# The ONLY word for this is tragic



## P@triot (Aug 27, 2013)

I know, I know.... this thread will soon be filled with the most absurd spin from radical leftists like RDean and Rightwinger whose entire "case" will be that this isn't actually happening (even though it undeniably *is*) and this is "right-wing fear tactics", blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

But here's the thing. When it's the end of the day, the pc is finally powered-down, and they are all alone in the dark with their thoughts, I refuse to believe that even the most radical among them believes this is actually good for America. To have some of the most well known corporations refuse to hire, cut back hours, or drop healthcare coverage for their employees all together is simply *not* good for America. Period. Obamacare has been one of the biggest embarrassing disasters in U.S. history. It was written half-assed, passed by Dumbocrats not one of which actually read it, implemented blindly.


----------



## J.E.D (Aug 27, 2013)

What's the word and what makes it tragic?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 27, 2013)

Riddle me this................................

Currently Snowden and the NSA scandal.  America including the Dems are yelling out about how the Gov't is spying on us all.  It has caused a public outrage including the Libs.

Yet Obamacare forces all of us to put our Medical Records into a Federal Database.  Something that has ALWAYS BEEN PRIVATE INFORMATION.

Nothing is said, and IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD.  

Reminds me of the saying," 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 27, 2013)

Here's the PROUD part. Remember it well. NOT A SINGLE SOLITARY REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR IT. NOT A SINGLE ONE.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 27, 2013)

WillowTree said:


> Here's the PROUD part. Remember it well. NOT A SINGLE SOLITARY REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR IT. NOT A SINGLE ONE.


 That's because it consolidates power illegally and confers taxing and spending onto the administration and not congress.

It is an unconstitutional tax.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 27, 2013)

J.E.D said:


> What's the word and what makes it tragic?



Well the word is tragic. And what makes it tragic is the fact that it's causing employers not to hire more employees, to cut the hours of existing employees, and/or to drop healthcare coverage altogether for their employees.

I can't imagine how there could be even the slightest positive spin placed on this sad reality...


----------



## OKTexas (Aug 27, 2013)

The house has passed a bill to delay the whole damned thing and get the IRS out of the mix, the commies in the senate refuse to take it up. If you live in a state with a commie senator you should be calling them to insist Reid bring these bills for a vote.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 27, 2013)

OKTexas said:


> The house has passed a bill to delay the whole damned thing and get the IRS out of the mix, the commies in the senate refuse to take it up. If you live in a state with a commie senator you should be calling them to insist Reid bring these bills for a vote.



What does it say about Reid and the Democrats that they are afraid to let the representatives of the people *vote*? I mean, it's Reid's own party who has the majority if the Senate, so what is he afraid of?!? Just shows that they are the party of oppressive communism.


----------



## Zona (Aug 27, 2013)

I guess we will have to go with the man who most of this country thought was the right man for the job.  Obama.  ObamaCare it is then.

Deal with it.


----------



## Geaux4it (Aug 27, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> I know, I know.... this thread will soon be filled with the most absurd spin from radical leftists like RDean and Rightwinger whose entire "case" will be that this isn't actually happening (even though it undeniably *is*) and this is "right-wing fear tactics", blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...
> 
> But here's the thing. When it's the end of the day, the pc is finally powered-down, and they are all alone in the dark with their thoughts, I refuse to believe that even the most radical among them believes this is actually good for America. To have some of the most well known corporations refuse to hire, cut back hours, or drop healthcare coverage for their employees all together is simply *not* good for America. Period. Obamacare has been one of the biggest embarrassing disasters in U.S. history. It was written half-assed, passed by Dumbocrats not one of which actually read it, implemented blindly.



Whats so difficult to understand?

-Geaux


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 27, 2013)

Zona said:


> I guess we will have to go with the man who most of this country thought was the right man for the job.  Obama.  ObamaCare it is then.
> 
> Deal with it.



Power is temporary.  Eventually the BS is outweighed by the Truth, and Power shifts.

When it does, and it will, it is quite possible that Obamacare will become dust in the wind.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12DeNdF0KPA]Kansas - Dust in the wind (Lyrics) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## TNHarley (Aug 27, 2013)

Zona said:


> I guess we will have to go with the man who most of this country thought was the right man for the job.  Obama.  ObamaCare it is then.
> 
> Deal with it.



Your nasty vajj is leaking fascism
Clkean that shit up!


----------



## Geaux4it (Aug 27, 2013)

J.E.D said:


> What's the word and what makes it tragic?



OBAMA

-Geaux


----------



## Freewill (Aug 27, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> I know, I know.... this thread will soon be filled with the most absurd spin from radical leftists like RDean and Rightwinger whose entire "case" will be that this isn't actually happening (even though it undeniably *is*) and this is "right-wing fear tactics", blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...
> 
> But here's the thing. When it's the end of the day, the pc is finally powered-down, and they are all alone in the dark with their thoughts, I refuse to believe that even the most radical among them believes this is actually good for America. To have some of the most well known corporations refuse to hire, cut back hours, or drop healthcare coverage for their employees all together is simply *not* good for America. Period. Obamacare has been one of the biggest embarrassing disasters in U.S. history. It was written half-assed, passed by Dumbocrats not one of which actually read it, implemented blindly.



Who did write Obamacare?


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 27, 2013)

Zona said:


> I guess we will have to go with the man who most of this country thought was the right man for the job. Obama. ObamaCare it is then.
> 
> Deal with it.


 Sorry, sir. The Democrats thought they pulled a fast one by ramming this bill through which puts Congress' power in the hands of someone who has nothing but spite for passing a budget.

You're asking too much of people who think the rule of law is the best one.

If you want to give the President all of the power, you must first abolish the Constitution through amendment, eliminate the Bill of Rights, and do away with voting. A lot of that has been accomplished by the union-control influence of the Democrat machine.

The postman may ring twice.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 27, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> I know, I know.... this thread will soon be filled with the most absurd spin from radical leftists like RDean and Rightwinger whose entire "case" will be that this isn't actually happening (even though it undeniably *is*) and this is "right-wing fear tactics", blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...
> 
> But here's the thing. When it's the end of the day, the pc is finally powered-down, and they are all alone in the dark with their thoughts, I refuse to believe that even the most radical among them believes this is actually good for America. To have some of the most well known corporations refuse to hire, cut back hours, or drop healthcare coverage for their employees all together is simply *not* good for America. Period. Obamacare has been one of the biggest embarrassing disasters in U.S. history. It was written half-assed, passed by Dumbocrats not one of which actually read it, implemented blindly.



LOL. You are so full of shit that your eyes have turned brown. 

What you fellows really fear, and it is an accurate fear, is that after 1Jan14, a great many people are going to find that they can finally afford health care. And they are not going to feel kindly toward lying hacks like you that have been misleading them for the last two years.


----------



## Rct_Tsoul (Aug 27, 2013)

You are all failing to realize the big picture, how the hell are they going to enforce all this nonsense when the American sheeple are continuing cling to guns along with the American legal system in place. 
Eg. A law is created that says:
 Sex with children of all ages is permissible, RAP doesn't exist. 
How is that going to stop a bullet or bullets stredding up the flesh of a pedophile or rapist ........... it won't. 
Now lets bring in the American legal system. 
 You have been charged for infringing upon the rights of this man to FUCK you child in the ass by using your legally obtained firearms to shoot him ............. how do you pled? 
I would like to consult with my attorney before entering a plea. 
 You see where this is going ......... regardless the outcome of the trial, the sheeple have a leg to stand on.
So we need fool the sheeple into giving up the guns WILLINGLY, then tear down the legal system thats protecting the sheeple, put all them damb lawyers & judges in jail or just kill em.
Then absolute control will be established ......... like in this video. 
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWs9aNmLnwg"] Unquestioned Subservience[/ame]


----------



## P@triot (Aug 27, 2013)

Zona said:


> I guess we will have to go with the man who most of this country thought was the right man for the job.  Obama.  ObamaCare it is then.
> 
> *Deal with it*.



Well _that_ is resounding support... 

You know a libtard policy is _seriously_ fucked up when Zona can't even figure out a spin to make it appear positive...


----------



## P@triot (Aug 27, 2013)

TNHarley said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > I guess we will have to go with the man who most of this country thought was the right man for the job.  Obama.  ObamaCare it is then.
> ...



