O says that he will force insurance

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

to convert to my religion. I don't kill in the name of my God. I am nothing like the Jihad extremists and for you to say that is just absolute BS and you know it. What you people seem to forget is that we are at war here. A war were people want me and you dead. I don't want to torture them for revenge but if we can get other names of people or any plot information to save American lives.....I'm all for it....including saving your atheist behind in the process. Doesn't quite sound like I'm a Jihad extremists or I'd say something like blow your butt up too since you won't convert to my religion but I don't see me saying that. So don't you EVER compare me to a terrorist.

Keep believing all the hype and the lies. That's your choice, but don't insult me because I can tell the difference.

This is about section 899A (3), developing home grown terrorists in our own land (civil defense).

"We cannot rely only on our military for our national security, we need to have a Civilian National Security force that is just as strong, just as well funded."

capable of making nuclear bomb. I have been reading about Israel and Iran every day and looks like one of these days we are going to hear a special report that Israel is attacking Iran. My question is if the US is going to help? I read Iran would attack the US if US tries to help Israel. I also read Iran has missels pointed in our direction to hit our oil refineries and power plants in the gulf coast states.

British troops will start a major withdrawal from Iraq next May under detailed plans on military disengagement to be published next month, The Observer can reveal.

The document being drawn up by the British government and the US will be presented to the Iraqi parliament in October and will spark fresh controversy over how long British troops will stay in the country. Tony Blair hopes that, despite continuing and widespread violence in Iraq, the move will show that there is progress following the conflict of 2003.

Britain has already privately informed Japan - which also has troops in Iraq - of its plans to begin withdrawing from southern Iraq in May, a move that officials in Tokyo say would make it impossible for their own 550 soldiers to remain.

The increasingly rapid pace of planning for British military disengagement has been revealed on the eve of the Labour Party conference, which will see renewed demands for a deadline for withdrawal. It is hoped that a clearer strategy on Iraq will quieten critics who say that the government will not be able to 'move on' until Blair quits. Yesterday, about 10,000 people demonstrated against the army's continued presence in the country.

Speaking to The Observer this weekend, the Defence Secretary, John Reid, insisted that the agreement being drawn up with Iraqi officials was contingent on the continuing political process, although he said he was still optimistic British troops would begin returning home by early summer.

'The two things I want to insist about the timetable is that it is not an event but a process, and that it will be a process that takes place at different speeds in different parts of the country. I have said before that I believe that it could begin in some parts of the country as early as next July. It is not a deadline, but it is where we might be and I honestly still believe we could have the conditions to begin handover. I don't see any reason to change my view.

'But if circumstances change I have no shame in revising my estimates.'

The disclosures follow rising demands for the government to establish a clearer strategy for bringing troops home following the kidnapping of two British SAS troopers in Basra and the scenes of violence that surrounded their rescue. Last week Blair's own envoy to Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, warned that Britain could be forced out if Iraq descends so far into chaos that 'we don't have any reasonable prospect of holding it together'.

Continued tension between the Iraqi police force, the Iraqi administration and British troops was revealed again yesterday when an Iraqi magistrate called for the arrest of the two British special forces soldiers. who were on a surveillance mission when they were taken into custody by Iraqi police and allegedly handed on to a militia.

For Blair, the question of withdrawal is one of the most difficult he is facing. The Prime Minister has abandoned plans, announced last February, to publish his own exit strategy setting out the milestones which would have to be met before quitting: instead, the plans are now being negotiated between a commission representing the Shia-dominated Iraqi government, and senior US and UK diplomats and military commanders in Baghdad.

Senior military sources have told The Observer that the document will lay out a point-by-point 'road map' for military disengagement by multinational forces, the first steps of which could be put in place soon after December's nationwide elections.

Each stage of the withdrawal would be locally judged on regional improvements in stability, with units being withdrawn as Iraqi units are deemed capable of taking over. Officials familiar with the negotiations said that conditions for withdrawal would not demand a complete cessation of insurgent violence, or the end of al-Qaeda atrocities.

According to the agreement under negotiation, each phase would be triggered when key security, stability and political targets have been reached. The phased withdrawal strategy - the British side of which is expected to take at least 12 months to complete - would see UK troops hand over command responsibility for security to senior Iraqi officers, while remaining in support as a reserve force.

In the second phase British Warriors and other armoured vehicles would be removed from daily patrols, before a complete withdrawal of British forces to barracks.

The final phase - departure of units - would follow a period of months where Iraqi units had demonstrated their ability to deal with violence in their areas of operation.

Blair will tackle his critics over Iraq in his conference speech, aides said this weekend, but would decline to give a public deadline for withdrawing troops. He is expected to make several major interventions on the war in the coming weeks, before a vote on the new constitution in mid-October, explaining how Iraq could be steered towards a sufficiently stable situation to allow troops to come home.

'What we are not going to set out is a timetable: what we are going to set out is a process of developing that security capability,' said a Downing Street source. 'We don't want to be there any longer than we have to be, the Iraqis don't want us to be there any longer than we have to be, but the Iraqi Prime Minister has made it very clear that our presence there is one that is necessary.'

It was revealed yesterday that an Iraqi judge issued the warrants for the arrest of the two rescued soldiers, accusing them of killing one policeman and wounding another, carrying unlicensed weapons and holding false identification.

The continuing preparations for a military withdrawal come, however, as officials are bracing themselves for a new political crisis in Iraq next month, with what many regard as the inevitable rejection of a new constitution by a two-thirds majority in three provinces, sufficient to kill the document and trigger new elections.

The same officials believe that a failure of the controversial constitution - which Sunnis say favours the Shia majority - would require at least another year of political negotiations, threatening any plans to disengage.

