Previous 21 - 30 Next
Where was your glee for war with Iran when Reagan fled from Lebonon after the bombing of the Marine's barracks? Or when Bush not only allowed for Iran to build up its nuclear material several fold, but also strengthened Iran's hand strategically by creating a shia puppet state that is Iraq for Iran to control? Spare us the false outrage and bluster. Your lot have killed enough.
in other news: Jesus was born again and made it known that it's unchristian to force a company to cover a child with cancer with insurance - as that's socialism. If the parents cannot provide for their child's heathcare, then let it be in god's hands.
In response to:

Hope for a Cure to ObamaCancer

Arugula76 Wrote: Dec 02, 2013 11:35 PM
simple question: You have health insurance plan, during which you discover that you have a disease that will be expensive to treat, and chronic (think cancer, heart disease, diabetes). Under contract, the insurance pays for your treatment - for the duration of the contract. At the end of the contract year, the company requires that it'll only renew your contract only if your premiums are increased by 100 fold. Your diseases is chronic, and so still requires treatment. What do you do?
it's about time. Public parks are nothing more than socialism. They should all be auctioned off and the funds used for tax breaks. Companies and run the parks and determine the fair market price for their use. I would not be surprised if it were more profitable to sell off a lot of land to mining and forestry companies.
well that just sucks. Does this mean insurance companies cannot deny coverage to pregnant mothers and children with cancer then? bugger. What kind of godless country are we becoming?
It'll be a real shame if Obamacare becomes law. Right now it's simply unprofitable for insurance companies to offer coverage to people with pre-existing conditions such as children with cancer, or mothers who are pregnant. After all, once the treatment is complete, or the child born, it's economically rational for individuals to then stop their coverage. Of course we could decide as a society that the child should die, and the birth should take place in a mexican clinic so as to prevent "moral hazard" and encourage our brave god-fearing citizens to take responsibility for themselves and their families. It's what jesus would of wanted. And most importantly, keeps those profits save.
Much like Paul himself, absolutely no one here from the editor to the posters have any understanding whatsoever as to what this research is trying to accomplish. TH: where ignorance is the rule, not the exception.
yes indeed the boy was brave. He made his choice on religious grounds for himself. And now employers can make the choice not to cover such treatment on behalf of their employees as well if they deem blood transfusions to be immoral. So yes, you'll still be able to get treatment, just as you will be able to get baby blockers, just not with your employer provided heath insurance.
Still sore about that election loss eh?
why on earth would I care what some loony selling overpriced gold to gullible lemmings says?
probably because he's too busy getting ready for his playgirl centerfold pic. Don't pretend you TH'ers haven't already pre-ordered.
Previous 21 - 30 Next