Jesus did that make me laugh... I've got tears in my eyes


----------



## P@triot (Aug 27, 2013)

Rct_Tsoul said:


> You are all failing to realize the big picture, how the hell are they going to enforce all this nonsense when the American sheeple are continuing cling to guns along with the American legal system in place.
> Eg. A law is created that says:
> Sex with children of all ages is permissible, RAP doesn't exist.
> How is that going to stop a bullet or bullets stredding up the flesh of a pedophile or rapist ........... it won't.
> ...



I _have_ many guns. That doesn't stop them from ass raping me with some of the most obscene taxes fathomable. It doesn't stop them from stacking a Supreme Court with anti-constitution libtards. It doesn't stop them from collapsing the economy. It doesn't stop them from running up $17 trillion in debt.

Guns are pretty much useless with government until a civil war breaks out. If you're willing to fire the first shot, I'll fall in line behind you. Until then, believing you are immune from this libtard unconstitutional nightmare because you have a gun is pretty naive...


----------



## Flopper (Aug 27, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> I know, I know.... this thread will soon be filled with the most absurd spin from radical leftists like RDean and Rightwinger whose entire "case" will be that this isn't actually happening (even though it undeniably *is*) and this is "right-wing fear tactics", blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...
> 
> But here's the thing. When it's the end of the day, the pc is finally powered-down, and they are all alone in the dark with their thoughts, I refuse to believe that even the most radical among them believes this is actually good for America. To have some of the most well known corporations refuse to hire, cut back hours, or drop healthcare coverage for their employees all together is simply *not* good for America. Period. Obamacare has been one of the biggest embarrassing disasters in U.S. history. It was written half-assed, passed by Dumbocrats not one of which actually read it, implemented blindly.


Is this a specific rant or just a general rant?


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 27, 2013)

Ho, ho, ho
 It's tragic, you know
 Never believe it's not so
 It's tragic, you know
 Never believe, it's not so


----------



## Rct_Tsoul (Aug 27, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> I _have_ many guns. That doesn't stop them from ass raping me with some of the most obscene taxes fathomable. It doesn't stop them from stacking a Supreme Court with anti-constitution libtards. It doesn't stop them from collapsing the economy. It doesn't stop them from running up $17 trillion in debt.
> 
> Guns are pretty much useless with government until a civil war breaks out. If you're willing to fire the first shot, I'll fall in line behind you. Until then, believing you are immune from this libtard unconstitutional nightmare because you have a gun is pretty naive...



Never thought of it like that, if most sheeple feel this way, the US Government should try something new and listen to the sheeple ............ just this once, and fix the financial system before November of this year ................ as an American citizen, you should do your part and give up the guns by October of this year, get other sheeple to follow suit, and things will be OK.


----------



## Geaux4it (Aug 28, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > I know, I know.... this thread will soon be filled with the most absurd spin from radical leftists like RDean and Rightwinger whose entire "case" will be that this isn't actually happening (even though it undeniably *is*) and this is "right-wing fear tactics", blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...
> ...



How many of these lowlifes have cell phones, eat out, go to the movies, etc. etc... Oh, they  have the money, they just did not consider insurance a priority until someone else had to help pay for it.

Frigging slackers

-Geaux


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> Riddle me this................................
> 
> Currently Snowden and the NSA scandal.  America including the Dems are yelling out about how the Gov't is spying on us all.  It has caused a public outrage including the Libs.
> 
> ...



Or it's just common sense.  

Frankly, if I'm knocked unconscious in an accident, I want the hospital to know that I have an allergy to Pennicillin.   I want them to know about that medical device.  

96,000 Americans die every year because of medical mistakes.  This would cut that down.


----------



## Geaux4it (Aug 28, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Riddle me this................................
> ...



Yeah right... People wear bracelets and such which has that information. 

Its important to know about your hemi's, yet it's not important to require voter ID so you can vote the morons in that make stupid laws like Obamacare w/databases?  

-Geaux


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2013)

Geaux4it said:


> Yeah right... People wear bracelets and such which has that information.
> 
> Its important to know about your hemi's, yet it's not important to require voter ID so you can vote the morons in that make stupid laws like Obamacare w/databases?
> 
> -Geaux



Maybe I forgot to put the braclet on this morning.  Maybe it's under the car that hit me.  Maybe I lost the arm it was attached to.  

Every study has proven that putting medical information on a database reduces accidents and improves the quality of care.


----------



## Geaux4it (Aug 28, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah right... People wear bracelets and such which has that information.
> ...



We all know data shows that databases are not accurate.

-Geaux


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2013)

Besides, the Black Guy proposed it, it must be bad, right?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Aug 28, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah right... People wear bracelets and such which has that information.
> ...



Having the info in database is fine.  Giving the gov't access to that private medical information isn't.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 28, 2013)

Freewill said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > I know, I know.... this thread will soon be filled with the most absurd spin from radical leftists like RDean and Rightwinger whose entire "case" will be that this isn't actually happening (even though it undeniably *is*) and this is "right-wing fear tactics", blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...
> ...



The Gang of Six, three dems and three repubs.


----------



## Geaux4it (Aug 28, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Besides, the Black Guy proposed it, it must be bad, right?



I agree in part. That's why SCOTUS  re-wrote the law and changed Obama's language of 'fine' to tax.

IMHO, a white person could of never got this law passed

-Geaux


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 28, 2013)

When dems are in power you get shit like the ACA, when repubs are in power you get recessions.


----------



## editec (Aug 28, 2013)

Obama care is NOT a leftist solution.

Forcing people to buy insurance from FOR PROFIT INSURANCE companies is the antithesis of LEFTISM.

One has to be a fucking moron not to realize that.

Which is my not so subtle way of suggesting that a whole lot of players here are fucking morons, BTW,


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 28, 2013)

it's a piece of legislation showing you how powerful insurance lobbyist are.  This my friends is the end result of a government takeover that allows corporations recognition as individuals and allows for corruption through special interest donations.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 28, 2013)

Why just mentioning war with Syria made oil prices rise, it's a shell game and we the US consumers are the suckers.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 28, 2013)

Geaux4it said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Besides, the Black Guy proposed it, it must be bad, right?
> ...



Actually, a white guy did get this law passed.  

His name was Mitt Romney.  

And conservatives (oh, not you, we wouldn't want to hold you to what other conservatives are for) all cheered it for it's inovation and using the private sector.   


And then the Black Guy did it, and Romney wouldn't be caught having a non-alcoholic, caffine free Drink with ROmneycare.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 28, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> Riddle me this................................
> 
> Currently Snowden and the NSA scandal.  America including the Dems are yelling out about how the Gov't is spying on us all.  It has caused a public outrage including the Libs.
> 
> ...



Haven't you heard from your conservative pals?  You don't have a right to privacy.

It's not in the Constitution.  So quit your bitching.

lolol


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 28, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> > What's the word and what makes it tragic?
> ...


 It's simple. Media spokespersons who agree get praise, adulation, and more interviews with corrupt liberals. Media spokespersons who consistently ignore or even question once the liberal side get complete, total, and unremitting shunning for a long enough time to teach them a lesson about making free money by corrupt advertising for the liberals. Instead of being in Washington where the action is, they'd be lucky to find media work in St. George, Utah. 

They dance to the fiddler, or it's Nowheremansville for them.


----------



## J.E.D (Aug 28, 2013)

Geaux4it said:


> How many of these lowlifes have cell phones, eat out, go to the movies, etc. etc... Oh, they  have the money, they just did not consider insurance a priority until someone else had to help pay for it.
> 
> Frigging slackers
> 
> -Geaux



Right. Because having to pay $1200 out of pocket every month for a private ins plan is exactly the same as paying a $60/month cell phone bill or eating out every once in a while.


----------



## The T (Aug 28, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> > What's the word and what makes it tragic?
> ...


And most being hired now are part time.


----------



## velvtacheeze (Aug 28, 2013)

The GOP's refusal to do anything about decreasing the number of uninsured Americans will cost them until the fold on the issue. The GOP's ideas to make it easier for doctors & hospitals to get away with their mistakes in courtrooms will cost them. 

But keep resisting.  The GOP recalcitrance on the issue will eventually lead to Medicare For All, which is the left's ultimate goal, and will be realized. 

