Obamacare
Quote: s2dbakerAbsolutely. People who couldn't get health insurance before can now get affordable health insurance. The nation is far better off now than it was before.
Affordable? Please!! The "bronze" policy at $450 a month is $5,4000 with a $5,500 deductible in the case presented. That is "affordable health insurance"? I know you are wealthy enough not to be bothered by little things like deductibles but the some of the people President Obama was trying to help by subjecting all of us to this poorly designed plan are the ones who will be hurt the worst. Lower middle class folks with families who get colds, break arms, and have minor injuries will be out over $10,000 a year under this plan.
This is AFFORDABLE health care? You've got to be freaking kidding. You make $40,000 a year, lose a decent policy with the same premium partially paid by your employer and lower deductibles (maybe $1,000) and now your employer drops insurance for everyone because they are in fear of Obamacare and the rising costs and you end up paying twice as much.
ON PAPER this might sound great to everyone who supported it. IN REALITY it sucks for some of the people he thought he was helping.
Screwing up the whole system to provide unaffordable health care to those who needed affordable health care? A disaster.
The best the liberals can come up with is that the idea of a mandate came from the Heritage Foundation so this is really a Conservative plan. Most of them do not have the guts to admit this is a disaster than can be fixed...if they really wanted to fix it.
The President is more concerned with fundraising than leading. C'mon, Mr. President, take a leadership role in cleaning up the mess that you created.
HahaQuote: rxwineEveryone join in with lovely pictures.
I should have known it would be Mr. Tangent. :D
Quote: s2dbakerCondi was in charge of the State Department when the United States was hit by terrorists on 9-11-2001.
You gotta love liberal logic. First they say, "Condi was in charge during a terrorist attack, so she should get blamed!"
But then they say, "So what if Hillary was in charge during Benghazi?????" LOL!
I really don't know what planet you live on but it's not Earth and specifically not the United States of America. You don't have any clue what you're talking about!Quote: RonCAffordable? Please!!
Quote: s2dbakerI really don't know what planet you live on but it's not Earth and specifically not the United States of America. You don't have any clue what you're talking about!
I'm talking about things that even liberal-leaning press outlets (Washington Post) are talking about. What are you talking about?
Quote: RonCMeanwhile...on the subject of the disaster that is Obamacare...the program is now in effect and the impact is being felt.
" "The people in there told me that since I didn't have an insurance card, I would be billed for the whole cost of the x-ray,' Galvez said, her young daughter in tow. 'It's not fair – you know, I signed up last week like I was supposed to."
The x-ray's cost, she was told, would likely be more than $500."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2532869/They-no-idea-insurance-active-not-At-Virginia-hospitals-Obamacare-confusion-reigns-frustrated-patients-walk-out.html#ixzz2pXGI2k12
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
There are two major issues right now--first, many people are having problems proving that they are actually insured. They've signed up but the providers can't get proof they are insured. I am sure there is even a lot of confusion about whether or not premiums have been paid (usually you need to pay something before any kind of insurance is effective) or credited properly around the nation.
It is noted, in this case, that "no one sent me a bill"...this is typical low information voter stuff. Most everyone here would know that you don't usually get coverage without paying, but the government is doing nothing to make people understand this as they stand around and tell us how good this is and how sorry they are that people believed them when they said that you could keep your doctor and your insurance.
The second issue is that many bills like this, $500 to $10,000 or more, that may have been covered under those "inferior" policies that just had to be canceled will not be covered until a large deductible is met. Again, this is a huge problem for low information voters who tend to just read the large print and don't bother with really comparing what they will really end up paying. There have even been instances here, among people that I assume are smarter than average at least, of people claiming a lower premium without even addressing the deductible issue.
If you have one thing go wrong in a year, a $300 deductible is a lot different than a $3,000 one. A $500 x-ray and a $2,000 ER trip for something relatively minor but requiring attention will set you back $2,200 more than it would before with those deductibles. So you saved $25 a month on your premiums? Now you are still out $1,900 more than before. Wake up, folks. The new reality is that a messed up system was made even worse late at night and now those who supported it are trying to blame it on the Heritage Foundation or something crazy like that.
C'mon, my liberal friends, can you really say with a straight face that this is really better for us as a nation?
Probably. Lying is easier than saying that you stunk the joint up and that we need to get this fixed right away.
