Why Is Mr Obama In The President's Office?

[revanneosl]

But maybe that went over your pretty little head, didn't it, little one?

When your argument is weak, patronize the women. Classic.

 

[MrLuther]

When your argument is weak, patronize the women. Classic.

LOL, you have some nerve getting all puffed up about being "patronized", when you did the exact same thing in the post I responded to. What, you can give, but you can't take what you hand out? What are you, 12?

This has nothing to do with what you have or don't have between your legs. It has to do with your attitude, and how you're apparently of the opinion that you can speak of and to others however you please, but the second you get a taste of your own medicine, you start wailing.

 

[David Brider]

I'm sure that you, being an intelligent person knows exactly what that phrase means.

Alright, I'll rephrase that, then. I can understand what it would mean to write with a liberal slant - same as I can understand what it would mean to write with a conservative slant, or with a <any other political viewpoint> slant. Op ed writers, political blog writers, loads of people do that all the time.

I just can't fathom why it would be a requirement to write a university assignment with any particular political slant. Maybe I'm just being horribly oldfashioned, but to me the point of education is to learn and understand facts. Even if one is learning about politics as a subject, one is not being inculcated with any particular political point of view, but rather being taught about politics across the spectrum. I just can't really understand how a lecturer/tutor/person-marking-the-paper can legitimately expect students to write a paper about a subject that has absolutely no relationship with liberal politics, or any other type of politics, with any kind of political slant.

 

[Lollerskates]

Alright, I'll rephrase that, then. I can understand what it would mean to write with a liberal slant - same as I can understand what it would mean to write with a conservative slant, or with a <any other political viewpoint> slant. Op ed writers, political blog writers, loads of people do that all the time.

I just can't fathom why it would be a requirement to write a university assignment with any particular political slant. Maybe I'm just being horribly oldfashioned, but to me the point of education is to learn and understand facts. Even if one is learning about politics as a subject, one is not being inculcated with any particular political point of view, but rather being taught about politics across the spectrum. I just can't really understand how a lecturer/tutor/person-marking-the-paper can legitimately expect students to write a paper about a subject that has absolutely no relationship with liberal politics, or any other type of politics, with any kind of political slant.

My thesis was on the magnetic fluctuations, cooper pairing trends, and ideal p-n junctions in relation to the integer and fractional quantum Hall effect. My thesis advisor was a mathematician and physicist. He wanted me to do a thesis on Bose-Einstein condensates, because that was closer to his field, and he didn't know that much about my topic. This is after I had already done the research/labs at another university the year before. I kept my topic and got sweepingly brilliant reviews on the content from my other advisers, and was all but guaranteed summa cum laude thesis honors. but I was told I received no honors because my thesis was "late." Later, I find out a colleague of mine in the same program - with the same due date - turned his thesis in a week later than me and got magna cum laude honors. I'm not disputing content of scholarly work; I am highlighting how politics play a very large part in academia. The incident described is like petting kittens compared to what I have seen in academia. Still, it should show that all disciplines are slanted, and want students more aligned to the instructor - rather than being intellectually independent (sometimes called going rogue.)

 

[Serendipity..]

What does obama have to do with christianity? He is the leader of a secular country!

 

[miamited]

miamited; Ted,
I guess I need to eat some crow if what you posted total and factual; which seems to be the truth.
I have, however two sons (aproaching 50 yrs old) who are in the Plumbing , HVAC trades, who seem to have been hurt rather severely by Mister O, (and previously by Mr B and so many others' policies) when they consecutively add edicts to the ... miriad legalities they are forced to follow in order to do business.
I do believe Mr O; with his afordable health care act; hurt them the most.
I agree America should be liscensed(I miss my spellcheck) for the trades in order tokeep us safe from lousy work.
Ted, I really try not to tell untruths. I also try to vote for legislators and other policy makers when it comes to abortion, homosexual marriage, breaking our economy etc.; I find that I must make that coice betrwwn the least evil to vote.

Hi Richard,

Let me also be forthcoming with you. I don't usually get too deeply imbedded in such debates over political issues and politicians themselves, but early on in my discussions with you I felt, or was led, to understand that you were probably a reasonable man who had just gotten caught up in listening to a lot of the 'conspiracy' theories that always, certainly today, seem to swirl around political issues and politicians.

