have true protection and access to health care, not sham coverage. A bronze plan would replace her $50 doctor's office discount with free preventive care services, including mammograms, cover hospitalization and other services, and cap her out of pocket costs at slightly more than $6,000 a year. Barrette should be cheering the death of her old plan.

The same is true of the other conservatives who've groused about losing a plan, including Malkin. As Metcalf points out, "If they're having to cancel out a plan with a $10,000 deductible and end up with a plan with a $2,500 deductible, that's a better plan, period." Pollack says, "As people now get real protection, the premiums may be somewhat higher, but it's a different product and you're saving money on the back end. The Affordable Care Act eliminates lousy coverage, which ultimately saves cost for people when they receive care."


Stephanie Mencimer is a staff reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. For more of her stories, click here. You can also follow her on Twitter. RSS | Twitter
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Fri 11 Apr, 2014 08:20 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
MotherJones does not give the real story on anything.

Quote:
Mother Jones is a nonprofit news organization that specializes in investigative, political, and social justice reporting.

We have a justice system. Social is not in front of it.
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Fri 11 Apr, 2014 08:20 pm
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2014/140411-vote-republican-get-this.jpg
JTT
 
  0  
Fri 11 Apr, 2014 08:24 pm
@coldjoint,
Quote:
Sounds like you think the government is like parents. Enough said.


Not the USA governments, cj. They are like the most vicious murderous, sexual predator parents that have ever existed on planet Earth.



US Must Pay Vietnam Reparation

By VVAW



Official negotiations between the US government and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam have opened up. After waging a terrorist war for ten years and trying to isolate Vietnam for the last two, Carter has finally stated that he will not veto their admission to the UN. At the same time the US government is trying to break a promise the Nixon administration was forced to make by the Vietnamese for reparations. Kissinger and Vance are now trying to say that there never really were any promises. Well you don't have to go back to the Indian land treaties to know the validity of US agreements. Broken promises and lies are part and parcel of this system. Broken promises and lies are part and parcel of this system. But their just isn't any way we are going to fall for them. As veterans of the Vietnam war, the ground pounders, tankers, artillerymen, RTOs, clerks, medics, etc, we can't forget, nor want to, what really happened in Vietnam.

Trying to rewrite history, the US government is now accusing the Vietnamese of atrocities committed by US forces. But we'll be glad to remind the rich of this country what we saw.

Operation Phoenix was a CIA assassination program that killed between 100,000 and 250,000 suspected enemy ranging from village chiefs to teachers. Chemical defoliants were used that were banned in the US. It is estimated that birth defects resulting from this use will be 6 times greater than suffered after Hiroshima. Forced relocation of farmers and peasants was the aim of the "new life hamlet" program. Carried out by the Saigon and American troops, Vietnamese were moved from ancestral homes to government controlled areas along the coast. This was all part of a ten year war waged by the rich here to subdue and exploit the peoples and resources of Vietnam. And the cannon fodder--55,000 dead American servicemen sacrificed on the altar of almighty profit for the likes of Bank of American, Texaco, Michelin Rubber and more.

Billions upon billions were spent to destroy Vietnam for the rich and now the rulers of this country had better damn well live up to their agreement and pay reparations out of their own pockets.

At the same time it is necessary for the government of Vietnam to be recognized by the UN and by the US as the legitimate representative of the Vietnamese people. There is no excuse for this not to happen. The rich rulers of the US can't even come up with a puppet on some offshore island pretending to be the real government of Vietnam. Unfortunately for the ruling class, ex-President Thieu skipped off to Europe with the gold from the Saigon treasury (unfortunately for the people, too, because they didn't get their hand of that traitor or the gold).

Carter likes to do a lot of talking about "binding up the wounds." But that is all it is--talk. Carter and the rest could care less about the lives of the Vietnamese, the GIs or the American people when compared to their profit margin. As for binding up the wounds and bringing us together, we won't ever forgive those bloodsuckers who sent us around the world.
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Fri 11 Apr, 2014 08:25 pm
@coldjoint,
Point out one unfactual sentence, sparky. You won't because you can't.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Fri 11 Apr, 2014 08:26 pm
@RexRed,
That doesnt define a "living wage".

And yes, I have worked at a minimum wage job, when the minimum wage was less than $3/hr.
The minimum wage is meant to be a starting wage, an entry level wage for people with no job skills.
It was never meant to be anything else.
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Fri 11 Apr, 2014 08:29 pm
@JTT,
Do you even know who the VVAW is? I take their opinion over your draft dodging ass any day of the week. Were you like Rush Limpbaugh who got his deferment for a boil on your ass? Or was yours was on your brain.

Then again, I'm another VVAW.

I really don't care if you'd have served or not, what pisses me of is you went out of your way not to serve not because of any principled stand but because you just didn't ******* feel like it. But you just can't wait to gin up another war where the people you hate most will be put into harms way. You're a hypocrite with blood on your hands, if you had a conscience (fat chance) you'd be ashamed to even post this last piece of your garbage. You mother just cringed when she heard about this.
RexRed
 
  1  
Fri 11 Apr, 2014 08:34 pm
Anti-science verses taint state fossil bill
http://on.msnbc.com/1esx7Sd
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/10/2024 at 02:25:22