# Obamacare train pulls safely into the station



## Greenbeard (Apr 17, 2014)

A harrowing ride but a satisfying conclusion to the journey!

*Exchange enrollment has exceeded expectations*

Obamacare Tears Down Goalposts: 8 Million Sign-Ups


> President Barack Obama announced Thursday that 8 million Americans had enrolled in private health coverage under Obamacare -- the final evidence that the law signed up far more Americans than most would have thought possible during the doldrums of last fall.



*The uninsurance rate continues to fall.*

Health insurance gains since last fall hit 12 million, survey shows - latimes.com


> President Obamas health law has led to an even greater increase in health coverage than previously estimated, according to new Gallup survey data, which suggest that about 12 million previously uninsured Americans have gained coverage since last fall.



*Premiums and ACA costs are lower than anticipated.*

Lower premiums (yes, really) drive down Obamacares expected costs, CBO says


> The health-care law's expansion of insurance coverage will cost $104 billion less than projected over the next decade, according to revised estimates from nonpartisan budget analysts Monday. Obamacare's lower-than-expected costs will come largely because premiums will be cheaper than previously thought.



*The CBO and the Society of Actuaries anticipate only modest premium growth next year.*

Smaller premium hikes forecast in 2015 for Obamacare - Jennifer Haberkorn and Brett Norman - POLITICO.com


> Insurance premiums under Obamacare are projected to rise less than 3 percent in 2015, a smaller-than-expected jump as the health insurance exchanges enter their second year.
> 
> The CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation released a series of new estimates Monday on the laws costs and the number of people it will cover.



New data signal smaller jump in health care costs


> "The double-rate increases we've been hearing are probably exaggerated," says Dave Axene, a fellow with the Society of Actuaries, adding that there would be wide variation across the country. "That's not what we're seeing from the actuarial organizations  I guess we're being a little bit more optimistic."



*The exchanges are about to get more competitive.*

Insurers see brighter Obamacare skies - Kyle Cheney and Brett Norman - POLITICO.com


> Health insurers got their first taste of Obamacare this year. And they want seconds.
> Insurers saw disaster in the fall when Obamacares rollout flopped and HealthCare.gov was a mess. But a strong March enrollment surge, along with indications that younger and healthier people had begun signing up, has changed their attitude. Around the country, insurers are considering expanding their stake in the Obamacare exchanges next year, bringing their business to more states and counties. Some health plans that skipped the new marketplaces altogether this year are ready to dive in next year.



*Health care quality is improving.*

National Committee for Quality Assurance -- State of Health Care Qualty


> This year [2012] we saw significant improvement in measures included in the Medicare Star rating pay-for-performance program for health plans that participate in Medicare Advantage. Although Medicare Advantage plans have reported on quality and results have been reported to consumers for many years, the Affordable Care Act required the Medicare program to make higher payments to health plans with better quality performance, starting in 2012. In addition to this new program, the Department of Health and Human Services established a demonstration program to complement it, making even higher payments to plans with better performance.



Obamacare Shows Hospital Savings as Patients Make Gains - Bloomberg


> Less than five months before the Affordable Care Act fully kicks in, hospitals are improving care and saving millions of dollars with one of the least touted but potentially most effective provisions of the law.



More hospitals improve quality of care | Healthcare Finance News


> A larger number of hospitals are showing improvements in their quality of care said the Joint Commission in its annual report on quality and safety of hospitals.



All Pioneer ACOs improved quality; only third lowered costs


> All 32 of the accountable care organizations in the program improved patient care and patient satisfaction against benchmarks, according to results shared with the Wall Street Journal in advance of their public release.



Is Obamacare working? Hospitals finally see drop in readmissions 


> New CMS figures show that the national rate of 30-day readmissions for Medicare patients dropped to 17.8% in November 2012 after spending years stuck at 19%and White House officials say the Affordable Care Act deserves the credit.



*The health care system is re-designing itself to start holding down costs and improving quality in the long-term.*

Do Structural Changes Drive the Recent Health Care Spending Slowdown? New Evidence


> Value-based purchasing of hospital services has had a significant impact on hospital behavior. Hospitals are highly sensitive to changes in financial incentives. Movement away from a preponderance of fee-for-service payments is also likely to permanently alter hospital behavior. For instance, emphasis on reduced readmissions has reportedly changed how hospital managers think about care delivery, from the care delivered within their four walls towards coordinating care outside their four walls as they track patients as they return to the community or to various post acute care settings.
> 
> An observation is that hospitals and other providers are being called to change their care delivery models and business models as payment systems evolve. In a general sense this is leading to a re-engineering of care- slow to start with, but gaining momentum over time. The ACA, with its call for CMMI grants, shows the potential magnitude of private and public sector experiments with alternative organizational forms such as ACOs and medical homes in combination with payment system incentives in the form of payments for value, payment bundling and capitation and prompting the health care industry to reconsider delivery models that reduce incentives for volume of care under fee-for- service. As organizational forms and payment models evolve, augmentation of computing powers and more ready access to big data claims files emphasizes an ability to better understand the consequences of change in terms of clinical and economic outcomes.


----------



## Rozman (Apr 17, 2014)

Isn't a bit early to make these claims....
Sebelius said a few weeks ago that they don't have a clue as to the details of those who signed up.


----------



## Rozman (Apr 17, 2014)

A month before the deadline they had 6 million.
Now I'm hearing a few weeks later they have 12 million.....

Sorry...I'm not buying it.


----------



## dblack (Apr 17, 2014)

Greenbeard!

Did you get your contract renewed, or what?


----------



## Darkwind (Apr 17, 2014)

More lies from the most dishonest administration in American History.

There was never going to be a time when Obamacare did not meet their goals.  The numbers were already in announcement form prior to October 2013.  They were just waiting for the time to pass.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 17, 2014)

OMG, that train should be blown up and so should the people who sold it

all we heard was how 46 MILLION PEOPLE were without insurance...and now 4 year, 38 delay's by our dictators, website didn't work, 1.5TRILLION dollars AND a lousy 8 million people ( which is probably a LIE like everything is about the scam)

how some of you can sleep at night while pushing such dishonesty is actually scary

and who writes this crap, 10 year olds? the train  the train  boss the train


----------



## Rozman (Apr 17, 2014)

How many of the 6 million,7 million,9 million,12 million ( the number has gone up LOL) are people that
did not have insurance before?....

And yeah.... where are those 40+ million who were without insurance according to Obama?
Why are they nowhere to be found?


----------



## dblack (Apr 17, 2014)

My take is, based on the fact that Greenbeard is back in business, the powers-that-be are growing increasingly worried that the "train" is grinding to a halt.


----------



## Greenbeard (Apr 17, 2014)

Rozman said:


> How many of the 6 million,7 million,9 million,12 million ( the number has gone up LOL) are people that
> did not have insurance before?....



Exchange enrollment + Medicaid expansion (+ some increase in employer-sponsored coverage?) has picked up at least 12 million uninsured so far. The number of insured will continue to grow throughout the year and it'll really pick up in the next open enrollment period in the fall.


----------



## Zander (Apr 17, 2014)




----------



## bluesman (Apr 17, 2014)

Rozman said:


> A month before the deadline they had 6 million.
> Now I'm hearing a few weeks later they have 12 million.....
> 
> Sorry...*I'm not buying it*.



Maybe you should buy some reading comprehension lessons.  The Op linked to 8 million sign-ups.  The 12 million number was a comparison to a previous  point in time saying that more people had insurance than a year ago.


----------



## Zander (Apr 17, 2014)




----------



## Zander (Apr 17, 2014)




----------



## Zander (Apr 17, 2014)




----------



## Zander (Apr 17, 2014)




----------



## Zander (Apr 17, 2014)




----------



## Stephanie (Apr 17, 2014)

dblack said:


> My take is, based on the fact that Greenbeard is back in business, the powers-that-be are growing increasingly worried that the "train" is grinding to a halt.



Bingo
the greeny was put back in the propaganda business things are so damn bad..
what a horrible thing to do to the people in this country..
greeny you should be ashamed


----------



## bluesman (Apr 17, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> OMG, *that train should be blown up and so should the people who sold it*
> all we heard was how 46 MILLION PEOPLE were without insurance...and now 4 year, 38 delay's by our dictators, website didn't work, 1.5TRILLION dollars AND a lousy 8 million people ( which is probably a LIE like everything is about the scam)
> 
> how some of you can sleep at night while pushing such dishonesty is actually scary
> ...




Sounds like a terroristic threat.  Obama "sold it" so I guess you are directing the threat at him. It was Obama who campaigned on Obamacare and the people of the United States voted for him.  Romney said he would do away with Obamacare and he didn't get elected.  Our country is a democracy and not run by whoever makes the biggest threat.


----------



## Zander (Apr 17, 2014)

Safely in the station!!!!


----------



## Zander (Apr 17, 2014)




----------



## Greenbeard (Apr 17, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> greeny you should be ashamed



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owzhYNcd4OM]For Dep - YouTube[/ame]

You should be angry at the people who convinced you Obamacare wouldn't come in cheaper than expected, cover more people than predicted, slow cost growth, and improve health care quality, not me.

They're the ones who are responsible for you being upset today!


----------



## Rozman (Apr 17, 2014)

All I know is thanks to Obama I lost my coverage....
Now the coverage I have through the company sucks...
Having a $6,000.00 yearly deductible will not see me going to my doctor
any time soon.

So as far as the train pulling into the station....

Shove it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 17, 2014)

> President Barack Obama announced Thursday that 8 million Americans had enrolled in private health coverage



The actual number is likely higher than that as many Americans purchased health insurance directly from providers, bypassing the exchange, where such enrollments are not included in the official tally. 

Obamacare's Invisible Victory - NationalJournal.com


----------



## Zander (Apr 17, 2014)

if we're going to make up enrollment numbers- let's go with 330 Million!! Cover everyone!! WOOHOO!!!!


----------



## bluesman (Apr 17, 2014)

Rozman said:


> All I know is thanks to Obama I lost my coverage....
> Now the coverage I have through the company sucks...
> *Having a $6,000.00 yearly deductible *will not see me going to my doctor
> any time soon.
> ...



The higher deductible promotes market competition.  Before, people like you, would feel like you were getting "free" coverage.  The fact is that someone has to pay for your "free" coverage.   When people have to pay higher deductibles, then it will cause them to look for lower cost alternatives.  Examples would be not having a flu shot from a doctor that is charging an insurance company $75 or $100 dollars for something you can get at a pharmacy for $20.  The result is less milking of the system.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 17, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> OMG, that train should be blown up and so should the people who sold it
> 
> all we heard was how 46 MILLION PEOPLE were without insurance...and now 4 year, 38 delay's by our dictators, website didn't work, 1.5TRILLION dollars AND a lousy 8 million people ( which is probably a LIE like everything is about the scam)
> 
> ...



Dear Stephanie: the more any opposition talks of "derailing" someone else's system,
that is just abused to discredit the opposition.

If we believe in equal religious liberty and freedom of choice,
why not AGREE that people who support the train, set up the system
and manage and pay for it themselves by voluntary participation.

and let other people manage planes, busses, bikes, walking trails, car
pools or other transporation, so all means and modes are covered?

Why not treat all these choices EQUALLY 
especially if we are arguing on the basis of civil liberty and individual choices.

Whatever we ask and pray for others merely comes back to us.
Wishing to derail others just incites other to derail our plans, so nobody wins that way.

If we recognize that people's beliefs are a valid choice, we don't have to agree.
We can argue that by the Constitution this political belief should be kept SEPARATE.

But if we do not even treat it is as an equally valid choice,
how can we expect others to recognize and respect our beliefs as valid under law?

1. First step - agree to recognize each other's conflicting beliefs as valid choices
even if we disagree. Everyone has a right to exercise their own beliefs, just not to impose on others.
2. Next agree to separate these choices so nobody imposes one over the other,
especially not through govt against the equal beliefs of others
3. third, where these plans agree, those parts CAN be implemented through fed govt
without conflict. Where plans diverge, either remove that part from federal
and keep it local, state or by party or other means of managing it separately,
or allow an exemption for it where those programs are a VALID option 
neither regulated or fined beyond the conditions that all parties AGREE to.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 17, 2014)

links in article at site

SNIP:






Megan McArdle goes off on suspicious Census Bureau/Obamacare methodology switch


posted at 6:01 pm on April 17, 2014 by Guy Benson




Allahpundit wrote on this topic earlier in the week, but I think it&#8217;s significant enough to amplify &#8212; especially when a respected centrist wonk like Megan McArdle is cracking open her thesaurus to describe her alarm and disgust over what&#8217;s going down:




> For several months now, whenever the topic of enrollment in the Affordable Care Act came up, I&#8217;ve been saying that it was too soon to tell its ultimate effects. We don&#8217;t know how many people have paid for their new insurance policies, or how many of those who bought policies were previously uninsured. For that, I said, we will have to wait for Census Bureau data, which offer the best assessment of the insurance status of the whole population. Other surveys are available, but the samples are smaller, so they&#8217;re not as good; the census is the gold standard. Unfortunately, as I invariably noted, these data won&#8217;t be available until 2015. I stand corrected: These data won&#8217;t be available at all. Ever.



