How Petty is this little man...?

The_Barmecide said:

I wouldn't have had much trouble. And I'm an American. Albeit one who bothered to pay attention when watching Monty Python in my youth.

Click to expand...

Of course you wouldn't.

And yet another clear as mud example. Seriously, it would probably take all of one more sentence to make that come of as not so incoherent.

Kenny'sID said:

Of course you wouldn't.

Click to expand...

The benefits of an education.

wing2000 said:

...it is disappointing that her efforts to encourage the nation's school children to eat healthier is viewed as a bad thing in some quarters.

Click to expand...

Keep it on a state level. I see no need to be making federal rules or legislation controlling what school kids eat. That should be agreed upon by parents with kids in schools and the school board of that district, in my opinion.

Allandavid said:

What’s the difference? In either case, you are conceding that government has a role in encouraging better nutrition practices for children. And if eating an apple a day is good nutrition for a kid in Alabama, why wouldn’t it be equally beneficial for one in Oregon...?

Click to expand...

Because as a parent in Florida, it is none of my concern what those two states feed their children in school. Never even been to those states. There is no need to restrict a local community on federal guidelines either. Needs can differ from community to community. Yet alone from state to state. Why do we need the govrenment to constantly dictate how we govern our own lives anyways?

Aldebaran said:

Encouraging and giving no choice are two different things, no matter which side of the political spectrum you're on.

Click to expand...

Of course. Given them a choice other than fries and pizza.

Aldebaran said:

Liberals cheering on bureaucrats who determine what people can and cannot eat. Ironic, eh?

Click to expand...

No.

Allandavid said:

And yet, in your last post, you advocated exactly that...!

“Keep it at the state level”, you say. So you seem quite comfortable with government ‘dictating’ your life, but only if it’s a state government...??

Click to expand...

That was a mistake on my part. I was referring to local and community level. However at the most, we should keep it at state level.

Allandavid said:

Be a little honest. You’re supporting Trump in yet another petty decision, based entirely upon an obsession with removing anything with ‘Obama’ attached to it...

Click to expand...

I honestly would like Obama's presidency annulled completely. This is not the first time I admitted that. Worst President in my lifetime to current day. Absolutely anti-american, anti-constitution in every way.

But the truth of the matter at hand is I do not believe in big government. Let them tell their own kids what to eat. It is none of the federal government's business to regulate what food is being served to kids. That is a matter for local/county/state level if at all. If the kids are getting good quality food from kitchens that can pass county health inspections; I do not see the need for feds to be involved.

Aldebaran said:

Yes. It keep insurance rates down. If insurance is required to cover a condition that already exists, then it's no different than requiring an insurance company to give home owners insurance to someone after their house has already burned down; also a "pre-existing condition". Insurance companies then have to raise rates for everyone, causing it to be unaffordable for those with the lowest incomes, and a losing proposition for insurance companies, driving them out of business and decreasing competition between them.

Click to expand...

Driving them out if business?

What exactly do you propose people with pre-existing conditions do?

Aldebaran said:

Yes. It keep insurance rates down.

Click to expand...

Does it, though?

If insurance is required to cover a condition that already exists, then it's no different than requiring an insurance company to give home owners insurance to someone after their house has already burned down; also a "pre-existing condition". Insurance companies then have to raise rates for everyone, causing it to be unaffordable for those with the lowest incomes, and a losing proposition for insurance companies, driving them out of business and decreasing competition between them.

Click to expand...

Insurance companies were not forced to participate in the ACA marketplace, but those that did were required to follow regulations. It was different in that companies were not forced to take a loss under the rules - just as they were required to issue refunds if their profits passed a certain margin of costs versus payouts, they were also guaranteed a profit with the government covering losses incurred by taking on too many expensive (old, sick) patients. Well, until Donald John decided to renege on the payments - the Supreme Court heard the arguments and will decide on it later this year.

ACA Insurers In The Supreme Court: Why Consumers Should Pay Attention

Aldebaran said:

Seek out charity organizations.

Click to expand...

Charity can't and won't be able to cover all those medical bills.

Paying the bill themselves in an option.

Click to expand...

Due to the outrageously expensive price of medical care in this nation, that simply isn't an option for many many conditions.

There's also Medicare and Medicaid.

Click to expand...

Lol so....insurance. The very same thing you just said shouldn't have to cover preexisting conditions.