Or, far more likely is that you'll save the $25 a month and never use the service. Or maybe you'll just pay the penatly and have nothing happen to you. Or maybe you'll be uninsured, catch some modification of H1N1, and be hospitalized for 10 days and come out bankrupt. Come one, what are health savings accounts for? Can't you use those to pay your deductable.
Quote: Beethoven9thHaha
I should have known it would be Mr. Tangent. :D
No more sillier than the facepalm pictures being a tangent. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Quote: boymimboNo more sillier than the facepalm pictures being a tangent. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Nope, *facepalm* pictures are very relevant in my posts because they convey a point. Random pictures of liberals make no sense at all, especially when they have nothing to do with the person's post.
Quote: RonCsome of the people President Obama was trying to help
obama was never trying to help anybody. Anything he does is for one purpose only: votes. He's a pure socialist and the only reasoning behind anything he does is to grab power for the government. Pure and simple.
You are not allowed to vote for Obama ever again!Quote: anonimussAnything he does is for one purpose only: votes.
Quote: s2dbakerFor conservatives, is catastrophically failing at your job a prerequisite to becoming President? Condi was in charge of the State Department when the United States was hit by terrorists on 9-11-2001. For some reason, she remained head of the State Department and went on to see the United States start wars with two separate countries, for one of them, she could only cobble together a coalition of the British.
She's a failure, much like her boss, Dick Cheney. But she sure did look good in a matching armchair photo-op.
I think you have her confused with Colin Powell.
Off by quite a few years: "On November 16, 2004, Bush nominated Rice to be Secretary of State. On January 26, 2005, the Senate confirmed her nomination by a vote of 85–13.[83]"Quote: s2dbakerCondi was in charge of the State Department when the United States was hit by terrorists on 9-11-2001.
Quote: RonCAffordable? Please!! The "bronze" policy at $450 a month is $5,4000 with a $5,500 deductible in the case presented. That is "affordable health insurance"? I know you are wealthy enough not to be bothered by little things like deductibles but the some of the people President Obama was trying to help by subjecting all of us to this poorly designed plan are the ones who will be hurt the worst. Lower middle class folks with families who get colds, break arms, and have minor injuries will be out over $10,000 a year under this plan.
This is AFFORDABLE health care? You've got to be freaking kidding. You make $40,000 a year, lose a decent policy with the same premium partially paid by your employer and lower deductibles (maybe $1,000) and now your employer drops insurance for everyone because they are in fear of Obamacare and the rising costs and you end up paying twice as much. ON PAPER this might sound great to everyone who supported it. IN REALITY it sucks for some of the people he thought he was helping.
Screwing up the whole system to provide unaffordable health care to those who needed affordable health care? A disaster.
According to a co-author of the Affordable Care Act, it was never intended to lower costs and the promises to the contrary it was always yet another out-and-out falsehood:
"By Kyle Wingfield
It's early -- we have 362 days to go -- and so there will undoubtedly be competition. But as of Jan. 3, your leader in the clubhouse for most revealing quote of the year is this one reported by the Washington Post:
Saving money "was sometimes a misleading motivator for the Affordable Care Act. The law isn't designed to save money. It's designed to improve health, and that's going to cost money."
The speaker being quoted was Jonathan Gruber, an MIT health economist and one of the authors of -- you guessed it -- the Affordable Care Act.
Does anyone recall Gruber cautioning back in 2009-2010 that the law he was helping to craft and sell to the public was so blatantly misnamed? That all the Democratic claims during that time about deficit reduction, bending the cost curve downward, etc. were not really so truthy? That opponents of the law who said more or less what he is now admitting were right? Because I don't." Atlanta Journal Constitution
Quote: SanchoPanzaOff by quite a few years: "On November 16, 2004, Bush nominated Rice to be Secretary of State. On January 26, 2005, the Senate confirmed her nomination by a vote of 85–13.[83]"
Colin Powell is the guy you want to blame, Condi
Rice was awesome.
Quote: boymimboAnother misleading act: The Patriot Act, which takes away your constitutional rights (even Dubya regrets calling the act there).
Don't confuse the liberals. They'll just try to say that President Obama learned how to misname acts from President Bush. They are easily distracted when they try to find someone else to blame for this particular piece of crap law.