The left also wanted to add medicines to Medicare, and the anti-GOP demonization campaign worked so well on the issue, that the GOP folded like a cheap lawn chair and passed Medicare D all by themselves, while in control of Congress and the White House.    Suckers.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 28, 2013)

Rct_Tsoul said:


> You are all failing to realize the big picture, how the hell are they going to enforce all this nonsense when the American sheeple are continuing cling to guns along with the American legal system in place.
> Eg. A law is created that says:
> Sex with children of all ages is permissible, RAP doesn't exist.
> How is that going to stop a bullet or bullets stredding up the flesh of a pedophile or rapist ........... it won't.
> ...



Are you on LSD, boy?


----------



## chikenwing (Aug 28, 2013)

J.E.D said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > How many of these lowlifes have cell phones, eat out, go to the movies, etc. etc... Oh, they  have the money, they just did not consider insurance a priority until someone else had to help pay for it.
> ...



There are millions of people that will be forced to by a product that costs more than their homes,12k is common for a family,the same people that cry a freaking river over paying for someone emergency room bill,a huge assumption from the beginning,will now be subsidizing millions,yet ....................


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 28, 2013)

WillowTree said:


> Here's the PROUD part. Remember it well. NOT A SINGLE SOLITARY REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR IT. NOT A SINGLE ONE.



I know you won't like this but it is a darned good bet that when they do get power again, they will "see the light" just as Obama did with the Patriot Act and take advantage of the shit the Dems handed us.  They will blame the Dems, but take control just the same.  They will come up with excuse after excuse as to why they can't touch it.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 28, 2013)

Zoom-boing said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



Bingo!


----------



## Flopper (Aug 28, 2013)

chikenwing said:


> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



$1200 a month???

*Health Plan Cost for New Yorkers Set to Fall 50%*

Individuals buying health insurance on their own will see their premiums tumble next year in New York State as changes under the federal health care law take effect, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced on Wednesday.

State insurance regulators say they have approved rates for 2014 that are at least 50 percent lower on average than those currently available in New York. *Beginning in October, individuals in New York City who now pay $1,000 a month or more for coverage will be able to shop for health insurance for as little as $308 monthly. With federal subsidies, the cost will be even lower.*

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/h...rkers-set-to-fall-50.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## The T (Aug 28, 2013)

Zoom-boing said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...


Especially the IRS.


----------



## J.E.D (Aug 28, 2013)

Flopper said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > J.E.D said:
> ...



Exactly. Thanks to Obamacare.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 28, 2013)

Flopper said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > J.E.D said:
> ...



Even if that is true and not including the expected governmental "gift", aka subsidies, that is two frigging car payments!  Seeing as how their is a damned good chance employers will drop coverage all together or cut hours (and wages) allowing them to not cover health insurance for their work staff, how many are suddenly going to be able to pick up the cost of two new car payments?  

"Congratulations, Mr. New York, your monthly insurance bill is now only $600.  We're sorry to hear that your nasty employer cut your hours to 28/wk cutting your weekly check by $250 and that the nasty employer no longer pays for your insurance as they have in the past.  Life sucks, doesn't it?  Well give us your vote next year and we will pass laws that will make him pay.

Please send your monthly payment to PO Box..."

Yippee!!!

Immie


----------



## Geaux4it (Aug 28, 2013)

j.e.d said:


> flopper said:
> 
> 
> > chikenwing said:
> ...



But who pays for the Federal subsidies?

-Geaux


----------



## Flopper (Aug 28, 2013)

J.E.D said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > chikenwing said:
> ...


There is little doubt among non-partisans that HCA will increase the availability of and quality of healthcare for millions of Americans.  The issue of cost is complicated. It is not just the cost of insurance but the total cost of healthcare yet we focus on premiums.

Both the right and the left will be presenting evidence of large increases and decreases in premiums of individual policies.  For example California and New York will see large decreases.  Florida and Ohio will see increases of up to 41% and 35% for individual policies.  Most states according the Kaiser Foundation will see premiums changes in order of -10% to +10%.  The reason for the difference in cost between states is the amount of state regulation on health insurance policies prior to the HCA.

States like Florida and Ohio allowed insurance companies to exclude most anyone who was likely to have major health problems.  Also insurance companies were allowed to offer policies that excluded various diseases and treatments, and were allowed to write policies with very high deductibles and coinsurance.  The result was very low premiums usually less than $100.  The HCA outlaws these types of policies and thus states that allowed them will see larger increases in premiums than other states.   Since there are very few states that allowed policies like this, large increase will be confined to just a few states.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 28, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah right... People wear bracelets and such which has that information.
> ...



Then *maybe* you were meant to die that day ass wipe....


----------



## P@triot (Aug 28, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > I know, I know.... this thread will soon be filled with the most absurd spin from radical leftists like RDean and Rightwinger whose entire "case" will be that this isn't actually happening (even though it undeniably *is*) and this is "right-wing fear tactics", blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...
> ...



Folks, I rest my case. Businesses are laying off people because of Obamacare, others are cutting hours because of Obamacare, and others still are dropping coverage for their employees because of Obamacare.

But here we have yet another ignorant libtard ignoring reality in favor of the fantasy (p.s. jack-ass, healthcare costs have already skyrocketed since Obamacare was signed into law - can't wait to laugh in your big dumb stupid face [MENTION=13758]Old Rocks[/MENTION] when on January 2, 2014 when costs aren't down even $.50)


----------



## P@triot (Aug 28, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah right... People wear bracelets and such which has that information.
> ...



*Maybe* the government server crashed on that morning.  *Maybe* the government server was hacked and someone removed your allergy, causing that to kill you.  *Maybe* a flaw in the code of the database caused you to appear as a diabetic and they give you insulin you don't need, killing you.

The fact that you have more faith in your government masters that you worship than you do in _yourself_ is equal parts hilarious and tragic. You really are an invalid tool who feels like he can't wipe his own little hiney without the assistance of your masters.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 28, 2013)

Flopper said:


> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



So you're admitting that costs will skyrocket in some states and we all know that's it's costing many, many, many jobs. Gee, what a great "plan". Government at it's finest here, folks....


----------



## P@triot (Aug 28, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Yet another libtard dill-hole who doesn't even know the difference between *federal* government and *state* government...


----------



## P@triot (Aug 28, 2013)

J.E.D said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > How many of these lowlifes have cell phones, eat out, go to the movies, etc. etc... Oh, they  have the money, they just did not consider insurance a priority until someone else had to help pay for it.
> ...



It's not the "same" - that's the _point_. 

One (paying $1,200 per month for health insurance) is the action of a mature, responsible adult. The other (taking that health insurance money and pissing it away on cell phones and dining out) is the action of an immature, irresponsible _asshole_....


----------



## P@triot (Aug 28, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Riddle me this................................
> ...



Apparently you're unaware that Obama has done more egregious domestic spying than _any_ dictator in world history?


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 28, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the PROUD part. Remember it well. NOT A SINGLE SOLITARY REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR IT. NOT A SINGLE ONE.
> ...


 Immie, the bill takes the constitution and warps it to give Institutional Power held by Congress to the White House. It also indentures the average working man in America to a life of slavery to any taxes the administration wishes to impose upon the public for this horrific and unconstitutional piece of shit the Democrats foisted on America.

It needs to be dismantled to remove the unconstitutional aspects, and started over with a smarter Congress curbing down the tax to where it indeed is affordable, and not unaffordable as it is in its present quasi-legal catch-22 quandary.

It's a blight on the Constitution, on freedom, and represents the highest tax in the history of the United States if it is implemented illegally onto a free people who will be so worn out for working for a cruel government they will be like slaves, and not free men and women.

If left alone, it is the precursor to destroying the Constitution.

"Affordable" Health care act is a misnomer, named that way to fool the people as Democrats grab power and glory for themselves at the expense of free and proud Americans.

It's so bad the Supreme Court refused to touch it. Had Justice Roberts not decided to let it be, the Democrats were waiting in the wings to stage an all-out war on "mean" conservatives, in order to procure more power for themselves and less power for the people.

And Congressman Dr. John Boehner deserves a starry crown for fighting this certain end to America's prosperity. I owe Dr. Boehner a debt of gratitude, because I know he's fighting the good fight for the people of the country, whom Obama wishes to subjugate eternally through consolidating his power exactly like Hugo Chavez had planned to do before he died of cancer from smoking for years, blaming Americans for his cancer to anyone who'd listen to his lies.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 28, 2013)

velvtacheeze said:


> The GOP's refusal to do anything about decreasing the number of uninsured Americans will cost them



I'm sorry, I didn't realize it was the GOP's _job_ to "do anything about decreasing the number if uninsured Americans". Remind me again where that is outlined in the Constitution? Oh wait, what am I saying? You've never read the Constitution. Silly me...

