RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:32 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:51 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36390

Maybe Reagan looked so good to the people because he followed Carter. Who up until recent history was the most incompetent president we had in our lifetimes and perhaps in the last 100 years.

No, Nixon was before him. You just hate Carter, with all Dems.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:57 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11565
Location: Sunny South Florida
Speaking of which, #45 might be #45 in the rankings. He's only one year in, but maybe this has not been a hard call. :D

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:01 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17399
No, Nixon was before him. You just hate Carter, with all Dems.


See that is where once again you are wrong. I can say that Carter is one of the greatest americans of the 20th century. But, as a president he was a disaster.

On the other hand you folks on the left can't do the same. You can't say that Reagan was a good man with outstanding leadership abilities. But, as President you disagree with his policies and believe he was bad for the country. Instead you, not unlike many on the right are doing now to President Obama feel the need to demonize him as a person.

So no I don't hate Carter, in fact I look up to Carter as a man. As president he was terrible. What a shame you folks on the left need to demonize close to every politician you disagree with.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:03 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17399
Speaking of which, #45 might be #45 in the rankings. He's only one year in, but maybe this has not been a hard call. :D


No its not. After 100 lets hope he is at 100. I never thought in my lifetime we would have a President worse than Carter. Now we have had two. 12 years out of 20 we are going to be stuck with possibly two of the worse presidents in US history. A country can only absorb so much. If we do not produce another President with the charismatic leadership qualities of Reagan, be they Dem or GOP in 2020 we or as a nation be in trouble.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:09 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36390
The three worst Presidents in modern history are Nixon, GW Bush and Trump. You conservatives sure know how to pick'em.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:18 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17399
The three worst Presidents in modern history are Nixon, GW Bush and Trump. You conservatives sure know how to pick'em.


Nixon was corrupt but as President he was much more effective than Carter. Carter had one major accomplishment and it was huge and I doubt anyone else could have done it. But, on everything else he was an abject failure. Maybe it wasn't his fault, maybe had he served at a different time he might have been great. I doubt it, because he was only a one term governor so I am assuming he did a poor job there. Also, had it not been for Watergate nobody would today would know his name. So going in he was pretty much unqualified for the job.

We would be so much better off had Nixon won in 1960, JFK in 1964 or 68. Just imagine had Nixon won in 1960 JFK and RFK probably would have lived to see old age. Especially RFK as JFK's health was iffy from youth on.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:41 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:39 am
Posts: 2030
I'd take Nixon as President over both Trump and Hillary in the 2016 elections. Was admittedly
nuts but partially the 1960 elections impacted his insecurities. I might take Bush 43 over Trump.

Let's hope the Democrats get control of the House so they can control Trump.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:35 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 8192
Location: miles from nowhere

No its not. After 100 lets hope he is at 100. I never thought in my lifetime we would have a President worse than Carter. Now we have had two. 12 years out of 20 we are going to be stuck with possibly two of the worse presidents in US history. A country can only absorb so much. If we do not produce another President with the charismatic leadership qualities of Reagan, be they Dem or GOP in 2020 we or as a nation be in trouble.

So you prefer charlatans.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus

The new motto of the USA: Unum de multis. Out of one, many.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:43 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:46 am
Posts: 1566

Same thing happened to me and every person i know
Thank you Obama care.

glenn... dont be dumb dude.

_________________
24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence.....I think not!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:02 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:46 am
Posts: 1566
Please explain how Obamacare is to blame or is this another one of our trolling attempts? What will glen do?

1. Runaway from explaining

2. Make something up without a link

3. Provide a link that actually refutes his claim

4. Provide a link to Storm Front[/quote

Prior to the ACA every married couple I know took whichever spouse' insurance was the best for them. After the ACA every married couple I know had to go with policies from their own employer or pay an additional premium much higher than the two policies would cost.

Now in the past GoU has told me that it is because of employer greed and has nothing to do with the ACA. Which is both true and false. While there is nothing specifically in the ACA to cause it. That does not change the fact that it was after the ACA when it happened.

It also shows how any claim that the ACA lowered cost or reduced the amount of cost increase is also false. Because they do not take into account the number of families that went from one provider to two providers. Which caused those families overall costs to rise.


Bold mine.......
I am not saying that you are lying..... but you are an ignorant asshole. 5 of the 15 people in my department exclusively have their health insurance on their spousal insurance policy. 4 others are retired military and they and their family are on Tricare. Not Dish Technologies coverage (Metlife..... was Cigna last year). The others have their family exclusively our insurance...... and only 1 of them are single income. I am on Tricare as is my family. Family is on the company dental.... cause delta dental sucks..... but you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You rarely understand the whole topic. I like you, but .... damn dude. You say one thing...... but I don't work with ANYBODY whose spouse/family has to be on both insurances. Maybe if there is a prime and a secondary.... whatever... you put out a ton of good information..... but you post some really fucking dubious bullshit as well.That shit doesn't even make sense. Never even HEARD of the stupid shit you are talking about. Not saying it doesn't exist.... but if Ari-muthafucking-zona is that much better than YOUR state.... you better wake the fuck up shipmate!!!!!!!!!!!
Must be nice to be on government healthcare. 75 bucks a month. Youngest daughter had to be hospitalized for several days .... bill was $12,620.... basically the stay and some tests. Tricare covered $12,590. So we had to pay 30 dollars. I wish all of you had that type of coverage. I really do. Part of the craziness of long-term military service is that .... when you are old and fucked up..... there are programs for you..... but you have to fuck your life during the time that your life is actually fun.

_________________
24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence.....I think not!


Last edited by kempster on Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:22 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:46 am
Posts: 1566
deleted repeated post.