Why?  Because as the New York Times reported, the Census Bureau has decided to throw out its 30-year formula (and therefore its baseline) on measuring America&#8217;s uninsured population, and replace it with a new methodology.  The revised math, according to Census officials, will result in much sunnier-looking results.  Independent of the statistical merits of this change, the timing, quite literally, could not be worse.  McArdle is aghast:



> I&#8217;m speechless. Shocked. Stunned. Horrified. Befuddled. Aghast, appalled, thunderstruck, perplexed, baffled, bewildered and dumbfounded. It&#8217;s not that I am opposed to the changes: Everyone understands that the census reports probably overstate the true number of the uninsured, because the number they report is supposed to be &#8220;people who lacked insurance for the entire previous year,&#8221; but people tend to answer with their insurance status right now. But why, dear God, oh, why, would you change it in the one year in the entire history of the republic that it is most important for policy makers, researchers and voters to be able to compare the number of uninsured to those in prior years? The answers would seem to range from &#8220;total incompetence on the part of every level of this administration&#8221; to something worse.



She affirms that she does mean every level of the administration, citing this passage in the Times piece:




> The White House is always looking for evidence to show the benefits of the health law, which is an issue in many of this year&#8217;s midterm elections. The Department of Health and Human Services and the White House Council of Economic Advisers requested several of the new questions, and the White House Office of Management and Budget approved the new questionnaire.



ALL of it here
Megan McArdle goes off on suspicious Census Bureau/Obamacare methodology switch « Hot Air


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 17, 2014)

bluesman said:


> It was Obama who campaigned on Obamacare and the people of the United States voted for him.  Romney said he would do away with Obamacare and he didn't get elected.  Our country is a democracy and not run by whoever makes the biggest threat.



Remember that regardless what Party or Religion you are, and regardless the denomination and beliefs of who voted you in or who votes and supports your beliefs and agenda,

the duty of the President, Congress and Government
is to represent ALL people of all views and beliefs EQUALLY under the Constitution.

NOT just the beliefs of the majority, or leaders or citizens who align with the same political or religious beliefs,
EVEN if you are in the majority.

Just because the majority of people would support Christianity, for example,
does not give Christians the right to impose Christian biased policies for the whole nation.

If half the nation complains of a religious bias, that policy would be reviewed or corrected, if not struck down.

In fact, with Christian policies, it only takes ONE Atheist to be offended to remove a cross.

With HALF the nation complaining this ACA is against Constitutional beliefs,
why isn't the same respect for religious principles respected there?


----------



## Antares (Apr 17, 2014)

Poor Geenteeth 

It isn't cheaper.
It isn't better.
....and November will be ugly for you.


----------



## Antares (Apr 17, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > President Barack Obama announced Thursday that 8 million Americans had enrolled in private health coverage
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Rand Study pegged it at 7.8 million.......7.3 of which had insurance prior.

Dumbass.


----------



## bluesman (Apr 17, 2014)

bluesman said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > OMG, *that train should be blown up and so should the people who sold it*
> ...








emilynghiem said:


> Remember that regardless what Party or Religion you are, and regardless the denomination and beliefs of who voted you in or who votes and supports your beliefs and agenda,
> 
> the duty of the President, Congress and Government
> is to represent ALL people of all views and beliefs EQUALLY under the Constitution.
> ...




First of all "half the nation" does not speak in one unified voice.   The constitutional question was answered by a 5/4 Republican majority Supreme Court.  With ideologues, hating Obama may seem like a religion but it is not.  Our country was founded on puritan Christian values and there is nothing more Christian than caring for and healing poor sick people.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 17, 2014)

obamacare results is one of the reasons why a majority of the public thinks obama is such a liar.


----------



## Politico (Apr 18, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > My take is, based on the fact that Greenbeard is back in business, the powers-that-be are growing increasingly worried that the "train" is grinding to a halt.
> ...



More people on the dole = success.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 18, 2014)

Here is the ObamaScam train


----------



## MeBelle (Apr 18, 2014)

Zander said:


> if we're going to make up enrollment numbers- let's go with 330 Million!! Cover everyone!! WOOHOO!!!!



The real Obamacare total: 14.4 Million to 23.5 Million!!

eleventy jillion

ELEVENTYTWILLIONTEEN

^^^comments on article^^^

eleventy jillion sounds like a number Radioman ALT would say


----------



## MeBelle (Apr 18, 2014)

I'll tackle the claims made by the OP later today. Sorry, I mean rebuttal.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 18, 2014)

Rozman said:


> Isn't a bit early to make these claims....
> Sebelius said a few weeks ago that they don't have a clue as to the details of those who signed up.



why do people like you always distort what she said ... she was referring to what type of policy holders sign up ... meaning were they people who 
previously had insurance ... or are the number refers to how many people sign up who didn't have insurance before... that's what she was saying when she said she didn't really have the details of those who signed up it... it has nothing to do with did they or didn't they sign up ... as for new policy numbers ...any medicaid is considered new policy ... whether you like it or not ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 18, 2014)

Rozman said:


> A month before the deadline they had 6 million.
> Now I'm hearing a few weeks later they have 12 million.....
> 
> Sorry...I'm not buying it.



thats because you are ignorant...  what he has said that 8 million have sign up for health care ... as these numbers have changed ... 5 million for medicaid 3.5 million who are under 26 years of age who stayed on their parents policy ... you do the math 8 + 3.5 + 5 = 16.5 million the president gave a conservative number of 15 million ... it to will climb ... so you stick with the deniers ... you ain't got no union


----------



## jasonnfree (Apr 18, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> More lies from the most dishonest administration in American History.
> 
> There was never going to be a time when Obamacare did not meet their goals.  The numbers were already in announcement form prior to October 2013.  They were just waiting for the time to pass.



Do a little reading about corrupt administrations. Reagan's had the most convicted felons.  And of course, many in Nixon's administration went to prison. Then there was  Grant, Harding administrations.  Any criminals from Obama yet?


----------



## bluesman (Apr 18, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> I'll tackle the claims made by the OP later today. Sorry, I mean rebuttal.



What is this ?  An entry from your fucking diary?


----------



## MeBelle (Apr 19, 2014)

bluesman said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > I'll tackle the claims made by the OP later today. Sorry, I mean rebuttal.
> ...





You've been reading my diary???



I amend my original post regarding tackling today (now yesterday) to Monday.


----------



## Rozman (Apr 19, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > A month before the deadline they had 6 million.
> ...






> * the president gave a conservative number of 15 million*




Now the number is 15 million.....

Give you guys a few weeks and you will start saying that 50 million have now signed up.


----------



## Rozman (Apr 19, 2014)

Hmmmmm It's been a few minutes since my last post....
I'm sure the Obama ball lickers will swear that in that time another 5 million have signed up...


----------



## Rozman (Apr 19, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't a bit early to make these claims....
> ...







> *Sebelius said a few weeks ago that they don't have a clue as to the details of those who signed up*





> *she was referring to what type of policy holders sign up ... meaning were they people who
> previously had insurance ... or are the number refers to how many people sign up who didn't have insurance before*



That was my point...Sebelius didn't have any details about the people who signed up.
So how can the left declare O'Care this huge success...

You seem to be agreeing with me.

*why do people like you always distort what she said *


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 19, 2014)

Rozman said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Rozman said:
> ...



why should you believe it 

one the prezbo is a known liar 

and two all of a sudden 

health insurance information is cut from the census 

--LOL


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 19, 2014)

bluesman said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > I'll tackle the claims made by the OP later today. Sorry, I mean rebuttal.
> ...



noooooooooooooooooooooooo !!!! its a entry from a fucking moron


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 19, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> bluesman said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



its like reading the most boring book you're ever read... then she said, why won't he have sex with me, entry ... you had to say to yourself WTF man....


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 19, 2014)

Rozman said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Rozman said:
> ...



how can they not declare it not ....  we had 5 million new medicaid sign ups that's people who never had insurance ... we have 8 million sign ups through the health care exchange .... then we had 3.5 million go on their parents plan, that weren't on it before ... you act like this wasn't a great accomplishment... here we have a total of16 .5 million people on health care ... some who had never been on a health care plan ... some who were getting the worst health care plans they had to offer before obama care ... who now get a 10 time better plan for half the cost ... how is that a bad thing ... you tell us


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 19, 2014)

Rozman said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Rozman said:
> ...



do you not comprehen what you read ???? I clearly said 8 million were throgh the exchange 5 million were through medicaid and 3.5 million were people who got to stay on their parents plan are you saying that all the sign ups don't count or just the ones that you will allow... you tell us moron ...

not to worry Rozman, we will reach the 50 million sign ups ... just  as soon as the next election ...where you republicans get voted out ... all will be right in the USA ... with the republicans out of office... and we get you hear you guys whining on a daily bases ... all will be right with the country... or in this case left with the country


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 19, 2014)

Who else but a Progressive can spend over $1 BILLION to develop the world only website that can't tell you when someone buys your product -- and call that a success?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 19, 2014)

We needed 20,000 pages of new regulation just to sign people up for Medicare?

ObamaCare needs to be aborted


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 19, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Who else but a Progressive can spend over $1 BILLION to develop the world only website that can't tell you when someone buys your product -- and call that a success?



who writes a post that say stupid shit like yours??? give it up??? I know, you do!!!!

answer: the site was never design to tell us if they buy the product ... it was design to give you information on a plans that all the insurance companies out in the country have to offer ... and for you to sign up for that plan ...but you keep saying stupid shit ... that's what you conservatives do ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 19, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Who else but a Progressive can spend over $1 BILLION to develop the world only website that can't tell you when someone buys your product -- and call that a success?
> ...



I feel sorry for you.  I try not to get angry when talking to Progressives because you have no mind of your own. You just parrot all the talking points that are fed into the Collective


----------



## midcan5 (Apr 19, 2014)

If there are any characteristics that the right wing exemplifies they are the whining, the sky is falling, and martyrdom syndromes. Someone is always plotting to destroy some past utopia that only they can see. Add the Dunning-Kruger effect and you have the perfect right winger, usually a conservative, often republican, but occasionally a libertarian sort of mortal. They are real beauts, guided by the narrative of taxes are bad and government is even worse, the corporations play them like banjos, and like a banjo they willingly acquiesce in their own demise.


"Which are the arguments and how many are there? I must have an inbred urge toward symmetry. In canvassing for the principal ways of criticizing, assaulting, and ridiculing the three successive "progressive" thrusts of Marshall's story, I have come up with another triad: that is, with three principal reactive-reactionary theses, which I call the perversity thesis or thesis of the perverse effect, the futility thesis, and the jeopardy thesis. According to the perversity thesis, any purposive action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order only serves to exacerbate the condition one wishes to remedy. The futility thesis holds that attempts at social transformation will be unavailing, that they will simply fail to "make a dent." Finally, the jeopardy thesis argues that the cost of the proposed change or reform is too high as it endangers some previous, precious accomplishment." Albert Hirschman 'The Rhetoric of Reaction'


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 19, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> We needed 20,000 pages of new regulation just to sign people up for Medicare?
> 
> ObamaCare needs to be aborted



boy what have been smoking...  medicare has been working for years... what 20,000 new pages are you talking about ... or are you rolling up those funny cigarette in those 20,000 new pages 

P.S.
Obama care is here to stay ...you can take that to the bank ...


----------



## MeBelle (Apr 19, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> bluesman said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...











billyerock1991 said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > bluesman said:
> ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 19, 2014)

midcan5 said:


> If there are any characteristics that the right wing exemplifies they are the whining, the sky is falling, and martyrdom syndromes. Someone is always plotting to destroy some past utopia that only they can see. Add the Dunning-Kruger effect and you have the perfect right winger, usually a conservative, often republican, but occasionally a libertarian sort of mortal. They are real beauts, guided by the narrative of taxes are bad and government is even worse, the corporations play them like banjos, and like a banjo they willingly acquiesce in their own demise.
> 
> 
> "Which are the arguments and how many are there? I must have an inbred urge toward symmetry. In canvassing for the principal ways of criticizing, assaulting, and ridiculing the three successive "progressive" thrusts of Marshall's story, I have come up with another triad: that is, with three principal reactive-reactionary theses, which I call the perversity thesis or thesis of the perverse effect, the futility thesis, and the jeopardy thesis. According to the perversity thesis, any purposive action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order only serves to exacerbate the condition one wishes to remedy. The futility thesis holds that attempts at social transformation will be unavailing, that they will simply fail to "make a dent." Finally, the jeopardy thesis argues that the cost of the proposed change or reform is too high as it endangers some previous, precious accomplishment." Albert Hirschman 'The Rhetoric of Reaction'



suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect as I do,  pompuss ass seems to come to mind... I'm just saying


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 19, 2014)

midcan5 said:


> If there are any characteristics that the right wing exemplifies they are the whining, the sky is falling, and martyrdom syndromes. Someone is always plotting to destroy some past utopia that only they can see. Add the Dunning-Kruger effect and you have the perfect right winger, usually a conservative, often republican, but occasionally a libertarian sort of mortal. They are real beauts, guided by the narrative of taxes are bad and government is even worse, the corporations play them like banjos, and like a banjo they willingly acquiesce in their own demise.
> 
> 
> "Which are the arguments and how many are there? I must have an inbred urge toward symmetry. In canvassing for the principal ways of criticizing, assaulting, and ridiculing the three successive "progressive" thrusts of Marshall's story, I have come up with another triad: that is, with three principal reactive-reactionary theses, which I call the perversity thesis or thesis of the perverse effect, the futility thesis, and the jeopardy thesis. According to the perversity thesis, any purposive action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order only serves to exacerbate the condition one wishes to remedy. The futility thesis holds that attempts at social transformation will be unavailing, that they will simply fail to "make a dent." Finally, the jeopardy thesis argues that the cost of the proposed change or reform is too high as it endangers some previous, precious accomplishment." Albert Hirschman 'The Rhetoric of Reaction'


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 19, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > We needed 20,000 pages of new regulation just to sign people up for Medicare?
> ...



