Quote Originally Posted by Sasquatch View Post
... who don't believe in man-made global warming. I'm not correcting you because I'm sure that's what you're trying to say, I'm correcting you because you're wrong.

Because the idea of man-made global climate change is nothing but another way to attack capitalism, and yes, the ideas of individual responsibility, non-forced charity, supporting yourself without demanding support from others, etc. do coincide quite nicely with Christianity.
You're gonna need to quote some scripture. Where in Matthew 25 does Jesus give the caveat of "charity" not being "forced"?

If that is true, and there's no more to the story (like if she knew of a preexisting condition and falsified an application), then it would be illegal, and the insurance will not only be made to fulfill their contractual obligation and provide her with health insurance, but also legally punished and forced to pay fines, either to the government through a criminal trial or to the woman through a civil trial. But I'd like to see a credible cite for that.
(Well, now its illegal, or will be soon, because of Obama's law.)

Everyone thinks they have good health insurance until they get sick and they find out they dont. Insurance companies have changed the definition of pre-existing condition to almost anything. Prior to Obama's law, if you had an ear infection as a kid they could rescind your coverage when you go to collect your claim for cancer treatment if you didnt tell them about the ear infection. That is, didnt tell them about an inconsequential and unrelated minor illness or injury decades in the past. Its hardly falsifying, since the vast majority of time peoples' coverage was rescinded for things that no one who was sober could call a condition. AIDS is a pre-existing condition, not an ear infection

And the courts seem to agree that this policy over-reaches what was meant be pre-existing condition. But for many years this was common

First: "Health insurance" and "healthcare" are not synonymous, they are two entirely different things.
Im glad you figured that out. Ill take credit for you realizing this, since you clearly didnt know the difference when you wrote your last post, comparing the NHS to Obamacare.

But to answer your questions, neither party has attempted to expand legal health insurance -- one specific party has attempted to force an unConstitutional health insurance plan on the populace, forcing taxpayers to fund the bill for health insurance for those who have chosen to not pay for it themselves, then making them go through hoops for other people to decide whether certain medical procedures or treatment methods were "worth it". And neither party has "consistently cut healthcare for children and the elderly". Unless you're talking about making health insurance more expensive by refusing to address tort and continually allowing false malpractice cases to cost doctors and hospitals money -- but I don't think you'd care to hear which party supports the "right" to sue anybody, for any amount of money, for any reason.
Too many words, too much loaded language.

Summary: You admit Obama expanded insurance, but you think he did so illegally.

Which is a fair point.

See, Im not unresonable. No need for you to get all flustered.

Your question should be, "which party has attempted to block or slow extreme pollution standards, which cost American jobs?" American companies already have to jump through hoops and go to extremes to obey current pollution standards, which costs them productivity and money that could (and otherwise would) be used to expand their company.
Not really. I use to work for Dow Chemical which is the largest chemical company in the world, and is a leader in sustainability. The EPA isnt perfect, and sometimes Dow has actually been punished for being so eco-friendly. I remember when the EPA had a list of substances all companies need to reduce emissions of a certain percent. Well, Dow had already done all the cheap stuff to lower emissions so short of rebuilding 50 year old buildings there wasnt much they could do.

But of course thats a special case. Most companies just drag their feet. It doesnt cost much to dispose of substances safer or to buy some cleaner equipment. And remember that money is going somewhere. When a company buys cleaner equipment they are putting money into the economy. Its the trickle down theory you guys love so much.

Which party has continually pushed for indivuals to be responsible for themselves and work to put themselves through college, instead of letting them demand taxpayer money that will not be repaid, just so they can get a mediocre education in a field with no demand?

"Which (opposing) party has continually pushed for money to be taken out of the hands of those who have earned it, to be redistributed to those who wish for further education but weren't good enough to get a scholarship and aren't responsible enough to work their way through college, like millions upon millions of other people have without demanding federal funds?"
You have unrealistic expectations on how to pay for college.

How did you pay for college?

And you really need to stop making your ignorance so obvious -- 200 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?
lol

What, did every rich person steal their money?
No, only the investment bankers. And thats mainly who I was talking about. You do know the average salary at Goldman Sachs right?

Hahahahah, right. Because when people get paid, they take whatever's left over and buy entire boxes of lottery tickets, right? Do you honestly believe that a person who owns a company won't use the money the company makes to expand the company? No, no, nevermind -- my sides already hurt from reading your comments, I'm not sure I want to hear any more of your hairbrained ideas.
I was obviously talking about individuals.

Note to self: You have no idea what a derivative is.
What type of insurance are you referring to?
medicaid waiver
You made the claim, you prove it. That's how this works, here. Or, wait, wait, let me try: There's a huge conspiracy to make people believe that the sky is blue, when really, it's green. Prove me wrong.
Well thats easy. No programs like those exist, and democrats would support it if they were ever proposed by republicans.

Obamacare provides a federal health insurance, that is the mandate. If somebody doesn't have private insurance, they are forced to have federal insurance. Slowly but surely, Democrats will continue to make private health insurance more and more expensive until enough people choose rely on the already-tax-funded, and thus cheaper, federal option. Eventually, enough of the population will be on federal health insurance that another socialist will mandate it for everybody.
What?

I know it was 1200 pages long or whatever but you need to go over to Kaiser's website and at least read a summary of the law, because you are not even close to correct. Theres no "federal" option, unless you mean Medicaid, which is state run (ie not Federal), and free.

No wonder you hate the law, you have no idea what it does!

So why do you claim that the Republican party has a stranglehold on "evangelicals"?
a quick google search says 78% vote republican. that was for midterm election, maybe a bit different in general

By the way, my two favorite politicians are Democrats.
Cool story bro