Printable View
It's disengenuous to oppose something with lines that your party would have never supported. You're blaming Obama for not passing stuff that would have been even more difficult to pass. If you don't get that, there's no helping you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
This is stupid. So my party generally opposes gay marriage so I can't be in favor of gay marriage? This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life. Someone quote that Adam Sandler movie!Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
This makes zero sense. Not a single Republican voted for Obamacare. Not a single one. No, not even that one. How would it have been more difficult to pass Obamacare because of "my party" when "my party" didn't even vote for the current version of Obamacare?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Before we go any further you really have to explain this line of reasoning.
When you whine about how the other party should be better about gay marriage while you're a member of a party that opposes it, you're not funny, you're an asshole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
While your party screwed the collective pooch about actually doing anything (and they haven't done anything but oppose things for years) Obama made alliances with all those evil companies you hate (LOL) to actually achieve Obamacare. These are the people he made the bill like it was for, because he had this theory that Republicans might like a Republican bill but they would've hated anything he did even if they wrote it (witness the Rubio immigration bill), so he had to make new partnerships.
Again you're making zero sense. Please start making at least 1% sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
That's a lot of words but it didn't answer my question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Let's break it down. Your party opposes a thing. You don't. You then whine about how the party that you're not a member of should be "better about supporting a thing."Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
You don't get the disconnect?
You have *repeatedly demonstrated* that you absolutely do *not* understand 'Republican policy positions'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
By your example, 'Democrat policy position' would be to for the U.S. government to be the sole provider of food, healthcare, housing, etc ... and bankrupt the U.S. in the process.
The same reasoning applies to car insurance, and it is just as incorrect there. You cannot foresee a car accident by ten years, or a tumor, or schizophrenia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
This is a coherent theory, but one that does not turn out to match empirical data. Consider the report detailed in this article, for instance.Quote:
You have McDonald worker X. Worker X only makes 1200$ a month. We give X food stamps, cash assistance, rental assistance, free healthcare. X feels no need to work towards a better future when they are able to get assistance for taking the easy road. X meets Y and has Z. X and Y teach Z that you get free stuff for doing little to no work. Z grows up knowing this and does what X and Y did.
And if I could ask you this: what was your first instinct when presented with this?
1. Look up the data you used to come to this belief in the first place.
2. Look up data that supports your belief.
3. Dismiss the data presented, or dismiss the concept of data in general.
I suspect it was (3), and I think you do yourself a disservice by taking that route. Obviously you can't take (1) because you didn't use any data in the first place, but you could at least try door (2).It worked insofar as the human race did not become extinct, but it didn't work well enough insofar as common decency was concerned, which is why people invented welfare programs in the first place.Quote:
For the people that can't work, that's what family is for. Worked that way for thousands of years but now it can't?
There used to be a meme that black people had tails. People believing something does not make it true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Gatoraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
My point has been from the very beginning that Obamacare is going to make things worse. So yes when the best "the other party" can muster is to make things worse then you damn right better believe I'm going to bitch about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I'm just waiting for Back to pop in now and say I should have voted for Romney.
That's certainly the sort of shit you claim regularly. The Republican Party opposes "entitlements." It believes in the Horatio Alger "bootstraps" myth and things like "trickle down economics" and the philosophies of Ayn Rand. This isn't invention, this is your political philosophy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
My point is it's disengenuous to complain about the solution when you stand with Team No Solutions Ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
And your point is stupid. You have demonstrated it quite perfectly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Latrin did you even read your own article?
"It is clear, however, that government spending programs have in fact substantially reduced the number of poor people over the decades. And one of America’s first welfare programs didn’t just temporarily cushion the blow of financial hardship; it led to sustained health and income gains for children."
Sigh, just sigh.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
6 states where Welfare pays more than a 12$ an hour job.
39 states where welfare pays more than a 8$ an hour job.
As I understand it, while the IRS is handling assessing the "tax" on those not insured, they do not have the same power that they have with tax evasion. If I'm not mistaken, the only recourse they have to take that "tax" money from you is garnishment of income tax return. So if you don't want Obamacare, just change your withholdings to take your money during the year and owe taxes at tax time. The law has no teeth in such a case.
You can't complain about that because you're not a Democrat. WB hath spoken!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Door (3) it is. Let's break it down by claim:Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
1. reduced the number of poor people.
Surely this undermines your position. If welfare encouraged people to stay poor, there would be the same or more, not less.
2. sustained health for children
This doesn't seem relevant.
3. sustained income gains for children
Children grow up and get better jobs, and thus are not on welfare anymore.
I'm at a loss for how you think the sentence does anything but explode your claims.
Are you seriously trying to tell me the amount of people on welfare is going down?Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
I've been mostly MIA for a week or so because of work, but let's jump right back into it, shall we?
This is the risk you take. Either pay for insurance, or pay for what happens. The fact is, statistically, most of is will not have anything catastrophically bad happen to us (medically) in the first 40 or so years of our life. Obviously we're taking a gamble with that, but playing the odds usually works out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Lol at a link to a Slate "journalist" who uses links to his own other articles and/or broken links that don't exist to back up his claims. Though I will give him credit for admitting "On average, the rejects were better off financially than people who were accepted". C'mon Latrin...usually when you give reference, it's somewhat reliable. I thought better of you.Quote:
This is a coherent theory, but one that does not turn out to match empirical data. Consider the report detailed in this article, for instance.
Don't know about anyone else, but my first instincts were to:Quote:
And if I could ask you this: what was your first instinct when presented with this?
1. Look up the data you used to come to this belief in the first place.
2. Look up data that supports your belief.
3. Dismiss the data presented, or dismiss the concept of data in general.
1. Question the veracity of the claims, as any good scientist would.
2. Do independent research.
3. Form belief.
In that order.
QED.Quote:
People believing something does not make it true.
Of course you'd think that. You don't want to admit that you set up unreachable bars to attack people from on things your own party doesn't even back. It's right up there with thinking the guy who doesn't pay taxes has a right to complain about taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
So instead of doing something to make the situation better you want me to give credit to Democrats for making things worse?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
This is all kinds of stupid, I can't believe you're still arguing this.
No. It's just foolish for you to blame Obama for a situation that your party lead to. You demand things from this bill that will never happen because of people like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Here we go again, blaming Obamacare on Republicans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I've completely destroyed your theory numerous times, yet you still believe it.
I really don't get it.
:deadhorse:
It's cool that you can rewrite things in your memory. I bet that makes for a happier life for you. I mean in Thondalar land people just magically agree on unstated principles of rightness and we gather around in a circle and sing Kumbaya. Let's break it down because you're an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
1. Obama tries to negotiate with Republicans and gives a bunch of the things that Tgo01 thinks the bill should have had in it away. Totally Obama's fault!
2. The Republicans were lying and don't support it.
3. Obama gives more stuff away to get the support of industry
4. Bill passes
Tgo01 complains that the bill didn't have the other stuff in it. That awful Obama!
If the Republicans hadn't been the party of fail, the bill might've had better stuff in it.
Considering that I didn't say that, it would be pretty ridiculous of me to try and tell you that. What the article said was that welfare reduces the number of poor people, and if you look at the lower graph here...Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ed_States..PNG
...it seems they've got it pretty correct. It remains to be seen whether the increase since ~99 is random noise or due to inept reforms enacted around that time, but the fact is that we have had welfare as commonly understood since the '60s and have seen no evidence of dependency, and we have had similar socialist-leaning programs since the '30s when poverty rates were 3 times what they are today.
That's the goal - less poverty. Counting the people "on welfare" is pointless because welfare changes decade by decade, it's an equivocation.
Republicans are to Obamacare as Chuck Berry is to Elvis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Not the same thing, definitely influential.
Yes because clearly that graph shows a decline in poverty....