ObamaCare is headed for the ash heap of history


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 19, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



first of all I'm not a progressive I'm a liberal... a bleeding far left lefty, tree hugger, or what ever vision you have for liberals...  so with you lack of reading skills, it looks like you failed your self again ... as for you getting angry, I don't give a flying fuck if you do ... I give you what I have learned in life through my own personal 
experience... 

I signed up for health care, my new policy, which by the way is a LPO, because I chose it, fully knowing that I would have to pay for outside pocket 
expenses... if I went out of the policy,  which morons like you are too stupid to under stand ... then start whining because you didn't know what you bought... 

now this policy that I bought is 10 time better the the one I had and cost me 50% less of what I was paying... why did it cost me 50% less??? I did something you right wing nut jobs don't do... I researched it... where you right wing nut jobs just  parrot all the talking points that are fed into the Collective about Obama care...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 19, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



do you want to put money on that ???? or are are you just talking out your ass heap of your history ... you know all mouth and no substance ...

ps
still waiting for information on those 20,000 medicare pages you speak of


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 19, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > If there are any characteristics that the right wing exemplifies they are the whining, the sky is falling, and martyrdom syndromes. Someone is always plotting to destroy some past utopia that only they can see. Add the Dunning-Kruger effect and you have the perfect right winger, usually a conservative, often republican, but occasionally a libertarian sort of mortal. They are real beauts, guided by the narrative of taxes are bad and government is even worse, the corporations play them like banjos, and like a banjo they willingly acquiesce in their own demise.
> ...



and you could keep your doctor, your policy well, that's the insurance company decision not the presidents ...


----------



## jillian (Apr 19, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:
			
		

> and you could keep your doctor, your policy well, that's the insurance company decision not the presidents ...



he didn't say the words... "the law would not affect your ability to keep your doctor."

so they need to keep ranting.

but over 8 million are covered now. 

good luck to them using that in november.


----------



## Darkwind (Apr 19, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...


Frankly, to many people have done the number crunching and come to a different conclusion.  Which leads Me to the understanding that if you'll lie about this to support an ideology that is morally bankrupt, you will lie about just about anything.  Including any life experience you may want to bring to the table.

Have a nice day.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 19, 2014)

translation = there wasn't any 20,000 medicare pages he's just speaking out of his ass again ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 19, 2014)

jillian said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 oh they will have great luck ... have you see what they have offered the republicans for the president???? what the are offering for the mid term ain't any better ... and yes I said ain't ... we will see you republicans fall by the hundreds ...


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 19, 2014)

jillian said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



it really doesnt matter how many now does it 

the number of insured should be much higher 

since it is mandated to get it or face fines and consequences 

just because someone is on obamacare does not mean they are happy about it


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 19, 2014)

Darkwind said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



translation=you couldn't refute my post...

see that's what happens when you don't do your research a typical republican flaw ... and yet you haven't shown us these crunch numbers you speak of, you just repeat your handlers, like the parrot you are ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 19, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



it is a require for all to sign up ... if you don't sign up you are taxed

*mandate*
an authoritative command; especially :  a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one
2
:  an authorization to act given to a representative <accepted the mandate of the people>
3
a :  an order or commission granted by the League of Nations to a member nation for the establishment of a responsible government over a former German colony or other conquered territory


well it doesn't seem to fit you Idea of what a mandate is ... try again!!!

P.S. a tax isn't a fine its a tax ... a tax is what a civilize society  relies on to exist ...


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 19, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



yeah 

like is said 

just because someone is mandated to do something 

does not mean they are happy about it


----------



## natstew (Apr 19, 2014)

Greenbeard said:


> A harrowing ride but a satisfying conclusion to the journey!
> 
> *Exchange enrollment has exceeded expectations*
> 
> ...



What a load of crap!!

Total propaganda!


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 19, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



nobody has been mandated ...


----------



## dblack (Apr 19, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



Yes, yes. Black is white, ignorance is strength, etc...


----------



## Antares (Apr 19, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...




*man·date noun \&#712;man-&#716;d&#257;t\  

: an official order to do something*



Mandate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Poor stupid Billie Boi.


----------



## Antares (Apr 19, 2014)

jillian said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Counselor please the Boi King LIED through his teeth no matter how you attempt to parse it.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 19, 2014)

dblack said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



you do realize that nobody takes a paid poster serious don't you ... I've told you this before .... seems you're a little slow in the head catching on ... well that's expected when you're a repub-lie-tard ... what ever you have to say is worthless to me ... paid poster ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 19, 2014)

Antares said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



poor stupid Antares can't separate the Idea of being told to do something and pay a tax ...well, what do you expoct from a retarded paid poster ... poor poor little antares his head must hurt for trying to figure out whats what, and failing at it


----------



## Antares (Apr 19, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



*The high court rejected the argument, advanced by the Obama administration, that the individual mandate is constitutional under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Before Thursday, the court for decades had said it gave Congress latitude to enact economic legislation.*

Supreme Court upholds Obama?s health-care law - The Washington Post

 The Administration Lawyers and SC Justices disagree with you hillbilly.


----------



## Antares (Apr 19, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



Poor hillbilly, you seem to be quite full of yourself...with no apparent reason to be.

Why would your opinion matter to anyone but you?

Where you fail is that you never post anything BUT your opinion and when asked for sources to back up your claim, you simply shrug and claim you have no need to post ANY sources at all.

You fail kid, but then you are used to that.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Apr 19, 2014)

Nutters don't seem to appreciate the OP. How odd.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 19, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



Correct. 

No one is mandated to have health insurance, citizens are at liberty to go without health insurance coverage if they so desire. 

And the fees they would pay for not having insurance are both appropriate and Constitutional:



> Congresss use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying something is[]not new. Tax incentives already promote, for example, purchasing homes and professional educations. See 26 U. S. C. §§163(h), 25A.
> 
> NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, | LII / Legal Information Institute



Consequently, the notion of a mandate is a rightist contrivance and lie, as is the lie that there has been a loss of individual liberty, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## Antares (Apr 19, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



LOL....uh wow.

Parse, spin and lie much?

I already have shown that both the Administration Lawyers AND the SC Justices disagree you nutters on that point.


----------



## dblack (Apr 19, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



A really stunning display of deliberate delusion. By this tortured "reasoning", no laws are coercive; we're always "free" to defy them and suffer the consequences. You should be ashamed spinning such bullshit.


----------



## bluesman (Apr 19, 2014)

dblack said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



There is a mandate.  Just like there is a mandate to have car insurance.  People do not "opt out" of receiving coverage once they get sick.   The mandate means that nobody gets to take a free ride.   Citizens had the liberty to vote for Romney; he made it clear that he would do away with any mandate. However, the people voted for the guy who said he would get the ACA passed.  That is how democracy works.  Obama was elected.  Congress passed the law.  Obama signed it.  For the time being it is the law.


----------



## dblack (Apr 19, 2014)

bluesman said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



It's not how constitutionally limited government is supposed to work. And Romney offered exactly no credible alternative - he was the Republican least likely to reverse the mandate.

The ACA was a rigged game from the very beginning - crass power grab. Every single idiot supporting it has betrayed the fundamental values of liberal democracy.


----------



## bluesman (Apr 19, 2014)

dblack said:


> bluesman said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




"Constitutionally limited government"?    That sounds like something off of a right wing radio program.   The ACA was challenged in court and the Supreme court is the one who has the final answer on constitutional questions.  It sounds to me like you are saying that the people of the United States are prohibited from voting for what they want.  Obama didn't "grab" power.  He was elected.  Congress passed the law.  All Obama did was sign it.


----------



## dblack (Apr 19, 2014)

bluesman said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > bluesman said:
> ...



They can vote for whatever they want. But when what they want violates the Constitution, they can't have it. The system only works, however, when the Court does its job.


----------



## bluesman (Apr 20, 2014)

dblack said:


> bluesman said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




Just because you disagree with the ruling, it isn't fair to say that the court didn't do its job.   Congress passed the law and congress has the right to levy taxes.   John Roberts was the swing vote and he said it wasn't his place to protect the people from themselves.   From my own perspective, I prefer that everyone pays for health insurance.  I have always paid for mine and I don't like the idea of mooches taking a free ride.  They claim they want to opt out but nobody really opts out.   If someone decides to "opt out" and then gets in a car wreck, they are still going to end up at the emergency room and receive treatment until they are fit to leave the hospital.  The cost for that is absorbed by the people who do have insurance.  I was surprised that Obamacare was passed but I have no problem with it.  If we as a country have the resources to spend trillions overseas, then we should have the resources to make sure that all Americans have certain basic needs met.


----------



## dblack (Apr 20, 2014)

bluesman said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > bluesman said:
> ...



It is, in fact, his job to protect the people from themselves. In a democracy, the entire point of a constitution is to 'protect the people from themselves'. Roberts failed to recognize that.

The relevant question of ACA wasn't whether Congress has the power to levy taxes, it was whether they have the power to use discriminatory taxation to conduct social engineering. Doing so is a blatant violation of the equal protection provisions of the 14th amendment. By signing off on this practice, Roberts has authorized Congress to do dictate virtually any behavior, with only the dwindling protections of the Bill of Rights remaining.



> From my own perspective, I prefer that everyone pays for health insurance.



From my perspective, I prefer that everyone stop watching reality TV. But I shouldn't be allowed to force my preferences on the rest of the nation, even if I can get half of Congress to agree.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 20, 2014)

*Scalia to students on high taxes: At a certain point, &#8216;perhaps you should revolt&#8217;*

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told a group of law students that it might be a good idea to revolt if taxes become too high in the future.
While speaking at the University of Tennessee College of Law on Tuesday, Justice Scalia was asked by a student about his interpretation of the constitutionality of the income tax, the Knoxville News Sentinel reported

The longest-serving justice currently on the bench answered the student by saying that the government has the constitutional right to implement the tax, &#8220;but if it reaches a certain point, perhaps you should revolt.&#8221;
Justice Scalia continued to tell the students that they have every right to express criticism of the government.
&#8220;You&#8217;re entitled to criticize the government, and you can use words, you can use symbols, you can use telegraph, you can use Morse code, you can burn a flag,&#8221; he said, according to the News Sentinel.
The Justice was invited to deliver the annual &#8220;Rose Lecture&#8221; and the Tennessee law school. He discussed pivotal events in his time in the Supreme Court including the decision in 1989 to rule that flag-burning was constitutionally protected speech.


Scalia to students on high taxes: At a certain point, 'perhaps you should revolt' - Washington Times


----------



## Flopper (Apr 20, 2014)

bluesman said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


There is only two ways to have universal coverage, a government insurance program which covers everyone or private insurance that is mandated.  Conservatives should see the mandate as the lesser of two evils.    As in the past, most people will continue to get their health insurance and their healthcare from non-government sources.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 20, 2014)

Antares said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



poor stupid Antares can't separate the Idea of being told to do something and pay a tax ...*well, what do you expect from a retarded paid poster* ...* poor poor little antares his head must hurt for trying to figure out whats what, and failing at it .. Paid poster *


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 20, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...


*hey C_Clayton_Jones how correct are you ... very correct
*
hey Antares do you get it now ??? or are you going to tell us more of your deception of misinformation, that you are paid to do ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 20, 2014)

Antares said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



translation=antares is pissed because he has been expost as a political hack for the right wing nut jobs of this country... he actually think he has valuer here ... antares nobody like a political liar like you, and that's what you are ... you lie for money ... you get paid to post your pack of lies here from Blue cross Blue shield ...the company you work for... they don't like obama care ...because they can no longer rape the American people of their health care any more ... you  are paid to lie here, you paid poster piece of crap ... I've exposed you for what you are and you can't stand that... so you don't need to pity me ... I'm just doing fine with my obama care and my subsidy and pissing your kind off to the max ....

BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 20, 2014)

dblack said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



ah!!!!!! poor poor pitiful dblack,  hates it when your wrong huh ... just because C_Clayton_Jones pointed out that it not a mandate that it is a tax and don't have to buy it ... you can't stand the fact that he's right ... you then come out with the typical right wing nut job ploy hey lets try to shame them ...well it looks like you didn't cut that ploy either ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 20, 2014)

dblack said:


> bluesman said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



so many things to correct so little time... and you want us to believe that Romney offered exactly no credible alternative ??? really you want to go with that stupidity???? how long have we heard from this president  saying to the republican party from the get go before he was elected ... and not one republican came up with any health care plan... no one of them ...  and you want to blame Romney really ... how about blaming the whole republican do nothing party .. for once in your miserable life


----------



## dblack (Apr 20, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > bluesman said:
> ...



I guess you don't even read my posts on here. I DO blame the whole Republican party, dumbass. They're almost as much to blame for ACA as Obama and the Democrats.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 20, 2014)

bluesman said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > bluesman said:
> ...



yeah didn't ya know its the "Constitutionally limited government" of the united states ... its not the "Constitution of the united states as we thought it to be ...where we the people write the laws ... its the "Constitutionally limited government" where the republicans dictate what law is you silly person ... and by obama signing it it made it part of the Constitution of the united states and not their "Constitutionally limited government" ... oh well!!!
I guess it sucks to be dblack he hates mandates you know ...


