Boaz boy!

*drink*

The holidays are off to a good start!

Thanks Beverly.

Trump is pardoning drug dealers and fraudsters.

Why not pardon a pedophile? Especially one who knows where the dirt is and where the skeletons are hidden.

I expect her to be pardoned any day. But most likely on a day Trumpy needs to interrupt the news cycle with an another good distraction to own the libs, of course.

Easy to Monday morning quarterback it now but the Trans issue was a total loser for the democrats at the time.

Helping oppressed minorities is rarely a winning issue for any party. It apparently takes a long time for Americans to be reasonable and come to terms with these kinds of changes.

Unfortunately the changes like these are not waiting for Americans to catch up to happen. If you think things will remain the same forever then you just aren't paying attention. Changes are coming faster than ever.

Democrats were very brave to even try and take it on. And yes they paid for it. In the short term.

And now we know what kind of country America is today.

Individually we can be wonderful people but as a nation we are not a very nice people.

Sadly.

We live in Dark Times.

"And both sides are ravaged by it."

Both sides!

*Drink*

"Will this mean the dispensary will now be able to accept Credit Cards?"

Excellent question. The answer should be yes. But we'll see.

"Is cannibus perfectly OK, imo, no."

Then you are doing it wrong.

No drug is "perfectly ok".. a person can die from a teaspoon of water.

Even drugs that can literally save lives can have negative side effects.

(See any drug commercial/ad for details.)

Cannabis works perfectly fine for me.

And no we are not discussing my personal medical conditions or why I use it. Suffice it to say it works for me.

If you had prior credible coverage, you weren't going to be impacted by pre-existing exclusions.
#198 | Posted by eberly

That's BS.

I don't care about your personal anecdotes that cannot be verified.

If life was perfect you could keep your coverage. If not you were screwed. If you lost you job you lost your insurance. Of course there was Cobra. Which you cannot afford long without a job. Lose your job with pre-existing conditions was a death sentence for many.

Life is rarely perfect. Neither was the ACA. We all know that. It was a bandaid that a future Congress was supposed to make even better.

And we all see how that worked out for America.

If the ACA had been repealed the insurance companies would go right back to their scummy ways.

Before the Affordable Care Act (ACA), millions of Americans lost or couldn't get insurance due to pre-existing conditions; studies estimated around 27% (or 54 million) of adults under 65 had conditions like asthma, diabetes, or high blood pressure that led insurers to deny coverage, charge much higher premiums, or exclude coverage for those specific issues, creating major gaps in access, especially when changing jobs or life circumstances.
How it worked before the ACA:

Denial of Coverage: Insurers could outright refuse to sell you a policy.

Higher Premiums (Rating Up): You'd pay significantly more for the same coverage as a healthy person.

Exclusions: A specific health problem would be listed as "excluded," meaning no benefits for that condition.

Benefit Limits: Coverage could be limited for certain treatments or conditions.

Retroactive Cancellation: Policies could even be canceled after you got sick, leaving you with huge bills.

What counted as "declinable"?

Common conditions like asthma, diabetes, sleep apnea, anxiety, depression, and even acne or past injuries.

Even minor issues could trigger denial or higher costs.

There were many many ways the insurance companies could screw you. Acting like none of this happened and very few were affected is just ignorant. Apparently ~54 million Americans were affected. And we didn't even mention the effects of Medicare expansion under the ACA.

You are a fool if you don't think the ACA fundamentally stopped insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, a major shift from past practices, ensuring guaranteed issue and preventing higher premiums or coverage refusal due to health status, while also adding protections like essential health benefits and out-of-pocket limits for most plans.

Did you know this Mr Insurance Man?

BEFORE OBAMACARE

Pregnancy was commonly treated as a pre-existing condition, allowing insurers to deny coverage, charge much higher premiums, or exclude maternity care for applicants who were pregnant or had a history of pregnancy.

The ACA changed this by prohibiting insurers from denying coverage or charging more for pre-existing conditions, making maternity care an essential benefit that must be covered in most plans sold today.

Also .. Before the ACA if you lost your job for any reason and had to change plans with a pre-existing condition you were screwed.

Don't tell me you didn't know this.

are you saying there were no protections in place for folks with pre existing conditions prior to ACA?

#189 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Are you really saying you didn't know that "insurance" man?

Before the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, health insurance companies could legally deny coverage, charge much higher premiums, or exclude benefits for people with pre-existing conditions like asthma, diabetes, cancer, or even pregnancy, leaving many uninsured or underinsured. Insurers used medical underwriting to review past conditions, leading to outright rejection or unaffordable plans for millions, though the ACA made it illegal to do so in marketplace plans, ensuring coverage for these conditions.