You keep saying this without providing even the slightest bit of an argument to support your assertion. How did Republicans lead us to Obamacare?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Do you even read your posts before hitting the reply button?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
So I demand XYZ but we will never get XYZ because people like me don't want XYZ?
I can't even begin to understand what you're trying to argue.
http://www.heritage.org/~/media/Imag...3D299%26as%3D1
At least some wars have an ending in sight.
OH CRAP! That's from an conservative website... has to be false.. sorry :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Here we go.Quote:
Originally Posted by WB
You demand XYZ but don't have XYZ because of your own party. Then you blame Obama.
In almost all states you are legally required to have car insurance. It is not a choice, and if you are caught without it you are liable to be punished regardless of whether you have been in an accident or made a claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Most of us won't have catastrophically bad car accidents either, but the law is still the law - and it's a correct one. Your thought process is what is described as smart for one, dumb for all. Most people do not have to be subject to unprepared catastrophe for it to be a net loss to the group, because "catastrophe" does not mean infinitesimally worse than average. This is one of the many reasons why we need a government, to force us into certain decisions that are dumb for one, smart for all.Quote:
The fact is, statistically, most of is will not have anything catastrophically bad happen to us (medically) in the first 40 or so years of our life. Obviously we're taking a gamble with that, but playing the odds usually works out.
I didn't say "consider this article", I said consider the report detailed therein. With that being said, if you're just going to rely on character attacks of the authors there's not much difference.Quote:
Lol at a link to a Slate "journalist" who uses links to his own other articles and/or broken links that don't exist to back up his claims. Though I will give him credit for admitting "On average, the rejects were better off financially than people who were accepted". C'mon Latrin...usually when you give reference, it's somewhat reliable. I thought better of you.
If you can't see how 15% is lower than 22%, I can't help you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
They wrote the individual mandate so you guys can't trust them though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
KrugmanQuote:
The essence of Obamacare, as of Romneycare, is a three-legged stool of regulation and subsidies: community rating requiring insurers to make the same policies available to everyone regardless of health status; an individual mandate, requiring everyone to purchase insurance, so that healthy people don’t opt out; and subsidies to keep insurance affordable for those with lower incomes.
The original Heritage plan from 1989 had all these features.
These days, Heritage strives mightily to deny the obvious; it picks at essentially minor differences between what it used to advocate and the plan Democrats actually passed, and tries to make them seem like a big deal. But this is disinformation. The essential features of the ACA — above all, the mandate — are ideas Republicans used to support.
If you can't see how spending 15.9 trillion dollars and not seeing any form of drastic cut in the poverty level in the last 50 years you are a fucking retard. CLEARLY it's working.
Ideas you USED to support and ideas you DO support are two completely different things.
Sure sounds like Obama's fault.Quote:
1. Obama tries to negotiate with Republicans and gives a bunch of the things that Tgo01 thinks the bill should have had in it away. Totally Obama's fault!
2. The Republicans were lying and don't support it.
3. Obama gives more stuff away to get the support of industry
4. Bill passes
Tgo01 complains that the bill didn't have the other stuff in it. That awful Obama!
Regardless of who is to blame for why Obamacare isn't better the fact remains...it's not better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
You can bash your head against the wall all day proclaiming that the evil Republicans forced Obama to sign this piece of shit into law but it's still a piece of shit. Maybe Obama should stop worrying about poll numbers and campaigning and who is going to win what basketball game and how he can cut down on his slices in golf and worry more about being a fucking leader.
https://montevallotimetravel.files.w...ssscracy_1.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I can't force you to believe that a 30% cut is drastic, but for future reference I would like to know what your standard is for that word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Five
Also, unlike those conquered in foreign wars, those who conquer poverty are required by law to indefinitely make reparations to the government as their income gets higher. Do they recoup the $300ish billion that would be required to run the program at a profit? Beats me. We know the federal government collects about $2 trillion in income tax alone, throw in excise taxes and subfederal taxes and I would be interested to see how close it was.
Now we're going with the lie that Republicans would ever cooperate over anything. Then I'm sure we can have a dose of QQing about things like executive orders like Obama's the first President to have used them. Carry on with the nonsense. If you tell it to yourself enough times you can even convince yourself it isn't intellectually dishonest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Alright WB. It's painfully obvious you are just going to keep making up my arguments for me and attacking those arguments so I guess I'll just say you win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Obamacare's failures is due to Republicans.
Republicans caused the downfall of America.
Republicans are the anti Christ.
Someone who belongs to the Republican party can't possibly have an opinion that differs from the mainstream Republican ideals.
Democrats are Gods.
Obama can do no wrong.
Obama saved the healthcare industry.
Obama killed bin Laden with his bare hands.
There is some woman in some small town in Iowa who was cured of all of her medical issues when Obama touched her forehead.
All praise Obama!
You're required to cover insurance for other people you may hurt with your car. I don't understand how this can be at all equated to health insurance for an individual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
A thousand ways, no.Quote:
This is one of the many reasons why we need a government, to force us into certain decisions that are dumb for one, smart for all.
"Obama needs to BE A LEADER" = this pretend world where Republicans would ever cooperate with him on anything even if they made it upQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
It's not too complex. Since you have trouble refuting the point you want to act like my simple argument is outlandish.
The intellectual dishonesty is brought into sharp focus when you suggest he should "worry about poll numbers less" and instead push for things that won't succeed (which of course your party wouldn't support anyways).
Insurance A is required because a person might be hurt unpredictably.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Insurance B is required because a person might be hurt unpredictably.
I wouldn't say equal, but I would say comparable.
I understand ACA is controversial. People who still refuse to get insured should not be. They should be condemned by even the farthest right. There is no moral high ground in refusing to insure yourself. The GOP silence on this is disappointing.Quote:
Currently, 53% of all uninsured Americans say they plan to get insurance, while 38% say they are more likely to pay the fine the government will assess most Americans who lack health insurance.
Poverty rate /= welfare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Half right. You are required to have care insurance if you choose to drive, and own a car. if you choose to not drive and not own a car, you are not still required by law to pay for car insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
This bill makes it so you have no choice other then leave the country.... or kill yourself I guess. Hmm.. maybe the ACA is advocating suicide.
Fixed that for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
I will agree that government is force. Force is unethical. I disagree that their poorly written and randomly enforced laws can lead to anything other than oppression, let alone the utopia your ILK envision. Until Obummer assigns a specific fascist to each of us to ensure we do what they say, there will always be people like me who say, "not interested" and do as we believe best regardless of what the rest of the sheeple do (that's called "freedom" - google it). If your ILK believe in this mess we call government, then by all means, give the government 100% of your assets in support of their agenda. It's okay, their programs will help you once you're poor, right? Go sponsor a bunch of people for Obamacare plans. Go police a McDonalds to be sure no one consumes more than 16 oz. of sugar water. Meanwhile, I'll be over here minding my own business wondering why you can't be content to mind yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Why do people keep pointing out that all the things I didn't say are wrong? I know they're wrong, that's why I didn't say them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Hey, I'm all for letting people off of the requirement if they can prove that they will never have a car accident or never have ill health. In the real world, we have to accept that everything we do has consequences, even those things we don't control. Where I'm from this kind of personal responsibility goes without saying, but apparently other people have done goofed, and when that happens it's up to the government to make things right.Quote:
Half right. You are required to have care insurance if you choose to drive, and own a car. if you choose to not drive and not own a car, you are not still required by law to pay for car insurance.
This bill makes it so you have no choice other then leave the country.... or kill yourself I guess. Hmm.. maybe the ACA is advocating suicide.
Fixed that for you.
An option being unethical is not the same as an option necessarily being the wrong choice. We live in a flagrantly unethical universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
But if I believe in this government, why would I give them any different than what they have decreed is necessary and proper for me to give? :)Quote:
If your ILK believe in this mess we call government, then by all means, give the government 100% of your assets in support of their agenda.
The common welfare is my business. And yours. And even Methais'.Quote:
Meanwhile, I'll be over here minding my own business wondering why you can't be content to mind yours.
We got another Obamacare fuckup to report. This one from the President's State of the Union address. Remember that WA rep. who gave the GOP rebuttal. The english one, not the tea party one, or the other tea party one. Turns out she fucked up.
Quote:
The centerpiece of the Republican party's attack on the Affordable Care Act following President Obama's State of the Union address this week was the story of "Bette."
Bette was an otherwise unidentified Washington state resident featured in the official GOP response to the Obama speech delivered by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.). According to Rodgers, Bette had written her a letter stating that she had "hoped the president’s healthcare law would save her money – but found out instead that her premiums were going up nearly $700 a month." The lesson, according to Rodgers: "This law is not working."
But that sounds like her insurer trying to steer her to an overpriced option. A compliant plan meeting the Affordable Care Act's coverage mandates actually is available from Washington's insurance exchange for much less -- and with a deductible far lower than the $10,000 she was paying under the old plan and broader coverage, though lacking a provision for four free doctor visits a year provided by her old plan.
Grenier said she had flatly refused to even investigate her options on the exchange. "I wouldn’t go on that Obama website at all,” she said. “We liked our old plan. It worked for us, but they can’t offer it anymore.”
Instead, she and her husband "have decided to go without coverage," the newspaper reported.
I like how someone who isn't her knows how much her plans should be.
Reminds me of WB calling me a liar when I said the cheapest plan available to me was 200 dollars.
I also want to know what I'm doing wrong because Bette's "friend' supposedly got a plan for 120 bucks a month, my uncle insists there are plans for 30 bucks a month on the Obamacare website if you "know where to look."
So what the heck am I doing wrong that the best I can get is 200 dollars a month? Latrin? Help me out here.
Do you think the state insurance regulator would know how much her plan should be? He was stumped by the story too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Here's another link. This one to the local paper that the LA Times is using as their source. I'll sum it up for you. The lady had catastrophic coverage which is no longer compliant. Her insurance provider mailed her a letter telling her that the plan is discontinued, but she can buy a much more expensive plan from them if she wishes. That basically ended the womans relationship with medical insurance. She didn't want to take the plan her carrier was upselling to her and she refuses to go on the website to shop.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...odgers-speech/
I guess that would depend on how much he knows about her and her situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
What do you mean "another" link? You never provided me a link to begin with and I had to Google something all on my own :(Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
I read her story though, she's pretty stupid for not at least shopping around but that doesn't negate the fact that she claimed she was happy with her insurance and she wasn't able to keep it and her insurance company quoted her a much higher price.
This reads like some sort of "Gotcha!" moment yet no one has refuted anything the woman said, just that her insurance company was trying to gouge her.
Actually, no I do not think he would. How is someone who would not know the specifics of her plan, or her financials, know exactly how much her plan should be? Which plan? Does he pick which plan she gets?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Maybe this will help:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Quote:
Unsurprisingly, her story is much different from the sketchy description provided by Rodgers. That description perplexed experts, including Washington State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler, who couldn't understand how a state resident "would have no choice but to pay $700 per month more for a policy that meets the Affordable Care Act’s coverage requirements," the newspaper reported.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...#ixzz2s1d0Pow6
I like your link though cwolff, it sure does paint a different picture than your original post:
So, wait, it's possible her premiums could be that high but he's "skeptical"? Well shit! I'm sure as fuck convinced she's lying now!Quote:
In Olympia, state Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler didn’t dismiss the possibility but was skeptical that someone would have no choice but to pay $700 per month more for a policy that meets the Affordable Care Act’s coverage requirements.
As I said the cheapest option available to me was 200 dollars a month (okay it was like 188...shut up!) by law (Obamacare law) insurance companies can charge elderly folks up to three times the amount for a premium as they charge younger folks. And her 1200 dollar a month quote was for both her and her husband.
Also I don't smoke and by law insurance companies can charge smokers more, what if both she and her husband smoke?
Now wait...let me see...200 x 3 x 2...carry the one...
Even I don't have enough words to describe all the things you do wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I kid! I kid. :heart:
You highlighted nothing. Might as well say that an atheist scientist didn't dismiss the possibility of a deity therefore even he says that god exists. That logic doesn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
But the “nearly $700 per month” increase in her premium that McMorris Rodgers cited in Tuesday night’s GOP response to the State of the Union address was based on one of the pricier options, a $1,200-a-month replacement plan that was pitched by Asuris Northwest to Grenier and her husband, Don.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
The carrier also offered a less expensive, $1,052-per-month option in lieu of their soon-to-be-discontinued catastrophic coverage plan. And, Grenier acknowledged the couple probably could have shaved another $100 a month off the replacement policy costs by purchasing them from the state’s online portal, the Health Plan Finder website, but they chose to avoid the government health exchanges.
Look at that. It started out at nearly $700.00 more and was proof that the law just doesn't work. We, even with the little we know, are already able to save this lady $300.00 on her new plan and she'll get better coverage.
Too bad this lady didn't return her rep's call before she got pushed into the national debate. If she had, and if the Morris had done any fact checking, this would never have come up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I didn't know single words were difficult ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
By pointing out the fact that the guy who you claimed would know this stuff doesn't dismiss the possibility that what she said could be 100% accurate doesn't prove anything? :/Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
So she gets a letter in the mail saying her plan is going up 140% but we call her stupid and say she could save 300 dollars from that figure which would bring her new plan to 80% more than her old plan and she has "saved money" in the process?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Jeril loves me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
No, I'm not calling her a fuck up for that. I am calling this another "Obamacare Fuckup" because the GOP rep out there scaring folks doesn't know what the hell she's talking about. It's not the only ACA myth. Here are some more: http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ories-debunkedQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I am calling this lady a fuck up for not even checking. Her insurance may go up and you may have to pay 188$ that's true. We've known all along that the best of us will have to make some sacrifices.
You can get pennicilin through Obamacare. Not bad and you'll need it after lovin' on Jeril. (maybe lovin' under him is more accurate but you see what I'm saying)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
How is this a myth when the guy who said he's "skeptical" admitted she could be right on the money with her story? Her plan went up 140%. How is that helping this woman?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Pretty sure that the difference between 1,200 and 1,050 is only 150, and tack on another 100 to that and we get 250$ which isn't 300$. And that still leaves them paying close to 450$ more a month. They will be getting better coverage at least, but is all of it even something they'd need?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
That's a good question. We don't know what they need nor do we know the circumstances of their health, age or income. We do know that they got a letter offering a plan nearly $700 a month more than they have now so they wrote a letter to their congresswoman and she cited that as "The law is not working". No fact check, no nothing. Just one letter from a constituent who hadn't even done her own research.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeril
The guy said it doesn't sound right to him, and I suppose he's something of an expert on this since he's the regulator for the state, but he did not dismiss the possibility outright. You took a lot from the latter part of that sentence and nothing from the former. I don't think you gave this idea a fair shake because it doesn't mesh with what you want to think or your politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
That's awfully ironic don't you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
So far I have seen nothing presented from anyone stating that this woman was wrong or is lying or blah blah blah. The closest thing we have is the insurance regulator for the state (which I'll admit probably knows more than you or me) stating her story is not impossible but he's "skeptical."
I'm supposed to ignore this lady's version of events and ignore the fact that this guy said her version of events is possible and just take his skepticism as gospel? I don't even take real gospel as gospel.
Don't ignore her version of events. She has no fucking idea what she's talking about because she got all her information from being upsold by her own insurance carrier. She even refuses to check prices online. Doesn't stop her and her rep from using her experience as an example of ACA not working though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I'll admit she should have at least shopped around to see what other options were out there but that doesn't necessarily mean there would have been a better offer out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
What's with this "upsold" talk I keep seeing anyways? Sounds like that's just lamestream media spin. The article you linked earlier basically even admits this!