----------



## Sallow (Apr 20, 2014)

Flopper said:


> bluesman said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Conservatives never wanted universal health care.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 20, 2014)

dblack said:


> bluesman said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



and whats your point??? its constitutional ... the holy nine said so... and now you're whining about the fact that our constitution up held it huh .... boy that must piss you off being force to actually do what our constitution says for once in your life ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 20, 2014)

Billy, you know Greenbeard gets paid to post here, right?


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 20, 2014)

dblack said:


> bluesman said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



so now dblack is a constitutional schollor he has decided who has failed at their job at a scotus ... you must have a hard road to hoe here ...  dblack who has all this knowledge of the constitution ... why aren't you up for the supreme court next nomination with your vast knowledge of constitutional law  you missed your calling here ... really you want to compare reality TV to the SCOTUS  ... like we're going take you serious now...


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 20, 2014)

bluesman said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



oh really, NO ONE gets to take a free ride? then what about the people who are being, subsidized?
Auto insurance is required by a STATE...this fascist OscamCare is the *Federal Government* FORCING the people to buy something or get fined,  which ISNT their job...Our country isn't run on MOB RULES..though some of you would love that


----------



## MeBelle (Apr 20, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> *Billy, you know Greenbeard gets paid to post here, right?*




Needs a repeat.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 20, 2014)

dblack said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



give it up you tried to blame romney and not the republicans ... now you're back pedaling ... we get it ... it.s what you republican do when exposed ... now you're trying to point blame ??? 

PRICELESS ... just fucking PRICELESS ....


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 20, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > *Billy, you know Greenbeard gets paid to post here, right?*
> ...



if you say so ....I personally am not to familiar with greenbeards post ... I've seen him here, read them, every now and then ... I know Antares is he slipped up in one of his rants one after noon ... I caught him ...whats your source that greenbeard is a paid poster ... I personally don't take paid posters serious ... if he is, then I won't take him serious.. I don't care if they are republican or a Dem paid poster I won't take them serious ... they are doing their job, distort the reality here... I for one won't stand for it...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 20, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > bluesman said:
> ...



you caught that too


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 20, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> bluesman said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



nobody Is being "FOCING" your word not mine ... and nobody is being fined... nobody has to get health care ... but if you want to be part of a civilized society you pay taxes ... are you saying you don't want to be part of a civilize society here stephoney??? is that what you want


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 20, 2014)

Greenbeard said:


> A harrowing ride but a satisfying conclusion to the journey!
> 
> *Exchange enrollment has exceeded expectations*
> 
> ...



coming from a liberals/dem here, are you a paid poster ??? you have been accused of being a paid poster ... if you are you should leave we don't need paid poster clouding up the issues ... I realize when people see a person who is intelligent they assume they are paid posters ... 

your post seem informative well organized I can see why some might call you a paid poster ... you're hurting the cause more if you are ... let people do their own research  to find out what the truth really is ... thats only if you are a paid poster other wise NEVER MIND...


----------



## dblack (Apr 20, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Keen observers you two


----------



## Antares (Apr 20, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



LOL Billie you are a moron plain and simple.


----------



## Antares (Apr 20, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



You have a screw loose kid.

The BCBS company I work for is a *non-profit company*, you understand what that means?

I am seriously beginning to think you are an order of fries short of a Happy Meal.

I have no doubt you are happy with your subsidy, its obvious you've been on some sort of Government Assistance your entire life.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 20, 2014)

Rozman said:


> Isn't a bit early to make these claims....
> Sebelius said a few weeks ago that they don't have a clue as to the details of those who signed up.



Early?  LOL, the anti Obama crowd said the PPACA was DOA.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Apr 20, 2014)

How many per day? 

For every day that the ACA does not result in the ruin of the economy and the destruction of our health care delivery system....how many Americans will realize that the GOP has been serving them a pile of shit?


----------



## Antares (Apr 20, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> How many per day?
> 
> For every day that the ACA does not result in the ruin of the economy and the destruction of our health care delivery system....how many Americans will realize that the GOP has serving them a pile of shit?



And in November when the shit hits the fan and all you have left is Obama, what then?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Apr 20, 2014)

Antares said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > How many per day?
> ...



As if it will make a difference. It is hard to imagine a scenario where things are made more difficult for the Obama administration than they have been for the past 4 years. What is the GOP gonna do? Have  negative level of support instead of zero level of support?

You are making predictions here based on wishful thinking. Haven't you learned from the past?


----------



## boedicca (Apr 20, 2014)

The ObamaCare "Train" is heading towards a fiscal trainwreck.   Spending will spin out of control and there won't be enough premiums and tax receipts to cover it.

Hopenchange!

_
Earlier this month there was tremendous press attention to new data indicating that enrollment in the Affordable Care Act (ACA)s health insurance exchanges had surpassed 7 million. The White House took a victory lap while much of the press, desperate to write something positive after months of reporting on website glitches and insurance plan cancellations, characterized the milestone as good political news for ACA supporters. Our national discussion, however, is missing the truly significant story here; what is unfolding before our eyes is a colossal fiscal disaster, poised to haunt legislators and taxpayers for decades to come.

It is quite possible that the ACA is shaping up as the greatest act of fiscal irresponsibility ever committed by federal legislators. Nothing immediately comes to mind as comparable to it. Certainly no tax legislation is, because tax rates rise and fall frequently, such that one Congresss tax cut can be (and often is) undone by a later tax increase. The same is true for legislation affecting appropriated spending programs. But the ACA is a commitment to permanently subsidize comprehensive health insurance for millions who could not otherwise afford it, which the federal government has no viable plan to finance. Moreover, experience shows that it is very difficult to scale back such spending once large numbers of Americans have been made dependent on it. 

Lets walk through the salient features of this unfolding fiscal disaster:

An Expansion of Spending Commitments Comparable to Enacting Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid: Our biggest fiscal problems today stem from Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security costs rising well beyond original projections. The ACA was enacted even though these longstanding financing challenges have still not been met, and represents an additional expansion of federal commitments comparable to these other programs creations. CBO now estimates that the gross costs of the ACAs coverage expansion will be $92 billion in FY2015, or about 0.5% of our total GDP of roughly $18 trillion. This far exceeds, even relative to todays larger economy, the initial costs associated with the entirety of Social Security and Medicaid, and is comparable to the startup costs for all original parts of Medicare combined. Consider this: just five years after enactment the ACA will absorb more of our total economic output than Social Security did fully sixteen years after it was enacted.

(snip)


EXPERT COMMENTARY
The Unfolding Fiscal Disaster Behind ACA Enrollment Figures
By Charles Blahous	|
Apr 17, 2014

Earlier this month there was tremendous press attention to new data indicating that enrollment in the Affordable Care Act (ACA)s health insurance exchanges had surpassed 7 million. The White House took a victory lap while much of the press, desperate to write something positive after months of reporting on website glitches and insurance plan cancellations, characterized the milestone as good political news for ACA supporters. Our national discussion, however, is missing the truly significant story here; what is unfolding before our eyes is a colossal fiscal disaster, poised to haunt legislators and taxpayers for decades to come.

It is quite possible that the ACA is shaping up as the greatest act of fiscal irresponsibility ever committed by federal legislators. Nothing immediately comes to mind as comparable to it. Certainly no tax legislation is, because tax rates rise and fall frequently, such that one Congresss tax cut can be (and often is) undone by a later tax increase. The same is true for legislation affecting appropriated spending programs. But the ACA is a commitment to permanently subsidize comprehensive health insurance for millions who could not otherwise afford it, which the federal government has no viable plan to finance. Moreover, experience shows that it is very difficult to scale back such spending once large numbers of Americans have been made dependent on it. 

Lets walk through the salient features of this unfolding fiscal disaster:

An Expansion of Spending Commitments Comparable to Enacting Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid: Our biggest fiscal problems today stem from Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security costs rising well beyond original projections. The ACA was enacted even though these longstanding financing challenges have still not been met, and represents an additional expansion of federal commitments comparable to these other programs creations. CBO now estimates that the gross costs of the ACAs coverage expansion will be $92 billion in FY2015, or about 0.5% of our total GDP of roughly $18 trillion. This far exceeds, even relative to todays larger economy, the initial costs associated with the entirety of Social Security and Medicaid, and is comparable to the startup costs for all original parts of Medicare combined. Consider this: just five years after enactment the ACA will absorb more of our total economic output than Social Security did fully sixteen years after it was enacted.





Of course, after these initial rollouts, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid costs grew far faster than originally envisioned, sometimes due to subsequent legislation, sometimes due to unanticipated healthcare cost growth. It wouldnt be surprising for either factor to affect the ACA, which would be even more problematic for reasons given below.

A Worse Fiscal Environment: The ACA was enacted when legislators knew, or should have known, that they inhabited a fiscal environment in which such extravagance was unaffordable. Deficits (and debt) are far higher today than when the other major entitlement programs were created; millions of baby boomer retirements are swelling expenditures arising from previously-enacted Social Security and Medicare law. Someday historians will puzzle over the thinking that induced legislators to embark on a vast new spending program at the very moment it could least be afforded.





Unraveling Finances: Where will the money come from to finance the ACAs health exchange subsidies and Medicaid expansion? No one knows. We do know that the ACAs financing mechanisms are already falling apart. The ACAs much-reported website glitches and enrollment shortfalls had actually suggested an upside; if enrollment continued to fall short of previous projections, it was possible that some of the fiscal damage could be contained. But if enrollment has picked up as the laws financing mechanisms disintegrate, the fiscal damage will be worse than anticipated. Consider the following:

CLASS: The ACAs CLASS long-term care provisions were originally projected to generate $37 billion in net premiums through 2015 ($86 billion over ten years). CLASS was later suspended due to its long-term financial unworkability, meaning these revenues have not materialized and will not.

Employer/individual mandate penalties: These were supposed to have brought in $12 billion through 2015, $101 billion over the first ten years. Because the Obama Administration has repeatedly delayed their enforcement, to date they havent brought in much of anything. Some ACA advocates are even beginning to downplay the significance of possibly ditching these mandates altogether, though they were central to the laws financing scheme.

Medicare Advantage: The ACA was supposed to be financed in part by cuts to Medicare Advantage (MA) totaling $31 billion through FY2015, $128 billion over the first ten years. The White House recently announced that planned MA cuts will not go into effect after all.

Other controversial provisions: The ACAs most controversial savings provisions  among them its ambitious Medicare provider payment reductions, the tax on so-called Cadillac health plans, and cost-saving decisions of the Independent Payment Advisory Board have yet to be tested. Given that less-controversial provisions have failed to meet their savings targets, there is little basis for confidence that these more controversial ones will do so. _


The Unfolding Fiscal Disaster Behind ACA Enrollment Figures | Mercatus


----------



## Antares (Apr 20, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...




I am making a prediction based on my contact with the public 5 days a week concerning this issue.

You do realize that in 2010 American's VOTED to stop Obama's agenda?

The House is a duly elected body doing what we sent them there to do.


----------



## Antares (Apr 20, 2014)

All we can do now is wait and see.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 20, 2014)

Antares said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > How many per day?
> ...



You're much like the preacher who predicts the end of the world, then when the sun rises he is not one bit shaken in his faith, and claims the world will end in November.

What will doomsayers like you do, if by November the sun rises, more and more citizens flood a now working data base and sign up in droves during the next open enrollment period?  Don't answer, you'll demand the President's birth certificate, of course.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 20, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > bluesman said:
> ...


Very true, however the alternative of single payer would be much worst in their minds.  The mandate was first proposed by Republicans in 1989 fearing the nation was moving toward a single payer system.  Had Republicans believed single payer had a chance in 2009, they would have proposed the mandate.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 20, 2014)

Lies lies lies. It's what democrats do.


----------



## Antares (Apr 20, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



I'll make a shit load of money just like I did this time around.

I'm just telling you that the public is NOT in support of this law.


----------



## dblack (Apr 20, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Depends on the 'conservatives'. Some them recognize that the 'middle ground' is worse.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 20, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Actually an expanded Medicare program is something conservatives should support, since a successful apparatus is already up and running. 

Health insurance companies could return to the business of selling actual health insurance policies and get out of the health maintenance business, which they do a very poor job of; with Medicare providing all Americans access to affordable healthcare, those who wish to and can afford it may buy private insurance policies absent government regulation. 

Insurance companies would again be at liberty to cancel policies for whatever reason and deny applications for what ever reason  including preexisting conditions; profit would again be their priority, not the health and well-being of their customers, where health insurance companies would again be subject to market regulations.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 20, 2014)

Antares said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



I suppose in your reality the public is opposed to Medicare and Social Security too.  Get with it, the only reason the Republicans seek to end Medicare and Social Security and Obamacare is simple, when privatized each offers the nations power elite the ability to take more $$$ from the many.  It has nothing to do with Freedom or fear of Socialism; those 'concerns' are a charade, it has to do with power, control and greed.

Your comment, "I'll make a shit load of money just like I did this time around" is very telling.  As one who spent a career investigating, those words tell me a good deal about you.


----------



## dblack (Apr 20, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> ... the only reason the Republicans seek to end Medicare and Social Security and Obamacare is simple, when privatized each offers the nations power elite the ability to take more $$$ from the many.  It has nothing to do with Freedom or fear of Socialism; those 'concerns' are a charade, it has to do with power, control and greed.



