Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • No health insurance?
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
No health insurance?
Tweet Topic Started: Jul 27 2013, 06:53 AM (336 Views)
Mr Gray Aug 8 2013, 06:27 AM Post #31
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Aug 1 2013, 11:36 AM
WHICH IS WHAT I'M SAYING. Both ways it is a strike against it.
Your telling me that the obamacare offices couldn't stand up to criticism for providing the very thing that their office exists to provide? Bullshit!
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Aug 8 2013, 07:32 AM Post #32
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 06:27 AM
brumdog44
Aug 1 2013, 11:36 AM
WHICH IS WHAT I'M SAYING. Both ways it is a strike against it.
Your telling me that the obamacare offices couldn't stand up to criticism for providing the very thing that their office exists to provide? Bullshit!
Read what I wrote: I said that it was a strike against Obamacare either way but I would prefer they provide insurance because the point of the legislation was that health benefits were more important than bottom line dollars.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Aug 8 2013, 08:08 AM Post #33
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Aug 8 2013, 07:32 AM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 06:27 AM
brumdog44
Aug 1 2013, 11:36 AM
WHICH IS WHAT I'M SAYING. Both ways it is a strike against it.
Your telling me that the obamacare offices couldn't stand up to criticism for providing the very thing that their office exists to provide? Bullshit!
Read what I wrote: I said that it was a strike against Obamacare either way but I would prefer they provide insurance because the point of the legislation was that health benefits were more important than bottom line dollars.

I disagree though...how could it be considered a "strike against" Obamacare for them to provide what they exist to provide?
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN Aug 8 2013, 09:50 AM Post #34
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 08:08 AM
brumdog44
Aug 8 2013, 07:32 AM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 06:27 AM
brumdog44
Aug 1 2013, 11:36 AM
WHICH IS WHAT I'M SAYING. Both ways it is a strike against it.
Your telling me that the obamacare offices couldn't stand up to criticism for providing the very thing that their office exists to provide? Bullshit!
Read what I wrote: I said that it was a strike against Obamacare either way but I would prefer they provide insurance because the point of the legislation was that health benefits were more important than bottom line dollars.

I disagree though...how could it be considered a "strike against" Obamacare for them to provide what they exist to provide?
Because its still a shitty law....
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Aug 8 2013, 09:54 AM Post #35
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 08:08 AM
brumdog44
Aug 8 2013, 07:32 AM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 06:27 AM
brumdog44
Aug 1 2013, 11:36 AM
WHICH IS WHAT I'M SAYING. Both ways it is a strike against it.
Your telling me that the obamacare offices couldn't stand up to criticism for providing the very thing that their office exists to provide? Bullshit!
Read what I wrote: I said that it was a strike against Obamacare either way but I would prefer they provide insurance because the point of the legislation was that health benefits were more important than bottom line dollars.

I disagree though...how could it be considered a "strike against" Obamacare for them to provide what they exist to provide?
Because, as we have pointed out for three pages now, it would e considered wasteful spending by the call center to provide full time jobs when it increased costs. It's a strike against the Obama because of wasteful spending.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN Aug 8 2013, 09:59 AM Post #36
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
brumdog44
Aug 8 2013, 09:54 AM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 08:08 AM
brumdog44
Aug 8 2013, 07:32 AM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 06:27 AM
brumdog44
Aug 1 2013, 11:36 AM
WHICH IS WHAT I'M SAYING. Both ways it is a strike against it.
Your telling me that the obamacare offices couldn't stand up to criticism for providing the very thing that their office exists to provide? Bullshit!
Read what I wrote: I said that it was a strike against Obamacare either way but I would prefer they provide insurance because the point of the legislation was that health benefits were more important than bottom line dollars.

I disagree though...how could it be considered a "strike against" Obamacare for them to provide what they exist to provide?
Because, as we have pointed out for three pages now, it would e considered wasteful spending by the call center to provide full time jobs when it increased costs. It's a strike against the Obama because of wasteful spending.
What's the difference in 10 full time jobs or 20 part time jobs (and its no 10 jobs :))?

I thought good paying full time employment is what we want?
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Aug 8 2013, 10:07 AM Post #37
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
It is, which is why I have said that I prefer they that they hire full time employees. But let's not pretend that if they ad done that there wouldn't articles about how the center would have saved money but offering part time jobs with no insurance.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN Aug 8 2013, 10:12 AM Post #38
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
brumdog44
Aug 8 2013, 10:07 AM
It is, which is why I have said that I prefer they that they hire full time employees. But let's not pretend that if they ad done that there wouldn't articles about how the center would have saved money but offering part time jobs with no insurance.
So what! If you claim to have such high principles, live by them. If not, then you really have none at all.
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Aug 8 2013, 10:58 AM Post #39
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Aug 8 2013, 09:54 AM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 08:08 AM
brumdog44
Aug 8 2013, 07:32 AM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 06:27 AM
brumdog44
Aug 1 2013, 11:36 AM
WHICH IS WHAT I'M SAYING. Both ways it is a strike against it.
Your telling me that the obamacare offices couldn't stand up to criticism for providing the very thing that their office exists to provide? Bullshit!
Read what I wrote: I said that it was a strike against Obamacare either way but I would prefer they provide insurance because the point of the legislation was that health benefits were more important than bottom line dollars.

I disagree though...how could it be considered a "strike against" Obamacare for them to provide what they exist to provide?
Because, as we have pointed out for three pages now, it would e considered wasteful spending by the call center to provide full time jobs when it increased costs. It's a strike against the Obama because of wasteful spending.
come on brum....wouldn't they have no problem defending that given that the core of their existence is that everyone "deserves" healthcare?
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN Aug 8 2013, 11:04 AM Post #40
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
+1

Using "public outcry" as an excuse at this point is pretty pathetic. They weren't too concerned with optics when the bill passed behind closed doors in the dead of night.
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Aug 8 2013, 01:02 PM Post #41
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
IUCOLTFAN
Aug 8 2013, 10:12 AM
brumdog44
Aug 8 2013, 10:07 AM
It is, which is why I have said that I prefer they that they hire full time employees. But let's not pretend that if they ad done that there wouldn't articles about how the center would have saved money but offering part time jobs with no insurance.
So what! If you claim to have such high principles, live by them. If not, then you really have none at all.
How many times in this thread have I now said they should have hired full time employees?

The point was they would get hammered either way. My preference was they get hammered and live by their principles that healthcare care takes precedent. Not sure how that is in conflict with anything that has been said by anyone.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Aug 8 2013, 01:04 PM Post #42
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 10:58 AM
brumdog44
Aug 8 2013, 09:54 AM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 08:08 AM
brumdog44
Aug 8 2013, 07:32 AM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 06:27 AM
brumdog44
Aug 1 2013, 11:36 AM
WHICH IS WHAT I'M SAYING. Both ways it is a strike against it.
Your telling me that the obamacare offices couldn't stand up to criticism for providing the very thing that their office exists to provide? Bullshit!
Read what I wrote: I said that it was a strike against Obamacare either way but I would prefer they provide insurance because the point of the legislation was that health benefits were more important than bottom line dollars.

I disagree though...how could it be considered a "strike against" Obamacare for them to provide what they exist to provide?
Because, as we have pointed out for three pages now, it would e considered wasteful spending by the call center to provide full time jobs when it increased costs. It's a strike against the Obama because of wasteful spending.
come on brum....wouldn't they have no problem defending that given that the core of their existence is that everyone "deserves" healthcare?
Not when there are people who believe that people don't deserve it
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Aug 8 2013, 02:26 PM Post #43
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Aug 8 2013, 01:02 PM
IUCOLTFAN
Aug 8 2013, 10:12 AM
brumdog44
Aug 8 2013, 10:07 AM
It is, which is why I have said that I prefer they that they hire full time employees. But let's not pretend that if they ad done that there wouldn't articles about how the center would have saved money but offering part time jobs with no insurance.
So what! If you claim to have such high principles, live by them. If not, then you really have none at all.
How many times in this thread have I now said they should have hired full time employees?

The point was they would get hammered either way. My preference was they get hammered and live by their principles that healthcare care takes precedent. Not sure how that is in conflict with anything that has been said by anyone.
I'm not sure in what world they would get "hammered" the same way for providing health insurance vs using a loophole to avoid it, considering that they are the health insurance agency. The 2 aren't even close, nor would the resulting criticism be, so to try to excuse their actions based upon this concept is absurd!
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Aug 8 2013, 02:33 PM Post #44
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,068
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 02:26 PM
so to try to excuse their actions based upon this concept is absurd!
:facepalm:

There is really no point in continuing this dialogue as it's obviously not going anywhere.
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Aug 8 2013, 02:37 PM Post #45
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
dreachon
Aug 8 2013, 02:33 PM
Mr Gray
Aug 8 2013, 02:26 PM
so to try to excuse their actions based upon this concept is absurd!
:facepalm:

There is really no point in continuing this dialogue as it's obviously not going anywhere.
you called it a "lose/lose situation"....which is to make an excuse for the course of action they chose. As I pointed out...that notion is absurd.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:56 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy