MY HEALTH INSURANCE WAS CANCELLED!!!

Really Bob, the difference between Republicans and conservatives...... or even libertarians, is simply a matter of how they choose to screw the American people, I couldn't care less what you choose to label yourself as.

archer wrote: Really Bob, the difference between Republicans and conservatives...... or even libertarians, is simply a matter of how they choose to screw the American people, I couldn't care less what you choose to label yourself as.

Archer, try getting your entitlements and the like without sending people with guns after your fellow citizens to get it. No govt guns, no ACA, you do understand that right? No govt guns, no public school, no food stamps, no entitlements period, period.

The difference between people like you and libertarians is that the libertarians are not willing to use force or hire someone else to use force to get what they want.

Republicans, conservatives, liberals and Democrats DO use the philosophy of - use a gun to get what you want from people that are otherwise unwilling. Use the vote to justify it.

The political spectrum is not that of left vs. right, these are concepts floating in thin air. The political spectrum is that of those that are willing to hurt, maim and force others to get what they want and those that are not willing to do so.

How can you compare the concept of screwing the American people, which you cannot explain in any simple terms to beating them and threatening them to get what you want, which I just explained in my one sentence question?

Honestly how many words or paragraphs does it take to justify using force, violence and threats (Repub and Dem tactics) vs. asking people and trying to convince them (Libertarians). Such logic can be used to justify genocide (by Repubs and Dems) or a drug war (by Repubs and Dems) or running the most powerful country in the world without a budget screwing the current and next generation (Repubs and Dems).

Keep the libertarians out of your overpriced violent mess. We are busy using words in stead of guns, trying to convince you to stop spending money you don't have and stop beating people and stop locking them up because they did not do the subtle thing that you wanted. But keep playing your word games as to why you should force everyone into the economic position they are in while you leave murderers out on the street (because your gun cops are to busy collecting funds for your programs).

I challenge you to go out and collect the taxes that benefit your family personally. Don't forget your gun or you will surely fail. Remember if you have kids, that is over $10k each year, each kid just for their public redundant education.

archer wrote: Really Bob, the difference between Republicans and conservatives...... or even libertarians, is simply a matter of how they choose to screw the American people, I couldn't care less what you choose to label yourself as.

Thank you for illustrating how closed minded the left really is.

on that note wrote:

archer wrote: Really Bob, the difference between Republicans and conservatives...... or even libertarians, is simply a matter of how they choose to screw the American people, I couldn't care less what you choose to label yourself as.

Archer, try getting your entitlements and the like without sending people with guns after your fellow citizens to get it. No govt guns, no ACA, you do understand that right? No govt guns, no public school, no food stamps, no entitlements period, period.

The difference between people like you and libertarians is that the libertarians are not willing to use force or hire someone else to use force to get what they want.

Republicans, conservatives, liberals and Democrats DO use the philosophy of - use a gun to get what you want from people that are otherwise unwilling. Use the vote to justify it.

The political spectrum is not that of left vs. right, these are concepts floating in thin air. The political spectrum is that of those that are willing to hurt, maim and force others to get what they want and those that are not willing to do so.

How can you compare the concept of screwing the American people, which you cannot explain in any simple terms to beating them and threatening them to get what you want, which I just explained in my one sentence question?

Honestly how many words or paragraphs does it take to justify using force, violence and threats (Repub and Dem tactics) vs. asking people and trying to convince them (Libertarians). Such logic can be used to justify genocide (by Repubs and Dems) or a drug war (by Repubs and Dems) or running the most powerful country in the world without a budget screwing the current and next generation (Repubs and Dems).

Keep the libertarians out of your overpriced violent mess. We are busy using words in stead of guns, trying to convince you to stop spending money you don't have and stop beating people and stop locking them up because they did not do the subtle thing that you wanted. But keep playing your word games as to why you should force everyone into the economic position they are in while you leave murderers out on the street (because your gun cops are to busy collecting funds for your programs).

I challenge you to go out and collect the taxes that benefit your family personally. Don't forget your gun or you will surely fail. Remember if you have kids, that is over $10k each year, each kid just for their public redundant education.

Well said OTN, very convincing argument.

I'd love to hear someone attempt to counter your points... but I doubt those who disagree have anything other than more blanket statements about being selfish and wanting to screw the "victims".

archer wrote: I can't find any offers for supplemental insurance for coverage of the donut hole in part D..... Where did you find it.

And many people, like my mom, pay more for part D than they did for private Rx policy for less coverage. But I sure didn't hear conservatives complaining then. Part D isn't free.