Certainly any kind of "managed" privatization of these institutions would turn into another corporatist boondoggle. But some republicans, and most libertarians, want to see government out of these functions for the opposite reason.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 20, 2014)

dblack said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > ... the only reason the Republicans seek to end Medicare and Social Security and Obamacare is simple, when privatized each offers the nations power elite the ability to take more $$$ from the many.  It has nothing to do with Freedom or fear of Socialism; those 'concerns' are a charade, it has to do with power, control and greed.
> ...



Huh?  What is the opposite of a "corporatist boondoggle"?  Boondoggle has a number of different connotations so I can't determine which applies in context.


----------



## Antares (Apr 20, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



What you don't like the truth?

LOL, seriously why would I care what you think of me?

5 days a week I deal with people concerning this law, you read the bullshit printed and the crap Dear Leader spouts and you lap up every word.

You're wrong and simply too prideful to accept reality.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Apr 20, 2014)

Antares said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Are you a "Debbie Downer" in the presence of your clients like you are here? For every one of you......a politically motivated tool who despises anything Obama....there is a rational insurance agent who is concerned only with helping clients get the best deal possible.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 20, 2014)

Ohhhh, you poor ultra-partisan RWers....


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 20, 2014)

Antares said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



When I'm wrong I admit it!  I'm far from perfect, but I do tend to research things and ask questions.  Rarely, if ever, do I do use superlatives (all conservatives are, all Republicans are) but I know what existed before the PPACA wasn't working and was hurting local government and state governments and the vast majority of American citizens.

So why the full court press on the PPACA; if it is fatally flawed it will die all on its own.  Why are the Koch Brothers so opposed to such reform, I 'mnearly certain neither of them read the full bill (I doubt you and me and everyone who posts on this forum haven't read even a larger part of the bill), but I digress, I used the Koch Bros name in vain, here's why

Colbert And Patrick Stewart Needle AFP's Fake Obamacare Victim Ads | Crooks and Liars

The PAC, Americans for Prosperity lied.  Why?  Because the power elite in our country profit from the status quo and Obama and the PPACA threatened the golden goose.


----------



## Antares (Apr 20, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



LOL, LL you just do not like the truth.
You think the folks are ill informed and uneducated like you are on this subject.
Here is your problem, MOST people who have been in the individual marker for awhile know that what has happened is NOT better.

It just isn't and yet people like you that suck up every drop of jizz that Obama's throws out continue to have your head in the sand.

THAT is the truth.....I do not have to be negative with my clients, they are negative with me....why?

Because unlike little whiny butts like you THEY actually understand what has happened.

It is what it is LL, and you are going to find out soon enough what they think.

I am a multi million dollar producer for a reason, that reason is that I do NOT try and bullshit anybody, EVER.

Have SOME people been helped by this?

Yes.

But FAR more have been hurt by it.

THAT is the truth despite your unwillingness to educate yourself to it, so spare your judgements and condemnations because you don't have any clue to what has been done to the industry.


----------



## Antares (Apr 20, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Tell me what you think are lies.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Apr 20, 2014)

Antares said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



You are talking out of your ass.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 20, 2014)

Antares said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



I don't think they're lies, they are exposed as lies and not only the ones in the video above. Hannity had several on his show who lied about the costs and their experiences with the PPACA and John Stewert exposed Hannity quite well for the liar he is here:

Sean Hannity?s Lies Exposed By Jon Stewart | News Corpse

One video is worth 45,000 pretend protesters.


----------



## Zander (Apr 20, 2014)

Antares said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



I am in the individual market and I agree with everything you've written. My premium went from $485 to $1015 - and the deductible increased.   Winning?  

Obama ass-sniffers will get their wake up calls soon.....lots more pain on the horizon.


----------



## Antares (Apr 20, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



I watch Fox, big surprise?


I can tell you that I turn to my wife every time they spout bullshit about the law.

Hannity, O'reilley, Kelly....ALL have had bullshit guests and outright liars on their shows.

You mentioned lies, I am asking what lies YOU have seen being espoused?


----------



## Antares (Apr 20, 2014)

Here is something I just discovered last week....and THIS is where the reform should have started.

A knee replacement in Omaha costs 25000 dollars...a knee replacement in California costs 125000......that's just wrong all the way around.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Apr 20, 2014)

Antares said:


> Here is something I just discovered last week....and THIS is where the reform should have started.
> 
> A knee replacement in Omaha costs 25000 dollars...a knee replacement in California costs 125000......that's just wrong all the way around.



Yeah. That is the result of "free market" forces when it comes to health care. One of the things we need our elected representatives to regulate. 

Did you miss this? I wonder how? It was well publicized. 

http://www.uta.edu/faculty/story/2311/Misc/2013,2,26,MedicalCostsDemandAndGreed.pdf

Or how about this? 

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/01/03/myth-health-cares-free-market-244994.html


----------



## Antares (Apr 20, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Here is something I just discovered last week....and THIS is where the reform should have started.
> ...



Oh ye of the superior intellect.....

As of Jan 1 there IS no free market in terms of Insurance.

Why?

ALL pre-existings MUST be covered.....and,
ALL Companies MUST spend 80cents of every premium dollar collected on claims....

That effectively eliminated "competition".


----------



## Antares (Apr 20, 2014)

Oh yes...and LL that is the greed of the PRIVIDERS and NOT insurance companies.

Did I mention that I work for a non-profit?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Apr 20, 2014)

Antares said:


> Oh yes...and LL that is the greed of the PRIVIDERS and NOT insurance companies.
> 
> Did I mention that I work for a non-profit?



None of that matters. Why did you say it?


----------



## dblack (Apr 20, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



I'm referring to the Republican pattern of  "privatizing" government services by farming them out to corporate partners as a cronyist gift. When libertarians, and real limited government conservatives advocate for privatization, we're talking about simply ending government involvement flatly.


----------



## bluesman (Apr 20, 2014)

dblack said:


> bluesman said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You are kind of being a smart ass and missing the point at the same time.  Other people watching reality TV has no impact on you.  It doesn't take money out of your pocket.   As far as the constitutional process, that is something you have to take up with the founders.  They wrote it and I think they did a good job.  Two separate congressional entities passed the law.  The people in congress were elected by the people of the United States.  So was the president.  You keep coming back to saying it is constitutionally wrong but don't really seem to have a constitutional argument.  This is a case where we have to agree to disagree.  I agree with the Supreme court on this one and you disagree.  Just because a minority doesn't like Obama no matter what he does, that doesn't mean we have to scrap everything.  Healthcare costs have continued to eat up a bigger chunk of the budget year after year.  The right has offered nothing but rhetoric.  Obama got something done.  It may get changed but the simple fact is that he was willing to take the political hit and get it done.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 20, 2014)

Antares said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



See Zander's post above.  It may not be a lie, per se, but without posting evidence that his new policy is identical except for cost his post must be considered a lie of omission.


----------



## dblack (Apr 20, 2014)

bluesman said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > bluesman said:
> ...


Sure it does. My favorite series (Firefly) gets cancelled, and their retarded shit flourishes. 





> You keep coming back to saying it is constitutionally wrong but don't really seem to have a constitutional argument.  This is a case where we have to agree to disagree.  I agree with the Supreme court on this one and you disagree.  Just because a minority doesn't like Obama no matter what he does, that doesn't mean we have to scrap everything.


This has nothing to do with Obama. Romney led the way with the mandate shit.




> Healthcare costs have continued to eat up a bigger chunk of the budget year after year.  The right has offered nothing but rhetoric.  Obama got something done.  It may get changed but the simple fact is that he was willing to take the political hit and get it done.


And he sold us out in the process. He should take the hit for that.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Apr 20, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Zander would never be dishonest about the ACA. He has been a fair observer of the law since day one. Maybe he'll find another treasure trove of cartoons to post in succession........you know.....liven up the joint.


----------



## Antares (Apr 20, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yes...and LL that is the greed of the PRIVIDERS and NOT insurance companies.
> ...



Because the truth is this...you simply have NO idea about anything you type.

You are a parrot, no more, no less.


----------



## Antares (Apr 20, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Now you are just laughable nigga......I've never lied about one thing....


----------



## Antares (Apr 20, 2014)

Never mind he agreed with what I posted....c'mon LL......you jus one mo lyin Nigga chile?


----------



## Zander (Apr 20, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Sophistrty, plain and simple. 

Because of O'care - we can no longer purchase our old policy.   

next you'll tell me that our old policy was "garbage", right? a crappy policy, right? 

Here's a news flash for ya-  the garbage is called Obamacare.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 20, 2014)

Zander said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Nothing changed for me, I planned ahead.  BTW,  A lie by omission is still a lie, and now you've doubled down.


----------



## bluesman (Apr 21, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



My plan didn't change either.  It is weird how the right winger's plans doubled in cost, etc.   I guess everybody is just supposed to trust the Obama-haters.  

I get it that there are going to be doctors who don't like Obama-care because they want to milk the system.   Higher deductibles are part of the answer.  When there is no deductible, then the customer (patient) pays no attention to how much tests costs.  The doctors will always recommend every test possible to be "safe".  However, they are making big bucks off the testing.   Higher deductibles encourage a more capitalistic approach.  If getting a test or a shot costs a certain amount with a doctor but the same test or shot is available at the drugstore for half the cost, then in a free market based system, the customer will choose the cheaper option.  This will drive costs down.  When doctors see that their customers are getting shots and tests elsewhere, then they will have to respond by lowering the price that they charge.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceja...it-patient-pocketbooks-and-hospital-finances/

_When deductibles and co-payments are high, patients tend to think twice about their health care purchases, making them more likely to shop around for the best deal. Fitch sees this impacting hospital patient volumes with choosier patients more likely to demand &#8220;price and quality information,&#8221; the New York based financial ratings firm said in its report._


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 21, 2014)

Antares said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



LOL you keep denying what you are Antares ... we know you're a paid poster for BCBS ... we don't need your kind here trying to lie about what is or what isn't ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 21, 2014)

Antares said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it paid poster... keep tap dancing ... I've never been on any government assistance ever in my life ... I retired in 1980 because of my electronic skills ...  i've been living off the stock and bond market ever sense, not to mention covered calls ... mostly covered calls ... the only time I've had any assistance is this year when ACA was passed ...but you keep trying to justify why your are here.... by slandering people and the ACA .... we get it paid poster ... if they point out your lies then of course we must be on "merican gubment assistance program  ... that's the repub-lie-tard way ... what next Antares are you going to start with the gay references ??? that's what your repub-lie-tards do when you are confronted with the truth ... LOL

P.S.
with my social security that I get now and the money I make from the market ... I decided to stop taking so much of my market money you see social security isn't taxed ... so I'll make just enough to get medicaid an pay nothing at all for my health care ... then I will go on medicare the following year ...that way I can piss more republicans of by getting you to pay for my health care ... see that's what happens when you have the ability to think ... you on the other hand are just another puppet from the right ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 21, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> How many per day?
> 
> For every day that the ACA does not result in the ruin of the economy and the destruction of our health care delivery system....how many Americans will realize that the GOP has been serving them a pile of shit?



well I know of one ... Antares ...he's a paid poster and if he realizes its not failing, he'll be out of work ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 21, 2014)

Antares said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > How many per day?
> ...



you sure have a active imagination but that'''s all you got ...we will see won't we


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 21, 2014)

Antares said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



not really paid poster ...they got en because everybody knows that the only way a republican can get in is in the mid terms... this time you republicans have really pissed of the independents, women, minorities, old people with your voter Id laws you've been trying to pass, you any your kind will regret the day you were born, after we dem/liberals get finished with your lying Kind


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 21, 2014)

Wry Catcher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



it says he's a paid poster ... he gets more money trying to convince us that obama care bad... antares believes paying through your nose, good thing... lose everything you own, great thing... then cut them off, even a greater thing ... thats the antares way of life..


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 21, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yes...and LL that is the greed of the PRIVIDERS and NOT insurance companies.
> ...



he's trying to justify the way insurance are now ... he has no excuse for their greed ways prior to Obama care ... they could rape your wallet and then say well, if you don't cough up a little more, you die ... now they can't do that ... that pisses antares the paid poster off ... he can't charge you more for his services ...


----------



## dblack (Apr 21, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Are you that deluded? Nevermind, I know the answer.


----------



## Antares (Apr 21, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



Too funny, the worst part of this that it is you nobody takes seriously hillbilly


----------



## Antares (Apr 21, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Pssssst, this Company has ALWAYS been a non-profit.


----------



## Antares (Apr 21, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yes...and LL that is the greed of the PRIVIDERS and NOT insurance companies.
> ...



LOL, of course it matters LL, the PROVIDERS are "gouging".....

Now.....what does it mean when a company, ANY company is a "non-profit"?


----------



## Flopper (Apr 21, 2014)

Antares said:


> Here is something I just discovered last week....and THIS is where the reform should have started.
> 
> A knee replacement in Omaha costs 25000 dollars...a knee replacement in California costs 125000......that's just wrong all the way around.


So you want price controls on healthcare to insure prices are same across the country?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 21, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Here is something I just discovered last week....and THIS is where the reform should have started.
> ...



Conservatives are still functioning in the context of blind partisan anger, the consequence of the Supreme Courts decision that the ACA was Constitutional in 2012, followed by the presidents reelection later that year. 

Conservatives are incapable of engaging in an objective, meaningful discussion as to the issue of healthcare reform; having failed to get rid of Obama, the partisan right continues to seek to get rid of the ACA perceived as a way to politically injure the president, having nothing to do with the merits of the Act or the well being of the American people as a whole.


----------



## Antares (Apr 21, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Here is something I just discovered last week....and THIS is where the reform should have started.
> ...