One rule that I have adopted in my latter years is to always check facts that I latch onto and choose to accept as the truth. This is supported by my belief about myself that I am a reasonable man who has some reasonable understanding of human nature. So, sometimes when I'm reading an article that claims to lay out 'facts' about something, but my mind says, "Why that's just outrageous!" I choose to then stop and check the facts. Sure, I do read facts all day and accept most at face value, but the ones that cause my mind to go "Wow", I generally will check.

As I said in one my previous posts to you, I have witnessed a legislative body in action. As a teen I spent several days as a page on the floor of the West Virginia legislature. But no one can deny that the Affordable Healthcare Act has been a bone of contention among legislators and when issues become deeply loved or hated like this there is even more reason for the born again child of God to be very careful in checking facts. Claims swirl about like a cauldron on both sides and both sides are grabbing at absolutely anything they can use to bolster their position.

However, knowing what little I know about how a legislative body works, when you posted the claim that the congress only had one day to read and discuss the bill before it was passed, well that was a 'wow' statement to me. My mind said that just can't possibly be true and I did the research. Over 500 people whose job it is to establish the law and rule of our nation could not possibly have passed a piece of legislation with the impact that this bill has had and will have, without being fairly well understood, discussed, debated and often having parts rewritten in committee. It just isn't possible, Richard. So, I did the research and, yes, it still just isn't possible.

Now, here's what I would encourage in your thinking. When you come across an article that makes such a claim as this and you find that that claim cannot possibly be true, you need to understand in your own mind a couple of things.

First: Everything else that may be claimed in this article, or from others who would believe the supporting claim of this article, should immediately be suspect as to it's truth. A person's "Umm, let me check these things," meter should be well pegged in the red.

Second: The one who reads such a bogus claim then needs to understand that the author of this material has an agenda and that agenda is not necessarily based on facts.

I'm sorry that your sons may have suffered some loss due to changing policies, but I'd be very, very careful (Yes, I know it's family and you want to be loving and supportive) in accepting the truth there also. Look around you. There are businesses everywhere that keep plugging along. Sure, when new laws are passed that affect their business then they have to make changes, but understand that so does every other similar business. It isn't like a law was passed that was written only to the sons of Richard. So long as business changing laws affect all business, then the playing field is still level and Joe's plumbing across town will have to raise his charges to cover the new law as much as your son's plumbing business. Joe will have to fill out the same paperwork and file the same forms, etc.

A good example is the minimum wage law. Every time there's an increase in the minimum wage you have this entire cadre of businesses that say they're being run out of business. But I look around today and I still see lots of businesses. You see, I believe the truth is, Mrs. Jones, when her toilet backs up, will still need a plumber to come out and snake her waste line. Now, both Joe and your son now have to pay the new minimum wage for their workers and so the price for either Joe or your son to come out and do the job should still be relatively the same. Friend, I've found that most businesses flounder not because of government intrusion, but rather poor management of the business. Bad customer service or unfair business practices that they use with their customers. So, when I hear any business man claiming that the 'government' is putting them out of business, I'm fairly suspect of such a claim.


( My wife is become ...disliking politics...and anything to do with the corruption and ...you know where I'm going)

Oh, I also am greatly disenfranchised with out government. This shutdown is ludicrous. It will accomplish nothing but wasting more money that we can't afford to waste. A bill has already been passed that all the furloughed workers will get paid for their time off after this is over. So now, not only have we lost all the productivity that would have come from these 800,000 workers who were furloughed, but we're going to pay them for all that time as well. It's like sending 800,000 people out on an unplanned vacation. But...

When you research the 'why' our government is shutdown. When you ask, "Well who ultimately pulled the plug?" It isn't President Obama. He just refused to be blackmailed. The Affordable Healthcare Act was passed with a fair reading and a fair vote in the legislative bodies and now the republican leadership pretty much said to him, "Well, if you won't acquiesce to our demands to delay it, we're going to refuse to vote on a continuing referendum and let the government shut down."

So the lawmakers lied to us...again.

Well, whether or not it's the lawmakers who lied to you is questionable. Who started this claim that congress only had one day to read the bill? That's the one responsible for lying to anyone. I honestly can't recall any lawmaker having made such a claim. Yes, I believe that in this issue of the government shutdown that Rep. Boehner is being deceptive in trying to convince the American people that it's all the president's fault.

Did you see the news article the other day of the legislator who confronted the Parks employee outside one of the Capitol's landmarks? It was absolutely disgraceful that this man who was partially responsible for the shutdown and should have known what it would cause out on the streets, was berating a poor civil servant for doing their job. That person that he was talking to had absolutely no responsibility or authority to change whether or not the monument was shutdown and this old curmudgeon is standing on the street making all kinds of accusations against that person's character for doing their job. It was disgraceful and disgusting to me.

I originally did this post to try to get more people to think about where they could spent their eternities; then it got out of hand and I had to be corrected.

Crow tastes lousy; but My sons were hurt by all the new rules and regs; so where do I stand now?
I will vote "TEAPARTY" as most of then/us are calling ourselves Christian, and living, talking, acting that way. We clean up our demonstration areas, try to act decent and actually act like we think God, Jesus and The Holy Spirit would want us to act; instead of how the Wisconsin things were.

Listen, Richard, don't vote a party, vote the truth. Vote for whoever you think is the best person for the job no matter their party affiliation. But... once the voting is over and all the chads tabulated. Learn to accept the people's choice. Understand, friend, that on this earth, Jesus didn't get his way either.

Regards, Rich

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Albion]

And some conservative students have said that they had to write their papers with a liberal slant in order to get a passing grade.

I, for one, had to. And that was some years back. There wasn't even any pretense of objectivity in the professor. It was simply assumed that everyone present in the classroom understood that to be knowledgeable meant to be a liberal or socialist, and that there was no more of an argument for Burkean conservatism than there would be for Piltdown Man.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

What does obama have to do with christianity? He is the leader of a secular country!

Don't you know? He's the current acting anti-Christ. Since he's the anti-Christ all topics about him and his policies are relevant! Duh!

 

[David Brider]

I, for one, had to. And that was some years back. There wasn't even any pretense of objectivity in the professor. It was simply assumed that everyone present in the classroom understood that to be knowledgeable meant to be a liberal or socialist, and that there was no more of an argument for Burkean conservatism than there would be for Piltdown Man.

How did having to write "with a liberal slant" actually manifest itself in what you wrote? How was it relevant to the subject matter?

 

[David Brider]

My thesis was on the magnetic fluctuations, cooper pairing trends, and ideal p-n junctions in relation to the integer and fractional quantum Hall effect. My thesis advisor was a mathematician and physicist. He wanted me to do a thesis on Bose-Einstein condensates, because that was closer to his field, and he didn't know that much about my topic. This is after I had already done the research/labs at another university the year before. I kept my topic and got sweepingly brilliant reviews on the content from my other advisers, and was all but guaranteed summa cum laude thesis honors. but I was told I received no honors because my thesis was "late." Later, I find out a colleague of mine in the same program - with the same due date - turned his thesis in a week later than me and got magna cum laude honors. I'm not disputing content of scholarly work; I am highlighting how politics play a very large part in academia. The incident described is like petting kittens compared to what I have seen in academia. Still, it should show that all disciplines are slanted, and want students more aligned to the instructor - rather than being intellectually independent (sometimes called going rogue.)

That's not really the same as being told to write your essay from a specific political perspective, though.

 

[miamited]

1. Republicans were not allowed in the door when the ACA was planned and written. I remember hearing that on the tv news. Obama never invites them to assist with any of his plans or even to know what is going on.

Hi, psalm,

Listen that may be true. It is actually a fact that when a bill is in committee, those not a part of that committee aren't brought in for 'negotiations'. That is what the next part is all about. When it goes back out on the floor is when everyone gets to say their piece. Don't you have a clue how our government works?

2.You left out the bribes which Obama offered in order to get the votes he needed, like the Louisiana "purchase" and the offer to Ben Nelson, which I can't remember exactly what it was and I really don't care to look it up because I've known for a long time that Obama should be impeached. Not to mention the lie to the Congressman or Senator from Wisconsin who wouldn't accept a bill with government paid abortions.

Sadly, there again, that has become part and parcel of how our government works. Quid pro quo, has been the order of the day in our legislative body for decades. So, don't go blaming President Obama for following the established methods by which our government works. If your argument is against the quid pro quo system, which I also agree is a lousy way to run a legislative body, then you're going to have to go back a lot further than President Obama to attack that problem.

I remember when the copies of the ACA were handed out and it was very close to the vote. There was not enough time to read it since it was something like 2000 pages. As I said, the committees you site are Senate committees which there are more Democrats than Republicans, right? The bill was not officially passed until everyone who needed to be bribed was bribed and they accepted the bribe. No one had read the ACA. It was 2000 pages long. Why are you trying to call someone a liar and convince people that this had been read long before and everyone knew what they were voting for? Some may have known, but most of them didn't. They do now and that is why they are fighting so hard. Even Nancy Pelosi admitted that they needed to pass it so they could know what was in it.

Ok, well maybe you can help Richard in this claim. What day was the ACA made available to the legislative bodies. Understand that just because it's a 2,000 page document isn't a valid argument for your position. The final draft, which I suppose is what you are possibly referring to, didn't change all 2,000 pages. Only a small section that had been in contention was changed and that small section could likely have been read and understood in less than 1 hour. As a matter of fact, most people probably knew what the changes were before the copies of the changes hit the floor.

It would seem that you have been reading the same stuff that Richard has been reading. Do you have the quote from Mrs. Pelosi that supports your claim? He thought that he did, but it didn't really. His quote only said that Mrs. Pelosi did make the statement that they needed to pass this bill. It was, after all, December 24th and everyone wanted to go home for Christmas. But the claim that she told them they couldn't read it until after it was passed has never been substantiated. As I wrote above, only a small portion of the bill had been changed in all of the 2,000 pages and if someone in the legislative body couldn't have read and considered and understood the changes in that small portion within a very small amount of time, then they probably shouldn't be in the legislative body anyway. They would have to be very limited in their reading and comprehension skills.

3. This bill will affect many more than 15%. Good grief. Many are losing their current insurance. Many doctor's positions are being moved around and people are losing the doctors they've had for a long time. Premiums are going WAY UP. You're way oversimplifying this. Many people have been laid off and switched to part-time because the business owners either don't want to pay the high premiums and cost of the insurance or they can't afford it. Money is going to be taken from Medicare to pay for it and seniors will not get the quality of care they once had. Since many young people are not going to pay for it and they are the ones the gov't was counting on to pay for this program. Be honest. It will destroy people's lives, it already is as they are losing their jobs and hours of work.

That, my friend is just not true. And if you want to argue whether it is or not, then I'd respectfully ask for your 'proof'. Anyone who is currently covered by employer sponsored, private pay, medicare or any other qualifying insurance plan need not make any changes whatsoever. However, there are some insurance plans that don't meet the minimum required standards of a qualifying insurance plan. These are the bare bones, don't really pay hardly anything insurance plans and yes, those plans will have to be changed. Now, you won't actually 'lose' your insurance as you say, but what the plan covers will change and that might cause some increase in premiums, but I contend that any such premium increase would be small.

If, however, your current insurance jacks your premiums considerably higher because of such changes, then you should look into the options available through the ACA. One must also keep in mind that not all premium increases will be attributable to the new plan. Last year, for example, my family plan premium was set to increase from less than $40/month to less than $400.00/month and the reason given was that medical care had just become more expensive. I sat down and reviewed all the options and settled on a different plan. By the way, anyone who can honestly show that they are living on a bare subsistence annual income is exempt from the law. So, a lot of those people you claim will be so financially traumatized by the bill are often those who would rather pay for a $150.00 TV programming package than basic medical coverage for themselves or their family. Each case, however, must be weighed on its own merits. I am not making any blanket claim that that is the case for all.

So, IMO, you're "softening" the facts and leaving some out in order to defend Obamacare. I don't think you or anyone else has any right to tell someone they are sinning when they are telling a very personal story of what Obamacare is doing to their lives. I have no horse in the race. I'm on Medicare and SS. I paid for them, yeah, but I'm secure for now. But I feel so bad for young families who are already living at poverty level working minimum wage jobs. They may be laid off (Home Depot) or have hours decreased.

And in my opinion you are making a lot of claims about something that you really have very little knowledge of. See, here is a perfect example of your inflammatory and untrue accusations and beliefs. I have never accused anyone of sinning in telling a personal story. I have merely stated, and it is true, that anyone who supports and teaches untruths about anything, is lying, whether they are actually aware of it at the time or not, and lying is a sin.

My only problem is that I am a nurse and it's socialized medicine. There will be much less research and quality of care will be decreased, just as it is for Medicaid patients now. Some doctors won't take Medicaid. Many doctors are leaving practice in dread of the coming changes. The average age of most nurses is late forties and there is already a shortage of nurses. They should just increase the Medicaid reimbursement and quality of care and allow people who need healthcare be put on Medicaid, which may cause doctors to re-think their resistance to it. And Medicaid needs to increase their limit of income WAY over 900$/mo. to qualify. That amount is destitution level not low income level. I doubt the American people would mind higher taxes if they weren't overhauling the entire system. Just allow people Medicaid.

Most of what you wrote here is just your best 'guess'. Why would everyone being covered by a medical insurance plan of some kind have any great effect on research and quality of care. Do you mean that a nurse such as yourself is going to spit in someone's face because they now have an insurance plan where before they couldn't pay at all? Maybe you should explain your reasoning that brought you to that understanding.

Now, you then propose another plan. Ok, that's another plan and maybe it will work or maybe it won't but I sure don't see how that plan is leading us away from socialized medicine which in your previous claim is the root of less research and quality care. Which is it?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[MrLuther]

What does obama have to do with christianity? He is the leader of a secular country!

Well, he also claims to be a Christian.

 

[Albion]

How did having to write "with a liberal slant" actually manifest itself in what you wrote? How was it relevant to the subject matter?

The assignments were to explain certain social phenomena, and every student understood that those who did not regurgitate the heavily and uncompromisingly partisan viewpoints that constituted his lectures on the subject would be punished for it when grading occurred. This was known for several reasons. For one, he allowed no consideration of any contrary POVs during his presentation of the matter in his lectures and, more importantly, there was a track record involving previous students. BTW, I have spoken here as though it was only one professor, but I remember a number of them who were essentially the same in this regard. And it was even worse when it came to exam questions, I might add.

 

[miamited]

Well, he also claims to be a Christian.

Hi luther,

Yes, and so did both Bush's and Clinton, etc, etc, etc. For some reason our presidents all like to set themselves up on the 'christian' side of the fence and I make no claim as to whether President Obama is a born again believer or not, but...

In bringing up this healthcare issue in the very beginning President Obama fully believed that he was doing what was best for the country at large. Our nation had long since complained of the many, many uninsured that created medical bills that 'we the people' ultimately wound up paying. President Obama began this effort fully believing that this was a reasonable answer to that problem and I don't really understand why that makes him 'not a christian' in the eyes of some.

As regards the abortion issue itself, abortion is legal in this country and it was through absolutely no effort of President Obama that that came to pass. However, if one is going to provide medical insurance for medical needs and abortions are legal medical procedures, then there really isn't any reasonable expectation that they should be held out of a national medical insurance plan.

Now, if you want to take the payment of abortion out of the provisions of the ACA, then all one has to do is make abortion an 'illegal' medical procedure. Then they would immediately not be covered. Because even as it stands today, the ACA does not pay for nor condone illegal medical procedures.

Friend, being a born again believer in the Lord, Jesus as savior of mankind is a personal decision. You are not going to make our nation a godly nation just by making abortions illegal. You will only make our nation a godly nation when those who make up our nation are born again believers in the Lord, Jesus as savior of mankind. That is the only way that reality will ever come about and I think the Scriptures show quite clearly that that isn't going to happen here, or in any other nation of the world, as we move inexorably forward to God's day of judgment.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Albion]

Hi luther,

Yes, and so did both Bush's and Clinton, etc, etc, etc. For some reason our presidents all like to set themselves up on the 'christian' side of the fence and I make no claim as to whether President Obama is a born again believer or not, but...

In bringing up this healthcare issue in the very beginning President Obama fully believed that he was doing what was best for the country at large. Our nation had long since complained of the many, many uninsured that created medical bills that 'we the people' ultimately wound up paying. President Obama began this effort fully believing that this was a reasonable answer to that problem and I don't really understand why that makes him 'not a christian' in the eyes of some.

As regards the abortion issue itself, abortion is legal in this country and it was through absolutely no effort of President Obama that that came to pass. However, if one is going to provide medical insurance for medical needs and abortions are legal medical procedures, then there really isn't any reasonable expectation that they should be held out of a national medical insurance plan.

Hmm. So pregnancy is a disease?

If abortion is to be covered by health insurance (and even contraception), why not every cosmetic procedure like botox injections and tattoo removals?

My point is, of course, that if something is legal and affects one's body, that doesn't make it a natural for health care coverage.

 

[miamited]

Hmm. So pregnancy is a disease?

Of course not! Don't be so simple minded. However, the operation of aborting a pregnancy is a medical procedure.

If abortion is to be covered by health insurance (and even contraception), why not every cosmetic procedure like botox injections and tattoo removals?

Perhaps some day they will be. If they are deemed medical procedures, then they might. However, I believe the answer to your question is that most insurance companies and many people, hold cosmetic procedures as having less value as medical procedures.

My point is, of course, that if something is legal and affects one's body, that doesn't make it a natural for health care coverage.

Yes, I would agree, but it isn't what the majority of people in this country have decided. However, let me respectfully ask that you read this:

Health Reform and Abortion Coverage in the Insurance Exchanges (State Implementation Brief)

Let me also say that the requirements of the ACA are that any health insurance plan offer a certain set of 'basic' insurance coverages. Abortion is not one of them. If you don't want your insurance plan to offer abortion coverage then all you have to do is pick a plan that does not offer abortion coverage. And if you really want to find what you're looking for, look here:

http://www.dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill96.pdf

You will find, if you choose to read through all of this, that there is no such requirement that any qualifying insurance plan 'must' provide abortion coverage.

God bless you.
Ted McFarland

 

[Albion]

Hmm. So pregnancy is a disease?

Of course not! Don't be so simple minded.

Hey. There's no need to be insulting. You were justifying procedures that had to be included in a health insurance package, you said, and I asked why the treatment of matters that are not diseases should necessarily be included. I do not consider focusing on the reason for having health insurance in the first place to be "simple-minded."

And with that, I find that I've lost interest in reading the rest of what you might have written, if that's the level of discussion you prefer. I don't remember you being this way, but I guess that's beside the point now.

Have a nice day, Ted.

 

[miamited]

Friends, look, the argument about abortion, when this bill was being discussed and debated, wasn't about whether or not abortion services had to be a part of the qualifiers for any insurance plan. But rather, whether is should be a qualifier. Our legislature decided, and I believe rightly so, that it shouldn't. So, you won't find any provision of the bill that requires qualifying plans to provide abortion services.

Now, can a plan offer abortion services? Yes, it can and if you don't want your money to be used for paying for abortions then all you need to do is mark that plan off of your list of possible insurance plans to choose. It is still a personal decision as to whether any single individual wants to pay for or be covered by abortion services.

As born again believers we are supposed to desire truth. Here's an example that recently happened in my life.

I got this email that muslims were exempted because of some provision in the ACA that had some word in it, 'dhimmitude'. The email even used Snopes.com to support its claim. It made the claim that this had all been checked out by Snopes and gave the link to check it out.

Well, here's a perfect example of how gullible we can be. Many, certainly my friend that sent me the email, just accepted the claim as true because the writer said it had been checked out. But, guess what? If you follow the link, Snopes says that the whole thing is false. A crock of pure BS!

Here is the story and the report from Snopes:

snopes.com: Dhimmitude -- Health Insurance Exemptions

Listen folks. We're supposed to be smarter than these liars and deceivers make us out to be!

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hey. There's no need to be insulting. You were justifying procedures that had to be included in a health insurance package, you said, and I asked why the treatment of matters that are not diseases should necessarily be included. I do not consider focusing on the reason for having health insurance in the first place to be "simple-minded."

And with that, I find that I've lost interest in reading the rest of what you might have written, if that's the level of discussion you prefer. I don't remember you being this way, but I guess that's beside the point now.

Have a nice day, Ted.

Hi albion,

Ok, my apologies. You made the statement: So, pregnancy is now a disease.

You're right, that is true.

And I don't know how you remember me being, but I have always tried to be on the side of truth. Let me also say in answer to your earlier claim: If you find an insurance plan that covers cosmetic procedures and also qualifies under the ACA you can have your cosmetic procedures covered.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Albion]

Hi albion,

Ok, my apologies. You made the statement: So, pregnancy is now a disease.

You're right, that is true.

And I don't know how you remember me being, but I have always tried to be on the side of truth.

I won't dispute that. Most of us feel that way about ourselves. What I meant however, was that you had always seemed to me to be pleasant and reasonable. That neither of those holds up in the current discussion, frankly surprises me.