PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
for a tom predergast you don't seem to possess much perception....
APP - Emergency Rooms as Healthcare
- Thread starter ib1yysguy
- Start date
for a tom predergast you don't seem to possess much perception....
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Would you care to explain the Governments Cars for Clunckers Program and why it's in financial troiuble??
cancel2 2022
Canceled
You might at least spell my surname correctly, perhaps your name ought to be Post Modern Profit.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
It is not a command as love is. And repeating the misapplication of Compassion doesn't make it better.
I just found this, I was looking on the wrong thread. Is this excerpted, if so, from where. I want to copy it and compare it to the original. Then I'll get back.
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
????.....what do you mean is it "excerpted and from where"......it's a cut and paste from the link I provided...I gave you the link, the page and the line number......
First of all, read the entire paragraph. It is saying that as of the first day the law goes into effect, insurers must insure under policies instituted under the new law.That is the "limitation" in line 10. Simple, otherwise, if there was only a public option available after the law's inception, why even refer to it?
The old Private coverage already in effect is being "grandfathered" in because those policies were in effect before the law was passed. "Such coverage" refers to the coverage provided before the law goes into effect and the rights of those covered. Public/private doesn't even enter into it. The choice in the paragraph is private coverage both before and after the new law is in effect and the rights of the insured, NOT private vs public coverage once the law is in effect. The freedom to choose is specific elsewhere in the law. It also gives the holders of an old policy the right to keep it if they prefer it to new policies instituted after the law goes into effect.
There is a forum on C-Span right now, maybe it will clear up some of the stupid (Yurt please note, it is the misinformation I am referring to because there is no other word for it.)misinformation so prevalent such as death squads and child killing.
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
the only thing grandfathered in are policies in existence at the time the new act goes into effect......nobody new may sign up for any grandfathered policies....thus, if you go off your grandfathered policy you can't go anywhere else......
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
You're counting TARP, which doesn't fall under the provisions of paygo.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Are you retarded? It's not in trouble. It was HUGELY successful. They made the program and limited it to $1 billion spent or November as the drop dead date for the program. It was so hugely successful in getting people out to buy new cars that the $1 billion got used up in just a single week. It's so fucking successful in getting people to buy new cars, which means American jobs by the way, that they just gave it another $2 billion to get even more people to buy cars.
How is it a failure?
Last edited by a moderator:
Wrong. If you choose to take a policy under the new law, you may. You may also keep the old policy if you so choose. Nobody can sign up for grandfathered policies after the law goes ito effect because they are "grandfathered", that's the meaning of the term. I sold a house in the Keys that was worth more because it fell under a grandfathered 1972 law. A new home may not be built under the old law my house fell under. A new policy may not be written under the old law, that is the limitation. Any policy begun after day 1 of 1st year must fall under the rules of the new law. It makes no reference whatsoever to public or private because there is no relevence to Section 102 and the grandfathering explanation. It is a red herring fished out of context to misinform the uninformed.
Last edited:
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Totally wrong, you liar. "Grandfathered" means that the policies you have now are EXEMPT from the rules regarding who they may and may not drop from their rolls to prevent covering due to preexisting conditions. That was a huge gift to the pharma industry. You will still be able to go buy a private plan if you want, but it'll be subject to the new rules that prevent them from refusing treatment due to preexisting conditions. If you leave your private insurance plan, you have the option to buy another private plan or buy the public plan.
This isn't that difficult. Do you know how dishonest you are? Or are you just profoundly ignorant?
Last edited by a moderator:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I assume that was a rhetorical question.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
The are you retarded part was rhetorical because everyone already knows the answer.
Anyone who thinks cash for clunkers is an example of government failure is so misinformed they have to be trying.
Having supported a GOP "government" for so long makes it difficult to duscern success from failure. The line is so blurred and the truth is so difficult.
Having supported a GOP "government" for so long makes it difficult to discern success from failure. The line is so blurred and the truth is so difficult.
No, I'm counting the newest budget that increased the deficit to 1 Trillion as proposed by the current Administration TARP was from a previous Administration.
Anyway, rules set by Congress on Congress are not laws and do not of themselves do anything. If congress doesn't curtail spending, pretending you've "paid" for anything at all is ridiculous. Increasing the debt by 1 Trillion does not equal paying for programs, even if you squint real hard and pretend Paygo is a constitutional amendment (I'd support it if it were.)
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Is USF retarded? The answer? Just as short as the bus he used to ride to school...
Yes.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
This is news to me. Link me up. I'd like to read about it. That seems excessive. My guess is they're including the stimulus spending and the wars (which Bush conveniently never included in his budgets to hide the deficits).
In fact, that may be all Obama did. It's possible he just put the wars into the budget. Bush always tried to fund them with supplementary spending bills to hide the costs. If that's all he did, I think you should be ashamed of yourself for misrepresenting it. Bush should have done that from the beginning, and attacking Obama for doing what everyone with a brain would say is the right thing is retarded.