This assumes you were able to obtain insurance in the first place. Many, many people cannot obtain insurance because of pre-existing conditions. This has nothing to do with being prepared.

And, while it is true that most states do not allow insurers to drop people with existing coverage, most states do permit insurers to raise premiums dramatically with very little notice to the insured. Over 800,000 people in CA are facing increases of as much as 39% from Anthem alone. Increases in MA are as much as 44%. Is this a case of dropping people with pre-existing conditions? It certainly has the same practical effect. And, once those people leave their current insurers, they have little to no hope of getting coverage elsewhere because of their pre-existing conditions. So, how does one “prepare” for a 40-50% increase in insurance premiums?

There wasn’t anything to respond to. She merely asserted that there were other reasons. She did not enumerate the reasons, or offer evidence to suggest that those reasons substantively contribute to lack of coverage. On a case by case basis, you can almost certainly identify instances where someone prepared didn’t have health insurance, but it isn’t at all the norm.

“You may not have cared for her insults, but on substance she demonstrated that you are indeed ignorant on this issue if you believe that the common problem is unpreparedness.”

How did she “demonstrate” this? She didn’t address the issue other than asserting my ignorance. That is not substantive.

“Apparently, you are ignorant of the rather common problems of pre-existing conditions, skyrocketing premiums and cancelations of policies.”

I am not ignorant of these problems. If you have insurance, you cannot be dropped for having pre-existing conditions. So if you are prepared when you are healthy, you will not be unprepared when you are sick. And yes, it requires budgeting and living beneath your means in order to account for rising costs. People in America are not fond of doing so.

“There are a myriad reasons for Americans who cannot get affordable health care, and being “unprepared” isn’t the reason for most.”

This has been said over and over. Do you have any evidence that this is the case? If I’m ignorant, by all means, enlighten me.

You write: “If he (Bush 43) was truly looking to protect Fannie and Freddie and lenders in general, he would not have swung so hard for the irresponsible programs that are responsible for most of the defaulted/defaulting.”

First, you’re really showing your liberal assumptions with that line, Practical Girl. Bush and the GOP’s repeated reform efforts weren’t meant to “protect” Freddie and Fannie… they were meant to protect the US taxpayer… you know, that big sack of loose change that you and Obama and the Congressional Democrats want to rape?

US taxpayers were at risk, Practical Girl. Fannie and Freddie were very well protected already –by a host of Democrat Congressional leaders. They stopped reforms repeatedly. Fannie’s Foundation of activists, hired at unconscionable salary levels, worked with local activists like ACORN in nearly every state save Utah, to thwart Bush reforms.

The speech you cite as “proof positive” that Bush wasn’t sincere about reform was given after the first 16 months of reform advocacy had resulted in Dodd’s famous –I hope you agree indisputable– promise to filibuster any Bush/GOP reform package in an intensity never visited upon the Senate.

The Bush Admin worked with key Fannie leaders to get them to call off the junkyard attack dogs who were effectively stopping reform legislation, work with Bush people to advance reform and the speech you think is the smoking gun is, indeed, a smoking gun –but not for the reasons you dishonestly propose. The Bush Admin was trying to get Fannie to accept working on some reforms… that was the reason for the speech. In Sept 03, the Bush people finally got want they wanted –Fannie’s explicit agreement to tolerate reform… but only on Fannie’s terms. Bush was there to put personal touch on getting Fannie’s CEO to embrace reform… and it worked.

Here’s what the AP story said about the historic moment: “The administration’s proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies’ exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws. The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.”

In exchange, Practical Girl, the president had to also give up any appointment perqs to the GSE boards, too.

The AP story continues, pointing out your lie: “… the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families.”

What did Democrats say?

Your pal, Fannie Defender Barney Frank said: ’These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,’’ said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ‘’The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.’’

Later, Barney went on to cry about future calls from the White House for moving the modest reform package forward as political stunts to appease the radical Right.

Turns out that Barney Frank had 2 lovers working over at Fannie, another lover in Boston who got hired as one of Fannie’s Foundation diplomats, and yet another lover over at Freddie (who was only BBFWB for Barney –best boi friend with benefits).

Dodd, the mortgage bribe queen, and former DNC Chair.

Barney, Fannie Defender Extraordinaire, keeper of the boyfriends.

Personal corruption meets professional corruption. In the housing bubble, it’s the lesson we all ought to learn about Congressional Democrats who ride on high horses while clucking about “hurting the poor who need housing”.

That you want to avoid that lesson is not surprising. You’re just being a good Democrat partisan… and that means avoid responsibility, first and foremost.

