No wonder liberals are confused...

[FollowTheWay]

I tend to agree with you - however - if a person is a smoker - and has a smoking related disease- but refuses to give up smoking - are we under any obligation to still help him? (this just being one example)

I think we need a certain level of support for all Americans. However, I think individual choices leading to a healthy or unhealthy lifestyle should be taken into account by insurance companies. Smoking, obesity, heavy drinking, lack of exercise, involvement in risky activities like reckless driving and skydiving might be a few to consider. What should not be considered is pre-existing conditions. These are defined by the individual insurance companies and actually can include such things as arthritis, diabetes, depression, knee surgery, high cholesterol, and asthma.

 

[Salty]

I think we need a certain level of support for all Americans. However, I think individual choices leading to a healthy or unhealthy lifestyle should be taken into account by insurance companies. Smoking, obesity, heavy drinking, lack of exercise, involvement in risky activities like reckless driving and skydiving might be a few to consider. What should not be considered is pre-existing conditions. These are defined by the individual insurance companies and actually can include such things as arthritis, diabetes, depression, knee surgery, high cholesterol, and asthma.

So when applying for insurance, should having been smoking for 20 years be consider a pre-existing condition.?

How about Asthma - should that person be required to pay higher rates?
How a woman who comes in to buy insurance at 8 1/2 moths pregnant -

How about life insurance - isnt age a pre-existing condition.
So shouldnt a 70 year old pay the same premiums as a 20 year old?

 

[InTheLight]

I would far prefer for the churches to provide the poor and needy with what they need. That's God's model. But I don't see that as possible. I did a calculation and just for the church to provide healthcare to replace Obamacare would cost about $200,000 per Christian church in the U.S./ yr. That includes Catholic churches. Many of the large churches could certainly do that if they chose to but they haven't and won't. But most of the churches in the SBC are under 100 active members. There is no way for they to handle this kind of a burden. And that's only healthcare. The poor need food and help in many other ways.

So you think buying poor people health insurance is a good and wise way to help the poor? And you think churches should supply that? Hey, thanks for the yearly free physical exam and the yearly free eye exam, other than that, what benefit have you given them that meets their immediate needs when you give them health insurance? Most of them need food and clothing before they need ObamaCare.

 

[TCassidy]

Today at our church. The "Impossible" being done.

 

[FollowTheWay]

So when applying for insurance, should having been smoking for 20 years be consider a pre-existing condition.?

How about Asthma - should that person be required to pay higher rates?
How a woman who comes in to buy insurance at 8 1/2 moths pregnant -

How about life insurance - isnt age a pre-existing condition.
So shouldnt a 70 year old pay the same premiums as a 20 year old?

This list is not mine. It comes from the insurance companies. people need to realize that if Obamacare is repealed people who are NOT on Obamacare who lose their current insurance through losing their jobs will once again be classified as having a pre-existing conditions by insurance companies. Obamacare made this illegal for everyone. Age and sex are currently considered when pricing life insurance. That's not being talked about right now.

 

[FollowTheWay]

So you think buying poor people health insurance is a good and wise way to help the poor? And you think churches should supply that? Hey, thanks for the yearly free physical exam and the yearly free eye exam, other than that, what benefit have you given them that meets their immediate needs when you give them health insurance? Most of them need food and clothing before they need ObamaCare.

Churches need to examine their resources, priorities and faith to decide what to address. As you point out they have limited resources and cannot address health insurance due to the pressing needs of food and housing. That's why the government needs to help by diverting money from the Pentagon.

 

[Revmitchell]

This list is not mine. It comes from the insurance companies. people need to realize that if Obamacare is repealed people who are NOT on Obamacare who lose their current insurance through losing their jobs will once again be classified as having a pre-existing conditions by insurance companies. Obamacare made this illegal for everyone. Age and sex are currently considered when pricing life insurance. That's not being talked about right now.

Nothing in this post is true.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Nothing in this post is true.

It actually is true check it out. Prove your statement. It's getting a little old. Tell me in detail what was in the Republicans healthcare bills.

 

[InTheLight]

People need to realize that if Obamacare is repealed people who are NOT on Obamacare who lose their current insurance through losing their jobs will once again be classified as having a pre-existing conditions by insurance companies. Obamacare made this illegal for everyone.

Tell me in detail what was in the Republicans healthcare bills.

The House version had a provision that would allow states to file a waiver to get insurance companies based in their state out of the pre-existing condition clause. Still, if a state elected to not compel insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions these people would have to violate the House's continuous coverage clause, which states that people must not go more than 63 consecutive days without health insurance. Then, for one year an insurance company could charge these people higher rates than usual because they a.) have a pre-existing condition and b.) let their coverage lapse. But no, they would not be denied insurance coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

The Senate version retained coverage for pre-existing conditions.

 

[FollowTheWay]

The House version had a provision that would allow states to file a waiver to get insurance companies based in their state out of the pre-existing condition clause. Still, if a state elected to not compel insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions these people would have to violate the House's continuous coverage clause, which states that people must not go more than 63 consecutive days without health insurance. Then, for one year an insurance company could charge these people higher rates than usual because they a.) have a pre-existing condition and b.) let their coverage lapse. But no, they would not be denied insurance coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

The Senate version retained coverage for pre-existing conditions.

I didn't say anything about denying insurance. It would just be extraordinarily expensive like $3,000/mo. I have a good friend in KY who faced this before Obamacare. And the Republicans drafted a bill to EXEMPT themselves from thios requirement. Sporting.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Just sick of asking you to provide a name of a Republican that wants to increase taxes on the middle class but I can't let this go unchallenged. So for the umpteenth time, do you have a name?