_________________
24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence.....I think not!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:24 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16086

Nixon was corrupt but as President he was much more effective than Carter. Carter had one major accomplishment and it was huge and I doubt anyone else could have done it. But, on everything else he was an abject failure. Maybe it wasn't his fault, maybe had he served at a different time he might have been great. I doubt it, because he was only a one term governor so I am assuming he did a poor job there. Also, had it not been for Watergate nobody would today would know his name. So going in he was pretty much unqualified for the job.

We would be so much better off had Nixon won in 1960, JFK in 1964 or 68. Just imagine had Nixon won in 1960 JFK and RFK probably would have lived to see old age. Especially RFK as JFK's health was iffy from youth on.


Troll

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:10 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6364

Bold mine.......
I am not saying that you are lying..... but you are an ignorant asshole. 5 of the 15 people in my department exclusively have their health insurance on their spousal insurance policy. 4 others are retired military and they and their family are on Tricare. Not Dish Technologies coverage (Metlife..... was Cigna last year). The others have their family exclusively our insurance...... and only 1 of them are single income. I am on Tricare as is my family. Family is on the company dental.... cause delta dental sucks..... but you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You rarely understand the whole topic. I like you, but .... damn dude. You say one thing...... but I don't work with ANYBODY whose spouse/family has to be on both insurances. Maybe if there is a prime and a secondary.... whatever... you put out a ton of good information..... but you post some really fucking dubious bullshit as well.That shit doesn't even make sense. Never even HEARD of the stupid shit you are talking about. Not saying it doesn't exist.... but if Ari-muthafucking-zona is that much better than YOUR state.... you better wake the fuck up shipmate!!!!!!!!!!!
Must be nice to be on government healthcare. 75 bucks a month. Youngest daughter had to be hospitalized for several days .... bill was $12,620.... basically the stay and some tests. Tricare covered $12,590. So we had to pay 30 dollars. I wish all of you had that type of coverage. I really do. Part of the craziness of long-term military service is that .... when you are old and fucked up..... there are programs for you..... but you have to fuck your life during the time that your life is actually fun.


I am not sure exactly about the timing but IIRC it has been in the last 8 to 10 years. A little background information - My wife works at Fedex which has a nice benefits package for it's employees. Some years ago, Fedex figured out that many of it's employee's spouses, who worked outside the home and who were eligible for benefits with their own employers, elected to have their coverage with Fedex rather that take their employer's benefit package. I was one of them. I could have gotten coverage cheaper from my employer but Fedex had better benefits. So, Fedex raised the rates on spousal coverage to encourage folks like me to move to the benefit package paid for by our own employer. Lots of companies did this. From the companies perspective, why should Fedex pay for coverage you can get from your own employer? I don't think it had anything to do with ACA. This involved employer provided insurance coverages that already met or exceeded ACA requirements.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:34 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 8192
Location: miles from nowhere
The U.S. healthcare system meaning the actual healthcare is excellent. Unfortunately there are gatekeepers whose purpose is to make profit off of providing permission to access the healthcare system. These gatekeepers are not part of the healthcare system rather they are part of the F.I.R.E. sector of the economy.

The question that every person should be asking of their congresscritter is why we let middlemen who have no actual part of the delivery of healthcare dictate anything regarding healthcare.

I do not care that Switzerland utilizes private insurance. Insurance is not providing healthcare payment. It is legalized betting where the house establishes the rules to keep YOU on the wrong side of the bet.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus

The new motto of the USA: Unum de multis. Out of one, many.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:12 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:06 pm
Posts: 12863
Please explain how Obamacare is to blame or is this another one of our trolling attempts? What will glen do?

1. Runaway from explaining

2. Make something up without a link

3. Provide a link that actually refutes his claim

4. Provide a link to Storm Front[/quote

Prior to the ACA every married couple I know took whichever spouse' insurance was the best for them. After the ACA every married couple I know had to go with policies from their own employer or pay an additional premium much higher than the two policies would cost.

Now in the past GoU has told me that it is because of employer greed and has nothing to do with the ACA. Which is both true and false. While there is nothing specifically in the ACA to cause it. That does not change the fact that it was after the ACA when it happened.

It also shows how any claim that the ACA lowered cost or reduced the amount of cost increase is also false. Because they do not take into account the number of families that went from one provider to two providers. Which caused those families overall costs to rise.

Aha! Choice No.2 is the winner, glen has made something up without a link.

_________________
When you vote Left you vote right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:14 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:06 pm
Posts: 12863
glenn... dont be dumb dude.

He can't help it; it's a genetic thing.

_________________
When you vote Left you vote right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:52 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:37 am
Posts: 3611
How Dental Inequality Hurts Americans

Quote:
Lack of dental care through Medicaid not only harms people’s health, but has negative economic implications as well.

Even before any proposed cuts take effect, Medicaid is already lean in one key area: Many state programs lack coverage for dental care.

That can be bad news not only for people’s overall well-being, but also for their ability to find and keep a job.

Not being able to see a dentist is related to a range of health problems. Periodontal disease (gum infection) is associated with an increased risk of cancer and cardiovascular diseases. In part, this reflects how people with oral health problems tend to be less healthy in other ways; diabetes and smoking, for instance, increase the chances of cardiovascular problems and endanger mouth health.

There is also a causal explanation for how oral health issues can lead to or worsen other illnesses. Bacteria originating in oral infections can circulate elsewhere, contributing to heart disease and strokes. A similar phenomenon may be at the root of the finding that pregnant women lacking dental care or teeth cleaning are more likely to experience a preterm delivery. (Medicaid covers care related to almost half of births in the United States.)

“I’ve seen it in my own practice,” said ................

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA3APlQeIAU


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], marindem and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group