|
Obama forcing wounded soldiers to pay for their own treatment (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| how much are they being charged? an arm and a leg? |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
how much are they being charged? an arm and a leg? |
HMO's are a real minefield. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
that article didn't exand upon what the777sss wrote. what is the definition of 'service related injury?' i wouldn't support trying to transfer the cost of combat injury, but it appears very obvious to me that the everyone is using the general phrase 'service related injury' because it serves the purpose of opponents to outrage the american public. Obviously i don't know for sure, but I can't foresee combat injuries being included in the proposal. |
Source with further expansion on the criteria (blow me Lebez) ----> http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?...4&article=61312 |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
(blow me Lebez) |
Gay, bro. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Gay, bro. |
 |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| OMG THOSE SHOES!...shoes |
|
|
| OurManFlint |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Edit: ... and in the first 100 days, we've lost 18% of our wealth as a country in household net worth. We never heard about how, during Bush's 8 years, American's household net worth increased $22 Trillion.
|
Didn't Obama enter into office "after" the economy took a nosedive. Our wealth as a country was already on its way down.
Also, that increase it Net worth during Bush's term was sustained, right?:rolleyes: |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| I just noticed that the thread title is misleading and mostly inaccurate. Apparently the plan is to force private insurance carriers to pay for the cost. To the entent the private carriers are permitted to pass forward the cost directly to the injured soldier the title would be correct. However, if the insurers are required to pool the veterans with non-military people, then the veteran would not be paying the entire cost (although obviously they would have higher premiums unless restricted by some law - which is entirely possible). |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by OurManFlint
Didn't Obama enter into office "after" the economy took a nosedive. Our wealth as a country was already on its way down.
Also, that increase it Net worth during Bush's term was sustained, right?:rolleyes: |
Not to mention that it isn't a fair comparison until after Obama's presidency has ended. If in four years the Dow goes up to 11,000, is it then fair to say that Obama presided over a 35% expansion of the market?
A more accurate comparison would perhaps be to take the last 100 days of Bush's presidency and compare that with the first 100 days of Obama's (which is not yet over) since those are linearly connected... I have a feeling the conservatives would be somewhat quieter about the results of that sort of comparison though. |
|
|
| Clovis |
I don't understand the reasoning behind this move by the Obama team.
First decision of his that really makes no sense to me and is pretty upsetting. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
I think he is more dangerous... because he is instituting policies that affect millions of people. He has no real world experience doing anything except campaigning and reading off a telepromoter. He is governing based on social justice and an ever expanding government, not economic well being.
Edit: ... and in the first 100 days, we've lost 18% of our wealth as a country in household net worth. We never heard about how, during Bush's 8 years, American's household net worth increased $22 Trillion.
Article here---> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123...369308675.html#
Any which way you slice it, Americans in general, not just the rich, have gotten much more prosperous since 1980. meanwhile, Obama tells us the tired ways of the past need to go. If this is the new way then, I'm pretty pessimistic right now. |
Do you have any idea whose interests are represented by the wall street journal?
Hint: they make a lot of money |
|
|
|
|