I do not know what the fix is but this needs to be looked at.


----------



## Antares (Apr 21, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Sure thing 

So you think you're a lawyer huh?


----------



## dblack (Apr 21, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Uh-huh


----------



## Flopper (Apr 22, 2014)

Antares said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



The difference in charges may not be as important as you might think as long as your  services are delivered within your insurance company's network.

There can be a huge gap between what a hospital charges and what they receive in payment.  Medicare and Medicaid have fixed reimbursement rates and insurance companies negotiate huge discounts with hospitals in their network.  I had surgery 3 years ago.  The hospital bill was just over $35,000.  I paid $1500, the insurance paid $14,000.  That's a 41% discount.  My daughter had a baby in the hospital about a year ago.  The hospital charges were $14,000. She paid $800 and the insurance company paid $7,000.  That's a discount of 55% discount.  Those discounts can be very valuable to you when paying a deductible, co-insurance or meeting a maximum out of pocket expense limit.

Patients today select hospitals based on doctor recommendations, and estimates of patient cost after insurance payments.  Hospital charges are often irrelevant.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 22, 2014)

Conservatives are....angry that good, reliable healthcare is now available to everyone.

*WHY?*


----------



## Antares (Apr 22, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Sorry no, these numbers were pulled from a BCBS nation wide database.
They ARE the actual charges to insurance companies.

Nice try though.


----------



## Antares (Apr 22, 2014)

JimH52 said:


> Conservatives are....angry that good, reliable healthcare is now available to everyone.
> 
> *WHY?*



Sorry, that's not what is happening.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 23, 2014)

Antares said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...


I'm not familiar with this database but under the law, the maximum amount a consumer with single coverage will pay is the out-of-pocket limit of $6,350.  So no member of a plan will be paying a $125,000 for knee replacement.

Federal Rule Allows Higher Out-Of-Pocket Spending For One Year - Kaiser Health News


----------



## BobPlumb (Apr 23, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



In otherwords they are gaming the system.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 23, 2014)

I still can't get over that dumb title

No one but a paid Obama stooge can come up with that and it's just as gag worthy as the pos which cost TRILLIONS to set up and only has 8million people (which is a lie) out of 360 million in this country, OscamCare

please vote these liars out of running our country


----------



## Flopper (Apr 23, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...


Hospitals don't want patients without insurance.  Since few people can afford to pay their bills,  the hospitals end up with big write offs.  By showing potential customers that that their services are well beyond the customer's ability to pay will certainly discourage them and hopefully convince them of the need for insurance.  Insurance companies are of course delighted with this.  In other words, ridiculously high prices that hardly anyone can pay is mutually beneficial to the insurance company and the hospital.


----------



## Antares (Apr 23, 2014)

Flopper said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



This hasn't been about the insured.

I brought up what the providers are billing the insurance companies.


----------



## Antares (Apr 23, 2014)

Oh yes and next year the maximum out of pocket goes to 6450


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Antares will tell you he works for BCBS 24/7 .... how he know how bad the ACA is ... the funny part here is, Antares's is here all the time ... that would make one believe, the fact that he works for BCBS, Antares's is a paid poster ... the other day he also told me, to try and justify his knowledge of the ACA said he does,  I can't remember how many hours it was that he processes people through the ACA ... which that would require him to be their 24 hours a day from the numbers he was telling us ... I came to the conclusion  Antares is a liar and  a paid poster For BCBS ...so you're right he has no value here at all ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 25, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yes...and LL that is the greed of the PRIVIDERS and NOT insurance companies.
> ...



that's what antares likes to do... say shit like it has value ... it doesn't ...you know it and the people who have gone to through ACA web site knows ... Antares is full of shit and so is wet cryer who said his doubled ... if you ask them did they go through the ACA web site, they will tell you know they didn't ...they will tell you they went direct to their provider... their provider will quote your cost with out any kind of subsidy they all do ... these people on the right are idiots ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



when you sell a 2 bedroom house with a attached garage 750 SQ ft in and a mother in-law house of 300 SQ ft in Californioa for 750,000 dollars I would say the cost of doing any kind of business in California is costly ... you are comparing apples and oranges here ...


----------



## bedowin62 (Apr 25, 2014)

absolutely laughable; obama has delayed implementation of his own law for countless millions. if he had NOT done that;  you would be able to see what a TRUE CATASTROPHE IT REALLY IS

IT'S JUST A DELAY; until after the next elections


libs are losers who lie to themselves


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 25, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> absolutely laughable; obama has delayed implementation of his own law for countless millions. if he had NOT done that;  you would be able to see what a TRUE CATASTROPHE IT REALLY IS
> 
> IT'S JUST A DELAY; until after the next elections
> 
> ...



Greenbeard is paid to disseminate the Obama administration talking points. He feeds the "ideas" into the Prog Collective

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## Antares (Apr 25, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Poor Hillbilly, still seeking relevance?

You are delusional, ALL of our agents have the subsidy checker up alongside of the quote function, ALL of our agents quote ALL plans with subsidy IF applicable.

You just aren't very intelligent hillbilly.


----------



## Antares (Apr 25, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > absolutely laughable; obama has delayed implementation of his own law for countless millions. if he had NOT done that;  you would be able to see what a TRUE CATASTROPHE IT REALLY IS
> ...



Greenbeard knows this, he just can't admit it.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 25, 2014)

Who is REALLY being paid, literally, and who is just being joked about?
Greenbeard?
Rightwinger?
Antares?
???

Is there a thread where these people or others can verify who is a paid poster? NOT just as a cheap slam, but actually confirmed by the posters themselves? Is that allowed here?

This is news to me that anyone is really getting paid? For propaganda, really?

(I don't know anyone who would pay me to post, 
but maybe to QUIT POSTING and QUIT harassing people to mediate between all sides of every conflict. My msgs could be used instead of waterboarding to terrorize terrorists!)



CrusaderFrank said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > absolutely laughable; obama has delayed implementation of his own law for countless millions. if he had NOT done that;  you would be able to see what a TRUE CATASTROPHE IT REALLY IS
> ...


----------



## Antares (Apr 25, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Who is REALLY being paid, literally, and who is just being joked about?
> Greenbeard?
> Rightwinger?
> Antares?
> ...



Billy came late to the Party and missed where I had said in the very beginning of all of these discussions that I was an agent for BCBS...so one day when I said it again he decided that I was a "paid poster", he's been riding that horse ever since.

I am a direct employee of BCBS Nebraska, I work for them as a Regional Sales Representative.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> Billy came late to the Party and missed where I had said in the very beginning of all of these discussions that I was an agent for BCBS...so one day when I said it again he decided that I was a "paid poster", he's been riding that horse ever since.
> 
> I am a direct employee of BCBS Nebraska, I work for them as a Regional Sales Representative.



Thanks, Antares.

Would you be open to the idea of separating these federal mandates and insurance policies by party, so people can negotiate the system of their choice WITHOUT releasing personal medical info or data to federal govt (if they don't believe in managing their insurance on that level) but would be okay with privatizing it through their party or some more local system?

It seems to me there is enough support for "Singlepayer" through the Greens and Democrats that the Democrat Party could collectively negotiate exchange rates directly with insurance companies, and not necessarily "mandate" this system for the whole public under threat of penalty for not participating under those rules and regulations.

Am I the only prochoice Democrat who believes that if you are going to change the federal system to this degree then the public should AGREE to it, instead of being divided by party?

and if it is divided by party, then why not set up separate programs by party?
the parties already manage their own primaries, and local/state/national conventions.
So why can't the party structure and representation/voting be applied to setting up health care systems that the members ACTUALLY AGREE to follow and fund because they BELIEVE in that approach.

Is it really that impossible to set up by party instead of fighting over one policy for all?


----------



## Antares (Apr 25, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Billy came late to the Party and missed where I had said in the very beginning of all of these discussions that I was an agent for BCBS...so one day when I said it again he decided that I was a "paid poster", he's been riding that horse ever since.
> ...



In theory there should be no issue with doing that, but this really isn't about making things better, that should be obvious in the way that the law has been handled just since Jan 1.

It is about a group of people that have decided that THEY know what is best for EVERYONE else, it's also about control.


----------



## dblack (Apr 25, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Billy came late to the Party and missed where I had said in the very beginning of all of these discussions that I was an agent for BCBS...so one day when I said it again he decided that I was a "paid poster", he's been riding that horse ever since.
> ...



Of course it's not impossible. And I fully agree that people should be free to decide for themselves how they want to finance their health care. But surely you see that this approach runs counter to ACA in every way. From the perspective of its advocates, your suggestion is worse than repeal and replace - it's essentially just 'repeal', and let people (via party affiliation) figure it out for themselves. I'm all for that, but I doubt you'll find much support from Democrats - or most Republicans for that matter. For them, centralized control is the point.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 25, 2014)

dblack said:


> Of course it's not impossible. And I fully agree that people should be free to decide for themselves how they want to finance their health care. But surely you see that this approach runs counter to ACA in every way. From the perspective of its advocates, your suggestion is worse than repeal and replace - it's essentially just 'repeal', and let people (via party affiliation) figure it out for themselves. I'm all for that, but I doubt you'll find much support from Democrats - or most Republicans for that matter. For them, centralized control is the point.



No, it's saying to keep the ACA structured as is, but hold Democrats to it; not anyone else who never agreed to be under those mandates.

And to expand the "exemptions or options" to allow the other parties to form a system that would qualify.

So it still allows people to use the given ACA structures and exchanges,
but shifts the financial and management responsibility over to the Democrat
leaders, party and members who advocated for it.

In order to keep it intact for those who benefit from it.

So if Obama wants to change it, he and the other Democrats can do so at will (as they are already doing now),
since it is their system and not bound by the Constitution to follow all the rules and procedures required federally (that it already violated anyway).


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> In theory there should be no issue with doing that, but this really isn't about making things better, that should be obvious in the way that the law has been handled just since Jan 1.
> 
> It is about a group of people that have decided that THEY know what is best for EVERYONE else, it's also about control.



Yes, so give them that control --> FULL control and responsibility for the system they set up.
I have no problem with that. I am even willing to work with the President and Democrat Party to set up better means of funding more health care coverage by reforming the prison and immigration system at the same time, using the same system of enrollment of participants.

This mass enrollment already being orchestrated by party anyway.
People are going through their party reps to sign up for this enrollment program.
So why not shift it all by party, and not fight over the terms that parties
agree to democratically as organized by like approaches they believe in for health care?


----------



## Antares (Apr 25, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > In theory there should be no issue with doing that, but this really isn't about making things better, that should be obvious in the way that the law has been handled just since Jan 1.
> ...



What do you mean "people are going through their party reps"?


----------



## dblack (Apr 25, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> In order to keep it intact for those who benefit from it.



But the whole point, fully acknowledged by those who passed the bill, is to force those who _*don't*_ benefit from it "into the pool". What you're advocating is, essentially, just repealing the mandate. Which, again, I'm totally in favor of. But few in Congress are. Even most of the Republicans who *claim* to be against the mandate simply want to replace it with an equivalent tax incentive.


----------



## bluesman (Apr 25, 2014)

dblack said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > In order to keep it intact for those who benefit from it.
> ...



That may be your interpretation but it isn't factual.   The whole point is that everyone have health insurance and therefore less free loaders.  The other "whole point" is that poor people have access to the health care system.


----------



## dblack (Apr 25, 2014)

bluesman said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Really? You'd with OK with dropping the mandate then?


----------



## Rozman (Apr 25, 2014)

Getting people who didn't have insurance is  a good thing....*.(but is that what happened?)*
Messing with people who had insurance is even better....

This message is brought to you by the Democrat party....


----------



## bluesman (Apr 25, 2014)

dblack said:


> bluesman said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You are not making sense.  First you say that the people who passed the bill would agree with your spin.  Then you don't seem to understand that without a mandate, then people who "opt out" will still be taken to the emergency room if they have a car accident or a heart attack.  Who do you think should pay for their "free treatment"?


----------



## Rozman (Apr 25, 2014)

There was a mandate.
Then there wasn't.


----------



## dblack (Apr 25, 2014)

bluesman said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > bluesman said:
> ...



Whoever wants to.

The apologists for ACA have repeatedly justified the mandate as a way to supplement guaranteed issue. The idea was that forcing young, healthy people to buy more insurance than they want or need would compensate the insurance companies for the losses they would suffer being forced to take on people with pre-existing conditions.

The "free-rider" pitch is just demagoguery, and doesn't hold water. If that were the concern it could be far more easily addressed by repealing EMTALA.


----------



## bluesman (Apr 25, 2014)

dblack said:


> bluesman said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




That is wrong.  It is isn't a question of "wanting to".  Anybody who pays for insurance has to pay higher premiums to cover the hospital bills of the uninsured.  Nobody really "opts out" of life saving treatment, they only "opt out" of paying for it.


----------



## dblack (Apr 25, 2014)

bluesman said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > bluesman said:
> ...



Nobody should be forced to buy insurance and hospitals shouldn't be forced to treat the people who don't pay. We create these problems by passing stupid laws in the first place. If you really want to solve them, repeal the stupid laws that are causing the problem.  

But again, I simply don't buy the argument. ACA creates millions of freeloaders by subsidizing their insurance at taxpayer expense. So don't try to convince me that the point of ACA is to make free riders pay their own way.


----------



## Antares (Apr 26, 2014)

bluesman said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



Bullshit.