Hey, by the way, when a growing number of child molestors demand the "right" to molest children, will the Dumbocrats rise to that demand too and provide the children and the protection from prosecution for that demographic of voter?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 28, 2013)

Zona said:


> I guess we will have to go with the man who most of this country thought was the right man for the job.  Obama.  ObamaCare it is then.
> 
> Deal with it.



^ guesses wrong.

DEFUND that shit.

Today.

It will make BodeyZona cry.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 28, 2013)

velvtacheeze said:


> The GOP's refusal to do anything about decreasing the number of uninsured Americans will cost them until the fold on the issue. The GOP's ideas to make it easier for doctors & hospitals to get away with their mistakes in courtrooms will cost them.
> 
> But keep resisting.  The GOP recalcitrance on the issue will eventually lead to Medicare For All, which is the left's ultimate goal, and will be realized.
> 
> The left also wanted to add medicines to Medicare, and the anti-GOP demonization campaign worked so well on the issue, that the GOP folded like a cheap lawn chair and passed Medicare D all by themselves, while in control of Congress and the White House. Suckers.



Here we have a trailer-park dweller, living off of government cheese and powdered milk, celebrating the fact that Americans are losing jobs, hours on the clock, and their healthcare insurance, simply because it was "his side" that was responsible for the job, hours, and insurance losses... 

"Ha-Ha suckers... my side of the aisle collapsed America! We took it all down on _our_ terms"...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 28, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



The word isn't spying, it's crying, 

and he's not doing it,  

you are.  Grow up.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 29, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > J.E.D said:
> ...


Of course the average premium for individual insurance will rise in states that allowed companies to sell cheap policies with very limited benefits.   Why should these increases in premiums cost jobs since these policies are sold to individuals not employers.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 29, 2013)

The T said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



What do you think the IRS is going to do with your medical information?  

I'm just curious.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 29, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> > The GOP's refusal to do anything about decreasing the number of uninsured Americans will cost them
> ...



So poor people wanting medical coverage is the moral equivlent of being a pedophile? 

Really?  

This is where you are going here? 

How dare those poor people demand medical care.  They need to dutifully die if the rich have no need for them!!!


----------



## Freewill (Aug 29, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > The house has passed a bill to delay the whole damned thing and get the IRS out of the mix, the commies in the senate refuse to take it up. If you live in a state with a commie senator you should be calling them to insist Reid bring these bills for a vote.
> ...



According to the left it is the Republicans blocking everything so this story can't be true...in their world.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 29, 2013)

I happen to agree with Rottweiler, Obamacare is unworkable

America needs to get away from the idea that Americans need to get their health insurance from their employers. It made sense at one point, but we are well past that. Why would anyone want their employer to determine what heathcare they can get?

But Obamacare is what you end up with when you refuse to consider universal healthcare or a government option for the uninsured

But regardless it is better than what Republicans have been providing us which is a variation of "Wedontcare" 
If you are unable to cover your healthcare costs, it is not their problem.......they only have to protect tax breaks for the wealthy


----------



## editec (Aug 29, 2013)

Obama care?

Yup, a tragically lost opportunity, I quite agree.

It combines all the worst parts of socialism with all the worst parts of capitalism.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 29, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



You _cannot_ be this ignorant of Obamacare. There are a list of rules, regulations, and costs to businesses - not the least of which are the 18 new *TAXES* in Obamacare - which are crippling business.

Two things are glaringly obvious from your last statement:

1.) You're _completely_ ignorant of the AHCA

2.) You don't own a business

Perhaps instead of being like Nancy Pelosi, you should actually read the AHCA _before_ you support it? Just a suggestion...


----------



## P@triot (Aug 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> I happen to agree with Rottweiler, Obamacare is unworkable
> 
> America needs to get away from the idea that Americans need to get their health insurance from their employers. It made sense at one point, but we are well past that. Why would anyone want their employer to determine what heathcare they can get?
> 
> ...



Tell me RW, where in the Constitution does it state that insuring the uninsured is the responsibility of the federal government? I'll wait while you look that up...


----------



## P@triot (Aug 29, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > velvtacheeze said:
> ...



Nice spin - but I didn't say anything about the poor people. I said the Dumbocrat Party caving to the every unconstitutional whim and demand - no matter how disturbing - in exchange for votes and power. Want to try again, "genius"?

So when a growing number of child molestors demand the "right" to molest children, will the Dumbocrats rise to that demand too and provide the children and the protection from prosecution for that demographic of voter?


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 29, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > I happen to agree with Rottweiler, Obamacare is unworkable
> ...



Article 1


----------



## P@triot (Aug 29, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Joe's post there really is remarkable. In response to my post about the Dumbocrat Party, he *acts* as if I talked about "poor people" and compared them to child molestors. I *never* mentioned "poor people".

Now, after changing the noun (from Dumbocrtas to poor people), he goes on to the bleeding hear tear-jerking angle (how dare they, they should just die, etc.).

I guess when you're on the wrong side of the facts, propaganda is all your left with? How sad that libtards have to be this disingenuous.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.?!?!?

*Really*?!?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 29, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Yet another example of the disingenuous liberal. When asked for specifics, they cite generalities that don't apply and then run for the hills. I'd be willing to bet my house that RW (if tested in person without the ability to cheat) could not even tell you how many articles there are in the Constitution. Something tells me that someone once posted "Article I" here on USMB and now that's his answer for _everything_ (even when it clearly doesn't apply) because he thinks it makes him look "educated".


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 29, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Article 1 establishes a Legislative Branch whose job it is to pass laws. That branch is elected by We the People and is empowered to pass any legislation that is necessary and proper. 
If that legislation is unwarranted, the President has veto power over that legislation
If that legislation is unconstitutional, the Judicial Branch will declare it so

So, where does Obamacare fit in?  It was passed by both Houses of Congress, signed by the President and declared Constitutional by the Supreme Court


----------



## P@triot (Aug 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



And here we see why the Constitution was created in the first place - to protect us from the extreme, unhinged, radicals.

My friend, Congress does *not* have the power to pass "*any*" laws they want. The federal government was delegated (do you understand what delegated means?) 18 enumerated powers from the states. That's *all* Congress has the power to create legislation on - those 18 enumerated powers *only*. And healthcare is *NOT* one of those 18 enumerated powers.

Would you like to try again?


----------



## bodecea (Aug 29, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Rather intolerant of you.

BTW, the Constitution has 7 Articles.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



"We the People" do NOT want Obamacare. Not only was this proven by every poll ever taken on it, but also by the fact that the American people overwhelmingly voted out the Dumbocrats from Congress after they passed Obamacare.

Your faux Constitutionalism is transparent. Would you like to try again without your faux "we the people" rhetoric? The people did not know that their representatives were going to ass-fuck them like they did with Obamacare and they immediately fired those ass wipes for doing so (and you know it).


----------



## Mr Natural (Aug 29, 2013)

You people need to take some lessons from Middle Easteners on how to change a regime you don't like.

Get off your fat, lazy asses and take it to the streets.

You pussies don't have a hair on your ass if you don't.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 29, 2013)

bodecea said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Is your name RW?!? 

(obviously _somebody_ felt the need to come to the rescue of a fellow liberal rather quickly )

By the way - what was "intolerant" about my post? Pointing out the facts? Did I advocate for the silencing of RW? Did I advocate for violence against him? Did I even attack him personally?!?!?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 29, 2013)

Mr Clean said:


> You people need to take some lessons from Middle Easteners on how to change a regime you don't like.
> 
> Get off your fat, lazy asses and take it to the streets.
> 
> You pussies don't have a hair on your ass if you don't.



Another libtard who believes that violence - and not rule of law - should control a country....


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 29, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



I'm afraid they do

Congress can even pass 40 laws to repeal Obamacare if they want to. But it still has to pass the Constitutional process to become law of the land

Obamacare did just that


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 29, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Polls do not make laws, Congress does (Article 1)

A Constitutionally elected Congress passed Obamacare. It was signed by a Constitutionally elected President and found Constitutional by a Constitutionally formed Supreme Court

We the People have spoken


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 29, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Except that the government will claim, "insurance costs have fallen to the lowest rates in fifty years etc. etc. etc.". The MSM will repeat the lies, the insurance agencies will back them up, no true data will be presented and it will take years, if not decades to find out they were lying their asses off.  By then it will be too late.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 29, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



I agree with everything you say up to but excluding your praise of Boehner.  Just like the liberals regarding the Patriot Act he is preaching what his base wants to hear.  When the opportunity arises, if I were you I would put my money on the Republicans screwing us all over again.