Barack Obama And Joe Biden Have Consistently Lied To Americans About John McCain's Plan. Their claims have failed every fact-check - from CBS to the Washington Post. John McCain is not going to raise taxes on middle class families. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are the only ones in this race that plan to raise taxes.

OBAMA FICTION
John McCain Will Tax Health Care Benefits For The First Time And Will Be the Largest Middle Class Tax Increase In History.

What's the difference who says no? Some insurance companies pretty much say no to everything but wellness visits - and that's simply so they can find out if you develop a condition, so they can drop your coverage on a threabare excuse, or jack your rates to the moon so you'll have to drop it. Then no other company has to cover you due to it being preexisting. I don't want to pay for insurance that only covers me if I'm not sick!

At least if there was universal healthcare, even with a wait, they'd have to treat you eventually instead of NEVER. And do it for free.

we are all driving basically the same model and we are insuring it for what could possibly happen, not what will or actually does.

Way back in the 1960s when I first started working, my company's health insurance did not cover single women for most 'female' issues, especially birth control and/or pregnancy-related issues, which has since been deemed discriminatory. Now you must cover everyone equally for every contingency.

The only way to individually ajust coverage costs would to be to exclude coverage based on genetic testing and/or family history, or maybe lifestyle issues such as alcohol or tobacco use or risky behavior like sky diving, which consumers have been fighting for years. This would probably also be deemed discriminatory.

I feel for you, but a pre-existing condition is NOT uninsurable if you have had insurance for 30 days prior to the illness.

Case in point: We had private health insurance paid for out of our own pockets for 6 years. DH had open heart surgery. In the meantime I got a job with a company, signed up for insurance and they stated a 1 year before they would insure him. Yet, it was less than 30 days since I signed up. All I needed was a Certificate of Insurance from our private carrier, and then no waiting period. I got that, and he is now totally insured under the company plan.

If you did not cancel your insurance until after your problem, you have a way out. Just ask the former insurance company for a certificate of insurance and no one can turn you down.

I'm not trying to be mean or whatever you want to call it, I'm trying to help, so don't take it the wrong way. Best of luck and hopefully, things will turn around for you.

Doesn't anybody in DC have a conscience? The system as it stands now is disgusting. They are literally making billions by killing of thousands upon thousands (maybe millions?) of Americans. Anyone with half a brain should recognize profit-driven health insurance only serves the best interest of the CEOs of the insurance companies - not healthcare recipients! This needs to change NOW!

I saw my first AMA commercial last night urging people to vote with the millions of uninsured Americans in mind. I loved it! It is at least a step in the right direction. Vote with the healthcare crisis in mind people!

I just came across these stats in an article I was reading. How can there possibly any doubt that lobbying has single handedly taken over Washington? Especially in light of the fact that the healthcare plans on the table are pushing for more insured rather than single payer system? If we don't shove out the insurance companies, how are the prices for our healthcare ever expected to go down, or even stay at the current level for any length of time? 87% in 10 years? Absolutely ridiculous. We are not reaping any benefit from it whatsoever.

"As premiums have ballooned by 87 percent in the past decade, insurance-industry profits have climbed from $20.8 billion in 2002 to $57.5 billion in 2006. During that same period, health-care interests spent $2.2 billion on federal lobbying, more than did any other sector, and as of last month, had flooded the presidential candidates with over $11 million in campaign contributions to keep the present system intact."

Health insurance premiums, plus their refusal to insure people with preexisting conditions, are becoming prohibitive costwise for many (millions of Americans) to afford.

Though the example you gave may be true for some younger folks, I believe that's the exception and not the rule.

There is a huge crisis in healthcare in this country today. Good for you that you can afford it and just blame everyone else who can't. Maybe someday soon you'll be in the same boat with the 50-odd million Americans who simply can't afford it. Who will you blame then?

I agree with some of what you said about the state representatives being held accountable. I did vote for Senate candidates in the last election based on their stances on healthcare. One of them has been working tirelessly (with many others) to expand CHIP health insurance to kids to more middle-income children in the state, and he was successful! Now that the income bracket was raised, my 6-year-old has healthcare again, and I am so grateful! (Bush is threatening to veto the legislation that expanded CHIP to more families, though, so I'm praying he does not do that).

I am relatively young (26) and so many of my friends do not vote. I am always encouraging them to do just that (whether they vote Democrat or Republican), and I think if Senate recall (I think that's what you called it) was in place, more of them might vote. For now, we just have to hope they keep their campaign promises in hopes of being re-elected.

I know Congress needs to pass the bills on health insurance, and I know many of the Congressmen (on both sides of the aisle) have been bought and paid for by the insurance companies, and that is very disturbing to me. That's one of the reasons I like Obama so much - I think he is a good man who has not been "bought and paid for" by any big corporations.

I think America needs to cover all medical costs for our children and our elderly, and I hope more Republicans candidates will address that issue. We need to take better care of our most helpless citizens.

That's fine you don't care about the fact that many families are working their fingers to the bone just to pay for necessities, including health insurance, but I do. I care very much and am very sad that so many people in this country only seem to care about children that come from upper middle class and rich families. I guess they deserve better health care than the middle-class kids. I don't know how people that feel that way can go to bed with a clear conscience.

People in Congress that we took the time to elect put a lot of effort into negotiating this bill to make both parties relatively happy. YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE TAXED FOR IT. THE CIGARETTE TAX WOULD HAVE GONE UP. Keep telling yourself what you need to tell yourself to sleep at night, but the fact is kids with diabetes from a lower-middle-class income family have less of a chance of surviving than a child from an upper class income family. That is a sad, sad, fact.

O says that he will force insurance

Air Force chief: Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs