Rave this if you are boycotting Chick-Fil-A!

That's why we require you buy it when you start driving. But driving is a choice. All of us require health care at some point, so the analogy is flawed.
Now why don't you answer my question that you avoided about whether I should be forced to subsidize your care if you require major medical attention.

patients will have to wait a minimum of 4 - 6 months for physical exams and a minimum of 3-4 for mammograms unless the womans life is in danger. Doctors will not bother anymore.

You are referring to rationing. You're right, but that's not because of the new law. Rationing is already happening because we have a doctor shortage. In fact, it's been going on for some time. I asked for a vasectomy in 1987, and the procedure was done in 1992.

That was because of choice on your part, not because of system delay.

No, I wanted the procedure done ASAP and was forced to wait five yrs.
Now that Mitt Romney has announced he favors coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and young adults under parents' policies, are you rethinking this one or unhappy with him?

I'm not buying it. I'll take what Romney has over Obamacare anyday!

Well, have no fear. Mitt flipped again. Just two days after saying he wanted to cover people with pre-existing conditions as well as young adults under their parents' policies, he now says the former is only for people who first had coverage and went silent on the latter. I can't believe how terrified your boy is of the Tea Party. It doesn't even make political sense because they have no place else to go.
The fact is, however, that there is no way you can get insurance companies to agree to cover people with pre-existing conditions without a mandate. So Romney's position (and yours) defies logic.
It also appears Romney's act is wearing thin with voters. As things now stand, he is going to need one hell of a debate performance.

can't wait!

Actually, I can't either. LIke you, I don't think Romney can explain how to insure people with pre-existing conditions without a mandate. I doubt he can answer that any better than you or anyone else can because I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation. And, if he has an answer, the follow-up question is why didn't he do it in Ma wheh he was governor.
I don't think Obama will win a landslide, but it's shaping up as better than a cliffhanger. About 52-47 if I had to guess.

I hope so. No matter what Romney has planned, its better than having Obama in another 4 years.

It's going to take at least a decade to clean up Bush's mess. Plus, we finally have a start to solving our health care problem, and the world no longer loathes the US president. Why go back to the same "leadership" that put us in the toilet?
I really doubt your guy's going to make it, so prepare for four more yrs.

Prepare for America to fail drastically if he gets re-elected! Think about it, YOU can't even tell us what he has done to improve our economy or lower unemployment like he promised to do. So why do you believe he can do a 180 in the next 4 years? he hasn't advanced America and its problems, he failed drastically! If he would have atleast made things 5% better since he took office it would have been OK, but he's only made things much worse.

You're simply factually wrong. For example, when Obama assumed office, we were shedding about 750K jobs monthly. What did you think, that he could just wave a magic wand and return us to the prosperity of the Clinton yrs? Plus, he's had to deal with implacable opposition from a Republican Congress that puts party interests ahead of those of the nation.
When Obama was elected, a Republican friend of mine was despondent. I said to him, "Don't be so glum. It will take at least a decade to clean up this mess. Obama could well be a one-term president."

Had Obama atleast kept America stable, he might of had a chance of a second term. You sre correct, it can't be fixed in one or even two terms. The problem is, unemployment is FAR from recovery as Obama extended unemployment out so far. Creating GOOD jobs is something Obama has failed to do. The real unemployment numbers are well above the numbers they show. They don't include all the people who have quit working, retired early etc. His numbers of new employment are also way too low and thats why it as high as it is. Face it, he has been overriding the Republicans with his executive powers so that it eliminates there vote whether they vote with him or not! The biggest barrier is the Democrats in the Senate who disagree with him! He can't get enough support even from his own side.

You said it yourself. The problem can't be fixed in one or two terms. It'll take at least another 5-10 yrs before we see the kind of job growth (200-300K jobs monthly) to really roar back. If that spineless opportunist Romney got in, he'd take us back to the policies that brought on this mess. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
What Dems in the Senate do you think are against him? He was able to pass health care and the stimulus without a Republican vote on the former and only three on the latter.

