Jump to content

Will they ever repeal Obamacare


Big girl

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, new tobie said:

Repeal it so the poor can start using the emergency room for free again instead of being required to have insurance, no preventitive care for the poor, the middle class can continue paying high insurance premiums anyway, the pharmaceutical companies can continue overpricing their product. The Obama family will continue getting government checks and government insurance. Basically nothing changes.

9 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I think we’ve figured out there’s no way she’s an RN.

:)

So they poor have stopped using the emergency room?  And Obamacare lowered premiums for the middle class.  Your silliness is exceeded only by your naivete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

So they poor have stopped using the emergency room?  And Obamacare lowered premiums for the middle class.  Your silliness is exceeded only by your naivete.

I will have to disagree with you here Nash. Naivete suggests the evidence has not been available to new tobie, thus his ignorance on the subject. He has been sufficiently exposed to the evidence but absolutely refuses to acknowledge it. That would be willful naivete, which most people just refer to as stupidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stevenash said:

So they poor have stopped using the emergency room?  And Obamacare lowered premiums for the middle class.  Your silliness is exceeded only by your naivete.

having or not having Obamacare doesn't and has not changed my insurance one bit. Obama's pre- existing conditon clause would have helped if I ever needed it. Trump is an ...hole for wanting to get rid of it. I have this argument in person every chance i get. No one wants to make insurance better for the working man NO ONE. thats the problem. The working man can't afford to pay off congress either like the pharmaseutical companies do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, six burg said:

having or not having Obamacare doesn't and has not changed my insurance one bit. Obama's pre- existing conditon clause would have helped if I ever needed it. Trump is an ...hole for wanting to get rid of it. I have this argument in person every chance i get. No one wants to make insurance better for the working man NO ONE. thats the problem. The working man can't afford to pay off congress either like the pharmaseutical companies do.

The cost of insurance didn't change for you after ObamaCare? I know for me, my premiums more than tripled. That isn't because I just want to make Obama look bad, it is just a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, six burg said:

having or not having Obamacare doesn't and has not changed my insurance one bit. Obama's pre- existing conditon clause would have helped if I ever needed it. Trump is an ...hole for wanting to get rid of it. I have this argument in person every chance i get. No one wants to make insurance better for the working man NO ONE. thats the problem. The working man can't afford to pay off congress either like the pharmaseutical companies do.

If Obamacare hasn't changed your insurance one bit, you are probably the only one in the U.S. that hasn't seen a change. Luckily my 80 year old neighbor and his 78 year old wife have free birth control, lactation support, free maternity counselling, free breastfeeding equipment, free maternity care, and countless other covered items they are sure to take advantage of in their golden years.

Please show some evidence that Trump wants to get rid of the pre-existing conditions clause. Every position I've heard him take is that he will include that part in his new (renamed) version of Obamacare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, six burg said:

having or not having Obamacare doesn't and has not changed my insurance one bit. Obama's pre- existing conditon clause would have helped if I ever needed it. Trump is an ...hole for wanting to get rid of it. I have this argument in person every chance i get. No one wants to make insurance better for the working man NO ONE. thats the problem. The working man can't afford to pay off congress either like the pharmaseutical companies do.

To make sure I am understanding you correctly, you are stating that, since the implementation of Obamacare, your health insurance costs have not increased at all?  The only way that this is possible is that your employer has absorbed all of the increases or your benefits have decreased dramatically. Why not reveal the whole story rather than using the media tactics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Englebert said:

I will have to disagree with you here Nash. Naivete suggests the evidence has not been available to new tobie, thus his ignorance on the subject. He has been sufficiently exposed to the evidence but absolutely refuses to acknowledge it. That would be willful naivete, which most people just refer to as stupidity.

You are probably correct.  Pretty similar to Hillary pretending that she didn't know what "wiping the server clean" meant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, new tobie said:

Repeal it so the poor can start using the emergency room for free again instead of being required to have insurance, no preventitive care for the poor, the middle class can continue paying high insurance premiums anyway, the pharmaceutical companies can continue overpricing their product. The Obama family will continue getting government checks and government insurance. Basically nothing changes.