I think this is beyond the point. You can’t regulate the markets against outright fraud. People were duped into straw buying schemes (illegal), baited and switched at closing time (also illegal), and present with false TILA’s (technically legal, but easy to bring to the public’s attention) and false amortization schedules (brazenly illegal).

What has Obama done to help the FBI chase down the crooks? Nothing. You can go back and forth about the CRA, but the above is the more compelling message.

Maybe so, but you still never responded to PracticalGirl’s point that there are many reasons Americans can’t get health care coveage other than being “unprepared.”

You may not have cared for her insults, but on substance she demonstrated that you are indeed ignorant on this issue if you believe that the common problem is unpreparedness. Apparently, you are ignorant of the rather common problems of pre-existing conditions, skyrocketing premiums and cancelations of policies.

There are a myriad reasons for Americans who cannot get affordable health care, and being “unprepared” isn’t the reason for most.

“But the undebatable point remains: the Bush Administration tried to reform Fannie and Freddie, both sweltering hot tubs filled with ol’ Democrat hacks and corruption of the grandest sort. ”

It’s completely debatable, and all the evidence of what he actually did is to the contrary. If he was truly looking to protect Fannie and Freddie and lenders in general, he would not have swung so hard for the irresponsible programs that are responsible for most of the defaulted/defaulting.

Corruption is everywhere, and Dodd is one sorry pile of it. Again, though with a majority EVERYWHERE and with such surerior foresight and knowledge of the ticking time bombs of Fannie and Freddie, whyno backbone fromthe GOP to stand up to one bad guy? And why adopt programs that benefitted him and his base so directly, especially if they knew it was “bad”.

The answer is ugly, and it’s a pox on both houses. Neither party has proven to have even the smallest ability to forward-think and consider consequences of major financial actions they implement.

You crack me up..The poster who constantly rants harsh and name calls. As MiGOPer, as GOPProud, you are the worst offender of your own point.

However, a point: I had some short hand issues. Regarding the mortgage crash, I’m talking about the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003, not the American Dream Act of 2009, which does attempt to deal children of illegals in equally with children of citizens.

I have a fairly thick skin but Practical Girl and some others here go far over the line of civility because, I think, this is an anonymous forum and they can spew their bile out without caution from identification.

I hope these worst offending culprits change their ways. It may be ok for this kind of trash talk over at DailyKos or BlogAmerica or DemocratUnderground or LesbiansWithLipstick, but it’s offensive in this intellectual haven of well-intentioned conservative discourse.

You were wrong on the Daily Kos talking point about the American Dream –but you can’t possibly admit your error.

You were wrong on the Congressional politics behind the Bush Administration effort to reform Freddie and Fannie –but you can’t possibly admit your error.

We’ve given you specific data on the run-up of Fannie’s portfolio, for instance. But you can’t admit you were wrong again.

We’ve explained to you the role that Fannie’s foundation played in working the local scene and seducing local activist groups to pressure Democrat Congress members to stand against the Bush Reform agenda. But you can’t admit you were wrong again on that one, too.

I think you avoid the facts because they indict your side as the most responsible party for encouraging Fannie, protecting Fannie, staffing Fannie with lifelong Democrat staffers and loyalists and leading America off the cliff of the housing bubble.

And who do you think got the most political contributions from Fannie and Freddie PACs? Why it was Barack Obama, Chris Dodd. Just like Bernie Madoff, Democrats were deep in the pockets of Freddie and Fannie, milking their protected political pals for campaign cash.

Corruption is never a bitter drink for Democrats –but suffering under the charges is a tough thing for them. I can understand why you want to run away from it all –I would too if the GOP record on trying to reform the housing bubble and excesses weren’t so laudable, noble.

But the undebatable point remains: the Bush Administration tried to reform Fannie and Freddie, both sweltering hot tubs filled with ol’ Democrat hacks and corruption of the grandest sort. Democrats, lead by former DNC Chairman Chris Dodd, used the Senate rule of filibuster to stop any reform from being discussed in the Senate. And if you can’t get reform out of the Senate with so much Democrat opposition, it’s a dead deal.

………………………………………………………………..

Practical Girl, on a personal note, which I don’t like to do here… your increasingly harsh and uncivil tone is not appreciated and is counter productive to the free exchange of ideas at FF. This kind of personally targeted rant (“I know, you prefer to think with your gut. But those who do that have crap for brains. You are no exception.”) is really out of bounds, Practical Girl.

Please be so kind as to refrain from said harsh and intemperate ranting in the future? Thank you for your compliance with FF’s comment policy.

http://www.frumforum.com/comment-policy