There are some plans which cover the gap in the donut hole, but not as inclusive as I thought (at least in Colorado). There are a few listed for Colorado on this Medicare page...

http://www.q1medicare.com/PartD-Medicare-PartD-PDP--for-Colorado.php?st=CO&prodid=240

By their definition, the plans which offer some generic and some brand coverage will cover 10-65% of the drugs.

So like any part D plan (or PDP or Medicare Advantage), you need to list your prescriptions and see which plans best cover them. And as you probably know, the Medicare site lets you do that.

Anyway, I'm surprised there aren't more such plans, so I'll stand corrected because I thought there were more. I assume it's due to the cost, but I'm not sure.

Rick wrote:

on that note wrote:

archer wrote: Really Bob, the difference between Republicans and conservatives...... or even libertarians, is simply a matter of how they choose to screw the American people, I couldn't care less what you choose to label yourself as.

Archer, try getting your entitlements and the like without sending people with guns after your fellow citizens to get it. No govt guns, no ACA, you do understand that right? No govt guns, no public school, no food stamps, no entitlements period, period.

The difference between people like you and libertarians is that the libertarians are not willing to use force or hire someone else to use force to get what they want.

Republicans, conservatives, liberals and Democrats DO use the philosophy of - use a gun to get what you want from people that are otherwise unwilling. Use the vote to justify it.

The political spectrum is not that of left vs. right, these are concepts floating in thin air. The political spectrum is that of those that are willing to hurt, maim and force others to get what they want and those that are not willing to do so.

How can you compare the concept of screwing the American people, which you cannot explain in any simple terms to beating them and threatening them to get what you want, which I just explained in my one sentence question?

Honestly how many words or paragraphs does it take to justify using force, violence and threats (Repub and Dem tactics) vs. asking people and trying to convince them (Libertarians). Such logic can be used to justify genocide (by Repubs and Dems) or a drug war (by Repubs and Dems) or running the most powerful country in the world without a budget screwing the current and next generation (Repubs and Dems).

Keep the libertarians out of your overpriced violent mess. We are busy using words in stead of guns, trying to convince you to stop spending money you don't have and stop beating people and stop locking them up because they did not do the subtle thing that you wanted. But keep playing your word games as to why you should force everyone into the economic position they are in while you leave murderers out on the street (because your gun cops are to busy collecting funds for your programs).

I challenge you to go out and collect the taxes that benefit your family personally. Don't forget your gun or you will surely fail. Remember if you have kids, that is over $10k each year, each kid just for their public redundant education.

Well said OTN, very convincing argument.

I'd love to hear someone attempt to counter your points... but I doubt those who disagree have anything other than more blanket statements about being selfish and wanting to screw the "victims".

No one ever attempt counter points to this stuff, there is too much other stuff to keep getting from the guys with the guns collecting it for you. The most common reaction I get to these points both here and in person is silence. When I push in person for a response, usually I get either frustration, silence or an admission that the topic just got to complicated for them and that is why they have a president or whatnot, to decide for them. No one wants to admit that so much of what they have is taken by force and threats of theft and violence, most of all they don't want to hear that they encouraged such things.

If money were not "taken by force", as you put it, how would this country have grown and prospered? Be honest, could we pay for defense without taxes? Do you think donations would pay for it all? Could we maintain our national parks without federal money? How about the FDA? What about our highway system? Really, the libertarian pollyannas amuse me, if they founded this country we would have been invaded decades ago, or at least still be part of Britain.

archer, It is estimated that 400,000 signed up for Medicaid and only 50,000 have been able to sign up for Obamacare. The numbers are almost inverse to what was required for it to be sustainable. The military would refer to this as a "Cluster F**K on Steroids." Failure appears to be the only option.

pineinthegrass wrote:

archer wrote: Millions did lose coverage under Bush .... When part D of medicare was passed by Bush millions of seniors who had private prescription coverage lost it and had to sign up for Medicare part D, which contained a donut hole that cost them thousands.

At least part D is optional, Obamacare is not.

And if one doesn't like the donut hole, they have the option to purchase private insurance to cover it. Yeah, that costs extra, but so did private prescription coverage before part D.

Interesting fact:

Medicare part B,C, and D are optional. (Part B is such a good deal most take it voluntarily)

Part A is sufficient to meet the unconstitutional "insurance" mandate.


Don't be too tough on Archer though, she is the only cheerleader with courage to come on here and defend this debacle. Cheers Archer!

Obamacare 10 non-essential maximum health care benefits are far more than Medicare part A

And BTW I think the medicare part D was done horribly by the Busheys. No denial here. It is optional though.

Why is the mandate such an issue for health insurance but auto insurance is not?