Yet at the verrrrrry bottom:Quote:
But the “nearly $700 per month” increase in her premium that McMorris Rodgers cited in Tuesday night’s GOP response to the State of the Union address was based on one of the pricier options, a $1,200-a-month replacement plan that was pitched by Asuris Northwest to Grenier and her husband, Don.
So wait, what? Who is the one saying this was the "pricier" option available to her? How is everyone an expert on what this woman went through? How is everyone but this woman an expert on this woman and the health insurance policies available to her?Quote:
An earlier version of this story described the $1,200 replacement plan as the priciest option, but Grenier contacted the newspaper after the article was published to say she had looked over her paperwork again and wanted to point out that there was an even more expensive plan offered by her carrier, which would have been $1,679 per month, she said.
The carriers who sent cancellation notices also used the notice as a chance to sell the person a new ACA compatible plan. This is where the upselling comes into play. It's not illegal what they did, but they touted their more profitable products when they did this. They also didn't do a good job or maybe didn't even do any job, informing people of where they can shop online. This caused a lot of the stories we heard in October about people losing coverage and their new plan is so much more expensive.
So that article says that Mike Kreidler knows exactly what her current plan is, including every detail, and also knows exactly what plan they offered her, he also has her IRS records handy so he knows if she qualifies for a subsidy or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
You know, maybe I was wrong about all this.. if a State Insurance commissioner knows every fucking detail of every possible plan off the top of his head for his state, AND has access to illegal IRS data, then Sure, I guess he would know.
Sadly.. that isn't the case. I mean.. he could maybe not understand it if there was a plan that cost 250 a month, but was SHIT compared to what she had, but that isn't what you nor he are implying. You are implying that there is an ACA plan almost identical for a lot less. I won't believe that till I see proof.
But you will take some random lady on her word?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
As I said when SCOTUS approved this law as a tax, let the thing crash under its own stupidity. Pass a bill that we won't offer 1 penny to bail it out when it crashes. GOP problem solved.
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthrea...89#post1629489Quote:
Many workers may opt to work less to retain their eligibility for Medicaid or federal subsidies under Obamacare, a new report has found
Absolutely *fantastic* ... encourage people to work just the minimum that they need to without jeopardizing their hands-outs.
Obamacare is *so bad* Obama is volunteering to stay away from Democrats campaigning for election.
Quote:
(CNN) -- President Barack Obama has told Senate Democrats that he's willing to stay away from election battles where his presence would not be helpful, a Democratic source said -- an apparent nod to his poll numbers.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/06/politi...html?hpt=hp_t2Quote:
A number of Democratic senators facing tough re-elections this year seem to be anything but excited to have the President join them on the campaign trail.
Sen. Mark Begich, a Democrat from red-state Alaska who faces a challenging bid for second term in the Senate, told CNN last week that "I'm not really interested in campaigning" with Obama if the President came to Alaska, he said.
Wow, even Democrat Politicans are saying "NObama"
He's "willing" to stay away? Like they need his permission to not campaign with them or something?
At this point Obama sounds like a junkie. "I need my campaign fix, man! I haven't run for office in two years!!!"
Employers may start to offer plans with narrower provider networks to capture cost savings similar to the plans offered on the Obamacare exchanges. Although boring, this is a really big deal.
Quote:
Health plans on Obamacare's insurance exchanges will on average cost less than employer-sponsored coverage, according to a new report.
More...
Quote:
So how are the insurers offering plans on the exchanges keeping their costs down?
In part, the use of narrow networks, also known as high-performance health plans, allows insurance companies to increase competition among doctors and hospitals by being more selective about with which companies they include in their coverage.
Ceci Connolly, managing director of the Health Research Institute, said even employers are looking at narrowing their networks to lower costs.
"We anticipate that the public and private exchanges are going to continue to foster greater competition and ongoing pressure to provide better value," Connolly said. "Everyone's going to be able to look at what's out there and available on these exchanges. I think employers will turn around and ask insurers for similar good value, when they compare plan offerings and see if they're getting what they want for their money."
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/06/news...html?iid=s_mpm
Quote:
AOL became the latest company to blame Obamacare for cutting back on employee benefits.
The tech firm will now pay its 401(k) company match only to employees who are active on Dec. 31 of that year, as opposed to in their paychecks throughout the year. So those who leave the company before the end of the year will forfeit the match.
AOL (AOL) CEO Tim Armstrong blamed $7.1 million in additional Obamacare costs the company is facing this year. Had the company not made the change in its 401(k) payments, employees would have seen their health insurance costs increase, he told CNN Thursday.
Latest from the CBO on O-Care
http://nypost.com/2014/02/05/congres...-to-obamacare/
I told you all so.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
I don't understand how even the person who wrote that could believe it. "fewer people will have employment-based insurance coverage"... because they'll be getting it through the exchanges instead. Hence, in a decade we will see 89% insured instead of 80%.
And let me stop you right there. "Oh, nonelderly? What about insurance for our elders?" Obviously the death panels will be in full swing by theeeennnn UMMMM I MEAN they'll have insurance too.
Wait, actually, I see what they did. "Virtually as many Americans will lack health coverage in 10 years as before the law was passed". Raw number, not per capita. That's a great way to trick stupid people, I'll give them that much.
Yet another "delay"
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101393331
I find this part highly funny though...
I could have SWORN numerous people on here said that companies were not doing that. Why would they need to make this stipulation if companies were not doing that? Hmm.. odd.Quote:
"The government will now exempt companies employing between 50 and 100 full-time workers from complying with the mandate that they offer employees affordable health insurance by another year, until 2016. Officials said that any business claiming they are eligible for the new one-year delay because they have fewer than 100 workers must certify, under penalty of perjury, that it had not reduced its workforce merely to qualify for that exemption."
Then there is this...
I find it very funny that the President and his people are actually doing more damage to their bill then the GOP is.Quote:
"In another rule change, the Treasury Department announced that larger companies with 100 or more workers will only have to offer affordable insurance coverage to 70 percent of their full-time workers in 2015 to comply with the law or face penalties, instead of 95 percent, as originally proposed by regulations. Employers must increase that offer to 95 percent of workers by 2016 under the final rule announced Monday. "
and then there is this treasure...
It's ALWAYS great when someone can just change a law enacted by congress anyway they want to. And Dems wonder why Repubs don't believe the President will hold up his end on Immigration reform.Quote:
" "We think a phase-in approach is a way to administer the law better, and enhance overall compliance with the law," said the official.
And, a senior official noted when asked what legal authority the administration had to give the year reprieve to smaller businesses, "We've done it in a bunch of other areas."
I wouldn't call you stupid...Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
State And Local Governments Blame Obamacare For Cutting Worker Hours
Obama! Obama! Obama!Quote:
Conservatives claim Obamacare is a socialist boondoggle that will bloat the federal government. Ironically, state and local governments claim Obamacare is making them tighten their belts.
Part-time public-sector workers like substitute teachers, prison guards, and police dispatchers risk having their hours cut in an effort by state and local governments to dodge the Affordable Care Act's "employer mandate" to give such workers health benefits, the New York Times reports.
“Our choice was to cut the hours or give them health care, and we could not afford the latter,” Dennis Hanwell, the Republican mayor of Medina, Ohio, told the NYT, referring to city employees.
Under President Obama's signature health-care reform law, employers are required to provide insurance for part-time employees working more than 30 hours per week. Many government employers say they simply can’t afford it, according to the NYT, and plan to limit worker hours to 29 per week instead.
Some private-sector employers have also threatened to cut part-time workers’ hours in an effort to skirt the health-care law. Companies such as Regal Entertainment and Olive Garden parent company Darden Restaurants, as well as certain small business owners, claim to have looked to cutting worker hours as a way of reducing health-care costs.
Looks like the CBO's predictions are becoming fulfilled.
