Update for Race
Comments
-
-
This is the biggest crock of shit I've ever read. Good Lord in the late 60's and 70's the butt hole was a fancy feast. Who is anybody to think butt fucking is on the upswing. Every couple, except More_cock and his wife, have made woopie in the butt Bob. People are people.
Cavemen and the bitches they drug into the caves were pioneering the buttsex and liking it. The ring sting is nothing new. Why does this new generation think they are new to everything. Get in the back of the fucking line with the bleeding rectum bitch. It's all been done before. Sheesh me and my buddies all put the poundin to the roundin back in the day. Some clean, some poopy, some bloody. But unlike the porns chick's don't choke on the red/brown cocksicle after the act. It's right to the sink for a wet rag and some soap and water. -
There is a whole lot a stupid in this discussion.
Simple math says you can't both cover the same amount of people and give people the option not to be forced to buy insurance. By definition, not forcing people to buy something will reduce the amount of people using it. And long term insurance rates do go down...the only way to get short-term rates to go down as people are not longer forced to buy insurance is to throw more money at the problem (which doesn't fix anything).
Its a stupid argument for the Republicans to get into though...they should just leave Obamacare alone and watch it go up in flames. As it is Obamacare is not sustainable, so comparing anything to someone projected wet dream of it is a exercise of mental masturbation. Cap spending on it (i.e. don't transfer money to the insurance companies)...Obama did most of the rest of killing it with the postponement of the Cadillac tax (2020 now?), hardship rules, etc. Hell...make it easier to get a waver on having to have it and it will really blow up. Give it a year or two pointing at it and the Dems as owning the monstrosity until everyone hates it and then offer up an alternative.
The only thing I can think of why they aren't doing this is that they are worried its going to hurt the overall economy. -
HoustonHusky said:
There is a whole lot a stupid in this discussion.
Simple math says you can't both cover the same amount of people and give people the option not to be forced to buy insurance. By definition, not forcing people to buy something will reduce the amount of people using it. And long term insurance rates do go down...the only way to get short-term rates to go down as people are not longer forced to buy insurance is to throw more money at the problem (which doesn't fix anything).
Its a stupid argument for the Republicans to get into though...they should just leave Obamacare alone and watch it go up in flames. As it is Obamacare is not sustainable, so comparing anything to someone projected wet dream of it is a exercise of mental masturbation. Cap spending on it (i.e. don't transfer money to the insurance companies)...Obama did most of the rest of killing it with the postponement of the Cadillac tax (2020 now?), hardship rules, etc. Hell...make it easier to get a waver on having to have it and it will really blow up. Give it a year or two pointing at it and the Dems as owning the monstrosity until everyone hates it and then offer up an alternative.
The only thing I can think of why they aren't doing this is that they are worried its going to hurt the overall economy.
-
I'm just glad you finally called Trump stupid.HoustonHusky said:There is a whole lot a stupid in this discussion.
Simple math says you can't both cover the same amount of people and give people the option not to be forced to buy insurance. By definition, not forcing people to buy something will reduce the amount of people using it. And long term insurance rates do go down...the only way to get short-term rates to go down as people are not longer forced to buy insurance is to throw more money at the problem (which doesn't fix anything).
Its a stupid argument for the Republicans to get into though...they should just leave Obamacare alone and watch it go up in flames. As it is Obamacare is not sustainable, so comparing anything to someone projected wet dream of it is a exercise of mental masturbation. Cap spending on it (i.e. don't transfer money to the insurance companies)...Obama did most of the rest of killing it with the postponement of the Cadillac tax (2020 now?), hardship rules, etc. Hell...make it easier to get a waver on having to have it and it will really blow up. Give it a year or two pointing at it and the Dems as owning the monstrosity until everyone hates it and then offer up an alternative.
The only thing I can think of why they aren't doing this is that they are worried its going to hurt the overall economy. -
Oh, like 2012-2017?HoustonHusky said:There is a whole lot a stupid in this discussion.
Simple math says you can't both cover the same amount of people and give people the option not to be forced to buy insurance. By definition, not forcing people to buy something will reduce the amount of people using it. And long term insurance rates do go down...the only way to get short-term rates to go down as people are not longer forced to buy insurance is to throw more money at the problem (which doesn't fix anything).
Its a stupid argument for the Republicans to get into though...they should just leave Obamacare alone and watch it go up in flames. As it is Obamacare is not sustainable, so comparing anything to someone projected wet dream of it is a exercise of mental masturbation. Cap spending on it (i.e. don't transfer money to the insurance companies)...Obama did most of the rest of killing it with the postponement of the Cadillac tax (2020 now?), hardship rules, etc. Hell...make it easier to get a waver on having to have it and it will really blow up. Give it a year or two pointing at it and the Dems as owning the monstrosity until everyone hates it and then offer up an alternative.
The only thing I can think of why they aren't doing this is that they are worried its going to hurt the overall economy. -
Conservatives want free market solutions focused on care of patient, not the insurance companies. Democrats like Obama, Ryan, Pelosi, and Schumer are focused on how the Government can control healthcare delivery via taxation and coverage mandates.2001400ex said:I wonder when a republican will stand up for their constituents and say they won't vote for a bill that reduces the number of insured people in their district.
People know the difference. -
I want to hear your thoughts on why you think Obamacare is not sustainable.HoustonHusky said:There is a whole lot a stupid in this discussion.
Simple math says you can't both cover the same amount of people and give people the option not to be forced to buy insurance. By definition, not forcing people to buy something will reduce the amount of people using it. And long term insurance rates do go down...the only way to get short-term rates to go down as people are not longer forced to buy insurance is to throw more money at the problem (which doesn't fix anything).
Its a stupid argument for the Republicans to get into though...they should just leave Obamacare alone and watch it go up in flames. As it is Obamacare is not sustainable, so comparing anything to someone projected wet dream of it is a exercise of mental masturbation. Cap spending on it (i.e. don't transfer money to the insurance companies)...Obama did most of the rest of killing it with the postponement of the Cadillac tax (2020 now?), hardship rules, etc. Hell...make it easier to get a waver on having to have it and it will really blow up. Give it a year or two pointing at it and the Dems as owning the monstrosity until everyone hates it and then offer up an alternative.
The only thing I can think of why they aren't doing this is that they are worried its going to hurt the overall economy. -
simple maff
-
I'm stupid so why don't you drop the equation here.doogie said:simple maff