BEFORE OBAMACARE

This is obviously news to you but healthcare laws and statutes existed years and years prior to ACA.

Blah blah Blah ...

Pre existing conditions ... etc etc etc.

I guess you just aren't aware or just don't care about the many NEW consumer protections the ACA provided to everyone in America.

YOU got those protections because Obama cared.

You're welcome.

"Actually it's YOUR healthcare system."

It's the only health system available to those in America who are not independently wealthy.

And the protections you also enjoy were only made available to you by the Democratic Party which had to expend nearly all of its political capital to acquire even that.

Republicans have offered you less than nothing. As they have tried desperately to take even what you have from you.

So.

YOU are welcome.

So...they were allowed to add 160 amendments and in exchange, the democrats received ZERO votes and a commitment to kill the entire bill over the next 7 years.

#170 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Yep.

That's your party. You built that.

Gratz.

"The final ACA legislation included several concepts that were historically rooted in conservative thinking and had appeared in earlier Republican proposals, such as the individual mandate"

Wasn't the "individual mandate" later repealed. By Republicans?

Interesting today the least.

Republicans effectively repealed the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) individual mandate penalty as part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act due to philosophical opposition to government overreach, a desire to provide tax relief, and claims that the mandate was ineffective and harmed low-income Americans.

So ... They repealed the amendment that they asked to be included in a bill that they knew they'd never vote for.

You do the math.

You're saying the republicans stopped the democrats from even coming up with something better?

If that wasn't obvious to you then you do live in a cave.

They could not allow the Obama Administration to be successful in ANYTHING.

Remember ?

They even came out and said as much.

They were fully convinced that even if Obama kept winning policy battles, they could win the broader messaging war simply by remaining unified and fighting him on everything.

It's pretty much been their "strategery" ever since.

A bad plan so full of corruption even the Republicans refused to back it.

#151 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

And now for the rest of the story.

Republicans were allowed to amend the bill but were pressured to not to vote for the bill even if they supported it. Did they add corrupt amendments to poison the bill? It sure looks like it now eh?

Bipartisan Meetings and Hearings:

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, chaired by the late Senator Ted Kennedy (and later Senator Chris Dodd), held 14 bipartisan round-table meetings and 13 public hearings. Democrats on this committee adopted around 160 Republican amendments into the bill. The Senate Finance Committee also held 17 bipartisan sessions with Republican senators.

Republican Ideas Included:

The final ACA legislation included several concepts that were historically rooted in conservative thinking and had appeared in earlier Republican proposals, such as the individual mandate (requiring all Americans to buy health insurance) and the use of state-based exchanges.

Official Leadership Stance:

Despite some bipartisan engagement at the committee level, Republican leadership in both the House and Senate generally discouraged cooperation, making it clear to their members that they would oppose the Democratic-led effort to create the healthcare law. Key Republican negotiators were reportedly warned that their future in the party would be in jeopardy if they supported the bill.

Why couldn't Democrats come up with something better than a poorly implemented plan loosely based on a crony capitalist think tank's wet dream?

Republicans.

Well when employees are told not to intervene, and the police show up 30minutes later, what did America expect?

#5 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

Yeah America! You gettin just what you deserve. A Chinese dystopian Orwellian surveillance system. Next up a Chinese social credit scoring system!

Of course Commie Spyboy would be ok with this. He has already been properly indoctrinated.

which is pretty much their only saving grace.
#3 | POSTED BY CORKY

If they were too competent at their evil machinations we'd already be in civil war territory.

So it's actually America's saving grace, too. For the moment.

They should definitely drag him into court.

Re 33

taking fast = talking fast

You think those companies will win a lawsuit in court?

#29 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Depends.

What's the statute of limitations ?

Trumpy won't be in power forever. He won't be able to keep his tiny thumb on the scales of justice for much longer.

An outburst aimed at trying to convince you that he is strong and wonderful - in a desperate hope that you'll give him the validation he needs.

And an even more desperate hope that you'll see him as so strong that he is worth defending no matter the cost, when finally his crimes and failings catch up with him.

This was what Trump sounds like when he is scared.

Worth repeating.

It's so difficult to watch Trumpy ramble incoherently and lie every other sentence.

The five minutes I was able to stand showed me a man who was taking fast and babbling nonsense and running scared.

Sorry gas 2.50 a gallon.

#17 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Stolen gas is generally cheaper.

So.. Steal baby steal!

Another Cosmic trap set and baited by Trumpy.

As if the next US President won't undo his hateful narcissist crap.