The ENTIRE point is force everyone into it, the theory being that the more in the pool the longer they system will stay solvent.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Apr 26, 2014)

dblack said:


> bluesman said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



This nutter has become unhappy with the GOP's health insurance mandate. Funny. 

And.....hospitals should not be forced to treat people who don't pay. What a great way to solve the problem. Genius!


----------



## Flopper (Apr 26, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> absolutely laughable; obama has delayed implementation of his own law for countless millions. if he had NOT done that;  you would be able to see what a TRUE CATASTROPHE IT REALLY IS
> 
> IT'S JUST A DELAY; until after the next elections
> 
> ...


Waivers up to 1 year have been granted, not because there was a problem with the law but to give employers and other groups additional time to comply.

1231 companies and other organizations have received a 1 year waiver on the annual benefit cap which expires this year.  All other parts of the law apply.    This is a one-year waiver regarding one, relatively small aspect of the law.  The employer mandate for medium sized companies 50 to 100 employees will be delayed a year, until Jan 1, 2016 in order to give them more time to adjust to the new rules on coverage.

The overwhelming majority of employers  about 96 percent, according to the U.S. Treasury Department  were never going to be affected by the employer mandate and won't be affected by the change because they have fewer than 50 employees. The remaining firms  2 percent with 50 to 99 workers and another 2 percent with more than 100  potentially are affected, but experts said yesterday's adjustments likely won't spur major changes.

Crain's Chicago Business : Subscription Center


----------



## dblack (Apr 26, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > bluesman said:
> ...



It's good to read that you've seen the light. Will you now help us to repeal it?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Apr 26, 2014)

dblack said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Weeeeeeee! When presented with an opportunity to take the low hanging fruit....nutters never fail. Makes for sour grapes.


----------



## dblack (Apr 26, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Apparently so. Some people prefer silly insults.


----------



## bluesman (Apr 26, 2014)

Antares said:


> bluesman said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Who's "theory" is that?    Sounds like something from the Sean Hannity Show.


----------



## dblack (Apr 26, 2014)

bluesman said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > bluesman said:
> ...



It's how Obama and the Democrats described the bill. Take it up with them if you disagree.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Apr 26, 2014)

dblack said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Nutters have a habit of making ridiculous arguments.....getting insulted for them....and then whining about it. Happens every day here. 

Hint.....the insults will stop when the ridiculous arguments stop.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 26, 2014)

bluesman said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > bluesman said:
> ...



Likely because it is from the Sean Hannity Show, its where most on the right get their facts, as opposed to actually reading the Act. 

And the fact remains that the ACA doesnt force anyone to do anything  its a rightwing myth contrived at the advent of the Acts drafting.


----------



## Antares (Apr 26, 2014)

bluesman said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > bluesman said:
> ...



Your willful ignorance is not my problem, you and LL are perfect for each other.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 26, 2014)

All we know for certain is Obama lied about keeping your plan and built the world's most expensive website that can't tell if anyone bought the product


----------



## Antares (Apr 26, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> bluesman said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Why Counselor......why must you lie?


----------



## Antares (Apr 26, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> bluesman said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



See counselor YOU have never read the Bill, not once.

*SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.*

Requirement?

*a) Requirement To Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage- An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month.*

Now maybe it's just me...but I am pretty sure that this Bill is a "Legal" document that does not use words carelessly......you people are idiots.


----------



## dblack (Apr 26, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



If it's all you got... 

I suppose it's a lot easier than making your case.


----------



## Antares (Apr 26, 2014)

dblack said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



LL takes pot shots from the sideline, it never has ANYTHING pertinent to add to ANY conversation.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 26, 2014)

ODS sufferers felt like this, no doubt, after the 7,000,000 enrollment mark was met


----------



## Politico (Apr 27, 2014)

Hey! Stop that train! It left us all behind!


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 27, 2014)

bluesman said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > bluesman said:
> ...


antares is a paid political poster ...you are wasting your time with that moron...  Dblack well he's fun to make fun of


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 27, 2014)

dblack said:


> bluesman said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



its how you dumb fucks discribe it ....
1) you don't have to sign up for health care its your choice 
2) its not a mandate as you say it is 
3) you don't get a fine and you aren't threaten with jail
4) its a tax ...
why would I take it up with the dems ??? you're the one that is distorting what it is... you have no Idea what it is ... you don't even know how to sign up for health care ... or not sign up ... you just hear one of your right wing whack jobs, then off the cliff you go ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 27, 2014)

Antares said:


> bluesman said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



translation Anteres (the paid poster) couldn't refute your post ... the guys at the political paid poster union will be angry at him.... oh wait they ain't got no union


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 27, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> All we know for certain is Obama lied about keeping your plan and built the world's most expensive website that can't tell if anyone bought the product



*can you say Broken record ??? sure we can...*


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 27, 2014)

Antares said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > bluesman said:
> ...



why do you take out one section in the bill the say see??? you make a fool of your self trying to justify your reason ... your like the person who says "look up in the sky" then you don't say" its a bird its a plane its superman "
why do you distort the bill all the time


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 27, 2014)

Antares said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > bluesman said:
> ...



Sec. 5000A. Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage.
SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
(a) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
An applicable individual shall for each month beginning
after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the
individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum
essential coverage for such month.
(b) SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.
(1) IN GENERAL.If an applicable individual fails to meet
the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during
any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided
in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a penalty
with respect to the individual in the amount determined under
subsection (c).
(2) INCLUSION WITH RETURN.Any penalty imposed by
this section with respect to any month shall be included with
a taxpayers return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which
includes such month.
(3) PAYMENT OF PENALTY.If an individual with respect
to whom a penalty is imposed by this section for any month
(A) is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of
another taxpayer for the other taxpayers taxable year
including such month, such other taxpayer shall be liable
for such penalty, or
(B) files a joint return for the taxable year including
such month, such individual and the spouse of such individual
shall be jointly liable for such penalty.
(c) AMOUNT OF PENALTY.
(1) IN GENERAL.The penalty determined under this subsection
for any month with respect to any individual is an
amount equal to 1&#8260;12 of the applicable dollar amount for the
calendar year.
(2) DOLLAR LIMITATION.The amount of the penalty
imposed by this section on any taxpayer for any taxable year
with respect to all individuals for whom the taxpayer is liable
under subsection (b)(3) shall not exceed an amount equal to
300 percent the applicable dollar amount (determined without
H. R. 3590127
regard to paragraph (3)(C)) for the calendar year with or within
which the taxable year ends.
(3) APPLICABLE DOLLAR AMOUNT.For purposes of paragraph
(1)
(A) IN GENERAL.Except as provided in subparagraphs
(B) and (C), the applicable dollar amount is $750.
(B) PHASE IN.The applicable dollar amount is $95
for 2014 and $350 for 2015.
(C) SPECIAL RULE FOR INDIVIDUALS UNDER AGE 18.
If an applicable individual has not attained the age of
18 as of the beginning of a month, the applicable dollar
amount with respect to such individual for the month shall
be equal to one-half of the applicable dollar amount for
the calendar year in which the month occurs.
(D) INDEXING OF AMOUNT.In the case of any calendar
year beginning after 2016, the applicable dollar amount
shall be equal to $750, increased by an amount equal
to
(i) $750, multiplied by
(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined
under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined
by substituting calendar year 2015 for calendar year
1992 in subparagraph (B) thereof.
If the amount of any increase under clause (i) is not a
multiple of $50, such increase shall be rounded to the
next lowest multiple of $50.
(4) TERMS RELATING TO INCOME AND FAMILIES.For purposes
of this section
(A) FAMILY SIZE.The family size involved with
respect to any taxpayer shall be equal to the number of
individuals for whom the taxpayer is allowed a deduction
under section 151 (relating to allowance of deduction for
personal exemptions) for the taxable year.
(B) HOUSEHOLD INCOME.The term household
income means, with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable
year, an amount equal to the sum of
(i) the modified gross income of the taxpayer,
plus
(ii) the aggregate modified gross incomes of all
other individuals who
(I) were taken into account in determining
the taxpayers family size under paragraph (1),
and
(II) were required to file a return of tax
imposed by section 1 for the taxable year.
(C) MODIFIED GROSS INCOME.The term modified
gross income means gross income
(i) decreased by the amount of any deduction
allowable under paragraph (1), (3), (4), or (10) of section
62(a),
(ii) increased by the amount of interest received
or accrued during the taxable year which is exempt
from tax imposed by this chapter, and
(iii) determined without regard to sections 911,
931, and 933.
(D) POVERTY LINE.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 27, 2014)

Antares said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


fancy that the pot calling the kettle black ... what have you ever offered accept lies and distortions but that's what paid posters do


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2014)

And by "enrolled" we mean people who visited the website


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 27, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> And by "enrolled" we mean people who visited the website



nooooooooooooooo idiot!!!! it means people who have sign up for health care and has paid ... that's what  "enrolled" means


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 27, 2014)

Abort ObamaCare!


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 27, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Abort ObamaCare!



what does one expect from one who thinks that a tax cheat is his hero.... a racist is your hero .... I guess you tax cheats and racist have to stick together, cause ya ain't got no union to protect ya


----------



## dblack (Apr 27, 2014)

Billypoop


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 28, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Abort ObamaCare!





dblack said:


> Billypoop





> The Following User Says Thank You to dblack For This Useful Post:
> MeBelle60 (Today)


^ THIS is what passes for rw debate these days  This is why you idiots keep getting your asses handed to you on a silver platter in the Senate & POTUS races


----------



## dblack (Apr 28, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Abort ObamaCare!
> ...



Just for kicks, quote the posts we were responding to, and defend them likewise.  - if billy's posts are your idea of debate, I'll pass.


----------



## MeBelle (Apr 28, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Abort ObamaCare!
> ...



^^This is what passes for left-winger trolling  ^^
You merely hang on other people's coat tails.

If billy is in your league, I'd be ashamed.

Dottie, I'll give you a chance to debate, rather than troll.

Read the threads...lot's of debate, filled with facts, for you to digest.

Then start a thread where we can have a debate?

Or are you too scared?

I'm gonna go with... you're too scared to debate [MENTION=28132]Dot Com[/MENTION]


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 29, 2014)

dblack said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



hey, I'm just doing what dbklack does ... debate !!! BWA HAHAHAHAHAhAHA he doesn't know the meaning of the word ... make a point and all they do is attack or they  try to insult you ...then when they get their little asses kicked by me they whine about it ...  ... dblack is nothing more then a little whiner when he's exposed for lying ...hell  he didn't respond to what I posted for antares ... WHY because it was showing what a liar Antares is ... his side kick ...every time I show these ass holes a part of the bill that they said that wasn't there, they come back with poor billypoop ...  as if its supposed to piss me off ... all it has shown me is what morons they really are ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 29, 2014)

dblack said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



did you respond to this one Dblack???? noooooooooooooooo

why do you take out one section in the bill the say see??? you make a fool of your self trying to justify your reason ... your like the person who says "look up in the sky" then you don't say" its a bird its a plane its superman "
why do you distort the bill all the time


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 29, 2014)

dblack said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



did you rerspond the the actual law dblkack???? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Sec. 5000A. Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage.
SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
(a) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
An applicable individual shall for each month beginning
after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the
individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum
essential coverage for such month.
(b) SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.
(1) IN GENERAL.If an applicable individual fails to meet
the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during
any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided
in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a penalty
with respect to the individual in the amount determined under
subsection (c).
(2) INCLUSION WITH RETURN.Any penalty imposed by
this section with respect to any month shall be included with
a taxpayers return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which
includes such month.
(3) PAYMENT OF PENALTY.If an individual with respect
to whom a penalty is imposed by this section for any month
(A) is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of
another taxpayer for the other taxpayers taxable year
including such month, such other taxpayer shall be liable
for such penalty, or
(B) files a joint return for the taxable year including
such month, such individual and the spouse of such individual
shall be jointly liable for such penalty.
(c) AMOUNT OF PENALTY.
(1) IN GENERAL.The penalty determined under this subsection
for any month with respect to any individual is an
amount equal to 1&#8260;12 of the applicable dollar amount for the
calendar year.
(2) DOLLAR LIMITATION.The amount of the penalty
imposed by this section on any taxpayer for any taxable year
with respect to all individuals for whom the taxpayer is liable
under subsection (b)(3) shall not exceed an amount equal to
300 percent the applicable dollar amount (determined without
H. R. 3590127
regard to paragraph (3)(C)) for the calendar year with or within
which the taxable year ends.
(3) APPLICABLE DOLLAR AMOUNT.For purposes of paragraph
(1)
(A) IN GENERAL.Except as provided in subparagraphs
(B) and (C), the applicable dollar amount is $750.
(B) PHASE IN.The applicable dollar amount is $95
for 2014 and $350 for 2015.
(C) SPECIAL RULE FOR INDIVIDUALS UNDER AGE 18.
If an applicable individual has not attained the age of
18 as of the beginning of a month, the applicable dollar
amount with respect to such individual for the month shall
be equal to one-half of the applicable dollar amount for
the calendar year in which the month occurs.
(D) INDEXING OF AMOUNT.In the case of any calendar
year beginning after 2016, the applicable dollar amount
shall be equal to $750, increased by an amount equal
to
(i) $750, multiplied by
(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined
under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined
by substituting calendar year 2015 for calendar year
1992 in subparagraph (B) thereof.
If the amount of any increase under clause (i) is not a
multiple of $50, such increase shall be rounded to the
next lowest multiple of $50.
(4) TERMS RELATING TO INCOME AND FAMILIES.For purposes
of this section
(A) FAMILY SIZE.The family size involved with
respect to any taxpayer shall be equal to the number of
individuals for whom the taxpayer is allowed a deduction
under section 151 (relating to allowance of deduction for
personal exemptions) for the taxable year.
(B) HOUSEHOLD INCOME.The term household
income means, with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable
year, an amount equal to the sum of
(i) the modified gross income of the taxpayer,
plus
(ii) the aggregate modified gross incomes of all
other individuals who
(I) were taken into account in determining
the taxpayers family size under paragraph (1),
and
(II) were required to file a return of tax
imposed by section 1 for the taxable year.
(C) MODIFIED GROSS INCOME.The term modified
gross income means gross income
(i) decreased by the amount of any deduction
allowable under paragraph (1), (3), (4), or (10) of section
62(a),
(ii) increased by the amount of interest received
or accrued during the taxable year which is exempt
from tax imposed by this chapter, and
(iii) determined without regard to sections 911,
931, and 933.
(D) POVERTY LINE.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 29, 2014)

dblack said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



no you couldn't respond to anything ... so you said billypoop as if thats was supposed to piss me off ... all it did was show  you can't debate ....all you do is name call .... case closeded !!!!


