Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (14157)	3/31/2012 5:20:36 PM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

<<<<<There was no fine to pay, and there was no federal requirements for broad coverage of conditions and for covering pre-existing conditions driving up the costs of insurance,>>>>> Well ya, but then how are the people with pre-existing conditions ever going to get insured? Oh, ya they don't so the tax payer gets stuck with the bill. And if an employee gets a "condition", well he can just be let go so that the company doesn't get stuck with expensive insurance. There are so many problems with this issue - it boggles the mind. But of all your arguments, the "personal liberty" one is the corker! So you think it is liberty to not have to get insurance and instead stick it to the tax payer? Freaking nuts! Republicans had a chance under Bush and they boned it. If they get another shot will they do better? Not a chance!