Medicaid gap

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I took the time to let Zahlanzi stop making a fool of himself, but I wouldn't do the same for you. At least he can and does get off the high horse, and engage in logical and serious conversation. I encourage you to continue being the fool, and displaying it to all.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

as always, you assumed wrong. unlike you, i don't have a problem reaching a consensus with those i dislike.

Originally posted by normbenign
[b]we know perfectly well who you are.

Who are "we", and since you know, who am I?[/b]

normbenign, an ashole.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

unlike you, my world doesn't revolve around devouring everything normbenign says or doesn't say. yes, by imediately jumping to defend the rapist despite clear evidence he is guilty, quack is a rape apologist. if normbenign supports this opinion, yes he is a rape apologist as well.

in the thread you so eagerly quote from (not this one, but staying on topic has never been your strong point, the few that you have) i had two issues with normb that were a problem, neither of which were why i call quaker a rape apologist. i called him, normb, on them and he clarified them. it doesn't mean he is not a rape apologist, it doesn't mean that he was even honest, it meant that the two points of contention between me and him were resolved.

i then let it go. something you are incapable of doing.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

"*If* Normbenign supports this opinion (by Quackquack on rape)..."
'If'? Zahlanzi has turned his blind eye to all Normbenign's posts vehemently supporting

i did not read what normb has ever wrote about the quacker. i often ignore what he replies to you or to others because it is not a discussion i am part of and your exchange of insults with normb is boring.

so right now all i have as proof that normb supports some or all of quack's specific opinions and not quack in general (in order to spite you) is your word. i don't trust your word and i don't trust you. how about you provide proof and i will form an opinion.


until then refrain from posting lies about me (you won't)

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
http://www.seniorcorps.org/medicare/can-medicare-take-my-parents-property-to-cover-care/

Federal law requires each state to try to recover the costs accrued by Medicaid patients. Medicare, however, is viewed as regular health insurance, and thus carries no similar recovery mandate. Therefore, Medicare will not take a person’s property to cover t ...[text shortened]... rty your parent owned be sold upon his or her death to recoup the cost of nursing home care.

Is the government required to recoup the money lost to food stamps? Yeah, I know they aren't food stamps anymore, but you get the idea. Just because they used a credit card now doesn't change the fact the government is giving them money to buy food.

How about rent assistance or assistance to pay utility bills? Does the government come after people for that too?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i was gonna address this, but i remembered who it is i was gonna argue with. so no, thank you

My point is, the left just "reformed" health care.

Is it broke already?

Obviously they don't know what they hell they are doing.

Don't worry though, I did not expect an answer from you.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d3nASKtGas


watch it. or don't.

So I watched your little youtube presentation and it seems that the presenter is trying to blame the GOP for not expanding Medicaid.

In the Obamacare legislation, time and time again people raised the question of whether it was Constitutional or not, as they were subsequently mocked and laughed at by people like you and Dims in Congress. Then when it goes to SCOTUS, SCOTUS deems that the notion of forcing states to expand Medicaid is not Constitutional, so they strike it down.

Are you at all concerned with Obamacare not being Constitutional? Do you even give a damn about the Constitution? More than likely, you simply want Dims to appoint activist judges to reinterpret the Constitution so that it becomes Constitutional. Really you don't care about the Constitution if it means surrendering power to others. For you, the Constitution is only as good as the number of liberal judges on the Supreme Court that interpret it for the entire nation. So in effect, the Constitution is watered down to the opinions of 9 people and what they say it means and those opinions mean nothing to you if you disagree with them.

Now let's assume that all states were forced to expand Obamacare. Right now all is well with the world. The federal government is throwing money at states so they don't much have to worry about the cost of expanding Obamacare.......yet. For you see, these funds will gradually dry up and go away for ever. Then states will be forced to continue to expand it while trying to afford other things. As we all know, states can't print money out their arse like the federal government can. This will cause all state funding to eventually be dedicated to paying for a federal national health care program, rendering their powers to be further dwindled to nothing.

And this is what you want. You want Federalism just to shrivel up and die as one man in the Oval Office decides everything for us. You want tyranny.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

"Zahlanzi has admitted that he refuses to read Normbenign's posts vehemently supporting
Quackquack's opinions on rape"
not quite. i refuse to read ALL of normbenign's posts to find the ones where he SUPPOSEDLY vehemently supports quacks opinions on rape just because you, someone who routinely accuses but never provides proof, said so.

"Quackquack's opinions on rape, which Zahlanzi has condemned as 'rape apologist'."
he had a direct discussion with me so i know what he said. and what he said stinks of rape apologising. as such, i call him a rape apologist based on that. i have proof. i know where it is.

do you know where the proof that normb supports quack's opinion is? perhaps i should ask him this since i can safely say you won't ever produce it.


"Zahlanzi keeps being determined to ignore all the evidence "
what evidence? i am asking for it. you refuse to provide it. you made an accusation, it falls to you to support it. right now, as far as i am concerned and until proven otherwise, there is no proof that normb supports quack's opinions

Originally posted by whodey
So I watched your little youtube presentation and it seems that the presenter is trying to blame the GOP for not expanding Medicaid.

In the Obamacare legislation, time and time again people raised the question of whether it was Constitutional or not, as they were subsequently mocked and laughed at by people like you and Dims in Congress. Then when it goe ...[text shortened]... o shrivel up and die as one man in the Oval Office decides everything for us. You want tyranny.

"So I watched your little youtube presentation and it seems that the presenter is trying to blame the GOP for not expanding Medicaid. "
only some idiots who happen to be GOP

"Are you at all concerned with Obamacare not being Constitutional?"
you are so concerned with the constitution. are you really? or just because the other side proposed it?
was the patriot act constitutional? did you make a fuss about it?

"Really you don't care about the Constitution if it means surrendering power to others."
applies to both the dems and the republican

"The federal government is throwing money at states so they don't much have to worry about the cost of expanding Obamacare"
so what's the problem

".....yet. "
so then you make new, better laws. or make them now. come up with something better than obamacare. something better than the mutant the current plan is because the gop kept refusing it.

"You want Federalism just to shrivel up and die as one man in the Oval Office decides everything for us."
that's paranoia. obama didn't enact ACA by himself. he did it democratically. so how about you take a chill pill.

"You want tyranny."
yes. providing healthcare to people who don't have it is tyranny.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi

"You want tyranny."
yes. providing healthcare to people who don't have it is tyranny.

Forcing people to fund the reckless, careless health decisions of others (like spending too much of the day sitting) at the expense of your own healthcare is clearly most definitely 100% tyranny.