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 29, 2014)

you have never debated a issue in your life MeBelle60 ... 
just like you didn't here ... look at all of your so called responses ... you attacked the poster... tried to make fun of that poster ...when confronted you try to challenge that poster ... with your three to four word responses ... who give a fuck what you think ... I clearly don't ...you're too easy to make fun of ... heres are examples of your so called brilliance

      Quote: Originally Posted by Zander  
if we're going to make up enrollment numbers- let's go with 330 Million!! Cover everyone!! WOOHOO!!!!
mebelle60
The real Obamacare total: 14.4 Million to 23.5 Million!!

eleventy jillion

ELEVENTYTWILLIONTEEN
^^^comments on article^^^

eleventy jillion sounds like a number Radioman ALT would say 

(BR) realo debater their

MeBelle60  
Director of the {QUEEN}
Member #31178

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: The Left Coast
Posts: 11,343
Thanks: 24,008
Thanked 4,331 Times in 2,984 Posts
Mentioned: 101 Post(s)
Tagged: 8 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 12649



I'll tackle the claims made by the OP later today. Sorry, I mean rebuttal.
 (BR) still waiting for a responce here... 


then there was this one

      Quote: Originally Posted by bluesman  
Quote: Originally Posted by MeBelle60  
I'll tackle the claims made by the OP later today. Sorry, I mean rebuttal.
What is this ? An entry from your fucking diary?


You've been reading my diary???



I amend my original post regarding tackling today (now yesterday) to Monday. 

real informative here too !!!!!

then her brilliand debate here

      Quote: Originally Posted by billyerock1991  
Quote: Originally Posted by bluesman  
Quote: Originally Posted by MeBelle60  
I'll tackle the claims made by the OP later today. Sorry, I mean rebuttal.
What is this ? An entry from your fucking diary?
noooooooooooooooooooooooo !!!! its a entry from a fucking moron 


Quote: Originally Posted by billyerock1991  
Quote: Originally Posted by MeBelle60  
Quote: Originally Posted by bluesman  

What is this ? An entry from your fucking diary?


You've been reading my diary???



I amend my original post regarding tackling today (now yesterday) to Monday. 
its like reading the most boring book you're ever read... then she said, why won't he have sex with me, entry ... you had to say to yourself WTF man....


So when dot com says, THIS is what passes for rw debate these days This is why you idiots keep getting your asses handed to you on a silver platter in the Senate & POTUS races  ... you mabelle60 have shurly prove his case


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Apr 29, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Abort ObamaCare!
> ...


This, from the guy who is busting on everyone else's chops for not debating the issues.

How droll.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 29, 2014)

HelenaHandbag said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



look at all of the post I've shown on Mebelle60 real debater there huh... or antares the paid poster when confronted all he does is bust chops ...look at dblack when confronted all he does is bust chops ... if this was a site that debates fine ... but its not ... its a chop busting site .....lets debate, thats fine with me ... but when you are shown to be wrong then accept it ... don't start busting chops like they all do when pointed out how wrong they are ... none of these right wingers ever debate ... when confronted they says stupid shit like "This, from the guy who is busting on everyone else's chops for not debating the issues.

How droll".

*point showned*

*CASE CLOSED*


----------



## dblack (Apr 29, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



Oh good. Seeya billy!


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Apr 29, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



I imagine you award trophies to yourself, too.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Abort ObamaCare!
> ...



Abort ObamaCare and use the corpse to heat a homeless shelter


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Abort ObamaCare!
> ...



Clive Bundy is less racist than your heroes: Obama and Biden


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 29, 2014)

dblack said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > HelenaHandbag said:
> ...



see a real debater this DBlack is huh can't debate the issue when put right infront of his little eyes ... he runs and hides like the little coward he is ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 29, 2014)

HelenaHandbag said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > HelenaHandbag said:
> ...



no just to moron like you its call the boob bee prise you won


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 29, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



a real winner here hu HelenaHandbag's 	
 does he get a trophy too  ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Apr 29, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



righ...t coming from a racist like you, we surly take you serious ...


----------



## bedowin62 (Apr 29, 2014)

literally dozens of delays; some of them not going through Congress and thus un-Constitutional

yea it's so great for obamacare

what a joke you are


----------



## dblack (Apr 29, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



Billy! CASE CLOSED, remember? You're the winner!


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 29, 2014)

Hi Billy: Thanks for posting the actual text of penalties. From staff at Congresswoman Lee's office, that 95.00 fine everyone cites is really OR 1% of income whichever is higher.

In general, there is NO PRICE you can put on someone's liberty, free choice, and freedom from intrusion by federal govt. 
NO PRICE.

You can estimate this cost in the millions, billions, trillions, gazillions
and it still does not measure the loss of liberty and faith in govt of ONE PERSON,
much less HALF THE NATION. Protesting rights have been deprived without due process or proof of any crime!

The DIVISION this has cost the nation is also beyond price and holding up lots of other work to be done.

ALL this could be avoided by working out "other optional terms" for paying for the costs instead of taking a corporate shortcut and pushing mandates/fines on the taxpayers!

The "debate" is why don't  people recognize this equally
for prolife and proliberty people equally as the law recognized this for prochoice?
Isn't this discrimination by creed?
It's bad enough if Parties do this, but FEDERAL GOVT and CONGRESS making laws that do this?

THAT's the real issue for discussion and debate.
All these other details are secondary, to justify one's position or bias.
But if those views are not equally inclusive, 
it's already "discriminatory" whether or not it is explained or justified why someone holds that position while excluding others.

Billy, if "abortion" and "right to choice" is a Personal Decision, as A GIVEN RIGHT, not a "political debate" why isn't "choice of health care" respected the same way?

Can't we respect people who don't see their rights as up for debate???



billyerock1991 said:


> you have never debated a issue in your life MeBelle60 ...
> just like you didn't here ... look at all of your so called responses ... you attacked the poster... tried to make fun of that poster ...when confronted you try to challenge that poster ... with your three to four word responses ... who give a fuck what you think ... I clearly don't ...you're too easy to make fun of ... heres are examples of your so called brilliance
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by Zander
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



I was in a 7/11 and I did my Apu accent.

Good times


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 29, 2014)

Hey Billy I've even been called racist for trying to defend plans of local residents in saving a Black historic church district as a sustainable campus and national model for ending poverty and govt abuse.

If that makes me racist, then I guess it's a sign of standing up and making a difference.

Maybe you're not doing your job if you haven't been called racist for it.

So now, when I hear someone call others racist,
I look at the person doing the calling and find out why they are saying that. 

It's probably a sign that certain stereotypes are being challenged,
which are mutual barriers between people to overcome, and not one sided responsibility.

Thanks Billy
I hope you continue to reach out
and understand people and views different from you
that challenge your perception and your full potential to be effective.

We can all do more, but until we meet people who bring this out in us, sometimes we underestimate how much power and influence we have to change situations around us.

See guidelines below from a nonprofit group that specializes in training and moderating forums
to work out issues without calling anyone a racist, since everyone has been affected by racism.



billyerock1991 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



*from the Center for the Healing of Racism

GUIDELINES FOR SHARING*

* We have come together to try to learn about the disease of racism and promote a healing process.
Sharing is voluntary.

* We want to create a safe, loving and respectful atmosphere.

* Sharing is about one's own feelings, experiences, perceptions, etc.

* We are not always going to agree or see everything the same way and that's O.K.

* Each person has a right to and responsibility for his or her own feelings, thoughts, and beliefs.

* It is important to avoid criticism or judgement about another person's sharing, point of view, and/or feelings.

* Avoid getting tied up in debate and argument. It rarely changes anything or anyone and tends to ultimately inhibit the sharing.

* We can only change ourselves. Our change and growth may, however, inspire someone else.

* Refrain from singling out any individual as "representing" his or her group or issue.

* It is important to give full attention to whomever is talking.

* Feelings are important.

* We will surely make mistakes in our efforts, but mistakes are occasions for learning and forgiving.

* We may laugh and cry together, share pain, joy, fear, or anger.

* Hopefully we will leave these meetings with a deeper understanding and a renewed hope for the future of humanity.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2014)




----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 29, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Everyone gets racist, biased or closeminded/limited about SOMETHING.
We all have limits, and these can be expressed in very wrong ways.

It's just a matter of whether you work out your issues in private first,
before your comments get caught on microphone, radio/TV or other recording
and get posted publicly for everyone else to gawk at and face-palm over.

But everyone goes through this process. 
If you are wise, you do so in private with friends who won't sell out or leak to the press what you said, as opposing interests did with Romney and his infamous comments.

Even the best of people say things out of the ballpark that have no place or grounds.

Can't tell you how many friends, REALLY good people, solid to the core,
and they said things that I told them they HAVE to get straight or they will
get in trouble if anyone caught them saying that in writing or on the record.

If this happens to good people that are well respected, who of us is immune to it?


----------



## MeBelle (Apr 29, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> you have never debated a issue in your life MeBelle60 ... just like you didn't here ... look at all of your so called responses ... *you attacked the poster... tried to make fun of that poster .*..when confronted you try to challenge that poster ... with your three to four word responses ... who give a fuck what you think ... I clearly don't ...you're too easy to make fun of ... heres are examples of your so called brilliance



Links to the quotes please.

Ahhhh, never mind.

Let's see Billy... accuses me of 



			
				billyerock1991 said:
			
		

> ....*you attacked the poster... tried to make fun of that poster ...when confronted you try to challenge that poster ... with your three to four word responses*





MeBelle60 said:


> bluesman said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...





billyerock1991 said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > bluesman said:
> ...


*^^^billyerock1991 insults ^^^*​


MeBelle60 said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > bluesman said:
> ...



*^^^^Something else Billy lacks....a funny bone^^^^​*

Hey Billy, your insult claim falls dead on the ground.

I was insulted first. I responded in humor.

You need to brush up on your reading, writing, debate and insulting skills. 

PS-it's obvious you do:  





			
				billyerock1991 said:
			
		

> ....who give a fuck what you think ... I clearly don't...


 Or you wouldn't have spent so much time concocting your post.


----------



## billyerock1991 (May 1, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Hi Billy: Thanks for posting the actual text of penalties. From staff at Congresswoman Lee's office, that 95.00 fine everyone cites is really OR 1% of income whichever is higher.
> 
> In general, there is NO PRICE you can put on someone's liberty, free choice, and freedom from intrusion by federal govt.
> NO PRICE.
> ...


Ecinicola you still say the stupidest shit ... your comparison are comical at best ...


----------



## bedowin62 (May 1, 2014)

just comical; your daily absurd attempts to protray the failed obamacare as something other than the TRAINWRECK IT IS.


the Left says something like 30 to 40 million need insuring?

how far are you idiot?


----------



## bedowin62 (May 1, 2014)

a law that functions as it is supposed to doesnt need 2-year long delays issued by the guy it is named after.

you're a joke

 in fact it has been what; like 4 years since it passed and it wont be fully implemented until obama is close to being out of office; IF THAT

ur a JOKE


----------



## billyerock1991 (May 1, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > you have never debated a issue in your life MeBelle60 ... just like you didn't here ... look at all of your so called responses ... *you attacked the poster... tried to make fun of that poster .*..when confronted you try to challenge that poster ... with your three to four word responses ... who give a fuck what you think ... I clearly don't ...you're too easy to make fun of ... heres are examples of your so called brilliance
> ...



these were all responses on this thread you made .. what a losers you are ....you make these insults, then call it humor ... when we do it back, were name calling ... GOT I ... its all about your inability to debate ... we get it don't take mebelle60 serious she's just joking ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (May 1, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> a law that functions as it is supposed to doesnt need 2-year long delays issued by the guy it is named after.
> 
> you're a joke
> 
> ...



*(BR)the law was written to be fully operation in 2016 moron ... the law was set first to stop insurance companies from canceling you or not accepting you because of a preexisting condition, it did that ...  the next thing it did was to start closing up the donut hole, it did that ... then started up where everybody signs up for health care starting January 1, 2014, it did that too ... so how you can come with your moronic conclusion is beyond ... it's like you are implying they sat around and waited until the last minute to start the health care plan .... and moron its call the affordable care act ... not named after somebody ... *


----------



## Antares (May 11, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



Too funny, poor Hillbilly.

ALL you ever do is attack, its all you have.


----------