Quote: boymimboOr, far more likely is that you'll save the $25 a month and never use the service. Or maybe you'll just pay the penatly and have nothing happen to you. Or maybe you'll be uninsured, catch some modification of H1N1, and be hospitalized for 10 days and come out bankrupt. Come one, what are health savings accounts for? Can't you use those to pay your deductable.
HSA's? Do you think people in the lower middle class can afford to fund them on already limited budgets? What they needed was affordable health care; what they got was screwed by a liar. They believed him because he read it off the teleprompter. Now there are a whole lot of excuses but not a whole lot of making things better.
Quote: RonCHSA's? Do you think people in the lower middle class can afford to fund them on already limited budgets? What they needed was affordable health care; what they got was screwed by a liar. They believed him because he read it off the teleprompter. Now there are a whole lot of excuses but not a whole lot of making things better.
Wait until the taxpayer dollar bailout of obamacare starts.
Quote: SanchoPanzaOff by quite a few years: "On November 16, 2004, Bush nominated Rice to be Secretary of State. On January 26, 2005, the Senate confirmed her nomination by a vote of 85–13.[83]"
Now you've done it. Let the facts get in the way.
Quote: AZDuffmanI think you have her confused with Colin Powell.
Good catch, AZ. I'm sure he meant National Security Advisor, but like most libs, he doesn't let those s2pid facts get in the way.
You're absolutely right. I downplayed her ineptitude by putting her in the State department. When the terrorist attacks happened on September 11, 2001, Condoleeza Rice was the National Security Advisor and she kept that job after that extraordinary failure.Quote: Sabretom2Quote: SanchoPanzaOff by quite a few years: "On November 16, 2004, Bush nominated Rice to be Secretary of State. On January 26, 2005, the Senate confirmed her nomination by a vote of 85–13.[83]"
Now you've done it. Let the facts get in the way.
Quote: s2dbakerYou're absolutely right. I downplayed her ineptitude by putting her in the State department. When the terrorist attacks happened on September 11, 2001, Condoleeza Rice was the National Security Advisor and she kept that job after that extraordinary failure.Quote: Sabretom2Quote: SanchoPanzaOff by quite a few years: "On November 16, 2004, Bush nominated Rice to be Secretary of State. On January 26, 2005, the Senate confirmed her nomination by a vote of 85–13.[83]"
Now you've done it. Let the facts get in the way.
I know you won't concede this, but it has been widely discussed that President Clinton's administration was a larger part of the failure to stop 9/11 before it happened than President Bush's.
Quote: s2dbakerYou're absolutely right. I downplayed her ineptitude by putting her in the State department. When the terrorist attacks happened on September 11, 2001, Condoleeza Rice was the National Security Advisor and she kept that job after that extraordinary failure.Quote: Sabretom2Quote: SanchoPanzaOff by quite a few years: "On November 16, 2004, Bush nominated Rice to be Secretary of State. On January 26, 2005, the Senate confirmed her nomination by a vote of 85–13.[83]"
Now you've done it. Let the facts get in the way.
Years of liberal thinking has caused more than a little dain bramage, you might want to get that checked.
For the record, you didn't "downplay her ineptitude", you were wrong.
+1Quote: RonCI know you won't concede this, but it has been widely discussed that President Clinton's administration was a larger part of the failure to stop 9/11 before it happened than President Bush's.
s2dbaker will never let those s2pid facts get in the way.
...and when there are problems today, he will blame everyone in the Obama Adminstration EXCEPT Obama!
A lot of things have been discussed but George W. Bush was sort of on the job 8ish months not counting vacations where he received a presidential daily briefing titled Bid Laden Determined to Strike in US. You conservative types like to fault liberals for blaming Bush for the collapse of the economy in 2008 when he was actually the president but now you want to blame Clinton for something that happened well into Bush's Presidency? When do you guys plan to get real about your side's failures?Quote: RonCI know you won't concede this, but it has been widely discussed that President Clinton's administration was a larger part of the failure to stop 9/11 before it happened than President Bush's.
Quote: s2dbakerA lot of things have been discussed but George W. Bush was sort of on the job 8ish months not counting vacations where he received a presidential daily briefing titled Bid Laden Determined to Strike in US. You conservative types like to fault liberals for blaming Bush for the collapse of the economy in 2008 when he was actually the president but now you want to blame Clinton for something that happened well into Bush's Presidency? When do you guys plan to get real about your side's failures?