Immie


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



And the House controls the purse strings.

If they refuse to fund it, it will die of natural causes.  So, here's the hoped-for headline:

"Obamacare visits the death panel!"


----------



## Flopper (Aug 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> I happen to agree with Rottweiler, Obamacare is unworkable
> 
> America needs to get away from the idea that Americans need to get their health insurance from their employers. It made sense at one point, but we are well past that. Why would anyone want their employer to determine what heathcare they can get?
> 
> ...


Healthcare exchanges are currently limited to individuals and employees working in companies with less than 100 employees, 50 in some states.  However, in 2017 the exchanges will have the option to open their doors to all employees.  Since the fee (penalty) paid by large employers to shift their employees to the exchanges is fixed, the rise in healthcare cost over the years will make the exchanges a good option for both large and small employers.  For some employers, it will be a good option now.

I've never liked the idea of employer sponsored healthcare plans.  It's costly for employers, limits employee options, and ties insurance to the job.  

Obamacare is better than nothing but certainly not as good as single payer.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 29, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



They can defund by shutting down the Government

Let them try


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



^ Note the immediate lolberal reliance on wholly dishonest liberal propaganda.

Your claim is false.  It is dishonest.  Here's the reality. They can defund it by defunding IT and it alone.  

It would be the scumbag President and the moron liberal congress cretins who would then try to parlay that into a 'government shutdown.'

But, ok.

LET them.

As long as they end up taking the entire blame for something that is entirely their choice.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 29, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> I know, I know.... this thread will soon be filled with the most absurd spin from radical leftists like RDean and Rightwinger whose entire "case" will be that this isn't actually happening (even though it undeniably *is*) and this is "right-wing fear tactics", blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...
> 
> But here's the thing. When it's the end of the day, the pc is finally powered-down, and they are all alone in the dark with their thoughts, I refuse to believe that even the most radical among them believes this is actually good for America. To have some of the most well known corporations refuse to hire, cut back hours, or drop healthcare coverage for their employees all together is simply *not* good for America. Period. Obamacare has been one of the biggest embarrassing disasters in U.S. history. It was written half-assed, passed by Dumbocrats not one of which actually read it, implemented blindly.



OK, you told us what you think.

Give us some evidence, crunch the numbers, empirical data.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 29, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



If they could do it, they would have already done so

They can't


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



They can do it.

They have not yet even tried.  It takes WILL and leadership.

The House GOP leadership is pretty fucking weak and spineless.

But your reliance on that fact as "evidence" that it "can't" be done is fallacy.  Very silly of you.  As per usual.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 29, 2013)

The fucking Congress doesn't even do its job properly.  But since they will not stand up and pass a forthright actual by God BUDGET, they instead come up with "spending bills."

They are on the cusp of some major spending bills NOW.  The HOUSE could (and the Senate will NOT) pass a spending bill that funds ALL of government EXCEPT for "Obamacare."  Since the two sets of spending bills will not match up, they would have to go seek a compromise bill.  

The HOUSE COULD then simply stick to its guns.  They COULD say, simply and unequivocally, "We will authorize spending for ALL of the government EXCEPT we will decline to fund Obamacare in any way whatsoever."  

If they did that, the Senate MIGHT cave-in and vote for all the other spending (they love spending) even without funding Obambam care.  

Yes, the President would very likely then veto the whole fucking thing.  

What of it?

That would be HIS choice.  And I could live with that outcome anyway.

shut 'er down.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 29, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...


Of course the House will try, it's expected.  However, the risks are too great to carry through.  After all, shutting down the government does not defund Obamacare.  It is simply a protest that the public is getting tired of.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 29, 2013)

The House GOP majority will do nothing of the sort.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 29, 2013)

Flopper said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Shutting down the government would be ENTIRELY the liberal Democratics' doing.

The House SHOULD try.

But since I believe that the GOP members of the House (especially the "leadership") LACK nadz, I don't doubt that they will give up right after their pathetic meaningless posturing.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 29, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



It worked so well when Newt tried it didn't it?

Somehow the public always blames Republicans for these things. Life is so unfair sometimes


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



That's just it.  It would NOT be the GOP doing it.

It WOULD be entirely the product of the sick minds of lolberals like Barry Hussein Soetoro and the leadershit of the lolberal Democratics in Congress.  

Newt has nothing to do with anything here.  

Sorry leftwhiner, but your deflection effort was too plodding and obvious and dishonest to be of any use to your desired propaganda purposes.


----------



## peach174 (Aug 29, 2013)

The Dems wrote this bill deliberately so that it would fail. 
This is why they blocked all Republican bills. They wanted it to fail. If any of the Repubs bills had gotten passed, it would have corrected the things in it that were wrong. 
Now the Dems can implement what the Dems have always wanted , a single payer system.
Sen. Harry Reid said it out right on the floor a few weeks back.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 29, 2013)

The single payer system became inevitable when 25 years of Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and generally Republican friendly congresses ended in 2006.

We in the GOP could have resolved this a long time ago and did not.

I apologize for the GOP on this issue.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 29, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



I know.....I feel you pain
Nobody ever blames Obama

The poor Republicans are just trying their best to keep Americans from getting health insurance...who can't support that? Shutting down government is a small price to pay

But do they blame Obama?
NOOOoooooooooo

It's always blame the Republicans in this country


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 29, 2013)

So true, it is always the Republicans who get the blame, never Obama and the Dems.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 29, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> So true, it is always the Republicans who get the blame, never Obama and the Dems.



So good to read something honest from a progressive for a change.  

Immie


----------



## J.E.D (Aug 29, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



One is a $1200 per month ins bill. The other is a $60 per month phone bill. There is no comparison. Are you suggesting that people should do without everything else just to pay an exorbitant health ins premium to private companies? Should people sell their cars stop buying new clothes as well? That's just stupid.

Stop using the phone, eating, and clothing your children, you free-loaders. You should be using that money to pay for health insurance. Those poor CEOs aren't going to be able to buy that second yacht otherwise.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 29, 2013)

Immanuel, you are not a conservative and you are not honest in reply to my sarcastic remark.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



How stupid of you.  OF COURSE folks blame Obummer.  He fucking deserves blame much of the time.

But hacks like you endlessly defend him even when he and his behavior have been indefensible.

You also endlessly attacked Boooooosh.  Fuck, kid.  You still do.

What you lack, however, is any trace of objectivity in your ability and willingness to criticize.  You are a blind hack.  Nothing more.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 29, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Immanuel, you are not a conservative and you are not honest in reply to my sarcastic remark.



How so?  Were you not being honest? 

Immie


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 29, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel, you are not a conservative and you are not honest in reply to my sarcastic remark.
> ...



See you continue to fabricate or you don't understand sarcasm.  I am mainstream,  you are not conservative.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 29, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> You _cannot_ be this ignorant of Obamacare. There are a list of rules, regulations, and costs to businesses - not the least of which are the 18 new *TAXES* in Obamacare - which are crippling business.
> 
> Two things are glaringly obvious from your last statement:
> 
> ...



Why should I care about undercapitalized businesses.  

the problem with you Chamber of Commerce Repukes is that you guys really believe that business/capital creates jobs.   It doesn't.  Demand creates jobs.  

If some half-ass business that was cheating its employees on health care goes out of business because they can't comply, screw them.  Their business will be taken over by someone who can. And we'll all be better off for it.  

Or we can do the breathetakingly rational thing of creating a single payer universal system where everyone is covered and everyone gets the same quality of care.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 29, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Back to telling "whoppers" I see.

Immie


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 29, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Yup, Immie you are telling big ones.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 29, 2013)

J.E.D said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > J.E.D said:
> ...


Well $1200/mo is lot better than the $20,000/yr in previous right wing rants.  Maybe the announcements from a number of states about reduction in premiums is having some effect or the article about tax credits to Average $2,700 per family.  It appears the right's predictions were a wee bit high.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 29, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



15 yard Unsportsmanlike conduct penalty

Bush had nothing to do with healthcare


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 29, 2013)

J.E.D said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > J.E.D said:
> ...