Obamacare is so fucked up.. even the Dems on the PC has stopped defending it.
Alternately Republican circle jerks aren't compelling.
lol...Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
It doesn't seem like ACA needs to be defended anymore. The GOP has given up on repeal and is now beginning to work towards making the law better. It's unfortunate that they didn't do this in 2010 but better late than never.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
I like the idea of the GOP letting the law illustrate how bad the law is.. right before the 2014 midterms.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Take back the Senate, increase the seats in the House.. THEN fix the law by defunding it and letting it just become the "New Coke"... a complete failure.
We will see in Oct how many Dems run on the ACA platform.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Maybe Pelosi and Reid.. but I am not sure how many more.
Campaigning and Governing are two different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Obama hasn't made a distinction. Why should we?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Precisely the sort of post that made me suggest that this thread is mutual masturbation. I meant of ideas and opinions but you could take it elsewhere of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
This is interesting. An investment firm, backed by Goldman Sachs, put together vehicles that allow people to bet conceptually. “We take ideas and translate them to what we call a ‘motif’—an intelligently weighted basket of up to 30 stocks, built around an idea that people can understand.” Examples of these baskets include Chinese solar, 3D printing, and “caffeine fix”—an assortment of coffee, soda, and energy drink companies.
They have one that is composed of companies that will benefit from ACA and one composed of companies that will benefit from ACA repeal. The Obamacare fund has a 46.9% return, the Repeal Obamacare one is 13.8%. What's even more telling is that the investors are betting heavily on ACA remaining law.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles...a-will-succeedQuote:
What’s most striking isn’t the performance of the two funds, but where investors are choosing to place their money. “We don’t have convictions or views on the law itself,” says Walia. “We give you both sides of the equation.” But one is clearly more popular: He says Motif investors have bet 45 times more money on Obamacare’s success than on its failure.
This trend reflects the beliefs of the investment community, where—unlike in Washington—the permanence of the health-care law is taken for granted and the prospect of repeal is given practically no credence. “Investors can’t imagine a scenario where the changes the Affordable Care Act started will be repealed and taken away,” says Bob Kocher, a partner specializing in health care and IT at the venture capital firm Venrock. “There’s a ton of money flowing into things that help health-care [companies] take advantage of the insurance market changes, the coverage expansion, the payment model changes, and the data liberation that are derivative of the law.”
I just viewed it as another shining example of your hypocrisy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
If the GOP does not meet with midterm success, will that change your mind on the ACA?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Obamacare making it too expensive now to eat out for dinner.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/27/news....html?iid=LeadQuote:
Diners at eight Gator's Dockside casual eateries are finding a 1% Affordable Care Act surcharge on their tabs, which comes to 15 cents on a typical $15 lunch tab. Signs on the door and at tables alert diners to the fee, which is also listed separately on the bill.
The Gator Group's full-time hourly employees won't actually receive health insurance until December. But the company said it implemented the surcharge now because of the compliance costs it's facing ahead of the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate kicking in in 2015.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/a...arge-620xa.jpg
Perhaps this will be an ironic positive of ACA ... people eating less = less obesity = healthier population.
It's dumb and nothing but a publicity stunt. Why not change the Chili Cheese Dog to $6.69 where no one would notice it?
They probably upped that price up as well, nothing like a small dollar distraction to cover up the large dollar profiteering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I for one look forward to the day when my restaurant bill looks like my electricity bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Funny perspective.Quote:
The fee will allow the company to continue offering full-time hours to many workers, according to Sandra Clark, the group's director of operations.
"I'm just trying to keep the employees I have that I've worked hard to train," Clark said.
I'm more annoyed that the surcharge isn't exactly 1%: 1% * 21.14 = 0.21.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Home made coleslaw is ACA-exemptQuote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Yet another business under the thumb of Big Cabbage.
Ok.. so the Dems are so worried about midterms.. that Obama is going to "delay" the need for current plans to meet HIS requirements till AFTER the election this fall.
Isn't that SWELL.
What more proof do you need that this thing is a fucking piece of shit, then the fact that Obama has delayed it more then he has implemented it?
How can Obama just keep delaying it? Doesn't Congress need to do that?
So Congress passes a law and Obama can just change the law on a whim?
Is this America?!? Huh?!
He hasn't CHANGED the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
He just told the people that report to him to not ENFORCE the law.
You sound like a racist. The only reason you could possibly oppose the ACA is that you hate black people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Isn't that even worse? :/Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
It depends on if you see the delays as...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
1. a prudent acknowledgment of the realities of implementing the most ambitious program since the New Deal or
2. a humiliating capitulation that's the first smart thing Obummer's ever done
Prolly depends on who you ask.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
OR.. a Political tool to help ease the beating the Dems think they will take in November.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JFfN5pKzFU
This or that?? Be nasty to your nasturtiums, and be decisive with your demonstratives.Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay
If it's so good, why not put it fully into effect now? You can never have too much of a good thing.Quote:
The Affordable Care Act, President Barack Barack Obama’s signature health law, is already boosting household income and spending.
The Commerce Department reported Monday that consumer spending rose a better-than-expected 0.4% and personal incomes climbed 0.3% in January. The new health-care law accounted for a big chunk of the increase on both fronts.
On the incomes side, the law’s expanded coverage boosted Medicaid benefits by an estimated $19.2 billion, according to Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. The ACA also offered several refundable tax credits, including health insurance premium subsidies, which added up to $14.7 billion.
Taken together, the Obamacare provisions are responsible for about three-quarters of January’s overall rise in Americans’ incomes.
More...
http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/05/news....html?iid=Lead
Wait wait wait, you can keep your old health care plans until *2016*, the next Presidential election?
I thought Obamacare/ACA was something that all Americans wanted and was otherwise a huge *huge* improvement upon existing healthcare in a major reform effort.
Why ... *WHY* delay it another two years ?!?!?!
Ooooohhhh ... so Obamacare was/*is* politically unpopular ?!?!Quote:
The change could prevent Americans from receiving a new round of termination letters just before the November midterm elections. The cancellations last fall created a public relations nightmare for Obama officials, leading them in November to allow insurers to extend these plans into 2014.
I'm usually on the president's side but this interview is horrible. He sounds condescending, cocky, and pretty defensive. It gets to a point where he is almost downright rude to the interviewer. The president really needs to show composure and not almost fly off the handle at people who just want simple answers.
Watch the interview here.
Trolling or are you really this stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
It's hard to tell with you.
This one is big-time seriously bad...
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...trending_now_2
Quote:
ObamaCare's implementers continue to roam the battlefield and shoot their own wounded, and the latest casualty is the core of the Affordable Care Act—the individual mandate. To wit, last week the Administration quietly excused millions of people from the requirement to purchase health insurance or else pay a tax penalty.
...
But amid the post-rollout political backlash, last week the agency created a new category: Now all you need to do is fill out a form attesting that your plan was cancelled and that you "believe that the plan options available in the [ObamaCare] Marketplace in your area are more expensive than your cancelled health insurance policy" or "you consider other available policies unaffordable."
This lax standard—no formula or hard test beyond a person's belief—at least ostensibly requires proof such as an insurer termination notice. But people can also qualify for hardships for the unspecified nonreason that "you experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance," which only requires "documentation if possible." And yet another waiver is available to those who say they are merely unable to afford coverage, regardless of their prior insurance. In a word, these shifting legal benchmarks offer an exemption to everyone who conceivably wants one.
Keep in mind that the White House argued at the Supreme Court that the individual mandate to buy insurance was indispensable to the law's success, and President Obama continues to say he'd veto the bipartisan bills that would delay or repeal it. So why are ObamaCare liberals silently gutting their own creation now?