The stimulus package is just one huge tax burden to everyone for the next 60 years. It won't fly anyways. As far as Obama goes, how the Hell to you figure he has improved the economy? He's added 6 trillon to the debt and unemployment is higher then ever. Are you believing he's going to do a 180? Or do you not understand the mess he's added?

Most economists estimate the stimulus package saved 3M jobs. That's not chicken feed.
That's one measure by which Obama has improved the economy. Another is that we are no longer shedding 750K jobs monthly. Unemployment reached its peak in Obama's first yr. Republicans like to blame it on him, but what they either overlook or don't realize is that we were still operating under the last Bush budget until Oct of that yr. The fiscal yr ends 9/30.
In other words, he inherited a mess. He didn't create it. Obama has pulled ahead because more and more people are realizing that going back to the policies that put us in the dumper isn't the answer.

ALL economist agree that the unemployment rate is unacceptable at where its at, period! Enough of BLAMING BUSH!!!!!!! Obama needs to put on his BIG BOY pants and take accountability for HIS actions now. If he so deserves a second term, what IS that he has done to deserve it? Did he earn the position to be re-elected? Has he lowered the National Debt which was at 10 trillion at the time he was elected? He was awarded the Nobel Peace prize...... explain Libya and all of the Muslim Countries that are exhibiting all of this hatred towards the USA? We have some serious problems in America. Does Obama plan in doing a 180? Or continue to blame Bush for his own screw ups?

Nobody is saying that today's employment situation is good, but it's just not reasonable to think anyone could undo the damage of the Bush yrs in a single term. Plus, Obama has had to deal with implacable opposition from a party more interested in defeating him than helping the country. It just doesn't strike me as fair to obstruct the President at every turn, then blame him for not doing enough.
The national debt always goes up. It even went up under Clinton, the most successful president fiscally of the post WWII era. The key is to lower the debt/GDP ratio. That can be done if the President and Congress can get together, but your rotten party doesn't want to deal. Republicans in Congress place the welfare of the party over that of the nation. I'd go so far as to call that treasonous.
It is instructive that the health care law was fashioned along Republican principles, and yet not a single GOP rep and only three Rep senators supported it.
Hatred toward the US in the Middle East is not new. Did you already forget 9/1?

You pick! Your choice. I'll debate you on any of them!

Nope... They donate to good, American charities, and they have excellent food. I see no reason to stop getting my chicken sandwiches there!

The Family Research Council is in favor of killing the Gay's in Africa. They actually had to bring up the issue in Congress. Please do your homework. Cathy's company started that one.
Over $5 million in Charity to Anti-Gay Charities. These charities are not "Good American Charities".

Have never eaten there...and now I never will.

obviously, why start now?!?!?!?

I am all for gay marriage but boycotting Chick-Fil-A is a waist of time.

I won't say I'm BOYCOTTING, but I wish the man would have kept his opinion to himself. Seriously, who's idea was it to ask him, anyway?!? I mean, the man invented the chicken sandwich. That's it. His opinion on anything else unless he's sharing it with friends and family is not relevant. I do disagree with him wholeheartedly, though.

This is America,he has a right to have his own opinion ,and he has a right to express it.His opinion is as relevant as anyone else's,and no one should be limited to sharing their opinions with only friends and family. Is the irony comletely lost on you that you choose to come on an opinion site and say that someone should only share their opinion with friends and family?

Sorry no rave, I support the First Amendment.

No .I think I will boycott Ben's &Jerry;'s .Home Depot,a few others.

I will not support any establishment that discriminates against people's personal lives

That's Funny

How is this funny?

Because you do support places and things that discriminates .

Such as…

You support the gay's.

And how do they discriminate?

Wow if you don't know that .I feel for you.But to give you a hint.They tried to take away the CEO'S of CFA right to free speech.His right to donate to whom he pleases.You support the mayors who said CFA wouldn't be allowed to open any business in there town's.

No I don't support the mayors who want to ban Chick-Fil-A. I believe in free speech, I just don't agree with what the CEO said. Stop jumping to conclusions.