Also, wonder about the faith of Democrats that are pro abortion, pro same sex marriage, and believe in government as the conduit for charity via taxing people and giving taxpayer money to causes some vehemently object to for religious reasons.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

What causes are you referring to? I vehemently object to meaningless wars started by Neo-cons. If you don't want to help the poor that's your decision. I do for religious reasons (see MAT chap. 25).

 

[FollowTheWay]

Sorry, but no rewriting of history here. The economy in the 1990's didn't boom until after the Republicans lowered taxes on the middle class in the "Contract with America", after welfare was reformed, and government spending in general was reduced. Also, the 1990's was the time of the internet dot.com boom which fueled the economy and had nothing to do with tax policy.



Ummm....9/11? Remember 9/11? Had a little effect on the economy. Starting in about 2003 the economy was producing decent numbers for about four years in a row.

Average annual GDP growth:
2003 2.8%
2004 3.8%
2005 3.4%
2006 2.8%

Obama NEVER had a year with 3.0% or greater average annual GDP growth.



Well, at least the writer is honest in this section. Where was this honesty when he claimed the economy boomed after Clinton raised taxes? You have a contradiction in your own argument!

And it will now be repeated:



Ummm...Drought? Remember the droughts in California? Had a little, teensy, weensy effect on the economy.
Also, California having the strongest economic growth of any state is debateable, but even if were true, it was because it had so severely bottomed out that any increase in the economy would appear to be boom times.

"Obama NEVER had a year with 3.0% or greater average annual GDP growth." That's because he had to deal with a near-depression at the end of GW Bush;s two disastrous terms. I don't think we ever recovered. The FED's policy of quantitative easing simply kicked the can down the road and will result in a far worse situation in the near future.

 

[InTheLight]

What causes are you referring to?

Abortion. Mandatory birth control coverage in insurance policies. Transgender surgeries.

Ya got a name of a Republican calling for a tax increase on the middle class?





Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

[Salty]

... I vehemently object to meaningless wars started by Neo-cons. ...

So its okay if a liberal starts a meaningless war?????

 

[FollowTheWay]

Nope, not seeing a tax increase on the middle class.


Is not individual tax rates.

This idea has been abandoned and anyway, is not individual tax rates.



This idea has been abandoned.




None of this increases taxes on middle class taxpayers.



AHA! Well, looky there....it says that taxes will be reduced on the middle class.

Argument ends...my point that no Republican is calling for tax increases on the middle class is shown by your own so-called rebuttal.​

When you significantly cut taxes on the rich and have a minor tax cut on the middle class where is the money coming from to rebuild our aged infrastructure and provide much needed services to those who desperately need them. No, "Voodoo Economics" has never worked and never will Increasing the military budget hurts a great deal too. First, let's do an audit on the Pentagon and military contracts. Donald Rumsfeld said on the day before 9/11 that there were $2.3 T of military spending which couldn't be accounted for and that number has grown substantially since then. Why do we need to spend as much as the next 8 largest military spending countries in the world on our defense? Why is our healthcare the worst among developed countries even though it's also the most expensive? The highest tax rates are down significantly from earlier times (90% in the 1950's) and capital gains rates are lower as well. If you want for America to be a second-class country then vote to continue this situation.

 

[FollowTheWay]

So its okay if a liberal starts a meaningless war?????

No. I'm against that as well and basically blame Lyndon Johnson for the Vietnam War. I'm focusing on the Afghan and Iraq wars because they are much more recent and were the longest wars in U.S. history.

 

[InTheLight]

When you significantly cut taxes on the rich and have a minor tax cut on the middle class where is the money coming from to rebuild our aged infrastructure and provide much needed services to those who desperately need them. No, "Voodoo Economics" has never worked and never will Increasing the military budget hurts a great deal too. First, let's do an audit on the Pentagon and military contracts. Donald Rumsfeld said on the day before 9/11 that there were $2.3 T of military spending which couldn't be accounted for and that number has grown substantially since then. Why do we need to spend as much as the next 8 largest military spending countries in the world on our defense? Why is our healthcare the worst among developed countries even though it's also the most expensive? The highest tax rates are down significantly from earlier times (90% in the 1950's) and capital gains rates are lower as well. If you want for America to be a second-class country then vote to continue this situation.

So no name of a Republican that wants an increase in taxes on the middle class. Understood.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Abortion. Mandatory birth control coverage in insurance policies. Transgender surgeries.

Ya got a name of a Republican calling for a tax increase on the middle class?





Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

You're against birth control? I remember Catholics used to take that position and that's why they had such large families.

 

[FollowTheWay]

So no name of a Republican that wants an increase in taxes on the middle class. Understood.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...-trump-plan-would-mean-tax-increase/94427186/

Trump

Republican Tax Plan
The GOP-controlled House and Senate budgets not only drastically cut spending on education, retirement, environment, road and bridges, climate change, immigration, job creation, Obamacare, food stamps, and other social welfare programs; but it gives the Pentagon a blank check, and includes tax cuts for the rich and corporations while raising taxes for lower-income Americans. That’s the analysis by the National Priorities Project (NPP), not just Krugman, and they make an even more disturbing point.

14 ways Republicans have declared war on the middle class

 

[TCassidy]

You're against birth control?

I am not against birth control. I just don't see any reason I should pay for yours.