And what is a $14,000 a year insurance bill to someone making $24,000 a year? Where are their priorities!


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 29, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You can't play ref on your own plays.  Flag rejected.

And GOOD that W didn't insert government where it does not belong.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 29, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Riddle me this................................
> ...



I'll quit bitching when hell freezes over, and then I'll fight you on the ice.

How about you stop forcing your beliefs on others?  It isn't for you to decide who gets to see my medical records. 

If you want to do so, HELL POST IT IN THE PAPER FOR ALL I CARE.

My post, CORRECTLY, pointed out a concern that in olden days Liberals and Demcraps would have went Bat Shit Crazy over, but not today................................

As it fits your views and Mantra.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 29, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Riddle me this................................
> ...



I see....................The *I'S HAVE IT........*

aka There are a lot of I's in your statement.  Now please explain how the I'S have the power to tell the ME'S what we are required to do.

That's the part Liberals don't have a clue about.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 29, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



It's not the point.  According to the law they need to know whether or not to tax you.  You will be required to prove Medical Insurance to the IRS.  The Medical Data base is another matter, but of course I'm sure the IRS may take a peek or two.  

Now to the other point.  The IRS Union has applied for a Waiver.  They don't want ACA.  Yet they are the ones who get to ENFORCE IT UPON THE PEOPLE.  

What happened to UNIFORMITY WITH LAWS TO ALL THE PEOPLE?  Oh, I'm sorry Unions are exempt.................................

And the Left calls this shit RIGHTEOUS.  You've got to be Freakin Kidding me.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



First - Congress does not have the authority to create "any" law they want. I'm sorry you're too ignorant to understand the Constitution, but they don't. Either have a friend explain it to you or you'll just have to take my word for it.

Second, stop with your obnoxious "we the people" stuff. You don't even respect or abide by the Constitution, you've never read it, and you don't understand it. Furthermore *We The People* have spoken - and we are overwhelmingly disgusted by the unconstitutional disaster known as Obamacare. *We The People* did not authorize our representatives to pass this unconstitutional disaster, nor were any of them honest enough to declare that was their intention before we voted them into office. And that is why *We The People* voted the Dumbocrats out of Congress in record numbers after Obamacare.

You The Parasties just continue to be disingenuous horses-asses because you've been _thoroughly_ defeated with facts.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2013)

J.E.D said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > J.E.D said:
> ...



Yes!!!!! 

It's amazing - you're actually "baffled" that people should pay for *NEEDS* before they pay for unnecessary *WANTS*?!? 

Sorry brother, I know one of the corner-stone traits of liberals is insane jealousy, but CEO's who can afford a "second yacht" do *not* owe you anything. And they do *not* owe _anyone_ health insurance.

Why is that so difficult for you to grasp? And if you're so opposed to FREEDOM (which includes the freedom to spend your money on a second yacht), why don't you move to Cuba? It literally has everything you advocate for.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



Are you kidding? JoeB. is a self-professed communist and a little Hitler wannabe. He believes to his core that you owe him and that he has the right to control you


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 30, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> [
> 
> It's not the point.  According to the law they need to know whether or not to tax you.  You will be required to prove Medical Insurance to the IRS.  The Medical Data base is another matter, but of course I'm sure the IRS may take a peek or two.
> 
> ...



Government employee unions have excellent insurance.  They aren't the problem.  

The problem are the employers who provide shitty insurance. 

But again, other than your silly paranoia, you still haven't made a good case as to why we shouldn't have all patient information on a national database.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 30, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Yawn, Buttsoiler, do you think screaming "Communist" at everyone is a way to win an argument?   

To the point, a national database is good medical management.  It will save money by eliminating unnecessary tests and it will save lives by making sure doctors have valid information.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 30, 2013)

Spying on China, Russia and our enemies isn't a bad idea.  Spying on Americans is the problem...

Anyone that doesn't want to spy on these nations don't live within the real world.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 30, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



First, Liberals created "We the People" and I will continue to use it when referring to the Constitution that you are so clueless about

Second, You have obviously had your head in the sand if you think Congress cannot pass any bill it wants. They do it on a daily basis passing bills that have no hope of surviving
If Congress passes a bill that is outside the Constitution, a Presidential veto or a Supreme Court override is the next Constitutional step

This is the system that We the People have established and it has been in place for over 200 years


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Yawn, Buttsoiler, do you think screaming "Communist" at everyone is a way to win an argument?
> 
> To the point, a national database is *good* medical management.  It will save money by eliminating unnecessary tests and it will save lives by making sure doctors have valid information.



*"Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the 'good' intentions of those who create it."* -Milton Friedman

*"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich." *-William F. Buckley, Jr.

By the way, you're the one who confessed to being a communist. Don't run from it now like a coward. You claim it, you *own* it.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



No jack-ass... *We The People* was created by conservatives. *You The Parasite*s try to destroy it daily with your ignorance. Trying to mask your anti-constitutional parasite ideology by ignorantly and nonsensically stating "we the people" in each post is humiliating yourself more than normal.

We The People overwhelming reject Obamacare - which was unconstitutionally rammed down our throats by representatives who LIED to us to get into office. This *FACT* was *PROVEN* not only by the polls showing the majority of America is against Obamacare, but by the overwhelming votes cast to remove those representatives from Congress who were responsible for that unconstitutional disaster.

*We The People* _have_ spoken. And that's why You The Parasites have your panties in such a bunch.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 30, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Yawn, Buttsoiler, do you think screaming "Communist" at everyone is a way to win an argument?
> ...



Guy, since you seem unable to even DEFINE communism intelligently, you really can't tell who is and isn't.  

Again, centralized data management.  The private sector ALREADY does this.  We had something called the "Digitial Revolution" back in the 1990's, sorry you missed it.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> If Congress passes a bill that is outside the Constitution, a Presidential veto or a Supreme Court override is the next Constitutional step



And what happens when an anti-constitutional marxist president (such as Obama) refuses to veto it and a Supreme Court stacked with anti-constitutional left-wing radicals like Sotomayor & Kagan - appointed by that same anti-constitutional president - who have *never* read the Constitution (like yourself) refuse to uphold the Constitution? You just automatically lose all of your rights? _Really_? You're so thoroughly ignorant that you think that's how it works?


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 30, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> No jack-ass... *We The People* was created by conservatives. *You The Parasite*s try to destroy it daily with your ignorance. Trying to mask your anti-constitutional parasite ideology by ignorantly and nonsensically stating "we the people" in each post is humiliating yourself more than normal.
> 
> ...



Last time I checked, we had a national election in 2012 and you guys lost.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Yes folks, JoeB. really _is_ this stupid....


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 30, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



At the time our great Constitution was written, Conservatives backed the crown and were appalled at the idea of forming a country controlled by We the People

They still are

Obamacare is constitutional and I have a Supreme Court decision saying so. By what grounds do you claim it is unconstitutional?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Last time I checked - we had the MAJORITY in the House (you know - the legislative branch which *creates the laws* and *controls* the national purse strings).

This is how DUMB people like JoeB. are - having no clue how their own government was designed, they believe the presidency is a dictator and therefore they "won" 

The _only_ thing you control, _stupid_, is the U.S. military. That's *all*


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> At the time our great Constitution was written, Conservatives backed the crown and were appalled at the idea of forming a country controlled by We the People
> 
> They still are



   

I love how you play this game because you're so ashamed of your parties history. The Constitution is a 100% conservative document. Small government. Limited Power. Maximum Freedom. All of the things You The Parasites *hate*.

You're the same jack-ass who keeps trying to claim the Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party who freed the slaves were "liberals" because you're ashamed of your parties pro-slavery, pro-oppression history (which, sadly, continues to this very day).


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 30, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



They are the problem if they are exempt from a LAW proposed to the ENTIRE NATION.  Why should they get a pass when everyone else has to OBEY THE LAW.  

aka WHY ARE THEY GRANTED SPECIAL PRIVILEDGES???????  Do you agree with laws that only to apply to some, and not others?  Of course you do.  Because you are obviously a Liberal Mouth piece that defends its OWN SELF INTEREST.  

By the same token, many CORPS have Great Insurance plans, as GOOD OR BETTER THAN UNION PLANS.  If Chevron or Exxon applies for a WAIVER do you agree that aren't the problem as well?  So step up to the plate and bat Liberal.  If you agree Unions and the IRS should be exempt then it is time for the Corps and Businesses to be exempt as well as THEY MEET YOUR STANDARDS AS WELL.

