New Privacy Policy: Valve may share aggregate and individual information with other parties without restriction.

marks is right about being forced to buy insurance. it's bullshit. that plan is some serious garbage and just served to show obama for who he really is, some guy who is way too out to please people quickly than have teeth and get stuff done.
he should have left it to hilary.

i am not sure we would have gotten anything if he had tried to push through a real universal healthcare bill

again, I am not saying I like it, I am just saying I think it is better than nothing because it can help people who need the help the most such as those with pre-existing conditions, and it has provisions that prevent unjustified rate hikes. It is also supposed to improve protection for consumers against having their legitimate insurance claims denied.

it's like what we already have but with more protections for consumers with the added stipulation that you are required to buy insurance unless you can't afford it

it wasn't even a compromise. it was some crap that was pushed through, which actually penalizes people without fixing the broken insurance industry in the us.
all it did was get brain washed left wingers to support obama even more, priming them to vote for him again even though nothing substantial was achieved.

[maks]

as i said earlier, there are multiple private insurance companies here, but you're guaranteed coverage here without any hassles.

some poorer shittier countries in latin america or africa even pay for foreign nationals medical bills, no questions asked
in canada they don't do that

Canada's private insurance companies don't take the place of the nationalized healthcare system they just fill in the gaps in coverage, what I said is still true you're being forced to buy CanadaCo(tm) insurance whether you want it or not, the only difference between your system and obamacare is we have more choice.

how does it not improve things at all?

You shouldn't respect me, you're a textbook bumper sticker conservative mouthpiece who has no idea what she's talking about, your opinions aren't even yours you're just parroting rush limbaugh's talking points. I have no more in common with you than I do the OWS protestors.

you sure i'm a "textbook bumper sticker conservative"? in fact i am way more libertarian than conservative. i don't listen to limbaugh, either, and i do know what i'm talking about, but i chose to stay out of this discussion.

i basically agreed with 90% of your above arguements. i think that you just don't like the idea that we share similar views on anything.

[maks]

you sure i'm a "textbook bumper sticker conservative"? in fact i am way more libertarian than conservative. i don't listen to limbaugh, either, and i do know what i'm talking about, but i chose to stay out of this discussion.

i basically agreed with 90% of your above arguements. i think that you just don't like the idea that we share similar views on anything.

I call 'em as I see 'em, the fox news crowd loves to make that same exact argument about the establishment clause

Canada's private insurance companies don't take the place of the nationalized healthcare system they just fill in the gaps in coverage, what I said is still true you're being forced to buy CanadaCo(tm) insurance whether you want it or not, the only difference between your system and obamacare is we have more choice.

there is no comparison with a large national plan which guarantees coverage and insurance companies in the us vying for your dollar. the ones in the us will fight to deny your coverage when the time comes. the national plan cannot do that. that's the main thing you're missing.
you've created a straw man argument.

the problem with libertarians arguing to deregulate everything and let corporations speak(spend) as loudly as they want is they only look at the letter of the constitution without taking into account the spirit in which it was written, a spirit that undoubtedly would not have wanted our politicians to be corporate puppets

I call 'em as I see 'em, the fox news crowd loves to make that same exact argument about the establishment clause

they may but i don't watch fox news either. lol

You shouldn't respect me, you're a textbook bumper sticker conservative mouthpiece who has no idea what she's talking about, your opinions aren't even yours you're just parroting rush limbaugh's talking points. I have no more in common with you than I do the OWS protestors.

and her saying she's a polsci major and saying the shit she does makes it even more pathetic

[maks]

there is no comparison with a large national plan which guarantees coverage and insurance companies in the us vying for your dollar. the ones in the us will fight to deny your coverage when the time comes. the national plan cannot do that. that's the main thing you're missing.
you've created a straw man argument.

You're right, the national health absolutely will not, and can not, deny you coverage.

And that's why you have private insurance companies to fill in the gaps for situations where the national healthcare service won't cover you.

Makes total sense.

and her saying she's a polsci major and saying the shit she does makes it even more pathetic

not everyone who studies law is a socialist hipster.

well i'd expect a polsci major to make points that are at least accurate
it doesn't have to be left wing

[maks]

the problem with libertarians arguing to deregulate everything and let corporations speak(spend) as loudly as they want is they only look at the letter of the constitution without taking into account the spirit in which it was written, a spirit that undoubtedly would not have wanted our politicians to be corporate puppets

I think you're wrong, I think this is exactly what they had in mind. The founding fathers were all wealthy land owning businessmen, in fact there's strong evidence that the real reason the marched us into rebellion was so they could reneg on their debts to britian.

[maks]

not everyone who studies law is a socialist hipster.

apparently not everyone who studies law knows anything about our single most important constitutional amendment...

how does it not improve things at all?

m0nde i am curious why you think this
I dont think anyone on the left is saying it's an ideal solution or even a good solution but it's better than having no protections against insurance companies at all isn't it?


and yeah I probably will vote for Obama but only because Mitt Romney doesn't have a shred of integrity in his body. he'd change his gender if it meant getting elected

I'd rather have McCain tbh, I may not agree with a lot of his politics but I respect the fuck out of him when he stands up for what he believes in. Too bad he turned into a typical neocon drone in 2008. if he ran this year without a fucking retard for a running mate as "the maverick" I'd vote for him. Then again Sarah Palin can't be much dumber than Joe Biden, but at least he keeps his gaffes limited to being only domestically embarrassing.

m0nde i am curious why you think this
I dont think anyone on the left is saying it's an ideal solution or even a good solution but it's better than having no protections against insurance companies at all isn't it?

to make the solution that's in place work, the government should have gone after serious insurance reform. they were paid outright to not do that by insurance lobbyists so the plan ended up being a sop to the republicans.

apparently not everyone who studies law knows anything about our single most important constitutional amendment...

lolicwutudidthere

in my defense, i'm pre-law, and history is my strongest point, law 2nd. 2nd

lol, that's even more hilarious

[maks]

lolicwutudidthere

in my defense, i'm pre-law, and history is my strongest point, law 2nd. 2nd

Read the treaty of tripoli, it will explain exactly why jefferson would have opposed putting 10 commandment statues in courtrooms

lol, that's even more hilarious

you know what's hilairous??

me. eating your oreos, bitch!

i've heard ramen say she's a polsci major on facebook or here several times, but i've yet to see her make an accurate statement that logically fits any point that's being discussed
and that is simply dangerous for a prelaw student :(

[timmy]

i dress my dog in a firefighter suit

i was waiting for barryshithead to become fixated on me and start attacking me in other threads
good job, timmy

i've heard ramen say she's a polsci major on facebook or here several times, but i've yet to see her make an accurate statement that logically fits any point that's being discussed
and that is simply dangerous for a prelaw student :(

now if i've been to law school already, then you have my permission to panic.

and maks, yes, article 11 of the treaty of tripoli. it's great, tho i'm not fond of adams, but my boy jefferson betrayed his own ideals once he became president even tho now it's all worked out of course.

[maks]

does australia's national healthcare system cover autism?

i didn't mean to attack barryshithead, i was just very happy to hear chaykins being brought up again

how can you not like john adams, this is a man who understood liberty and the rule of law

he also has given us my personal favorite quote of any president which ronald reagan totally fucked up

how can you not like john adams, this is a man who understood liberty and the rule of law

he also has given us my personal favorite quote of any president which ronald reagan totally fucked up

LMFAO!!! are you fucking SERIOUS?!

two reasons:

xyz affair, and the alien and sedition act.

John Adams protected a fledgling country from being overtaken by French masters and descending into anarchy