[SK in CV]

[quote=Arraya]So your thesis for the constant coordinated ignoring, of a well polled popularity, is due to a high school like immaturity, rather than people of power conspiring due some of his potentially world changing views – yes removing the military from around the world is big business – surely it has nothing to do with that.[/quote]

There might be some back room discussions about dismissing Paul as a serious candidate. I couldn’t say for sure. But the fact is, Paul is not a popular candidate nationwide, and never will be. I can find one major nationwide poll that puts him higher than 4th. Which is pretty much where he’s remained for the last 9 months. I kind of wish he had more support. He’s a lot more interesting than some of the other candidates.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Arraya]So your thesis for the constant coordinated ignoring, of a well polled popularity, is due to a high school like immaturity, rather than people of power conspiring due some of his potentially world changing views – yes removing the military from around the world is big business – surely it has nothing to do with that.[/quote]

There might be some back room discussions about dismissing Paul as a serious candidate. I couldn’t say for sure. But the fact is, Paul is not a popular candidate nationwide, and never will be. I can find one major nationwide poll that puts him higher than 4th. Which is pretty much where he’s remained for the last 9 months. I kind of wish he had more support. He’s a lot more interesting than some of the other candidates.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Arraya]So your thesis for the constant coordinated ignoring, of a well polled popularity, is due to a high school like immaturity, rather than people of power conspiring due some of his potentially world changing views – yes removing the military from around the world is big business – surely it has nothing to do with that.[/quote]

There might be some back room discussions about dismissing Paul as a serious candidate. I couldn’t say for sure. But the fact is, Paul is not a popular candidate nationwide, and never will be. I can find one major nationwide poll that puts him higher than 4th. Which is pretty much where he’s remained for the last 9 months. I kind of wish he had more support. He’s a lot more interesting than some of the other candidates.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Arraya]So your thesis for the constant coordinated ignoring, of a well polled popularity, is due to a high school like immaturity, rather than people of power conspiring due some of his potentially world changing views – yes removing the military from around the world is big business – surely it has nothing to do with that.[/quote]

There might be some back room discussions about dismissing Paul as a serious candidate. I couldn’t say for sure. But the fact is, Paul is not a popular candidate nationwide, and never will be. I can find one major nationwide poll that puts him higher than 4th. Which is pretty much where he’s remained for the last 9 months. I kind of wish he had more support. He’s a lot more interesting than some of the other candidates.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Arraya]
Come on Sk – he came in second in the Iowa poll and they flat-out, in-your-face, ignored that. This was blatant media manipulation at the behest of powerful interests. Are you saying some candidates should be ignored, regardless of popularity, because of stances you deem too bizarre? Btw- I agree with you about the gold standard.[/quote]

I’m absolutely not saying that. I was just challenging the assertion that he’s continually showed up at the top of polls. I don’t believe he has. He came in 2nd in Iowa, which did warrant a whole lot more coverage. He’s not, and will never be a favorite of the powerful Republican party interests, so their subsidiary at Fox News will barely give him the time of day. That doesn’t excuse the other news entities. He did deserve more. Conspiracy? Eh. I don’t know. Old and wrinkled and wacked will never be the hot seller that pretty and wacked is. Maybe if he had bulging eyes or bigger tits he’d get further.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Arraya]
Come on Sk – he came in second in the Iowa poll and they flat-out, in-your-face, ignored that. This was blatant media manipulation at the behest of powerful interests. Are you saying some candidates should be ignored, regardless of popularity, because of stances you deem too bizarre? Btw- I agree with you about the gold standard.[/quote]

I’m absolutely not saying that. I was just challenging the assertion that he’s continually showed up at the top of polls. I don’t believe he has. He came in 2nd in Iowa, which did warrant a whole lot more coverage. He’s not, and will never be a favorite of the powerful Republican party interests, so their subsidiary at Fox News will barely give him the time of day. That doesn’t excuse the other news entities. He did deserve more. Conspiracy? Eh. I don’t know. Old and wrinkled and wacked will never be the hot seller that pretty and wacked is. Maybe if he had bulging eyes or bigger tits he’d get further.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Arraya]
Come on Sk – he came in second in the Iowa poll and they flat-out, in-your-face, ignored that. This was blatant media manipulation at the behest of powerful interests. Are you saying some candidates should be ignored, regardless of popularity, because of stances you deem too bizarre? Btw- I agree with you about the gold standard.[/quote]

I’m absolutely not saying that. I was just challenging the assertion that he’s continually showed up at the top of polls. I don’t believe he has. He came in 2nd in Iowa, which did warrant a whole lot more coverage. He’s not, and will never be a favorite of the powerful Republican party interests, so their subsidiary at Fox News will barely give him the time of day. That doesn’t excuse the other news entities. He did deserve more. Conspiracy? Eh. I don’t know. Old and wrinkled and wacked will never be the hot seller that pretty and wacked is. Maybe if he had bulging eyes or bigger tits he’d get further.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Arraya]
Come on Sk – he came in second in the Iowa poll and they flat-out, in-your-face, ignored that. This was blatant media manipulation at the behest of powerful interests. Are you saying some candidates should be ignored, regardless of popularity, because of stances you deem too bizarre? Btw- I agree with you about the gold standard.[/quote]