So now EVERYONE STARTS getting exempted by YOUR RULES.  How many are left after we ALTER THE LAW to give Waivers to ALL THAT SEEM WORTHY?  Yet NATIONWIDE PARTICIPATION is REQUIRED to ENSURE THE LAWS SUCCESS.  We need everyone aboard to Ensure that rates drop for EVERYONE. Just not the Unions.  Ummmm Not the IRS.....
and so on.

Post your HYPOCRISY TO THE UNIFORMED and not me as it easily recognized.  You are nothing more than a Mount piece for LIBERAL PRAVDA.

SECOND issue.  I've made no good points about the national database.  How about I re-state my opinion.  It isn't ANY OF YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS NOR THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS to force me to put MY PERSONAL INFORMATION OUT.  My medical data should be available to those I DEEM WORTHY of NEEDING TO KNOW.  Not the IRS, and not the Federal Gov't.

Liberals always talk about people's rights to PRIVACY.  Yet simply look the other way when it suits their own SELF SERVING INTERESTS.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> At the time our great Constitution was written, Conservatives backed the crown and were appalled at the idea of forming a country controlled by We the People
> 
> They still are



No matter how much history upsets you, or how hard you try to rewrite it, nothing will change the fact that it was your Dumbocrats who embraced slavery and started a war against your own nation to keep slaves. And it was your Dumbocrats who had proud members of the KKK in the Senate. And it was your Dumbcorats who fought against the Civil Rights movement.

You The Parasites have always been about control and oppression. That's why you *force* everyone into your programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare.

Facts....they are a bitch, uh winger?


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 30, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > At the time our great Constitution was written, Conservatives backed the crown and were appalled at the idea of forming a country controlled by We the People
> ...



Progressives love freedom....we invented it

The Constitution says nothing about small government.  Show me where it says anything about the size Government should be

The power of the Government is limited by the strength of We the People


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Obamacare is constitutional and I have a Supreme Court decision saying so. By what grounds do you claim it is unconstitutional?



*The Constitution*

(I win)


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 30, 2013)

Riddle me this....................................

If rates don't go down after implementation, how many waivers will be asked for by the General Public?

aka the 8% rule.  Explain that while your at.  I'm simply an Idiot Conservative, ya no............... Unable to comprehend the GREATNESS of Obamacare.

If I'm right and millions of waivers are asked for, how do you handle that Libbies?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





You can't fix Stupid.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Progressives love freedom....we invented it



That's why you vehemently supported slavery and attacked your country over it....to make sure people could *never* be free 

That's why you force people into Social Security? 

That's why you force people into Medicaid? 

That's why you force people into Medicare? 

That's why you force people into Obamacare? 

Yep...You The Parasites sure are a freedom "loving" bunch...


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 30, 2013)

The Federalist Papers - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

First. It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust. In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient. This is a precaution founded on such clear principles, and now so well understood in the United States, that it would be more than superfluous to enlarge on it. I will barely remark, that as the improbability of sinister combinations will be in proportion to the dissimilarity in the genius of the two bodies, it must be politic to distinguish them from each other by every circumstance which will consist with a due harmony in all proper measures, and with the genuine principles of republican government.

A good government implies two things: first, fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained. Some governments are deficient in both these qualities; most governments are deficient in the first. I scruple not to assert, that in American governments too little attention has been paid to the last. The federal Constitution avoids this error; and what merits particular notice, it provides for the last in a mode which increases the security for the first.

Fourthly. The mutability in the public councils arising from a rapid succession of new members, however qualified they may be, points out, in the strongest manner, the necessity of some stable institution in the government. Every new election in the States is found to change one half of the representatives. From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures. But a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect of success. The remark is verified in private life, and becomes more just, as well as more important, in national transactions.

*The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?*

*Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people.* Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens.* This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the FEW, not for the MANY.*


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> The Constitution says nothing about small government.  Show me where it says anything about the size Government should be





More glaring evidence that He The Parasite has *never* read the Constitution. _Ever_.

The federal government was delegated 18 enumerated powers from the states. 18. That's all.

They have 18 responsibilities and nothing more.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 30, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare is constitutional and I have a Supreme Court decision saying so. By what grounds do you claim it is unconstitutional?
> ...



The Constitutionally formed Supreme Court says otherwise

You lose again


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 30, 2013)

Riddle me this......................................

If I agree with Madison and Hamilton and consider this a MUTABLE POLICY, then should I call those who passed it

a.  Mutants 
b.  Liberals.

It boogles the mind.  Maybe I should stop using the term Liberals and simply call you a bunch of MUTANTS as the FOUNDERS WARNED US ABOUT.

But hey, we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it right?


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 30, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution says nothing about small government.  Show me where it says anything about the size Government should be
> ...



I agree. And nothing in those powers restricts the size of government

So, once again, you lose


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



So 18 is a "large" number to you? If you have $18, you are wealthy? If you score 18% on a test, you've done well? If you have an IQ of 18, you are smart?


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 30, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



OMG

I bet you wish you could take that stupid post back


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



*Not* *at* *all*.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 30, 2013)

Back on topic

Try as you might, Conservatives were unable to prove that Obamacare was unconstitutional. Even with a Conservative Supreme Court


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Back on topic
> 
> Try as you might, Conservatives were unable to prove that Obamacare was unconstitutional. Even with a Conservative Supreme Court



Back on topic.  I've made points in areas of Obamacare that have not been answered.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 30, 2013)

Intermission......................

Sing it Ray..............................

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFaCytKXOSQ]Ray Stevens - Obama Nation - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## jasonnfree (Aug 30, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> I know, I know.... this thread will soon be filled with the most absurd spin from radical leftists like RDean and Rightwinger whose entire "case" will be that this isn't actually happening (even though it undeniably *is*) and this is "right-wing fear tactics", blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...
> 
> But here's the thing. When it's the end of the day, the pc is finally powered-down, and they are all alone in the dark with their thoughts, I refuse to believe that even the most radical among them believes this is actually good for America. To have some of the most well known corporations refuse to hire, cut back hours, or drop healthcare coverage for their employees all together is simply *not* good for America. Period. Obamacare has been one of the biggest embarrassing disasters in U.S. history. It was written half-assed, passed by Dumbocrats not one of which actually read it, implemented blindly.


\\

The only tragedy for you repiglickans is when a hungry child's mother gets food stamps or when a multibillionaire is in danger of having his taxes raised.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 30, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Back on topic
> ...



Obamacare is legal and the law of the land

What is your point?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



My points were already mentioned and ignored.  You are avoiding my other points and simply say THE LAW OF THE LAND..........................

Alrighty then...............THE LAW.......................

If you want a discussion BASED ON LAW, SO BE IT................

Riddle me this...........................................

If the ACA is the law of the land, which it is, should it be applied EQUALLY TO ALL AMERICANS INCLUDING THE UNIONS?

aka The Unions are applying for waivers because their member rates are going up to COMPLY WITH THE LAW.  Since it hurts their members FINANCIALLY, as their rates go up to comply, should they get a Waiver that allows them to NOT COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT LAW.

If the Unions get a pass with a Waiver because of cost, then wouldn't you want others who's rates have increased as a result to get Waivers as well.  

Secondly, if the Law is costing them more money, if we waiver them to bypass the Law .........................ARE WE NOW VIOLATING THE LAW.......................................

If they are granted Waivers, then you open PANDORA'S BOX that anyone who now pays a higher rate for insurance because of the law should get EQUAL PROTECTION under the act and be granted Waivers as well.  How many groups or Corps or Unions would then feel that they should also be granted the waivers?

Finally, who decides who gets the waivers?

a.  A committee appointed by the Gov't.
b.  THE LAW.

What are the mandates for approval of waivers for Unions and Corps?
Are they standard in application and approval?
Can they only be approved in unusual circumstances?
Does the rule of Law apply first and foremost?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 30, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw]I Am America - Krista Branch - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 30, 2013)

How Many Businesses Are Exempt? The Final Number of ?Obamacare? Waivers Is In? | TheBlaze.com

Since the passage of the &#8220;Affordable Care Act,&#8221; it has been some cause for concern &#8212; scandal even &#8212; that several businesses have been granted waivers excusing them from participation in the federal program.

And now we have a final number of how many businesses are exempt from &#8220;Obamacare.&#8221;

Roughly 1,200 companies received waivers from part of the healthcare reform law, the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) said Friday.

