I have a question please.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by DSK

"Senior Lecturer"

.. of "Constitutional Law"!

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media

Although his "budget" title was "Senior Lecturer" ...

"From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."

I'll stick with "Professor"! U of C classifies as such.

[Sistine Chapel]

Originally Posted by R.M.

What's so sad is that you are so angry. You proved that in the gay thread you wrote in Houston sand box.

Ha! lol @ angry; you white folks always trying to scheme up some angry black man controversy. However, like Barack once said: " I don't govern out of anger."

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

Ha! lol @ angry; you white folks always trying to scheme up some angry black man controversy....

Yea, look wat dim "white folks" done ....

[gary5912]

Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

Ha! lol @ angry; you white folks always trying to scheme up some angry black man controversy. However, like Barack once said: " I don't govern out of anger."

I didn't know he knew how to govern anything but they say he is a good community organizer, so what's your specialty internet troll

[Guest050619-1]

Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

However, like Barack once said: " I don't govern out of anger."

Stick around, Bunkie...in another year or so you'll be quoting the greatness of the President of the United States, Donald Trump. And, while in the process of doing so, apologizing to the masses for having been so wrong and asking their forgiveness.

And no worries....you'll have it, SC. We're always happy to embrace those who's Eyes Finally See the Light. Give it time...it's just a matter of.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by gary5912

I didn't know he knew how to govern anything but they say he is a good community organizer, so what's your specialty internet troll

Sissy Chap is a zany little bitch.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Chateau Becot

Stick around, Bunkie...in another year or so ....

Speaking of "sticking" ....

.. she(SissyLips) is like dog shit on the bottom of your shoe ...

.. the lumps come off, but the stench doesn't.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

Ha! lol @ angry; you white folks always trying to scheme up some angry black man controversy. However, like Barack once said: " I don't govern out of anger."

You're right Obama doesn't Govern out of anger. In fact he doesn't govern at all. He just keeps campaigning. He wants people to think he can govern. He can't govern, he can't do shit except blow smoke up everyone's ass. If you voted for him he blew a big cloud up yours, lol.


Jim

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

But, but, but flghtr65 be one o'yo lib'ral..... Jus AXE him anythin you wanna " no " 'bout YO healthcare plan, BROTHA !

Rey, I'll take that as a compliment, despite the humor with the "Ebonics". LOL.

Did you learn that in the military or do watch "Blackish"?

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

No it wasn't. and then start your "lecture" mode as though you think you can "inform" me about the topic.

From your link dumbass, a family of 4 (two adults, two kids) can not make more than $384 per month to receive the benefit. Do the math dumbass. That would be a family of 4 and makes less than $16,000 per year. You are the one that is full of shit. Your own links are backing up what I wrote. From your link.

Medicaid for an adult caring for a child

What it offers

Covers needed services, including:

• Doctor’s visits
• Vaccines
• Drugs ordered by a doctor
• Lab tests and X-rays
• Hospital care
• Glasses
• Dental care
• Rides to the doctor

Who is it for?

An adult caring for a child. For the adult to get this type of Medicaid, the child they are caring for must:

• Live with them.
• Get Medicaid.
• Be age 17 or younger or age 18 and attending school full time.

The adult caring for the child must be a:

• Parent
• Step-parent
• Sibling
• Step-sibling
• Grandparent
• Uncle or aunt
• Nephew or niece
• First cousin
• A child of a first cousin (first cousin once removed)

Maximum monthly income limits

Family sizeOne ParentTwo Parent1 $152 --------2 $262 $227 3$313$3344 $376 $384 5 $426 $448 Each additional person, add:$69 $69

https://yourtexasbenefits.hhsc.texas...s-and-families

Yep. WELCOME TO TEXAS.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

From your link .....Your own links are backing up what I wrote.

Trying to rewrite what you "wrote" to fit the FACTS.

Sorry, child.

To paraphrase you (I'll repost your bullshit if you insist): You made the claim that Medicaid was for poor people and Texas did NOT have expanded medicaid coverage for those who qualify. Both statements are wrong!

You can toss all the sand on it you want, but it's still turds.

That's what you and all the other small minded children do on the internet ... when you get proven wrong you lamely attempt to modify what you said to be consistent with the facts that proved you wrong .. and then you proclaim you were correct all along! That would be you!

