image courtesy of grumpyelder.com
It’s HUGE. John Rosenthal at PJ Media:
And thanks to the recent reporting of CNN (where were they and the other media three years ago, when we needed them?), more people will realize that shortly after the passage of Obamacare the Obama administration implemented rules specifically designed to ensure that millions of people — those who provided for themselves on the individual market, i.e., who did not receive coverage through their employer or union — would not be allowed to keep their current insurance. Thus not only were Obama’s assurances untrue; they were purposeful deceit in which a supine press was complicit.
Jay Carney, the Official Propagandist of the Obama regime said:
One of the things health reform was designed to do was to help not only the uninsured but also the underinsured. And there are a number of Americans, fewer than 5 percent of Americans, who’ve got cut-rate plans that don’t offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident.
Now if you had one of these substandard plans before the Affordable Care Act became law and you really liked that plan, you were able to keep it. That’s what I said when I was running for office.
That was part of the promise we made.
No, not 5%. Try 69%.
John Hinderaker at Powerline Blog:
The Obama administration projected low-end, mid-range and high-end estimates for how many plans would be terminated, in total and broken down between large and smaller employers. The bottom line is that the administration expected 51% of all employer plans to be terminated as a result of Obamacare. That is the mid-range estimate; the high-end estimate was 69%. So as of 2010, the Obama administration planned that most Americans with employer-sponsored health care plans would lose them, whether they liked those plans or not.
As for individual, as opposed to group plans, the Obama administration said that data were insufficient to predict how many would lose grandfather status, but in any given year the percentage of such policies losing such status would “exceed[] the 40 percent to 67 percent range.”
Those numbers starkly contradict Obama’s “if you like your insurance, you can keep it” assurances. But it is worth noting that the percentage of pre-Obamacare plans that would terminate within the first few years after the law was enacted isn’t the main point. The administration never intended to allow any American to keep a non-Obamacare insurance policy for any length of time.
And for small business, it’s more like 80%.
Sen. Mike Enzi:
Unfortunately, the regulation writers at the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services broke all those promises. The regulation is crystal clear. Most businesses–the administration estimates between 39 and 69 percent–will not be able to keep the coverage they have.
Under the new regulation, once a business loses grandfathered status, they will have to comply with all of the new mandates in the law. This means these businesses will have to change their current plans and purchase more expensive ones that meet all of the new Federal minimum requirements. For the 80 percent of small businesses that will lose their grandfathered status because of this regulation, the net result is clear: They will pay more for their health insurance.
Obama said in video that you could keep your plan at least 36 times:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpa-5JdCnmo[/youtube]
This is not simply a lie. It is a lie of galactic proportions. All hell is going break loose next year when nearly everyone loses their plans, and that is why the employer mandate was delayed. So Obama could lie through another election cycle.
Democrats see the handwriting on wall and are getting skittish:
More than a dozen anxious Senate Democrats facing reelection next year met with President Obama at the White House Wednesday to review the administration’s progress in fixing technical problems hobbling the rollout of the Affordable Care Act.
The website is the least of their problems.
Megyn Kelly asks the obvious:
Megyn Kelly interview Fox editor Chris Stirewalt on a White House press conference with Jay Carney, and the political possibility arose that Obama may have won the 2012 election by lying about ObamaCare.
As if there was any doubt. The real question is- does he ever tell the truth about anything? And when will the press stop treating Obama as a novelty and hold him to account for these lies?
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@Pete, #350:
Nope. I’ve explained why I disagree with the assertion that “Entitlement” SHOULD be a disparaging term. I’ve also explained in post #345 why I believe blurring the meaning of the word by making such a broad generalization is dangerous. If we took away all of the programs that people on the far right consider “socialist,” the lot of the average person in America would soon become far, far worse. I have no clue what would happen to the poor. I only know that there would be far more of them, particularly in old age.
People seem to want to generalize, to conflate and equate things that aren’t really the same at all, to exaggerate anything negative about them to the level of looming menace. Obamacare equals socialism equals communism, for example. This is not so. Things are what they are—no more, no less. The federal government is not putting in place national socialism. Obama is not a Hitler. There is no civilian defense force comparable to anything that existed in Nazi Germany and there isn’t going to be.
