frogger wrote: Archer....are you just reduced now to personal attacks? That is the 2nd one in 24 hours aimed right at me.
Because you earned them.......perhaps if you changed your own postings you wouldn't get such push back
do these ring a bell?
frogger wrote: Arlen....it is a losing battle. It's her way or.....well.... you know the drill.
frogger wrote: Why do you have to be so patronizing and hateful LJ.
Can't you carry on a conversation without calling names or abusing people?
It is just so sad to read.
I suppose if I was a better person I would just let them go, but I'm tired of you sniping at people then getting all self righteous when it happens to you.
The above were honest questions. (Please see ring for examples.)
My comment in regards to you was based on your own posts in this thread dictating that ALL statements on this forum must accompany a source whether they or fact or opinion.
You yourself indicated that your way was the only acceptable way to post here.
Stating that it is your way or the highway is not necessarily a personal slam at you. (Interesting that you internalized it that way.)
You....on the other hand have questioned my intelligence (which I personally believe is average) and my need for attention. Neither statement by you has any reasonable fact associated with it and was in fact a direct slam of me personally. If that is how you feel you need to operate....fine but at least take ownership of it.
When many people have the same perception of your behavior....it bares a 2nd look by you.
I have learned this from my own personal experience.
The above were honest questions. (Please see ring for examples.)
My comment in regards to you was based on your own posts in this thread dictating that ALL statements on this forum must accompany a source whether they or fact or opinion.
You yourself indicated that your way was the only acceptable way to post here.
Stating that it is your way or the highway is not necessarily a personal slam at you. (Interesting that you internalized it that way.)
You....on the other hand have questioned my intelligence (which I personally believe is average) and my need for attention. Neither statement by you has any reasonable fact associated with it and was in fact a direct slam of me personally. If that is how you feel you need to operate....fine but at least take ownership of it.
When many people have the same perception of your behavior....it bares a 2nd look by you.
I have learned this from my own personal experience.
Please quote the post where I asked for sources for opinions, or dictated that ALL posts must have a source. You can't, because I didn't. Nor did I ask for a source for opinions. You make up stuff then attack me for it....and then you expect me to just take it because it comes from the great "frogger". Sorry, cannot do.
Take your own advice "If that is how you feel you need to operate....fine but at least take ownership of it."
Since smoking is one of the most powerful addictions, should it be a pre-existing condition?
And how about overweight people? Do you give them a couple years to shape up or just start billing them twice the going rate? Or let some people become exempt and bill others?
$$$$ can be a good motivation for people to quit smoking and lose weight. Look how smoking has declined as cigarette taxes have risen?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Since smoking is one of the most powerful addictions, should it be a pre-existing condition?
And how about overweight people? Do you give them a couple years to shape up or just start billing them twice the going rate? Or let some people become exempt and bill others?
$$$$ can be a good motivation for people to quit smoking and lose weight. Look how smoking has declined as cigarette taxes have risen?
What happens if you take up smoking......can they raise your rate? Or gain a lot of weight? Then again, if you quit will your premium go down? This is one of those issues that my opinion on it changes almost daily.......nothing seems to be the best solution.
FredHayek wrote: In DC, smoking is considered a pre-existing condition.
Where did you get this information?
FredHayek wrote: So the state insurance plan there can't charge higher rates for smokers.
Is this a fact or speculation? If fact, can you provider a source?
FredHayek wrote: I am more willing to penalize smokers, especially because I think it could help smokers quit.
I agree with this.
The first 2 statements by Fred on this topic certainly do not look like opinions. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking for support for these statements if he has intended to put them out there as apparent facts. The last sentence I quoted and agreed with is obviously an opinion. It needs no other information attached to it. But, If I challenged his opinion, it would be fair and respectful if a debate could follow to discuss the merits of that opinion by pointing to facts that may support it.
Some big decisions need to be made. For example, I smoke a couple cigars a month and a couple packs of cigarettes a year, do I have to pay a penalty, and would it be pro-rated? Raise the taxes on snuff, cigars, and cigarettes to fund the higher health claims? That would seem to be the easiest way to fine people, a use tax, like fuel taxes.
IIRC, there will be new national cigarette taxes to help fund Obamacare.
[url=http://www.hotair.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;]www.hotair.com[/url] and the [url=http://www.examiner.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;]www.examiner.com[/url] along with many others have opinion pieces on if declaring smoking as a pre-existing condition is fair.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
FredHayek wrote: In DC, smoking is considered a pre-existing condition. So the state insurance plan there can't charge higher rates for smokers. But Colorado's version does permit smokers to be charged more. Which do you think it should be? I know it is supposed to be a tough addiction to quit, but I never had trouble giving it up, so I am more willing to penalize smokers, especially because I think it could help smokers quit.
Wow, when did DC become a state? That is breaking news!
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
FredHayek wrote: In DC, smoking is considered a pre-existing condition.
Where did you get this information?
FredHayek wrote: So the state insurance plan there can't charge higher rates for smokers.
Is this a fact or speculation? If fact, can you provider a source?
FredHayek wrote: I am more willing to penalize smokers, especially because I think it could help smokers quit.
I agree with this.
The first 2 statements by Fred on this topic certainly do not look like opinions. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking for support for these statements if he has intended to put them out there as apparent facts. The last sentence I quoted and agreed with is obviously an opinion. It needs no other information attached to it. But, If I challenged his opinion, it would be fair and respectful if a debate could follow to discuss the merits of that opinion by pointing to facts that may support it.
In DC, smoking is considered a pre-existing condition.
