Seriously, wtf?
DevKit wrote:
I had to stop reading this crap right here. I am sorry but I have never seen a military vet with 3 degrees type in all caps like this before. I have a lot of family in the military and they seem quite disciplined, you do not. You would not have gotten past the 6th grade if you had to write an essay and just make a fake statement over and over again like 'ITS SAVING LIVES" with no hard evidence. That is clearly the crux of your argument and it is completely wrong. And no, ending a statement with "IN REAL LIFE" is not a form of persuasion although it certainly is a form of something. I have seen lots of reports about cancer patients losing their coverage while being treated because of the new law. So please spare me the BS
1. I have seen plenty of people with multiple degrees that like to type in caps way more than they probably should. I used to be one. Although I have 4 degrees now, so maybe #4 is what made the difference.
2. Making assumptions on one's discipline based on limited information is not a course I would recommend.
3. Insulting someone's intelligence based on the grammar, punctuation, and writing style may be tolerable, but this borders on downright abuse.
4. It likely is saving lives, but since a big portion of that is access to screenings and preventive care, it will take some time before accurate and comprehensive statistics can be generated, so concrete claims from either side are still premature. Current indicators based on historic utilization of preventive care is an
indicator that the ACA will probably save lives, but no guarantees.
5. Um, where do you find all these reports of cancer patients losing coverage? I have found a few, but most of the ones I've tracked down were people who hate the ACA so much, they don't bother looking for plans that would meet their needs. If you could provide some links, I would be much obliged.
DevKit wrote:
At my current day job it would be one months worth of pay in a 12 month year. Cant foot it sorry and not planning
If that is the case, you would definitely qualify for subsidies. But have fun complaining about the tax penalties that are more than your net costs for insurance likely would have been (even if you never use it).
DevKit wrote:
sonofghandi wrote:
DevKit wrote:
Emotional reasoning lacks the intellectual fortitude necessary to solve complex socioeconomic problems.
By the vitriolic manner in which you write, I would say these words are something you should examine as they apply to yourself.
And for what reason? I am not attempting to mingle non since with the illusion of supposed facts in the hope that some one will mistake my BS for cold hard facts as aghogday is.
So you blast someone for not providing fact, then openly admit that you do not use fact but hope it will be mistaken for truth? I may be misunderstanding your words.
_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche
01 Apr 2014, 8:56 am