The answers are the implementation fiasco and politics. HHS revealed Tuesday that only 940,000 people signed up for an ObamaCare plan in February, bringing the total to about 4.2 million, well below the original 5.7 million projection. The predicted "surge" of young beneficiaries isn't materializing even as the end-of-March deadline approaches, and enrollment decelerated in February.
Meanwhile, a McKinsey & Company survey reports that a mere 27% of people joining the exchanges were previously uninsured through February. The survey also found that about half of people who shopped for a plan but did not enroll said premiums were too expensive, even though 80% of this group qualify for subsidies. Some substantial share of the people ObamaCare is supposed to help say it is a bad financial value. You might even call it a hardship.
Obama! Obama! Obama!
Obama issued a last call to sign up for insurance..
http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/o...ps655b5ea3.jpg
http://www.twitter.com/BarackObama/s...64785785810944
COME ON GUYS WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?!???
no one wants your Obama care = socialist care you Marxist Muslim communist
this did not happen in the bible please tell the true story of Noah
awwwww it's soooo cute it's a fuffly bear
a bump for the awesome tags for this thread, which prove beyond doubt that Tisket invented obamacare. THANKS TISKET!
I'm a giver.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
March 25: Final enrollment deadline extended. The March 31 deadline — the end of enrollment for 2014 — will be loosened for people with special sign-up circumstances.
March 14: High-risk pools extended. The special, temporary coverage for people with serious pre-existing conditions — which was supposed to last only until the health insurance exchanges were in place — was extended a third time for another month.
Feb. 10: Employer mandate delayed. This time, businesses with between 50 and 100 workers were given until 2016 to offer coverage, and the mandate will be phased in for employers with more than 100 workers.
Jan. 14: High-risk pools extended. The high-risk insurance pools, which originally had been slated to close Jan. 1, had already been extended once.
Dec. 24: Enrollment deadline extended. In a message on HealthCare.gov, customers were told they could get help finishing their Jan. 1 applications if they were already in line on Dec. 24.
Dec. 12: Enrollment deadline extended. Customers on the federal enrollment website were given nearly two more weeks to sign up for coverage effective Jan. 1.
Nov. 27: Small Business Health Options Program (known as SHOP) delayed. Online enrollment for the federal health insurance exchanges for small businesses was delayed.
Nov. 21: Open enrollment delayed for 2015. The administration pushed back next year’s enrollment season by a month.
July 2: Employer mandate delayed. The administration declared that it wouldn’t enforce the fines in 2014 for businesses with more than 50 full-time workers who don’t offer health coverage. The fines were pushed back to 2015.
Nov. 15, 2012: Exchange deadline delayed. The Department of Health and Human Services gave states an extra month to decide whether they would set up their own health insurance exchanges — a decision it announced just one day before the original deadline.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...036.html?hp=t1
I bet you are...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tisket
:howudoing:
Uhhh, PB? She was referring to giver.jpg from goatse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Oh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
(I still don't get it... but ok)
Tisket has a penis.
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/...atsthejoke.jpg
Obama's biggest f'up may be that he brought us a compromise plan without the negotiating to let both sides claim a victory. A little reverse psychology could go a long way. Clinton was pushing for a single payer system so the GOP created an ACA style plan. Unfortunately the idea languished and we're still hashing it out today.
Quote:
The plan was even supported by the “brains” behind conservative research, the Heritage Foundation. In 1989, the think tank released a report called “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans,” which argued, among other things, that young people who choose to go uninsured “are playing Russian roulette with their continued good health” and that “many Americans find it financially difficult to obtain the protection they need against the financial impact of illness.”
Their solution? For starters, they encouraged the passage of legislation that would have “mandate[d] all households to obtain adequate insurance”:
Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seatbelts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement.
Furthermore, to prevent so-called “free riders” from taking advantage of free heath services because they couldn’t afford it, thereby forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab, the Heritage Foundation also proposed a plan to assist needy families:
In [such cases when insurance is prohibitively expensive], the Heritage plan envisions an expansion of subsidized risk pools operated through the states… [I]nsurers are invited to compete to cover the pool with rates subsidized by the government.
Wait wait WAIT
Is cwolff acknowledging that it was a huge mistake by the Obama Adminstration to force ACA thru Congress on purely partisan Democrat support?
Wait wait WAITQuote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Is Atlanteax purposefully trying to distort what I wrote?
Nice try. Keep it up. It won't fill that empty space but it's better than cutting or acting out in other ways so I support you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Umm.. that *IS* what you just posted...Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
There's a lot more content than that. Not the least of which is that ACA is not a new idea and when it was a republican idea there was no issue of constitutionality, individual mandate, making even young people get insurance and subsidizing low income citizens. What Obama brought was a plan that already included compromise. As Bill Maher said, "The problem with ACA is not that's too socialist it's that it's too capitalist" and there's some truth to that. This program should be championed by the right. We're forcing people to insure themselves against devastating bills that will go unpaid and making people buy insurance on the free market. It's a capitalist no-brainer and comes to us directly from the Republican Party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
The only issue seems to be that the GOP can no longer take credit for it. Politically, I understand that. After all, why would you get re-elected if you've got nothing to bitch about. Recognizing the politics doesn't make it more palatable though.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/26/news...html?iid=HP_LN
So....Quote:
Six in 10 uninsured adults are not aware that open enrollment ends March 31, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll released Wednesday. Half of the uninsured surveyed said they will remain without coverage this year.
The survey results show that the massive outreach campaign undertaken by the Obama administration and its allies have not penetrated through the ranks of the American public.
More than 40% of those polled said they didn't know that federal subsidies were available to help cover premiums. More than half were not aware that the law expanded Medicaid. The uninsured often cite cost as the top reason why they don't obtain coverage.
a) they really did not know
b) just do not *care* enough to obtain health insurance
c) Obamacare plans are just too expensive relative to the coverage provided
Perhaps a good portion of the high cost is "unnecessary" coverage that people went without but now Obamacare mandates includes them (more 'benefits' = higher premiums)
http://money.cnn.com/infographic/new...ack/?iid=HP_LN
Quote:
Things were looking pretty grim when Obamacare launched on October 1. The exchange websites didn’t work, and internal notes showed that only 6 people signed up initially. The Obama administration had to bring in a SWAT team of tech experts to overhaul the federal exchange site.
From 6 toward 6 million
What a difference six months makes. More than 5 million Americans have selected policies on the state and federal exchanges, with the final push coming before open enrollment closes March 31. Sign-ups are nearing the (albeit scaled-back) Congressional Budget Office projection that 6 million people would enroll for 2014.
Have they actually separated the actual new sign ups from people just reapplying for their Medicaid policy or those who lost their policies because of Obamacare only to apply for new insurance on the Obamacare website?
Or they still fudging the numbers to placate the sheeple?
Here's more good news. This is just the first enrollment period. Enrollments are projected to be even higher in the future.
Have they ever proven that people receiving Obamacare policies didn't get away with murder in 1990?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Yeah, at this rate they will have those 40 million Americans without insurance that started this all, covered by 2044!!Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
The oxen are slow but the land is patient.
I believe they have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
"You people are too stupid to use the internet to sign up for Obamacare on our broke ass website." - Harry Reid
Anyone else think the White House is seriously fudging the numbers?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...its-5-million/
March 17th 5 million
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101532103
March 27th 6 million
Now, granted, I would expect a significant number of last minute signups... But they are claiming more then 2 million signups in March. When they couldn't even get 1 million per month previously.
I personally think the numbers are all made up. or at the least they are using the numbers of people that looked at the website and went thru the process of looking at plans, but never intend to buy one.
They spent what.. 1 billion dollars on the website..Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
And they can't give us numbers of how many applied and how many have paid?
Fudging numbers? Absolutely.
Well, it IS the Government, I can see them spending 1 billion dollars and NOT having reporting built in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
A billion for a website? I need to get me some gov'ment contracts.
