SkyDekker

You are saying that with your new laws, I could break my leg today. Go to the ER, get it all set and cast. Then buy insurance tomorrow and they would pay the ER bill? Or are you saying that I can buy insurance today, and it would cover the Chemo treatment I have scheduled for Friday due to the cancer I already had?

this is true (almost) And we are seeing this in obamacare pricing Example You may have a pre-existing condition that must be covered, but those policies that do this have higher premiums and out of pocket limits Car insurance spreds these (as yet unknown) risk factors and incidnets, across the insured pool When one gets a policy with a pre-existing condition it is no longer insurance It is just spending money to get more than you spend Really? Here in Canada if you have a pre-existing condition (speeding tickets, accidents, insurance fraud convictions etc) your premiums go up significantly. Or you are simply denied coverage for auto insurance. That is what I am saying but Here, now, you could be walking down the street, get hit by a truck, get picked up by an abulance (which has an hc insurance salesman in it) and by your policy on the way to the hospital Can you buy your car insurance while the car is being towed away after an acident? Right, but the insurance you bought doesn't cover expenses from before the coverage started, only expenses incurred after.

And then you even allow illegals the right to free speech. They should show ID before they talk. It really isn't that easy to stop it. Specially since it hardly ever happens. Plus those who really want to, will simply get fake ID. (Isn't the argument against gun laws that it turns law abiding citizens into criminals and that it doesn't stop those who want to really do harm anyways?)

this is true (almost) And we are seeing this in obamacare pricing Example You may have a pre-existing condition that must be covered, but those policies that do this have higher premiums and out of pocket limits Car insurance spreds these (as yet unknown) risk factors and incidnets, across the insured pool When one gets a policy with a pre-existing condition it is no longer insurance It is just spending money to get more than you spend Really? Here in Canada if you have a pre-existing condition (speeding tickets, accidents, insurance fraud convictions etc) your premiums go up significantly. Or you are simply denied coverage for auto insurance.

I just prefer helping people who aren't solely responsible for their own misery. Every step of their decision making process was voluntary. I'll use my resources on people who need help due to unforeseen circumstances outside of their control. I am a jaded prick like that.

Plus, I'll never understand why people videotape themselevs doing something illegal. When kids do it, we call them stupid.

Agreed. Show me where early treatment will prevent SB. Looking at one disease and then proclaiming that preventative care is useless and a waste of money is silly.

Your inability to provide health care makes the easy access to weapons just that more problematic. The solution for the US isn't trying to ban guns, it is improving health care and building a better society. The problem with trying to improve mental health care on the "front end" is the Constitution. I have the right not to seek treatment for the flu. Others have the right not to seek treatment for whatever is running through their minds. Until the Constitution is changed, it's how we are. You don't think there are improvements between where you are now and the forceable treatment of the mentally ill? You think only those refusing to seek treatment are falling through the cracks? That is the only group left to deal with?

It is if a disease is preventated or treated in the early stages. Significantly cheaper.

The poor are already under-represented in votes. The idea that those getting welfare keep voting themselves more welfare is a great soundbite.....it is also retarded.

I don't understand this concept that every right is supposed to be "implemented" exactly the same way, with the same restrictions or lack of restrictions. Plus I have to say I find it odd that everything gets compared to how you can get guns.

"being made to pay for something I will never use" is a stupid argument. You do it your whole adult life, assuming you are responsible enough to pay taxes. Nothing lays bare the "me culture" of the US than this thread. Helping society is celebrated when it comes to taking up arms and killing in the name of the country. But, it is frowned upon and resisted when it involves trying to build a healthier society. Seems like the only thing people are worried about is ME, ME, ME and hope this scores points for my political leanings. Political parties and government isn't killing the US, you as a society are doing it yourself.

Your inability to provide health care makes the easy access to weapons just that more problematic. The solution for the US isn't trying to ban guns, it is improving health care and building a better society.

Some of those versions are still supported though, I believe until 2016.

lol...something like that. When you ask the Dutch whose help they are thankful for during WWII, you will generally get The Canadians as an answer.

