Gingrich at Republican Fundraiser Says Obama’s ‘Already Failed’

Anyone who believed in his crap bought a bucket of lies.

+1

I don't think I'm going to take the bait on this one.

 

Gingrich has gained credibility since leaving office. The low point of his credibility was around the time he left office and a year or two thereafter. But he does not have the support within the party for a credible run for the Presidency. He is well liked and respected, but his time for high office has come and gone and I think most people realize that.

 

i don't see why that's not true??? I'm totally confused now, but whatever. What i meant was if you are healthy or unhealthy it probably doesn't affect your cost much if you're in a big enough group.

I'm sure we do agree.

 

Your still missing the point, I know people who had insurance and still was refused treatment on life threatening conditions, because the insurance company called it a pre-exisiting condition. And it does have something to do with it as well.

 

Yes.

Health care is a clusterf*ck. I don't believe McCain would have significantly changed that. We have a mortal wound and band-aids aren't going to fix it.

Neither was McCain. We will see how Obama does with foreign policy; I'm willing to bet he'll do much better than itchy twitchy finger McCain. Obama appeals to the hearts and minds of foreign citizens much better than McCain would have. Of course they want to see actions rather than words, but nice words do have a kind of calming effect. Obama's words will mean little to foreign leaders, but if they effect those leaders' people, their people will affect them. To some degree, you see this in Iran.

Like I said, I'm willing to give Obama time. The alternative wasn't much better as far as domestic spending. I want real change across the board and neither of the two major parties offered that.

 

Gobbledygook. An insurance company may not call a condition pre-existing unless there was a diagnosis made prior to the person having coverage or the person's coverage lapsed for a period of time and then they tried to obtain new coverage.

People willingly drop insurance and are stuck with the bills later on all of the time. My sister in law has psoriatic arthritis. So does my FIL.

My in-laws dropped coverage for about 2 years back in 1991 or thereabouts. When they got it again, her psoriatic arthritis isn't covered because their insurance lapsed, not because her dad has it.


I'm in the health care field, slick. You better quit while you are far behind. :thumb:

 

So there has to be a lapse in coverage for them to deem something preexisiting?
Is their a time limit on how long ago the lapse occured?
I still think thats unfair, unless doctors can prove that the illness occured during the period with no insurance.
I can admit when Im proved wrong about something. You should try it sometimes.:hihi:

 

You can not believe it all you want, but speaking as a person who has worked for a private payor as well as from the clinical side, the interstate competition for health insurance would significantly reduce costs. With Louisiana in particular, our DOI is quite corrupt and would most likely cease to exist in its current form under the McCain plan.

With health care spending as the top dollar outlay, you would have to not believe him in order to believe that.

This is a complete joke.

Nobody should give two sh1ts about this.

 

Yes, or no coverage.

Yes. I think it's 90 days in the state of Louisiana. but don't quote me on that.

You may be able to appeal if the following are true:

1) the initial diagnosis was made during a period in which you had insurance

2) you are able to prove that you continued to have the diagnosis well treated and under control during the period of time in which you did not have insurance

Again, I liken it to having a tree fall on your car and then buying comprehensive and expecting it to get covered.

Whenever you prove me wrong about something, I'll admit it.

 

It isn't a matter of someone's opinion affecting truth, it is a matter of respecting someone's opinion when you aren't quite sure what the truth is.

1. To some extent he is able to disarm hatred.
2. Of course it matters that he can have a positive affect on the opinion of foreigners. Thoughts and feelings have a way of becoming realized.
3. Hatred is a human flaw, but it is small minded to consider everyone who hates America an idiot.

There will always be those who hate America for irrational reasons, for ignorant reasons, or for things we have done in the past. But by providing less fodder for extremist recruiters, their job becomes harder and our job becomes easier.

How America is perceived abroad does matter, as it will affect foreign relations. It will affect our ability to ally ourselves with others. It will reduce the compassion others have for us when we are in need. Those are all small things, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them. I know your world view doesn't mesh with that, but I think you are in the minority. Most people, at home and abroad, appreciate respect and compassionate and dignified action.

You are a minority so while your ideas about life and the world might seem right on for you, most people don't share your nihilistic worldview.

In the end, there is a lot to be said for might, but it is most powerful when paired with diplomacy.