For that youd need to go to Princeton and be a fellow member of the Black Alumni committee with Michelle Obama. Thats how CGI Federal got the contract for the website. Then they got fired without being asked to fix their mistakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
The company who got the new contract also has close personal ties to the Obamas....imagine that. :-)
Well, HOW else is the Obama's going to make money while in the White House. They can't write books, or do speaking tours. So they get kickbacks. Just like every other President really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
Other joke of an article trying to drum up support for Obamacare
http://money.cnn.com/gallery/news/ec...ees/index.html
Lol golly, that article doesn't sound fake at all. No siree!Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
If her "old useless" insurance plan denied all of her claims like she says, then why did she stay with them for any length of time to begin with?
Liberals suck pretty bad at lying. That's why only idiots believe them.
This person is lying according to Harry Reid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
oh wait, nm.. this person is FOR ACA, which makes her story 100% true and no way she could be lying.
There's a lot of truth in that statement. The Right kicks so much ass when it comes to marketing a lie. They really have it down to a science and the operation is slick as shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
When did The Onion buy out CNN?Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Right. Because people die all of the time because they can't afford to pay their hospital bills. Oh wait, no, no they don't.Quote:
Where would I be without Obamacare? ER, 3 units of blood, multiple tests in the hospital and a 5-day inpatient stay without insurance? Probably dead.
That sure sounds "affordable" to me!Quote:
I signed up on Covered California. There was no issue. I now pay $900 a month (for a family plan)
Where the fuck are all of these plans? The silver plans I saw had like 2000+ deductible.Quote:
I got the silver plan through Humana. I'm paying $10.01 a month with a $500 deductible.
Praise be to Obamacare! I've seen the LIGHT! I've started exercising, eating right and I even cured my brother of his cancer! All thanks to O-B-A-M-A CARE!Quote:
The Affordable Care Act has helped me dodge at least one bullet, maybe more. I've lost weight since I've seen the doctor. I've joined the gym. I got the message.
Can one Democrat...just ONE DEMOCRAT...provide a news story article that shows that a hospital treated someone differently or gave them "worse" care because their insurance sucked. Just one Democrat? Please?Quote:
The biggest thing is the assurance that if something big happens, I'll receive good medical care just like everybody else.
8 cents a month?! Okay, fuck this noise. I can't subject my brain to anymore retardation.Quote:
I have a Humana HMO silver plan and I qualify for almost a full subsidy. I'm paying 8 cents a month. My deductible is $500.
HAHAHAHAHAHA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
My silver plan is $266 a month through Covered CA. The deductible is great at $2500 with a max out of pocket at $7500, Just not when you compare it to my other plan that was a $500 deductible with a max out of pocket of $1500.
Later he mentioned his kid had an asthma attack that wound up costing $7000. I guess he will be obligated to have one every 7-8 months to make this insurance worthwhile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Yeah I just don't get that either. He could afford 7000 dollars for one medical emergency and he now thinks 900 dollars a month is "affordable" but he didn't have enough money to pay for a healthcare plan BEFORE Obamacare? Now I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure you were always allowed to buy your own health insurance, you didn't need an employer and get on their plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
If my eyes and kidneys were already being affected due to my health and I at one time could afford to pay a 7000 dollar medical bill I think I'd go ahead and pay the 100-200 dollar doctor visit on a regular basis.
It's through Humana. Aitch you em eh en eh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
You spelled "they don't exist because that person probably doesn't even exist because CNN probably just made them up and attached some random photo to the story to make it look 'real' but everyone knows the story is full of shit" wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
But you were close.
Remember Tgo, the plans are also based on your income. So maybe they make like 1 dollar more then the max for medicaid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Ok... I tried to keep a straight face while I typed that, but I failed.
I like how you instantly resort to deflection and nothing else, despite me not implying anything about republicans being anymore honest. The difference is most liberals like you believe everything that their party spoon feeds them and treat it as gospel.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Meanwhile a lot of people on the right want to see a lot of republicans get primaried out because we're tired of their bullshit.
Not that I would expect you to understand that concept or anything.
What's to deflect? Your post was trash.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
The admiration I have for the right wing media machine is genuine. They do a much better job than the dems do.
LOL. I think you forgot about MSNBC.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Not to mention you forgot your tagline... "I am not a Liberal".
What makes you think I'm forgetting MSNBC?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Hey, I don't care how wrong it is. Just admit it; I'm a great speller and it burns you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Well, first off, you are likely tied with Wife Beater and Back for being the most "up the ass" of the liberal media on these boards. So yeah, I am sure you don't realize how much more MSNBC skews the news to make Dems look good, and Repubs look bad. Hell, they do it to real news that has no party affiliation JUST so an idea or stance of theirs looks good. (look at what they did with the Zimmerman case)Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
But yeah.. keep up the story that the Right wing Media (what, 1 news channel and maybe a couple of papers?) are better at lying then the other 90% of the Media.
What makes you think I don't know MSNBC is liberal? You're asking all the wrong questions here kid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
The difference between liberals and Conservatives in a nutshell? Okay, maybe a coconut shell. :-)
Conservatives use their reason, intellect and past experience to decide the best course for future actions.This is why Pelosi infuriated most of us when she said "You have to pass it to see whats in it."
Liberals act first and then attempt to use their 'reason" and 'intellect" to justify their actions to themselves and others after the fact.
The problem with the latter way of thinking is this justification and rationalization leads to lies to ones self and to others. Tell a lie often enough and even the one telling it starts to believe it. Obamas hero Saul Alinksy quotes this in his socialist playbook as an effective way to initiate change but what he fails to realize is that lying to yourself on a daily basis leads to delusion and delusion eventually leads to a total disconnect from reality. Look at Pelosi, Reid, Obama et al if you need proof of that.
The truth, morals, values, social mores, our Constitution and Bill of Rights mean nothing to people like this because in their world everything has to be mutable to support their agendas and whims.
The GOP isnt perfect but at least with the majority of them you know where they stand on a particular issue. With a liberal it depends on which way the wind is blowing on a particular day and what the perceived benefit is to them.
If you need proof of that look no further than the numerous contradictions in their agenda.
Pro gay but Pro Muslim (even though many Muslims see homosexuality as an abomination punishable by death and have less tolerance for it than many Christians)
Pro technology but against free markets.
Pro Abortion but against capital punishment
Pro Jew versus anti-Israel
The list goes on and on. There is no consistency in their stances or agendas because theiir entire platform is based on delusion and lies.
There is NOTHING progressive about progressives on either side either. Regressive and degenerate is more like it. Change just for the sake of change is moronic and highly dangerous.Its also about as far from true progress as you can get.
Okay, demonstrate by # of news outlets and internet/paper publications how the "right wing media" out-competes the "left wing media"Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Here, I'll start for you:
"Right Wing"
Fox News
Drudge Report
Koch Brothers
"Left Wing"
CNN
MSNBC
CBS
ABC
NBC
Newsweek
NYT
ChangeOrg
George Soros
Hollywood
I dare say that the "left wing" group reaches a far greater # of the populace, nevermind greater $$ spending.
There's a fundamental flaw with your research and it lies with the researcher. Can you spot it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Holy shit.. It's like you are in another reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Bizzaro world maybe?
It's fun to play the persecuted minority.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
That's correct. The marketing person who created the liberal media bias myth is a genius.Quote:
Originally Posted by waywardgs
Here's another Obamacare story making the rounds today. This guy didn't get on the CNNMoney website but I think you'll enjoy it.
Quote:
"I'm a Republican, and You Should Get Covered"
I am a staunch Republican, a self-proclaimed Fox News addict, and I didn't vote for the President. And I'm here to tell you that Obamacare works. I'm living proof.
I'm a chemotherapy patient, and was previously paying $428 a month for my health coverage. I was not thrilled when it was cancelled.
Then I submitted an application at HealthCare.gov. I looked at my options. And I signed up for a plan for $62 a month.
It's the best health care I have ever had.