@Pete:
Of course I didn’t raise Medicare and Medicare for the reason you site. I raised their existence to point out that the government has been involved in US health care for decades. And guess what, Pete, no one’s “defective” child has been taken away from them and killed and cremated. So I imagine the very existence of those long-time programs are rather inconvenient facts for your fear mongering. But you keep right at it. Keep hysterically raising the specter of paranoid one-in-a-million hypotheticals, while ignoring the actual pain and suffering and injustice taking place around you: people being denied affordable health insurance for preexisting conditions; people discovering too late they are really, really sick because they don’t have health insurance, and our government picking up the tab anyway for futile treatments for preventable conditions. There’s nothing particularly original about your typical Right Wing thinking, caring about hypothetical people more than real ones. You would be nothing more than a laughable nut, worthy of the mockery I’m sure you receive on a regular basis, if it weren’t for the sad fact that you’re actually trying to scare gullible people into keeping the uninsured from receiving affordable health care. You know, the thing that keeps people, even “defective” children, from dying in the real world. You must be so proud.
@retire05:
First things first. I’ll answer your question after you answer mine, the one I asked you 100 posts ago. It’s called being polite.
@Tom:
http://www.thefix.com/content/10-hardest-addictive-drugs-to-kick7055
http://www.michaelshouse.com/drug-addiction/most-addictive-drugs-world/
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/basicfax5.htm
Even someone with an I.Q. that equals their shoe size understands the more addictive a drug is, the more people become addicted to it. So please note where alcohol ranks in all these lists.
Now, you answer my question that you have tried to avoid. What category do you fall into? Socialist? Marxist? Liberal? Progressive? And why?
Or are you going to do the standard Tom/Greggie/thisone/ thing and try to do everything to avoid giving a simple answer, just like you always do?
@retire05:
Fail. Again. None of those sources backs up your claim that “most who use cocaine with any regularity become addicts.” But thanks all the same. I never knew cocaine was less addictive than coffee.
So do you want to try again, or do you want to concede that you’re wrong. Entirely your choice.
What was Obama’s promise?
In 2009 Obama emphatically denied to George Stephanopoulos that the Affordable Care Act imposed a tax increase on anyone, rich or poor!
The new ObamaCare home sales tax of 3.8% just is kicking in.
Hmmmmm…..
It’s a TAX.
@Tom:
If you spent as much time answering questions posed to you as you do trying to obfuscate the questions, you might be interesting to read.
I gave you an answer. You didn’t like it, so like all weasel liberals (or what ever you are) to continue to dodge the question I posed to you. Why am I not surprised? And just because you didn’t like my answer, doesn’t mean I didn’t give one. I showed you the most addictive drugs listed. It stands to reason that if cocaine is more addictive, the more people will become addicted to it compared to alcohol.
Thanks for showing just how dishonest you are and how afraid you are to put yourself in a political column.
@Tom:
I’m kind of lost. I read Dr. Pete’s original post and came away from something different. He basically said medicare and medicaid were the government’s attempt at providing free healthcare and this resulted in soaring costs. There is undeniable empirical evidence that this happens with every government program and intrusion into the private sector. College tuition prices are soaring because of the government. But you can also look at two other programs that really bring out the unintended consequences of government intrusion. The government childcare assistance is one. The feds come in and say, for this area, the max we will allow is $400 a month. People that had been using the childcare facilities in that area and were paying out of pocket were most times paying considerably less. The facilities find out the government is willing to pay up to $400 a month and guess what? Everyone is now paying $400 a month.
Next up, Section 8 housing. The government doesn’t subsidize at below market rates, they tend to match market rates, and in some cases above market rates. This works out great for real estate investors and Section 8 recipients, not so much for working people trying to make a living and paying their own rent. Section 8 drives up rent prices and drives down home prices.
http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/marketplace/law_tv/section-8-housing-destroying-home-values-and-driving-up-rental-prices
I’m not saying these are well intentioned programs, but the fact of the matter is they hurt everyone except the recipients and the industry they server. The rest of us get screwed.
You can see that happening now with the healthcare law. There are a lot of people upset that they are paying for mental health and maternity when they have no need of such services. The government is doing that so the insurance companies can create a larger pool for those that do. The end result is everyone paying higher premiums. I have an issue with the whole non-insured crowd liberals keep throwing in our faces. With 27,000 people signing up for healthcare, where are all these millions of uninsured? Why haven’t they flocked to become insured? And for those that were uninsured that are now magically on medicade, what do you say to those that lost their insurance and are now looking at paying the penalty because they can’t afford the new premiums. Is that fair? And don’t give me this line that they had inferior healthcare plan, you need look no further than liberal Kirsten Powers’ rant at the White House over here insurance.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/12/kirsten-powers-slams-white-house-obamacare-excuses-my-blood-pressure-goes-up/*Yes I know the Daily Caller is a conservative blog, but you won’t find this in the mainstream news.
