Steve Benson by Steve Benson

Steve Benson

Comments (22) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. old1953

    old1953 said, 3 days ago

    Mainly because Democrats are the worst explainers in existence. Do I benefit from the ACA? Yes, absolutely, I can list four separate ways in which the ACA directly benefited me and my family. To start off, my daughter in college is covered through age 26 under my family plan – which she would not be if the ACA had not passed. The increase in premiums was the lowest in several years, again thanks to that competition thing that Republicans apparently don’t think works in healthcare – which is mandated by the ACA. My older daughter is covered for her pre-existing conditions, and again, thank you ACA. And her son is still getting treatment for a birth defect in his elbow – again, she’s changed jobs, and he’d not have been covered without the ACA.

    Most of you here have similar stories, YES, even you Republicans, even if you won’t admit it. (Lying to yourself isn’t very pretty, you know that? It withers the soul.)

    Democratic politicians, however, simply CANNOT bring themselves to say any of that. They are that afraid of the Republican smear machine. I’m about ready to give it up and start running myself, at least there would be someone in the races who’d point up facts instead of playing to the fantasy island crowd.;

  2. logicalone

    logicalone said, 3 days ago

    Laughable… Thank God most here do not have the same problem as a woman with pre-existing conditions having a child with a defect, still living at home. That’s a pity, but it is nowhere near typical…. Sounds like no man in the picture too. Another taker asking the taken to be more giving?

  3. opednance

    opednance said, 2 days ago

    @logicalone

    You might try a reading comprehension course. There is one daughter living at home and another that has a pre-existing condition with a son with a birth defect.
    -
    Considering how common pre-existing conditions are, it is easy to see how someone with a pre-existing condition could have a son with a birth defect.
    Remember the woman who had coverage denied for her cancer treatments because she didn’t disclose the acne she had as a teenager? There are many examples of those types of “pre-existing” conditions where coverage was denied.
    -
    What about lifetime and annual caps? The boy with the birth defect previously might have had to skip some treatments once the cap was met.
    -
    Since you cannot read correctly but made a snarky “taker” comment based on your false reading, you should apologize, but I’m sure you won’t. Why don’t you change your name to “hatefulone”? It would fit your comments better.

  4. logicalone

    logicalone said, 2 days ago

    Sorry I missed the word older. So it is two takers instead of one. Actually three with the child. I pray for all their health and also for the health of our country.

  5. Hiram Bingham

    Hiram Bingham said, 2 days ago

    Looks like Obama and the government folks over at the CDC have done a masterful job of stopping Ebola in its tracks.

    Thank you, President Obama and Czar Klain for keeping us all safe.

  6. opednance

    opednance said, 2 days ago

    @logicalone

    Hatefulone, how are they takers? If someone has a preexisting condition they should be blocked from insurance and have to pay out of pocket? WHY? If someone is a student, they should have to pay out of pocket BEFORE they can even go out for a job? WHY?
    -
    The true TAKERS in healthcare are pharma companies that get R&D supported by tax dollars and then charge exorbitant amounts for drugs that THEY didn’t pay to develop. Then they do a slightly different formula to extend their patent.
    Also the CEOs who want to make huge salaries and bonuses by collecting fees without paying claims.
    -
    And your false “praying” would not be appreciated. You “religious” people who hate everyone make me laugh.

  7. logicalone

    logicalone said, 2 days ago

    @opednance

    They are takers, no judgement. Lots of people need help, but they are still takers. You are either a contributor or taker. Simple fact.

  8. mikefive

    mikefive said, 2 days ago

    My exhaustive research on the PPACA of five families shows that 20% had a rate reduction, 40% had a rate increase, and 40% found it unaffordable. Using this to determine if this is indicative of the success or failure of the PPACA would be foolish as is using old 1953’s example. They are both only anecdotal and do not show any national achievement of the PPACA.

  9. opednance

    opednance said, 2 days ago

    @logicalone

    REAL TAKERS:
    Romney – pays less than 14% tax rate. Hides money offshore. Was bailed out with $10 million when Bain Capital should have liquidated but gave bonuses instead. Father took food stamps when the family returned to the US.
    -
    Paul Ryan – took Social Security when his father passed away, now wants to eliminate it for others.
    -
    I already mentioned the TAKING done by the pharma companies.
    -
    A student that can be covered by parents’ insurance – NOT A TAKER.
    Someone with a preexisting condition – NOT A TAKER.
    -
    For most people, they give in some ways and take in others. It is all part of being a society.

  10. eugene57

    eugene57 said, 2 days ago

    @logicalone

    again, you are not a logical one or use logic alone. tho you do appear to be quite egotistical.

  11. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, 2 days ago

    This same tired setup reminds me of the multitudes of “he’s playing golf and can’t be bothered” ’toons we saw by the hundreds about a month ago.

    “Please don’t dominate the rap, Jack/ If you’ve got nothin’ new to say.”

  12. logicalone

    logicalone said, 2 days ago

    @opednance

    Anyone that takes in more benefits than they pay in are, by definition, takers.

    as to Romney, obviously you do not understand capital gains or the fact that 14% of 25 million is Millions of tax dollars more than any taker.

    should everyone pay different anounts for services rendered? Should Romney oay $100 for the same cheeseburger you pay a dollar for? Should he pay $1000 to see a movie?

  13. r2varney

    r2varney said, 2 days ago

    Taking financial advantage just because you can does not contribute to a healthy long lasting country. Million dollar golf players.. movie stars.. basketball players..TV talking heads.. eventually cost society.. There is no free lunch.

  14. Zin Rosenblum

    Zin Rosenblum said, 2 days ago

    A new phenomena called the corn candy crawl

  15. opednance

    opednance said, 2 days ago

    @logicalone

    Why should I have to pay a higher tax rate on earned income than Romney pays on his income? They are both income – he wants to pay a lower rate by defining it as something else.
    What about Romney’s $10 million bailout?
    -
    The 14% was the highest tax rate Romney paid – he only released part of one year of tax returns. He didn’t want to reveal his lower tax rates for most years, his offshore accounts or the CRUT “charitable” accounts.
    And Romney had to make adjustments to get up to the 14% rate.
    http://ataxingmatter.blogs.com/tax/2012/10/romneys-use-of-tax-shelters.html

  16. Load the rest of the comments (7).