So whatever happend to the national healthcare law they were trying to pass??

[Royd]

Sometimes I wonder whether chickened and Royd even own chickens.

And why is that? Does owning chickens turn you into a socialist? FDR said,"A chicken in every pot". He just forgot that the person doing all the work and bearing the cost, ends up on the short end of the stick.

 

[AquaEyes]

But if you have an insurance policy, you ARE paying for other people's medical costs. The concept of insurance is paying into the pot continually, so that you, as a paying member, may withdraw from the pot if you need to. Many will pay more into the pot than they will withdraw, but they have the peace of mind of knowing that, should something unexpected arise, they will be taken care of.

But for the pot to be able to pay out for those few who, due to unexpected circumstances, must withdraw more than they contribute, there must be a wider base of contributors. True, someone younger and with lower chances of needing to withdraw would likely benefit over time by not participating until later in life, but doing so puts more of a strain on the entire system, and if that person DOES join the pot later in life when the chances of requiring withdrawal are higher, is this not a form of "cheating?" It would be like declining flood insurance for years, but then opening a policy just before a tsunami is expected to come. If everyone followed this plan, there would be no financial incentive for companies to provide flood insurance.

The problem is that in our current system, the pot has another form of withdrawal from a member that does not contribute -- profit gleaned by insurance companies. If the pot did not have to cover this withdrawal, the contributions from members wouldn't need to be as high. Two possible solutions would be either requiring insurance companies to be non-profit, or eliminating them entirely, and having the pot being maintained as a sort of savings account held by government, with withdrawals being made only for healthcare costs.

 

[cupman]

I'm not sure if it turns you into a socialist or not. I've had chickens around a year and I don't feel much different. It just made me wonder because the only times I see you guys posting it's usually on some sensationalist political viewpoint and I'm not sure I have ever seen either of you talk about chickens. But I guess it's not really my business.

 

[chickened]

Maybe a plan that no longer is called insurance but a program that ypou pay a co-pay and get the treatment would be the only fair way and to be fair we all pay the same per individual not based on income and where there is no profit. I am just not sure how it would work down where the rubber meets the road. One group will say the poor are not paying and another will say the rich should pay it all. I just see no easy answer. I really do not trust government in this area.

But if you have an insurance policy, you ARE paying for other people's medical costs. The concept of insurance is paying into the pot continually, so that you, as a paying member, may withdraw from the pot if you need to. Many will pay more into the pot than they will withdraw, but they have the peace of mind of knowing that, should something unexpected arise, they will be taken care of.

But for the pot to be able to pay out for those few who, due to unexpected circumstances, must withdraw more than they contribute, there must be a wider base of contributors. True, someone younger and with lower chances of needing to withdraw would likely benefit over time by not participating until later in life, but doing so puts more of a strain on the entire system, and if that person DOES join the pot later in life when the chances of requiring withdrawal are higher, is this not a form of "cheating?" It would be like declining flood insurance for years, but then opening a policy just before a tsunami is expected to come. If everyone followed this plan, there would be no financial incentive for companies to provide flood insurance.

The problem is that in our current system, the pot has another form of withdrawal from a member that does not contribute -- profit gleaned by insurance companies. If the pot did not have to cover this withdrawal, the contributions from members wouldn't need to be as high. Two possible solutions would be either requiring insurance companies to be non-profit, or eliminating them entirely, and having the pot being maintained as a sort of savings account held by government, with withdrawals being made only for healthcare costs.

 

[chickened]

Actually the more chickens you own the smarter you get... you must only have one.

I'm not sure if it turns you into a socialist or not. I've had chickens around a year and I don't feel much different. It just made me wonder because the only times I see you guys posting it's usually on some sensationalist political viewpoint and I'm not sure I have ever seen either of you talk about chickens. But I guess it's not really my business.

 

[Capvin]

I think that we can now take a moment to review what we have learned in this thread.

1. That before being allowed to vote we should be forced to take a test. Many years ago that was lovingly known as "Jim Crow" laws and has been struck down by every jurist in this country. But it is nice to know that some of us still yearn for the good ole days.

2. All voters must show an ID card.. Many years ago the Voters Rights Act was passed and outlawed that procedure, but it is nice to know that some of us want to be protected from the non-existent rampant voting fraud that is perpetrated by poor and blacks. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is who that type of law is aimed at, isn't it??

3. Obama Care will be repealed as soon as the dictator, Obama, is removed from office. Civics 101..a President can not make laws and certainly has no ability to repeal any existing ones. Even if you elect Chickened as President (he believes the same thing) he would stand no chance to repeal any law. On second thought, maybe a test is a good idea.

4. Virginia held Obama Care to be unconstitutional. Sorry Charlie, but that ruling handed down in January, 2011 has already been vacated and in it's place is a Federal Court Ruling holding it to be constitutional. In fact there have been four federal court challenges to Obama Care and the only Court to hold the individual mandate to be unconstitutional was the Atlanta Court. The other three came solidly on the side that it was fine. Once again...maybe a test.

5. Ellena Kagan should not be permitted to hear certain cases. I wonder is that because she is a woman or are you objecting on religious grounds??

6. "Libratards" as are honorable poster refers to them..can not be educated. Please do not attempt to compare educations because ALL OF THE ABOVE WAS POSTED BY ONE, SINGLE POSTER IN ONE, SINGLE POST.

 

[Capvin]

I'm not sure if it turns you into a socialist or not. I've had chickens around a year and I don't feel much different. It just made me wonder because the only times I see you guys posting it's usually on some sensationalist political viewpoint and I'm not sure I have ever seen either of you talk about chickens. But I guess it's not really my business.

Cupman, you are absolutely correct in your observation and I am only responding because I want you to know that although I do post in this section (especially the sensational and political) that most of my posts are chicken related and I find those postings to be educational and enjoyable. I post here because it is like putting crack cocaine in front of an addict. For my entire professional life I spent my time arguing in the Federal Courts all over this country about issues much the same as here. The exception is that in those cases the people arguing on the other side were educated and put forth well reasoned arguments. Here it is another story, but since I have been retired for some time I find the lure to argue almost irresistible, but in these cases, not as fulfilling or as profitable. Royd loves to talk about lawyers getting rich and fortunately I am and I did!! Remember that the best revenge is living well. I tip my cup to you cupman because in this post, as in many of your posts, you were right on.

 

[sourland]

May the jousting continue.

Sourland who refuses to engage because he likes his blood pressure right where it remains.

 

[chickened]

Kind of out of your comfort zone then where you cannot use legal procedure to argue your point in a controlled environment "objection your honor" does not work here pal. There are 2 paths to knowledge by repetition and revelation.

Capvin, are you saying you are doing what you were trained to do?

Cupman, you are absolutely correct in your observation and I am only responding because I want you to know that although I do post in this section (especially the sensational and political) that most of my posts are chicken related and I find those postings to be educational and enjoyable. I post here because it is like putting crack cocaine in front of an addict. For my entire professional life I spent my time arguing in the Federal Courts all over this country about issues much the same as here. The exception is that in those cases the people arguing on the other side were educated and put forth well reasoned arguments. Here it is another story, but since I have been retired for some time I find the lure to argue almost irresistible, but in these cases, not as fulfilling or as profitable. Royd loves to talk about lawyers getting rich and fortunately I am and I did!! Remember that the best revenge is living well. I tip my cup to you cupman because in this post, as in many of your posts, you were right on.

 

[chickened]

This is all in fun... at least for me it is. We are not going to solve any real issues here.

May the jousting continue.

Sourland who refuses to engage because he likes his blood pressure right where it remains.