I’m absolutely not saying that. I was just challenging the assertion that he’s continually showed up at the top of polls. I don’t believe he has. He came in 2nd in Iowa, which did warrant a whole lot more coverage. He’s not, and will never be a favorite of the powerful Republican party interests, so their subsidiary at Fox News will barely give him the time of day. That doesn’t excuse the other news entities. He did deserve more. Conspiracy? Eh. I don’t know. Old and wrinkled and wacked will never be the hot seller that pretty and wacked is. Maybe if he had bulging eyes or bigger tits he’d get further.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Arraya]
Come on Sk – he came in second in the Iowa poll and they flat-out, in-your-face, ignored that. This was blatant media manipulation at the behest of powerful interests. Are you saying some candidates should be ignored, regardless of popularity, because of stances you deem too bizarre? Btw- I agree with you about the gold standard.[/quote]

I’m absolutely not saying that. I was just challenging the assertion that he’s continually showed up at the top of polls. I don’t believe he has. He came in 2nd in Iowa, which did warrant a whole lot more coverage. He’s not, and will never be a favorite of the powerful Republican party interests, so their subsidiary at Fox News will barely give him the time of day. That doesn’t excuse the other news entities. He did deserve more. Conspiracy? Eh. I don’t know. Old and wrinkled and wacked will never be the hot seller that pretty and wacked is. Maybe if he had bulging eyes or bigger tits he’d get further.

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]Almost nothing has made me start to believe that the media is controlled by the military industrial complex then almost all “serious” media outlets ignoring who came in second at Ames….and who is continually at the top of most polls. Ron Paul

At least Jon Stewart relieves my frustration with some humor. But one has to ask why is the mainstream media unanimously ignoring RP?

http://www.infowars.com/jon-stewart-on-the-media-ignoring-ron-aul/%5B/quote%5D

Ummm…which polls is he continually at the top of? I haven’t seen any. There are a handful of things I agree with him on. But on a whole lot of others, the dude is as wacked as Bachmann or Palin or Perry. (Gold standard? really???, almost as stupid as the trading chickens for medical services standard.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]Almost nothing has made me start to believe that the media is controlled by the military industrial complex then almost all “serious” media outlets ignoring who came in second at Ames….and who is continually at the top of most polls. Ron Paul

At least Jon Stewart relieves my frustration with some humor. But one has to ask why is the mainstream media unanimously ignoring RP?

http://www.infowars.com/jon-stewart-on-the-media-ignoring-ron-aul/%5B/quote%5D

Ummm…which polls is he continually at the top of? I haven’t seen any. There are a handful of things I agree with him on. But on a whole lot of others, the dude is as wacked as Bachmann or Palin or Perry. (Gold standard? really???, almost as stupid as the trading chickens for medical services standard.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]Almost nothing has made me start to believe that the media is controlled by the military industrial complex then almost all “serious” media outlets ignoring who came in second at Ames….and who is continually at the top of most polls. Ron Paul

At least Jon Stewart relieves my frustration with some humor. But one has to ask why is the mainstream media unanimously ignoring RP?

http://www.infowars.com/jon-stewart-on-the-media-ignoring-ron-aul/%5B/quote%5D

Ummm…which polls is he continually at the top of? I haven’t seen any. There are a handful of things I agree with him on. But on a whole lot of others, the dude is as wacked as Bachmann or Palin or Perry. (Gold standard? really???, almost as stupid as the trading chickens for medical services standard.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]Almost nothing has made me start to believe that the media is controlled by the military industrial complex then almost all “serious” media outlets ignoring who came in second at Ames….and who is continually at the top of most polls. Ron Paul

At least Jon Stewart relieves my frustration with some humor. But one has to ask why is the mainstream media unanimously ignoring RP?

http://www.infowars.com/jon-stewart-on-the-media-ignoring-ron-aul/%5B/quote%5D

Ummm…which polls is he continually at the top of? I haven’t seen any. There are a handful of things I agree with him on. But on a whole lot of others, the dude is as wacked as Bachmann or Palin or Perry. (Gold standard? really???, almost as stupid as the trading chickens for medical services standard.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=aldante]Almost nothing has made me start to believe that the media is controlled by the military industrial complex then almost all “serious” media outlets ignoring who came in second at Ames….and who is continually at the top of most polls. Ron Paul

At least Jon Stewart relieves my frustration with some humor. But one has to ask why is the mainstream media unanimously ignoring RP?

http://www.infowars.com/jon-stewart-on-the-media-ignoring-ron-aul/%5B/quote%5D

Ummm…which polls is he continually at the top of? I haven’t seen any. There are a handful of things I agree with him on. But on a whole lot of others, the dude is as wacked as Bachmann or Palin or Perry. (Gold standard? really???, almost as stupid as the trading chickens for medical services standard.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl]
SK, I am FOR giving folks with pre-existing conditions the right to be covered. Prior to “Obamacare,” they didn’t HAVE that right. As you know, “pre-existing” conditions aren’t always the fault of the insured, or person seeking insurance. Sometimes it’s just bad luck, or the person (unknowingly) worked or lived in an area which exposed them to carcinogens. Or they became injured through no fault of their own.

It’s just that, for now, insurance companies are obligated to take this group if they apply. Currently, a carrier can set their premium in accordance with risk. When that ability “goes away” (in 2014), they will no longer be able to do so.
[/quote]

I’m reasonably sure this is not correct. Between now and 2014, the previously uninsurable over 19 are not required to be insured by commercial medical insurance companies. If they meet certain requirements (among them, being unisured for 6 months or more) they can be insured by a temporary, government created and partially funded PCIP (Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan). Beyond 2013, I’m not sure there is any requirement that premiums cannot reflect higher risk. But until then, there is no requirement for them to be accepted into your insurance plan at any cost.

[Author]

Posts