A lot of things have been discussed but Barack Obama was sort of on the job for 4 years (not counting vacations) when he received a briefing about Ambassador Stevens requesting more security. You liberal types like to fault conservatives for blaming Obama for the collapse of the economy in 2009-2014 when he was actually the president, but now you want to blame everybody else for something that happened well into OBAMA'S presidency? When do you guys plan to get real about your side's failures?
Quote: Beethoven9thA lot of things have been discussed but Barack Obama was sort of on the job for 4 years (not counting vacations) when he received a briefing about Ambassador Stevens requesting more security. You liberal types like to fault conservatives for blaming Obama for the collapse of the economy in 2009-2014 when he was actually the president, but now you want to blame everybody else for something that happened well into OBAMA'S presidency? When do you guys plan to get real about your side's failures?
To be fair Obama has far more failures than Bush had so they have a lot more to get real about.
Quote: AZDuffmanTo be fair Obama has far more failures than Bush had so they have a lot more to get real about.
obama has far more failures in only half the time.
Quote: s2dbakerA lot of things have been discussed but George W. Bush was sort of on the job 8ish months not counting vacations where he received a presidential daily briefing titled Bid Laden Determined to Strike in US. You conservative types like to fault liberals for blaming Bush for the collapse of the economy in 2008 when he was actually the president but now you want to blame Clinton for something that happened well into Bush's Presidency? When do you guys plan to get real about your side's failures?
I'm not one who is big on counting "vacations" that Presidents take, for one thing...they are never really "off the clock" no matter where in the world they happen to be. No matter how many vacations any of them take, they are always the President.
I am not "blaming" Clinton by himself for 9/11; there is blame to go around.
We still have a couple of thousand pages to go. Can somebody get Nancy Pelosi started on reading this?Quote: 24BingoI'm starting to think the only thing worse than the ACA may be this thread.
Quote: SanchoPanzaWe still have a couple of thousand pages to go. Can somebody get Nancy Pelosi started on reading this?
Save her the stress. pelosi will jump up and clap every time she reads the name obama.
Quote: anonimussobama has far more failures in only half the time.
Well lets do give credit for efficiency.
Quote: Beethoven9th+10Quote: SanchoPanzaPre-attack, the absolute refusal to approve the pleas for increased security. During the attack in Benghazi, the refusal to deploy the ready and adequate forces at the command of the White House, the Pentagon or the State Department to stop the sodomy and murder of U.S. officials on sovereign U.S. land. After the attack, the pathetic and persistent outright lies of Susan Rice and the president about a video that no one had ever heard of. All which was certified by the bipartisan leaders of the House Intelligence Committee as well as the house ARB report.
(Can't wait to get a laugh out of Shifty's upcoming response)
Neither Shifty nor s2dbaker has responded to Sancho's message. Gee, I wonder why?
I love how libs make s2pid charges and then run away when someone presents the facts.
Quote: Beethoven9thAwesome video that illustrates how ridiculous Obamacare is.
WHAT IF BUYING COFFEE WAS LIKE BUYING HEALTH INSURANCE?
That's ridiculous. That's like saying I shouldn't have to pay 99% of my taxes because I don't use 99% of the roads in America, I don't support any military action, I'm not on security, welfare, or medicaid, I think politicians should get paid less, etc. So no one should hav to pay 99% of their taxes. Yeah, that would really work.
Quote: BizzyBThat's ridiculous. That's like saying I shouldn't have to pay 99% of my taxes because I don't use 99% of the roads in America
Next time, if you're going to quote a video, then at least watch it before replying.
Quote: SanchoPanzaPre-attack, the absolute refusal to approve the pleas for increased security. During the attack in Benghazi, the refusal to deploy the ready and adequate forces at the command of the White House, the Pentagon or the State Department to stop the sodomy and murder of U.S. officials on sovereign U.S. land. After the attack, the pathetic and persistent outright lies of Susan Rice and the president about a video that no one had ever heard of. All which was certified by the bipartisan leaders of the House Intelligence Committee as well as the house ARB report
Beethoven 9th is complaining that an off topic post is being ignored. So, being the hypocrite that he is, he will probably not like me responding.
Three conclusions from the House ARB report bolded below. "there was not enough time for armed U.S. military assets" that "responsibility for the tragic loss of life, injuries" is solely the responsibility of the terrorists even with the inadequate security for the attack. And "Board did not find that any individual U.S. Government employee engaged in misconduct or willfully ignored his or her responsibilities," and no recommendation for disciplinary action. So I guess we have Rice giving out wrong info, WOO Hoo. What a scandal.
Quote:The Board determined that U.S. personnel on the ground in Benghazi performed with courage and readiness to risk their lives to protect their colleagues, in a near impossible situation. The Board members believe every possible effort was made to rescue and recover Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith.
The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference.
Quote:
Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.
Through the course of its inquiry, the Board interviewed over 100 individuals, reviewed thousands of pages of documents, and viewed hours of video footage. On the basis of its comprehensive review of this information,[ the Board remains fully convinced that responsibility for the tragic loss of life, injuries, and damage to U.S. facilities and property rests solely and completely with the terrorists who perpetrated the attack.
Quote:ACCOUNTABILITY OF PERSONNEL
5. The Board found that certain senior State Department officials within two bureaus in critical positions of authority and responsibility in Washington demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability appropriate for the State Department’s senior ranks in their responses to security concerns posed by Special Mission Benghazi, given the deteriorating threat environment and the lack of reliable host government protection. However, the Board did not find that any individual U.S. Government employee engaged in misconduct or willfully ignored his or her responsibilities, and, therefore did not find reasonable cause to believe that an individual breached his or her duty so as to be the subject of a recommendation for disciplinary action.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf
What a crock...LOL! Hey Mr. Tangent, if your family is in a burning building and calls 911 for help, I hope the operator says, "Sorry, sir, we're not sending anybody because there's not enough time to get there!"Quote: rxwine"there was not enough time for armed U.S. military assets"
Quote: Beethoven9thWhat a crock...LOL! Hey Mr. Tangent, if your family is in a burning building and calls 911 for help, I hope the operator says, "Sorry, sir, we're not sending anybody because there's not enough time to get there!"
That's what the House report said not me. Sancho used the House ARB as some sort of support for his comment. You're the one who wants to go off topic. Mr. Hypocrite.
Maybe you should read something instead of your lame +1 of other people's comments Mr Know nothing.
Quote: rxwineThat's what the House report said not me.
I don't care where it came from. Let me repeat what I said earlier: If your family is in a burning building and calls 911 for help, I hope the operator says, "Sorry, we're not sending anybody because there's not enough time to get there!"
Then at the funeral, I'll show you a report to back up what the operator said.
Because that's basically what the cult of Obama has said.
Quote: Beethoven9thI don't care where it came from. Let me repeat what I said earlier: If your family is in a burning building and calls 911 for help, I hope the operator says, "Sorry, we're not sending anybody because there's not enough time to get there!"
Then at the funeral, I'll show you a report to back up what the operator said.
Bushes former Secretary of Defense Gates said he would've have made the same decision; that some people have a cartoonish view of the way military operates. That would be you.
Quote: rxwineBushes former Secretary of Defense Gates said he would've have made the same decision
You conveniently left out that Obama was his boss, too. But I should have expected such dishonesty from you.
Quote: Beethoven9thNext time, if you're going to quote a video, then at least watch it before replying.
In English class, they'd call that a simile not a quote. I'm not sure how i could quote it without watching it; you're the expert, but I think I'd have to quote someone who quoted the video. Am I allowed to comment on the video without watching it, so long as I do not quote it?
Quote: Beethoven9th
Quote: rxwineQuote: Beethoven9th
Very funny
+1
"How to spot a troll. Look for repeated use of "facepalm" This is one of the clear signs you are dealing with a troll."
+10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
So, to me, there are three points to be learned from the Benghazi attack, and I'll try to make it as non-partisan as possible.
(1) Intelligence failures are still going on around the world because the different branches of intelligence can't get their act together. This is troubling.
(2) Embassies in foreign countries around the world, especially in hostile countries should always be regarded as "at risk". No matter who the administration was, it is likely that Benghazi would have happened anyway.
(3) Covering up the reason for the attack by sending someone from your administration to state a reason for an attack that wasn't so was a mistake, probably made for temporary political gain. The statement should have been "we don't know the reason for the attack", or not to send anyone at all to the talk shows. Given that both administrations have behaved badly on this issue only shows that all politicians are equally crappy.
Now back to the personal attacks, facepalms, and tangents please.