So right now, here's what I want to tell anyone who still needs health insurance, or knows someone who does:
Sign up. Follow the instructions on the website. Apply, and look at your options. You still have time, and take it from me: This is something you want to do.
I wrote a letter to President Obama this past February to tell him about my experience with the Health Insurance Marketplace. I hoped he'd read it, and he did.
I may not be a supporter of the President. But now, I get mad when I see Obamacare dragged through the mud on television.
And even though I regularly tune in to conservative pundits, I'd like to tell them they're getting it wrong. Obamacare works.
So one more time: If you still need health insurance, you have just three days to get it. Do what I did. Go to HealthCare.gov, submit an application, and pick a plan that works for you.
It just might change your life.
Mark D. Bearden, Ph.D.
Monroe, North Carolina
I notice the guy is a PH.D.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
So I have to ask myself... where does someone with a Doctorate work that they don't get healthcare included, also, where is someone with a doctorate working, that they can get subsidized health insurance? (it's 62 a month, he is getting a subsidy, NO plan is 62 a month for someone that isn't getting a subsidy).
I wonder how long he has had his insurance that he "loves it".
This is so much bullshit they could sell it to fertilize Wyoming.
Ok.. looking at his facebook... I figure it's his cause he has the post up about this...
Yep.. I know a lot of PH.D's that work in catering...Quote:
"just home from a long and very hard day at work.....put out over 30 party platters....something must be going on today!!!! — feeling exhausted."
One last thing.. his "recent" activity has him "liking" George W. Bush.
Ok.. the Dude works at WALMART. And he has a PH.D.... Some of his posts sound like he is a republican.. then out of nowhere, he posts something about Obamacare... when there wasn't a Post about him losing his health insurance... This from a guy that posts that he has "massive" internal bleeding from his colonoscopy...
I call bullshit.
I thought it was odd that someone who has a Ph.D could get such a fantastic tax break for Obamacare. Turns out he's a retired psychologist.
That should be Obamacare's newest slogan; "Obamacare! It works if you're not!"
Huh? Huh? Catchy right?
On another note... what retired psychologist works a full time job at Walmart?
He complained in one post about his first vacation in 6 years... (this was after the Walmart post) He also mentioned once or twice about 40 hour work weeks...
Yeah.. I know TONS of retired Psychologists that decide to work full time at Walmart.
Nobody reaches level 24 in Uno & Friends. Nobody.
I play a level 12 human paladin on weekends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taernath
What I don't understand is this: the traditional conservative holds the opposite of those dualities (e.g. anti abortion and pro capital punishment). If one is inconsistent, surely the opposite must be as well, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
Physician, heal thyself!Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Well, Rocktar is a physicist who worked at Walmart. He gets a little testy if you bring it up, but I'm sure you could wrangle a satisfactory explanation out of him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
There is no inconsistency there. Both stances are pro-life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
The first should be evident to everyone.
The second is pro-life in that it seeks to protect those of us who value the sanctity of life over those who would destroy or take another life without a moments regret and even a backwards glance.
Those who sympathize with and support, rapists, child molesters and cold blooded murderers over their intended victims by attempting to give them moral equivalence when none can rightfully exist, are on the side of death.
I stand corrected, liberals choose death on both issues while conservatives choose life.
Judge Smails: I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
If the two choices are life in prison or the death penalty, how are you protecting the victim more by killing the criminal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
I'm for the death penalty regardless of its efficacy but calling it 'pro life' is beyond me.
Alright, that's not exactly what I was going for but it's a start. Can't we see the same equivalence all down the list?
Pro gay and pro Muslim VS anti gay and anti Muslim
Pro technology and anti free market VS anti technology and pro free market
Pro Jew and anti Israel VS anti Jew and pro Israel
It seems like either both sides of the equation are inconsistent or neither are, I don't see how you can get just one to be.
Even with life in prison there is a chance the prisoner can escape or affect the victim. Look at John Wayne Gacys paintings fetching tens of thousands of dollars. How do you think that made the families of his victims feel?
The only answer to those who refuse to respect the sanctity of life is death. No victim gets up in the morning and says 'I think I'd like to get murdered today.
Sorry cant help you there.I was erroneous in my first choice of examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Feel free to try and make sense of the rest or not at your leisure. I dont want the frustration or the headache from trying to under stand the liberal mind or lack thereof.
In more recent news explain to me how California Senator Leland Yee was so rabidly anti-gun and then gets arrested for arms trafficking?
All I know is that 44 years of life plus the cumulative teaching of my grandparents and parents tells me that almost everything that liberals supposedly stand for is wrong.
Thats enough for me.
What does this say about a society that's executed the innocent? Should that society cease to exist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
What's it say about society when they let a Guilty man go free? Should that Society cease to exist?Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Also.. no defense of your "republican" Obamacare lover?
Who's going free? The choices are life in prison or the death penalty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
I'm not advocating for the cessation of society or executing criminals. Generally speaking I do believe it's better that some criminals get away if it means no innocents are mistakenly punished.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
I don't think Mr. Bearden needs my defense. Though not completely unexpected I was surprised at your vehement response. Ultimately I figured that it challenged your beliefs so you chose to attack the messenger in order to avoid acknowledging the message.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
That's cause the message is almost certainly a lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
But even if that ONE message is true, what would you have to say about the hundreds against Obamacare... nothing most likely. Or they are lying.
Just give up Cwolff. We all know you are the poster child for Us vrs Them.
So you would rather a mass murdering psychopath that WILL rape and kill more little kids goes free, then an innocent gets punished?
Frankly.. if I got the death penalty for something I didn't do, I would fight it, but if I KNEW that a criminal like that wouldn't go free even tho I was gana die, I would be ok with it.
Our justice system was set up to let guilty men go free if that means not punishing the innocent. Why do you think it is that the defense can appeal, but the prosecution cannot, no matter what happens?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Im sure it has happened and I feel for the families and for those who have had to pay such a high price for our safety and right to live.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
But is sures beats the alternative and is a small price in comparison. A handful of somewhat innocent lives (they had to have done something in order to facilitate this mistaken identity and end up on death row in the first place) versus the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people simply trying to exist peacefully with the rest of us?
Seems a no-brainer to me.
It was set up pretty purposefully that way. One of the people who's ideas influenced it was one of the people who's considered a founder of modern conservative thought, Edmund Burke. He wanted to stand against radical liberal misuse of the death penalty (ala Revolutionary France.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Merala
Sort of stands against some of the "KILL THEM ALL" ranting.
Well spoken, You are a man of integrity and honor.Liberals only claim to grasp those concepts when it suits their agendas to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Our non double jeopardy/frequent appeal system was set up largely due to the influence of conservative responses to the French Revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
So morally speaking, it's ok to kill people. The key is if it's for a greater good. If you kill someone for their wallet you get killed. If you kill someone because you thought they killed someone for their wallet; that's just bad luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
With the advent of modern DNA testing and much more sophisticated forensics, the chances of an innocent man being executed are much less than any of us dying in a plane crash or being struck by lightning.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
Once again, liberal hypocrisy shows. You accuse conservatives of living in the past and being outdated and old fashioned but it seems thats okay when it furthers your own arguments.
Wow, I get it now. Ravenwood is doing the Clyder thing with the satire. RW's the Colbert to Clyde's Stewart. Too funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenwood
He's done it before. I tried to take it seriously because I definitely don't want it to be the poster I imagine it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
We arent talking about peoples wallets. Were talking about taking the lives of people who would rape, murder and molest your family and not even feel bad about it. Even as morally bankrupt as most liberals are, surely you must understand why this is necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff
In supporting these kinds of criminals you choose death over life, evil over good and wrong over right. Period
It's a little PC mystery. Is it satire or reinforcement?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
It's a weird position to be in to hope it actually is a Republican.Quote:
Originally Posted by cwolff