As for preexisting conditions, we have a problem. In theory there should be no preexisting conditions. In 1996 congress passed HIPAA. If you are terminated or leave your job, you sign up for Cobra. If you continue Cobra for 18 months, you can move to the individual market with no preexisting conditions. But there are no subsidies or tax breaks for Cobra, so it puts most people out of their insurance. Another government program that tanked……imagine my dismay.
Not that any of this matters. We have Obamacare now, liberals own it, Obama is not going to start over. There is no way they are going to sign up the target number they need to make the plan work. That means all premiums are going to go up. More people will pay the penalty because they won’t be able to afford the premiums. Employers are going to do the same. They are going to dump people into the market and take the penalty. There is just no way employers will be able to pick up the tab for all the people that are riding the subsidy train. Medicade expansion is going to force itself into insolvency. What are you guys going to do then?
Obama’s sure doing a lot of talking to obfuscate the fact that all his ”fix” is is
1. a scapegoating of the insurers, and
2. a postponement of all these cancellations …. until AFTER the 2014 election cycle!
Oh, and PS, it cannot work.
Insurers have LEFT the markets in many places.
Obama’s ”fix” creates two separate risk pools.
One of healthy people who already had (and liked) their insurance.
Another of sickly, older, poorer (100% subsidized) people who must pay (or taxpayers must) who are high risk and therefore must cost more to insure.
@retire05:
You didn’t answer my question. The answer to my question would have been the requested proof for your statement, which you did not supply. Are you of the opinion that obvious evasion in the form of unrelated nonsense constitutes an honest answer to a question? And do you think being caught out in a lie can be so easily obfuscated with your cliched umbrage?
You’ve had your chances, so I’m closing the book on this. Anyone reading the thread can see you can’t prove your statement, that you’re essentially full of cow dung, and that you refuse to take responsibility for your statements (ergo, you’re a dishonorable and dishonest person). Congratulations on that.
@Greg: 345
Greg, workers did not earn ‘entitlement’ to a pension, they earned the pension. That’s quite a difference. If you buy a ticket for a drawing, then you are ‘entitled’ to a chance to win. When you actually work for the pension itself, it’s not the entitlement you want, it’s the pension.
@Aqua:
It’s possible you read the post I responded to and not the earlier post I alluded to in your quote from me. I don’t care if someone thinks the ACA is a terrible law. They have a right to their opinion, and honest criticisms can be constructive criticisms. And I can respect, while vehemently disagreeing, with someone who doesn’t believe affordable health care should be a right on principle. It seems to me that many conservatives do in fact want to provide access to affordable healthcare, they disagree on the vehicle. That would be a great conversation to have. Without side-tracking this to yet another argument, most Liberals would tell you that conservatives would prefer to kill the law than fix it solely because they want to stick it to Obama.
What Pete is selling is hardly honest or in the realm of possibility. Telling people that supporting Obamacare is supporting the murder by Nazis of physically handicapped children is not honest criticism. It is, as I stated above, just reprehensible fear mongering to scare the gullible. When I say Pete cares more about hypothetical people than real ones, that’s absolutely accurate based on his fantastical claims. He’s not trying to fix access to insurance for people with preexisting conditions, for example; he’s trying to kill that access in the cradle. What kind of self-appointed visionary tries to sell the lives of people in the here and now for future lives sprung solely from his imagination? The guy is either a paranoid nutcase or a dangerously amoral cynic knowingly peddling poison in the form of knowledge about the future.
If you care to see what I consider a reasonable and honest debate about the ACA between a Liberal and a Conservative, John Stewart had a very interesting discussion with Charles Krauthhammer (unless he no longer passes the smell test. I really can’t keep up with who is a real conservative anymore) http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-23-2013/exclusive—charles-krauthammer-extended-interview-pt–1
@Greg: 348
Stated simply, what a dumb ass statement. You are entitled to possess the home? Why are you not the possessor of the home? If you bought it and paid for it, you own it. Now, if that is only an entitlement to possess it and the present occupant doesn’t want to move out so that you can move in, then you can argue ‘entitlement’ all you want, but until you actually own it, you can’t move in. If you pay for an entitlement to a pension and you don’t get the pension, that’s because you weren’t buying a pension, you were only buy an entitlement. If you can’t see the difference, one day the secular progressives eyes will be opened. Obama at 39% approval today. Headed the right direction.
