The Dems Are Whining !!

trust: #5 The condition and resulting obligation of having confidence placed in one.
American Heritage Dictionary

It means trusting one more than the other. Not 100% trust which is impossible for politicians, lawyers, used car sales people and how about insurance sales people, and most service companies today. That lends itself to one's ability to find an experienced and professional person in the above categories and placing your trust for them to accomplish your need. Yes, they are out there. Try Angie''s list and one who has an education and has shown continued success in their profession. And, Rick, you have earned my 100% trust as you are the most knowledgeable person in CA health insurance and med-supps. And you must have a clean record and you are willing to throw open your record by running for insurance commissioner.
 
It means trusting one more than the other. Not 100% trust which is impossible for politicians, lawyers, used car sales people and how about insurance sales people, and most service companies today.

My question is this:

You said your voted for various candidates because they were the best at the time.

You thought Obama was the best choice 2 years ago. Would he still be the best choice knowing what you now know (and we knew 2 years ago) about him?

Rick
 
Absolutely. I get chills when I think of McCain & Palin as possible leaders. Many on this forum agree that the county needed health care reform. Everyone feels there should be income tax reform. We all agree that we cannot continue to dependent on mid-east oil. And yet, it took President Obama only 2 years to to start one of the 3 above. Every president before him talked a good game, as did many members of Congress. But, Obama got it done. Not perfect. Needs plenty of changes. But the process has started.
Also, I do not see a Republican that could beat Obama in 2 years. But, Ron Paul or Huckabee(?) would be great choices. Romney..no way does he beat Obama, unless he has Palin on the ticket.
 
I don't what to hear why Obama is "bad." I want to hear why your front runner, Sarah Palin is "good" and why it is to my advantage to vote for her (as I think she will get the nomination... or control WHO gets it.)

There is no reason to take your bait about why Obama is bad. If you can't see it by now there is no reason to start this discussion.

But, I want to know why you think Sarah Palin is "your front runner?" She's not my choice and don't know why you would personalize this. (Sorry, for a moment I forgot just who you are).

But just as so many voted for Obama because he wasn't George Bush, perhaps if Palin was nominated she would receive the anit-Obama, anti-socialism, anti-corruption, anti-everything that the democraps have destroyed vote. Of course, the republitards are damn near as bad - but only damn near.

Rick
 
Yes, knowing what I know now, I would still vote for Obama. If only because he got us out if Iraq and has set a time line for Afghanistan. And most important, my 2 year old grandson spent his first 6 months of life in ICU, on a monitor, several visits to the emergency room, a trip to a specialist at NYU hospital. Fortunately today he is o.k., but slow in development. Every January 1 my son starts the new year facing health expenses of over $20,000. 3 of the family of 5 are uninsurable if they ever have to change plans. So, yes, I would vote for Obama and his or anyone else's health plan that covered all children 100% and all adults with pre-ex. No one did anything about that need except talk about it. The companies, managed care, insurance, technology etc., Wall Street, golden parachutes, enormous stock options; all making so much money they didn't want to sidetrack the money flow by tackling the gorilla in the room. Talk about it, good! Do something, no way! And at the bottom of the feeding tube are the agents. And who foots the bill? John Q. Yes, I would vote for Obama now as before. Until someone better comes along to walk the walk. And, by the way, Mr. Boehner will become a very good leader of the house after the early rhetoric fades.
 
Yes, knowing what I know now, I would still vote for Obama. If only because he got us out if Iraq and has set a time line for Afghanistan. And most important, my 2 year old grandson spent his first 6 months of life in ICU, on a monitor, several visits to the emergency room, a trip to a specialist at NYU hospital. Fortunately today he is o.k., but slow in development. Every January 1 my son starts the new year facing health expenses of over $20,000. 3 of the family of 5 are uninsurable if they ever have to change plans. So, yes, I would vote for Obama and his or anyone else's health plan that covered all children 100% and all adults with pre-ex. No one did anything about that need except talk about it. The companies, managed care, insurance, technology etc., Wall Street, golden parachutes, enormous stock options; all making so much money they didn't want to sidetrack the money flow by tackling the gorilla in the room. Talk about it, good! Do something, no way! And at the bottom of the feeding tube are the agents. And who foots the bill? John Q. Yes, I would vote for Obama now as before. Until someone better comes along to walk the walk. And, by the way, Mr. Boehner will become a very good leader of the house after the early rhetoric fades.

We are out of Iraq, since when? Since when does health insurance have to cover adults and children with pre-existing conditions? Sure, they have to take children with pre-ex, if they'll even take children. But they still don't have to take adults with pre-ex.

Here is the problem, you are confusing health insurance with access to health care. You want someone else to pay for your grandchild's health care. It is as simple as that. Do you walk into the State Farm office and expect them to offer homeowner's insurance once your home is already on fire? You sell insurance, but you don't quite seem to grasp what insurance really is.
 
We are out of Iraq, since when? Since when does health insurance have to cover adults and children with pre-existing conditions? Sure, they have to take children with pre-ex, if they'll even take children. But they still don't have to take adults with pre-ex.

Here is the problem, you are confusing health insurance with access to health care. You want someone else to pay for your grandchild's health care. It is as simple as that. Do you walk into the State Farm office and expect them to offer homeowner's insurance once your home is already on fire? You sell insurance, but you don't quite seem to grasp what insurance really is.

Well Said Biggun
 
Our country needed/needs HCR. Unfortunately, dems royally screwed it up, even though they had super majorities.
 
Back
Top