The return on equity for Pfizer ( yes Tobie, a pharmaceutical company) is around 13%.  The return on equity for Apple Computer is 36%.  If and when you can grasp what return on equity means, I want you to let me know why Pfizer charges too much for its product but everything is great at Apple.  Are you one of those who believes also that if the oil companies would sell their products for no profit, that gasoline prices would go way, way, way down?  If you believe this, is that why one establishes an oil company or a pharmaceutical company or any type of company?  Are they there to be non profit organizations? Without profits, how do they provide retirement plans and subsidize the healthcare costs of their employees.  You touted Jeff Bezos and Amazon for the benefits they offer their employees.  How do you think those benefits are paid for?  The federal government is not only non profit, but is a huge loss creator that is permitted to write checks with nothing behind them.  And you want more activity from the Fed?  Do you think they would do well managing drug prices and oil prices?  Ask Venezuela and Greece those questions and let me know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, stevenash said:

The return on equity for Pfizer ( yes Tobie, a pharmaceutical company) is around 13%.  The return on equity for Apple Computer is 36%.  If and when you can grasp what return on equity means, I want you to let me know why Pfizer charges too much for its product but everything is great at Apple.  Are you one of those who believes also that if the oil companies would sell their products for no profit, that gasoline prices would go way, way, way down?  If you believe this, is that why one establishes an oil company or a pharmaceutical company or any type of company?  Are they there to be non profit organizations? Without profits, how do they provide retirement plans and subsidize the healthcare costs of their employees.  You touted Jeff Bezos and Amazon for the benefits they offer their employees.  How do you think those benefits are paid for?  The federal government is not only non profit, but is a huge loss creator that is permitted to write checks with nothing behind them.  And you want more activity from the Fed?  Do you think they would do well managing drug prices and oil prices?  Ask Venezuela and Greece those questions and let me know.

rocky iv throw the damn towel animated GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

The return on equity for Pfizer ( yes Tobie, a pharmaceutical company) is around 13%.  The return on equity for Apple Computer is 36%.  If and when you can grasp what return on equity means, I want you to let me know why Pfizer charges too much for its product but everything is great at Apple.  Are you one of those who believes also that if the oil companies would sell their products for no profit, that gasoline prices would go way, way, way down?  If you believe this, is that why one establishes an oil company or a pharmaceutical company or any type of company?  Are they there to be non profit organizations? Without profits, how do they provide retirement plans and subsidize the healthcare costs of their employees.  You touted Jeff Bezos and Amazon for the benefits they offer their employees.  How do you think those benefits are paid for?  The federal government is not only non profit, but is a huge loss creator that is permitted to write checks with nothing behind them.  And you want more activity from the Fed?  Do you think they would do well managing drug prices and oil prices?  Ask Venezuela and Greece those questions and let me know.

All he can say about that is, grab um.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,207
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    JBarry68
    Newest Member
    JBarry68
    Joined



  • Posts

    • RWG Stem vs Liberty Magnet tips off in 5 minutes in the main gym.
    • REL actually improved this year to 6-4 which was remarkable because like you said, they had a lot of injuries and their bench was thin before that.  It’s crazy how the smallest of the 3 GCCISD High Schools finds a way to at least field a team that can hold their own but you’re right that coaching is one aspect of it.  Not that they’re a top 150 team or even close to it but if they’d lost a couple less guys there’s a real chance they could have beat Texas City and gone to at least the 1st round of playoffs this year which for GCCISD football might as well be State for how hard it is for them.   You’re spot-on about GCM and RSS coaches.  GCM coach is 2-28 over 3 years and RSS coach is 15-45 over 6.  Hard to get kids to participate in what they know from the outset is a losing proposition.  I watched the GCM/NS Game.  I was worried someone would get hurt, felt sick.  All 22 of NS starters are high level D1 Commits, QB is 19 years old, and GCM lined up a bunch of Sophomores against them, kids that aren’t even old enough to drive.     I know GCCISD wouldn’t ever do it but they really ought to stop insisting that the 3 High Schools play each other for their first 2 out of conference games.  At least let GCM out of it.  All 3 schools are in different Classifications so the wins don’t matter except for bragging rights around town and with REL winning both those games every season all it does is kill morale before the first District game is even played.  Let GCM schedule some OOC games on their level like Houston Sterling/Sam Houston/Chavez for their first 3.  That way there’s a good chance even if they lose every District game they could end up 3-7 and if they beat Channelview 4-6.  GCM having to lose to RSS and REL to start their season every year is just a killer.   You want to know why all the talent at EF Green Jr doesn’t show up at GCM?  Because that talent transfers to North Shore after 8th grade is done.  Straight-up.  They don’t care if you know either.  Those kids moms get on Facebook and brag about it.  Of course, most of those kids end up so far back on the depth chart that by Sophomore year they want to transfer back just so they can get to play at all but then you run into the eligibility thing.    Anyway, sorry for the off-topic tangent, this is a BH thread.  
    • They are very good. Really good shooting guard that's '6"3. Also have a do it all forward that's '6"5. He does everything for them. Score, rebound, defend. Maybe not as quick overall as those other teams, but I think they will at least make state semifinals.
    • Brookeland is playing Frankston in Aux gym. Game started at 1pm  
    • What’s your take on brookeland?  How do they compare to those teams in the late 90s early 2000s?
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...