@Tom: A new standard for a dumbass statement.
I drank cups of coffee everyday until I was in my 40’s. Many days, many cups. One day, over 25 years ago, I said to my secretary when she asked if I wanted a cup of coffee, no. I’m gonna see how many days I can go without a cup of coffee. I have never drank another cup of coffee, not even one taste. Tell me if I was ‘addicted’.
@retire05: 357 Next time you list his options, include secular progressive. Tho I’m sure he doesn’t know the difference.
@Redteam:
LOL. You really are clueless. It was Retire’s link that stated coffee is more addictive than cocaine, not me. If you’re telling me coffee is not very addictive, then you’re just arguing against Retire’s assertion that cocaine is.
@Redteam, #363:
As I pointed out, the meaning of the word entitlement has been grossly distorted by propagandists for political purposes, to such a degree that many people on the right no longer even remember its most common definition.
Why do you think it is that evidence of rightful ownership of property commonly takes the form of a document known as a title? What word would you use to describe being given legal possession of such a document, along with the rights of ownership that it confers?
Entitlement.
A person’s right to Social Security benefits is an earned entitlement.
@retire05: From your sourced material we learn cocaine and alcohol become addictive to 15-25 % of regular users. We learn nicotine and caffeine addict 25-30% of users Obviously heroin and meth are highly addictive. On the low end is marijuana addicting less than 15% of regular users.
Possibly because it is legal, we have far more alcoholics than cocaine or heroin addicts. I submit all 3 along with meth. addiction are serious problems in our society.
RT You were lucky to be able to walk away from caffeine. Many say severe headaches occur during withdrawal. Don’t think we’d argue the addictive nature of nicotine. Though I’ve never smoked I’ve witnessed how tough it is to quit.
They can all kill you –maybe not caffeine or marijuana ha. They can all screw with your good health. I’m gonna add over eating and adversity to exercise creating obesity as another severe challenge to our health.
But hey,nobody lives forever. Carpe Diem
@Tom:
Clearly you can’t keep the players straight. That’s why your arguments are classed as Dumbass, you don’t know the difference. She said that according to your argument that cocaine is less addictive than coffee. I know I’m wasting my time explaining something to a clueless secular progressive.
@Richard Wheeler:
It’s called self discipline. I did smoke for a short time, about 5 years and clearly had a smoking habit. One day the price of a pack of cigarettes went from 25cent to 30 cent. I said, damned if I’m gonna pay 30 cent for a pack of cigarettes. I’ve never smoked another one. Stopped it cold turkey, just like the coffee. I still wanted a cigarette for a while, but didn’t cave. That’s the only way people can successfully stop smoking, in my opinion. People that just try to reduce the number a day, usually end up smoking even more. Though I’ve never even tried any drugs, I suspect stopping that habit would be the same technique. (but infinitely harder) Though I only smoked about 5 years and it was while I was young, from what I’ve seen of smokers, nicotine seems to be very highly addictive. I don’t believe it is anywhere nearly as deadly(only being harmful to the health of the user) as crack or amphetamines and does not cause intoxication as those drugs do. I think smoking should be completely legal for anyone over 18. Note: did not have headaches when I quit coffee. My brother has severe headaches if he goes a day without coffee.
@Richard Wheeler:
If you read the link that gives the percentage of addiction among casual users, it doesn’t state the percentage of addiction between cocaine and alcohol. What it does say, and backs up my assertion, is that cocaine is rated as one of the top addictive drugs, such as nicotine at 30%, caffeine at 30% and heroin at 25% while alcohol is rated at 15%.
Perhaps you could explain that to your buddy, Tom, who seems to have the inability to grasp numbers.