They cover your prostate care, you cover their breast cancer. They cover testicular cancer, you cover "lady problems." But reproductive health is a dual gender affair - both participated in all acts leading to the need for this care. In all fairness, men do get breast cancer.

I see a country that will knock yours down in a fight. Hell - we saved your ass at least once . . . We saved their Butts TWICE in the last century, not counting Cold War activities. Friends who travel far more than I tell me that of all the European nations, only Holland still remembers & honors what we did for them. Nice people, the Dutch. I'd love to visit, sometime. Lol Just sew a Canadian flag on your backpack before you do.

1- Why on earth would you take a number, not grounded in any form of reality, from one state, and merely multiple it by 50? Aside from presuming NC is perfectly representative of the entire 50 states, it's pretty easy math to divide that state's population into the national figure and see that it represents 1/32 of the country, not 1/50. So this sound byte statistic is already lying by 36%. 2- There's really no ambiguity on the subject - the GOP has been pushing for ID laws, for aggressive voter roll purges. Anything to make it harder. Party insiders have admitted exactly this. 3- the net effects have been made clear, just in the number of falsely purged voters. And that's why arguments about whether or not it should stop people from voting don't matter - the fact is it does stop them. And since the entire argument for these laws has been about the costs of the "single illegal vote" tainting the elections, you can't dismiss it away. 1. Sorry. I thought I explained that. It was for simplicity. I'm pretty sure I even stated there were better ways of getting at a more accurate number. 2. The post I responded to suggested someone wanted to spend millions on a voter ID system, not just laws requiring ID presentation to safeguard legal voters. It also specified that someone was advocating purging legal voters from the system. I asked who was advocating such atrocities. Every database requires purging. Whether that purge is 'aggressive' or not is just an opinion. Moreover, some databases might need an aggressive purge if they've been neglected long enough. But legal voters should never be purged. I don't think anyone is really advocating that. 3. It cuts both ways. One fraudulent vote stands to invalidate my vote. The system should be ssafeguarded. Asking someone to show an ID to ensure they are who they say they are seems perfectly reasonable to me. So implementing a system to address voter fraud in 0.2% of voters so they can vote in a system with a 1% margin of error makes sense? Now, those numbers are made up. However, there is no clear evidence that voter fraud is an issue in even more than 0.1% of votes cast. There is certainly evdidence that the margin of error in the voting system is larger than 0.1%. Since the stated reason doesn't make sense AND it is driven by only one political party, it makes me think there might be an alterior motive.

How do you know this? Do you have any data, or does it just feel right? Wendy P. It is that truthiness you can feel in your belly!!

So how does this logic work? Republicans were able to withstand that brainwashing? Or, they just didn't go to college? Or they are just generally smarter than Liberals? those who think, generally are republican those who feel, generally are democrat So it is already pre-disposed? In that case you don't have to worry about the kids getting brainwashed, their political leaning has already been established before that. Or is college when people decide if they think or feel?

So how does this logic work? Republicans were able to withstand that brainwashing? Or, they just didn't go to college? Or they are just generally smarter than Liberals?

I don't hate the rich. I do think that the growing divide between the very rich and the rest of society will result in significant problems down the road. I do believe a plutocracy is a very dangerous thing. Speaking in favour of policies that I believe will counter the possibility of a plutocracy doesn't mean I hate the rich, doesn't mean I am jealous, doesn't mean I resent them.

It is if they are forced to work for less than they are charged.

It also means that an ever smaller group of extremely wealthy individuals get significantly more power/speech. Those arguing about Democratic or Republican miss the point in my opinion.

He feels he has been forgiven. You feel you are gay. You and Ron can fight over what those feelins mean. However, asking to prove a feeling is a little silly. What's silly is your need to keep calling me gay. Does a receding hairline, white blazer, and ugly sunglasses make you feel like a douchebag? You don't see me calling you that, because I know you can't judge everyone by their avatar. Good to see you now agree with me.