If by some dilusional reason you think calling me a "dumbass" affects me at all..... it merely emphasizes your overwhelming ignorance.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Trying to rewrite what you "wrote" to fit the FACTS.

Liar. I didn't rewrite anything. Your own links proved what I wrote was correct. R.M. asked what was Medicaid going to look like after Trump changed it. She was referring to the Medicaid expansion from the ACA law. She was not referring to the Medicaid from the law that LBJ signed. Trump is not changing the law that LBJ signed. Trump and the republicans want to change the ACA law. The fact is the state of Texas is one of the 19 states that did not take the Expanded Medicaid option from the ACA LAW.

From your link that you provided it was proven that a family of 4 can not make more than $386 dollars per month to receive the Medicaid benefit in the state of TEXAS. For an accountant you have trouble reading tables.

If $386 per month is not poor, then what is poor?

You had your ass handed to you CHILD, using your links.

https://yourtexasbenefits.hhsc.texas...s-and-families

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Liar.

You lost! Unfortunately for you it has become a habit.

Just accept you are a LOSER and try to do better in 4 years.

(I know you won't, because it's part of your character!)

I'm beginning to think that's a Liberal Flaw ... They don't like the responsibility of winning.

Here's your Poster Child:



Can't get ahead on her own merits .... has to FAKE IT!

THAT WOULD BE YOU!!!!

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You

No, you lost Child. If R.M. was referring to "Original Medicaid" that was signed into law by LBJ, then why did she mention Trump in the O.P.? Anyone can see that she was referring to the ACA law except for your DUMB ASS. Trump did not campaign that he was going to repeal and replace "Original Medicaid" that was signed into law by LBJ.

The state of Texas did not take the Expanded Medicaid option provided by the ACA law. You were trying to score a debate point with the Texas state Medicaid, which is paid for in part by the Federal law that was signed by LBJ.

According to that table from your link a family of 4 can't make more than $386 per month to receive the "Original Medicaid" benefit in the state of Texas.

Maybe your DUMB ASS thinks $386 is a lot of money.

https://yourtexasbenefits.hhsc.texas.. .s-and-families

[preggolover89]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I don't need to call you an idiot. The original purpose of Medicaid has nothing to do with the discussion that was initiated by (according to you) this most informative person on here.

Go back and look at what he said about Texas. Since you appear to be from Texas. Apparently unlike many States, Texas has had a strong health insurance program through the State government PRIOR TO THE "ACA" not only by providing consumer resources to find AFFORDABLE health care coverage on the Texas Insurance Commission website, but also for children ... and for adults and children in clinics around the State in the major metro areas.

I'll repeat what I've said before. The "ACA" was the dream of Pelosi to bailout the Californians from their bankrupt retirement insurance program for the state employees (similar to their government employee "retirement plans/bonuses" that hit the news not long before Obaminable started mouthing off about requiring everyone to be insured whether they wanted to or not.) California needed an alternative to fall back on to provide coverage the State could no longer afford.

An example (since you are from Texas) of a California bailout was the rate increase requested by Reliant Energy with the Texas Utility Commission that included THE LOSSES FROM THE UNPAID UTILITY BILLS FROM CALIFORNIA when business/people fled the state years ago from the collapse of their WELFARE STATE. So if you pay utilities ... you are also paying their UNPAID BILLS .... right along with their health insurance shortfall.

CHIP is a poor substitute for expanded Medicaid. For someone who I'm sure would say they want smaller government, saying that multiple random pieced together programs is sufficient instead of streamlining benefits under one program and eliminating overhead is odd.

It seems like you're saying that indigent care was fine before the ACA (or fine now in Texas since they didn't expand). A classmate asked the CEO of a non-profit insurance company recently how he would respond to that statement. He said (praphrasing): "anyone who thinks indigent care is sufficient right now in Texas should come ride with me for a day and then see how they feel."

His insurance company was started by the main source of indigent care (county hospital) in a major city that you're noting was so great before the ACA.

I realized there's absolutely nothing I can write that will affect your opinion whatsoever, just posting so others can see and understand what's at stake. Healthcare in Texas, especially for the poor, was not and is not sufficient.