@Greg:
I can’t follow your logic here. When you buy an automobile, do you buy an entitlement to an auto or do you buy the car itself? Can you drive an entitlement the same as you can a car? Will it carry as many passengers as an automobile? If you go to a barber shop and pay them, are you buying an entitlement to a haircut, or are you buying a haircut? What happens after you pay for the entitlement if the barber says he will give you a receipt entitling you to a hair cut, but don’t come back for an actual haircut, he doesn’t have time. You can’t ask for a refund because you retain the right to the entitlement, but not for a haircut. I didn’t buy an entitlement for medicare, I bought and paid for medicare. I’m not entitled to get medicare, I actually have it. Under certain conditions, persons are
to apply for medicaid, but they actually have to pay for it, or have the government pay for it to actually get medicaid. Next time you go for a ride in your entitlement, think how comfortable you would have been had you bought an automobile instead of just an entitlement.
@retire05:
or anything else. What do you expect of a secular progressive?
@Greg:
You think you are entitled to own that home? You’re not.
Every political district in the United States has a taxing agency. Taxes vary from one district to another. So here is a suggestion: don’t pay your property (home) taxes for 3-4 years, and when the taxing agency confiscates that home that you feel entitled to because you paid for it, tell them that, claiming your entitlement.
Get back to us on how hard the tax man laughs at your logic.
@retire05:
I can grasp that the word “most” indicates a majority, > 50%. You have failed to provide evidence that over 50% of cocaine users become addicted. In fact, you supplied the opposite! I called BS on you because I knew such evidence doesn’t exist. I find it amusing that you keep trying to move the goal post when your statement is written above for all to see. So why not just admit you were wrong? You are letting your swollen pride lead you into full blown dishonesty. That’s two sins for the price of one, huh?
@Redteam:
LOL. Who can’t keep the players straight? Forget it. I would hate for you to waste your time trying to convey your hopeless confusion to a clueless secular progressive like me.
@retire05:
I looked up the definition of entitlement and found this:
It strikes me as strange how liberals seem to feel as if they claim they are ‘entitled’ to something actually affects whether they actually get that thing or not. Just because I paid for Social Security all my working life does not guarantee that I will get it. If I actually do, it will be because I paid for it and it is there, if it weren’t there, I wouldn’t get it, whether I had paid for it or not. Paying for a house only guarantees you the right to live there as long as nothing goes wrong, such as the government moving you out, or you no longer can afford to maintain it. You may be entitled to a house to live in, but that doesn’t mean you will always have one. Liberals spend way too much time worrying about what they are entitled to because someone promises it to them for a vote than they do actually buying it for themselves.
@Tom: You see that Retire05, Tom has finally told us what he is. I hadn’t thought to add the ‘clueless’ in front of it, but it fits.
@retire05: % on coke isn’t given but it ranks 4th behind nicotine 30%,caffeine 30% and heroin 25% and in front of alcohol at 15%-It figures coke would be between 16-24%
@Tom:
whoops,,stepped in doo doo again. If there is a group of people and 30 of them are white, 25 are black and 20 are red, what color is most common in the group?
@Redteam:
Amazing. But when there are only two assumed possible outcomes, addict or non-addict, what does most mean, my most confused friend? Or are there really three possible outcomes implied: addict, non-addict, um, pastry chef?
@Redteam, #372:
I’m not talking about logic. I’m talking about definitions. If definitions aren’t correct to begin with, all the logic in the world won’t sort things out. That’s why propagandists often distort definitions. Inaccurate definitions allow them to arrive at false conclusion through what seems to be an entirely logical process.
If you hadn’t been determined to be entitled to Medicare, you wouldn’t receive the benefits of the program. When you file a claim for a benefit, a Social Security Administration employee goes through a formal process of determining whether or not you met all of the required entitlement factors. He or she makes a formal determination. That process is known as adjudication. If you do meet them your entitlement is confirmed, and you receive an official notification. What’s been decided in that case is that you have done what is necessary to earn entitlement.
@retire05, #374:
All ownership is conditional and also temporary. There’s never anything absolute or permanent about it. I own my home to the fullest extent that it can be owned. I have title to the property. The law recognizes and defines the nature of that entitlement and sets certain conditions to it. One being the payment of taxes, which do seem to be nearly as certain as death. I understand the reciprocity of this arrangement. Roads have been provided leading to my property that I use daily. The streets are lit at night. There are water and sewage lines. I’m protected by a police and fire department.
I don’t know how people could have swallowed the ridiculous assertion that entitlement refers only or specifically to free things given to the undeserving as a means of buying votes. That’s a contrived definition.
@Tom:
Hey, dip, if I had meant 5o%, I would have SAID 50%. But now, I have to go back and re-read what I wrote because you are such a dishonest person, not having a problem with misquoting someone to make it look like they said something they didn’t.
Now, when are you going to answer my question or are you going to continue to dodge it forever?
@Greg:
But that is not what you said, and now you’re trying to qualify what you said. You said you are “entitled” to possess the home you bought and paid for and you offered no caveat to that statement. I showed you how wrong you are, and so now you equivocate.
You’re as big a joke as Tom.
@Tom:
Ah, found it:
Here is what I originally said:
(than alcohol)
Which you (being the liar you are) twisted to 50%.
Go find some liberal to blow smoke up their lower orifice. Conservatives are just too damn smart for you.
@Tom: Now you’re thinking.
@Greg:
it wouldn’t be a determination of ‘entitlement’ it would be a determination of if I had paid for it or not and if I were 65 years of age. Then I own it.
I would say he would determine if I had paid for it and was old enough for it. If I met those two conditions, then I was an owner of a medicare insurance plan that no one gave to me.
No, they would determine if I was the owner of a medicare plan. Not whether I am entitled to own a plan. No doctors office would take my claim based on whether I was ‘entitled’ to have Medicare, only if I actually have Medicare. You can be entitled to own a house but you probably can’t move in until you own the house, not the ‘entitlement’. It’s amazing how people that live off other peoples work and money feel as if it’s their right to have those things. talking about your house, you said:
that’s correct, therefore your thoughts that you areENTITLEDto own that house are clearly meaningless. Same as Medicare, if you don’t have it, it is meaningless to be ‘entitled’ to have it.
Do you think you get these because you are ‘entitled’ to get them, or do you get them because you pay to get them?
Secular progressives sure have a strange outlook on what people are supposed to give to them for being human, I guess.
@retire05, #384:
What I said is that the definition of entitlement is not what you seem to want it to be. It isn’t.
@Redteam, #387:
I’m not going to waste any more time on this. A person either understands or doesn’t. Sometimes a person doesn’t want to understand.
@retire05:
Retire, I’ve come to realize that the reason it is so confusing to the liberals is that they just basically don’t understand logic. A state of perpetual confusion for most of them. They come into the world with their hands out and expect someone to fill it just because they can hold it out.
@Greg:
And exactly where did I ever say what I believe an entitlement to be?
You, Tom and RW have a very nasty habit of lying about what people say, or didn’t say.
Is that just the radical socialist coming out in you?
@Greg:here is the dictionary definition of entitlement:
Notice that it doesn’t say you own anything, you only have a right to have something. Using that you could say I’m ‘entitled’ to have medicare, but only if I do what is required. I don’t get it free and just having the entitlement gets me exactly nothing. Having an ‘entitlement’ to own a home will not get you a place to live in. Entitlement is not a thing, it is just a ‘state of being’.
@Redteam:
Liberals are not born, they are made. They are made by others who want to convince them that being controlled by a politburo is a good thing and that being truly free human being is a bad thing because then you have no one to blame when your life turns to shite.
They’re like feral hogs that go from roaming free to dinner table and can’t understand why.
@Greg:
So you admit you were wrong.
@retire05:
and by then, it’s a little too late.
Whoa! Is Obama trying to change Obamacare? I thought they argued it is the law and can’t be changed now? But he wants to just ‘order a change’. Last I heard, Congress passes and changes laws, the president signs or doesn’t sign. This isn’t a dictatorship, is it? How about it RW, Greg, Tom? Is the shoe on the other foot, or something? Wonder what he is thinking about ‘ordering’ next week? Maybe it’s the tanks and planes for his Civilian Defense Forces.
Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2013/11/obamas-cancellation-fix-violates-law-short-term-public-relations-move-1/#XkVkUC2RsywZ5bxh.99
@retire05:
Well now you’re just downright lying. You should have stuck with playing stupid. I can’t say I am not enjoying the fact that me, the secular liberal, has driven the moralizing Church lady to such a sad display:
To review:
You in post 239
Which I’ve directly questioned you on here, here, here, and here
I’ve offered you two honorable options: prove your statement, or admit you’re wrong. You choose a third option, to dissemble with the skill of a child and disgrace yourself in front of all your conservative peers. Don’t blame me. All I do is open the door. You’re the one who keeps walking through it.
Redteam
I like your 394, the feral pig comming for dinner,
BYE
@Greg:
And this far left statement is based on exactly what, Greg? You assume that people are too stupid to take care of themselves, unless Uncle Sugar is there to provide for them? Tell me, what has happened to the level of poverty in this country since the imposition of Johnson’s Great Society socialist programs? (Hint: It hasn’t gotten better – in fact there is MORE poverty since then.) What has happened to the unemployment rate in this country since Obama did the stimulus and raised taxes? What is the rate of return on investment from Social Security versus the rate of return on investment in an average 401K?
You have no basis to make such a ridiculous claim, Greg, other than your far left ideology. The less money taken and wasted by the government on inefficient, dependency-inducing socialist nonsense, the more money private citizens have to save or invest, thus stimulating the economy. Simply because there are people out there who do not have the personal responsibility to understand such financial concepts does not obligate anyone else to be mugged by the government.
Think for a moment, Greg. When Reagan put restrictions on welfare and started cutting welfare, more people went to work, and the economy was doing quite well – especially in light of the mess left by Carter. There were FEWER people on welfare. Obama’s insane welfare policies have done exactly what anyone with an ounce of sense could have predicted – it resulted in MORE people going onto welfare. His handling of the economy has hampered any kind of a recovery, skyrocketed our national debt by over 57% – 10.8 Trillion to 17 Trillion – and he wants to add an estimated 2.4 trillion more with this unworkable socialist medical system. (Most recent CBO numbers on the cost estimate of obamacare).
We spend more on welfare, food stamps, medicare and Medicaid – items absolutely not listed in the Constitution as duties of the government – than we do on national defense, an explicit duty of the federal government. Tell me, Greg, how does U-6 unemployment at 13.6%, GDP barely cracking 1% increases per quarter, more food stamp recipients than the entire population of Spain, a downgrade in our national credit (with another one coming soon) and total workforce numbers being lowered to levels not seen since the 1970s…how on earth can you believe that MORE Keynesian and socialist insanity will ever be able to fix things?
You leftists have this erroneous idea that you are helping poor people by getting them addicted to welfare payments, paid for by legalistic theft from people who work hard to earn their own way. There is no self-respect in being treated like a child when one is beyond childhood. Charity is not an act that can be coerced. Socialism is nothing but coercion, and whether you like it or not, obamacare is pure socialism.
Medicare and Medicaid are going bankrupt. Social Security is going bankrupt. With 17 trillion and counting in national debt, we are on an unsustainable fiscal path that will lead to chaos if we do not stop with this socialist economic stupidity.
If there is misplaced guilt in your life nagging at you because there are poor people in the world, by all means do some volunteer work in a soup kitchen, donate to St. Vincent de Paul, Goodwill or the Salvation Army. Become a Big Brother. Christ said the poor would always be with us. The problem is your misplaced leftist guilt drives you to this crazy idea that the solution is government bureaucracy and welfare dependency – which does nothing but increase the number of poor people, crush the middle class, and in the end massively increase poverty.
@Tom:
Wow, Tom. What classic projection.
So all the people who have had their insurance cancelled because HHS regulations for obamacare made them illegal, thus leaving these nonhypothetical people without affordable insurance which they had before obamacare are simply the sacrificial lambs you totalitarians require on the march to your socialist dystopia, right? You are so smug in your left-wing insanity you cannot see, yet again, the magnitude of your own self-parody.
By the way, Tom, it sure seems like there are a whole bunch of nervous democrats demanding delays in the imposition of the incredibly falsely named “affordable care act” – so are they all right wing nutjobs like me? If obamacare is so affordable and so wonderful, how come people are upset about the increased cost of premiums, (2-4 times what they were paying before obamacare), the increased annual deductibles (3-5 times what they were before obamacare), and the significantly decreased access to doctors and hospitals? What could possibly be the reason, Tom?
It is not scare mongering to point out historical events under socialist medicine, Tom. Sure, it is easy to poo poo any comparison between obamacare and what Nazi physicians were doing in the name of medicine. But I noticed you have no comment on the Liverpool Pathway…currently active under the NHS in Britain, and for which doctors are paid 50 pounds for each patient they put onto that path. Did you look that up, Tom? Or is having to admit that the socialist government there actively and financially encourages physicians to euthanize people deemed unworthy of the expense of medical resources too much of an inconvenient truth for you as a leftist?