&#8220;Friday marks the last time HHS will have to update the total number of waivers, putting to rest a recurring political firestorm. The department had been updating its waiver totals every month, prompting monthly attacks from the GOP,&#8221; writes Sam Baker of The Hill.

Naturally, Republican opposition to the bill seized on these waivers as an opportunity to advance the argument that the healthcare law is &#8220;unworkable.&#8221;

So how does the HHS justify granting the waivers? The department argues that the waivers show the law provides &#8220;flexibility.&#8221;

But who gets to choose when the law is &#8220;flexible&#8221;?

&#8220;All told, 1,231 companies applied for and received waivers from the law&#8217;s restrictions on annual benefit caps,&#8221; Baker writes. &#8220;The law requires plans to gradually raise their benefit limits, and all annual limits will become illegal in 2014. Companies that received waivers can keep their caps intact until 2014.&#8221;

When added together, the healthcare waivers excuse about 4 million people, or about 3 percent of the population, from having to participate, HHS said.

However, what&#8217;s slightly unsettling is the fact that the majority of the waivers were handed out to labor unions.

&#8220;Documents released in a classic Friday afternoon news dump show that labor unions representing 543,812 workers received waivers from President Barack Obama&#8216;s signature legislation,&#8221; writes Paul Conner of the Daily Caller. &#8220;By contrast, private employers with a total of 69,813 employees, many of whom work for small businesses, were granted waivers.&#8221;

Because of the backlash over the waivers, HHS announced last summer that it would stop accepting applications for one-year waivers and would simply grant or deny waivers all the way through the end of 2013, according to The Hill.

The total of 1,231 includes all of the waiver requests HHS granted &#8212; companies that only applied for a three-year waiver, companies that got a one-year waiver and an extension, and companies that received a one-year waiver but did not ask for an extension.

A total of 96 waiver requests were denied by HHS. Why the healthcare law couldn&#8217;t be &#8220;flexible&#8221; for those 96 requests is anyone&#8217;s guess.

&#8220;The final total is actually lower than the last monthly update. Earlier in the process, HHS had been granting waivers to a type of plan that it later decided should be completely exempt from the restrictions on annual limits,&#8221; Baker writes. &#8220;HHS had granted waivers to almost 500 of those plans before exempting them altogether.&#8221;


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 30, 2013)

*&#8220;Friday marks the last time HHS will have to update the total number of waivers, putting to rest a recurring political firestorm. The department had been updating its waiver totals every month, prompting monthly attacks from the GOP,&#8221; writes Sam Baker of The Hill.*

Riddle me this.......................................

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen?

If people or the GOP complain about Waivers simply no longer report it?

Reminds me.......................................

In a Nation of Lies, Truth is Treason.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 30, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miVoe7U6Lx4]Judge Dredd - I NEVER BROKE THE LAW... I AM THE LAW! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Flopper (Aug 30, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...


*The IRS is asking for an Obamacare waiver???  Please provide some creditable link.

The National Treasury Employees Union which includes the IRS is protesting proposed legislation by Republican David Camp which would eliminate group health insurance for federal workers so they would be forced to get their insurance through the insurance exchanges.  This legislation would abolish group health insurance for all federal employees, not just the IRS.  Is this what you are calling an application for a waiver?

The exchanges are for people that are not eligible for group health insurance.  This is the  first time I've seen Republicans propose legislation to abolish group health insurance.
I wonder if this is part of the Republican healthcare plan*
IRS Employees Union Is 'Very Concerned' About Being Required To Enroll In Obamacare's Health Insurance Exchanges - Forbes


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 30, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



These are all things you don't like about the law and have nothing to do with its Constitutionality

You also need to look up the difference between a waiver and an exemption


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Back on topic
> 
> Try as you might, Conservatives were unable to prove that Obamacare was unconstitutional. Even with a Conservative Supreme Court



Actually - back on topic would be how Obamacare is costing people jobs, hours on the job, and health insurance from their jobs. That was the topic of this thread. And that is why you have attempted to hijack the thread - because you know it's true and God forbid people know the truth about Obamacare, right?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2013)

Flopper said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


*

Wow.... I mean, wow.... not even aware that the IRS is begging for an exception to Obamacare. Is there any limit to the lack of knowledge displayed by the left?

Even IRS Chief Doesn?t Want to Switch to Obamacare: Remix Edition | Video | TheBlaze.com*


----------



## thanatos144 (Aug 30, 2013)

Progressives dont understand that less working hours means less money.... They are to fucking lazy.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Can I get a waiver from Obamacare? *Yes or No*?

And a waiver *is* an exemption you uneducated, ignorant, welfare trailer park buffoon!!!!!


----------



## shintao (Aug 30, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> I know, I know.... this thread will soon be filled with the most absurd spin from radical leftists like RDean and Rightwinger whose entire "case" will be that this isn't actually happening (even though it undeniably *is*) and this is "right-wing fear tactics", blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...



Hmm, so you have a degree in mind reading, palm reading, tea leaves, crystal ball gazing, and the jewish practice of spin the chicken. Are you any good on poker, lotto, winning, or are you limited to political readings?


----------



## peach174 (Aug 30, 2013)

I guess that Flopper doesn't watch any of the hearings on c-span.


----------



## shintao (Aug 30, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> I know, I know.... this thread will soon be filled with the most absurd spin from radical leftists like RDean and Rightwinger whose entire "case" will be that this isn't actually happening (even though it undeniably *is*) and this is "right-wing fear tactics", blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...
> 
> But here's the thing. When it's the end of the day, the pc is finally powered-down, and they are all alone in the dark with their thoughts, I refuse to believe that even the most radical among them believes this is actually good for America. To have some of the most well known corporations refuse to hire, cut back hours, or drop healthcare coverage for their employees all together is simply *not* good for America. Period. Obamacare has been one of the biggest embarrassing disasters in U.S. history. It was written half-assed, passed by Dumbocrats not one of which actually read it, implemented blindly.



You really haven't used your mind after the pc is cut off to see the bright lining coming with Obama care.

As corporations gear down to 32 hour weeks, workers will start demanding higher wages for working less hours, like occurs across the pond. Soon workers will either get two full time jobs or live within their means and start enjoying more time at home with their families. Millions of part time jobs will open up making it a workers market for a change, so more pay will be demanded because corporations can't have profits falling to their share holders, can they? Of course not. Consumer prices will plumet, if they want to sell to the working class, that is basic capitalism 101. 

Less hours means less corporate insurance to be paid per empoyee. It also means they will be hiring more people, needing uniforms, needing transportation, away from home meals, etc. It will generate & stimulate the economy recovery. It means they will need more managers for 1-3 extra shifts, so more people hired. Its a win win.

Oh, when it is dark tonight, think about that.


----------



## shintao (Aug 30, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> Progressives dont understand that less working hours means less money.... They are to fucking lazy.



No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means workers will demand higher wages or walk. You are so fking stupid. It means consumer pricing is going to drop to sell to workers who make less. It also means more tax revenue with more demand for workers in a workers market. Cons are fking lazy bastards that spend to much time worrying in Foxviews paranoia. LMAO!!! They don't understand the worker. hahahaha


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 30, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



Sure you can
If you have health insurance


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 30, 2013)

The Federalist #58

These considerations seem to afford ample security on this subject, and ought alone to satisfy all the doubts and fears which have been indulged with regard to it. Admitting, however, that they should all be insufficient to subdue the unjust policy of the smaller States, or their predominant influence in the councils of the Senate, a constitutional and infallible resource still remains with the larger States, by which they will be able at all times to accomplish their just purposes.* The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government.* They, in a word, hold the purse -- that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 30, 2013)

I simply skipped over the Mutants posts as they are inane.  A complete misunderstanding of the process either via IGNORANCE or MALICIOUS pandering to their cause.  aka They don't have a Fing Clue.

Current Battle.  Budget Battle and Debt Limit.  

Riddle me this.........................................

Who holds the purse?

The founders did it for a reason.  In this way the PEOPLE have an effective weapon to redress grievances.  It has been used and should be used.  Either to Defund Obamacare or FORCE MASSIVE SPENDING CUTS FROM THE DEMS.

Last time they allowed the LIAR and Chief to Dupe them.  He made promises that he had no intentions of ever Honoring.  This time the House needs to get DEFINITE CONCESSIONS WRITTEN AND SIGNED before releasing the purse.

aka Shut it down and FORCE COMPROMISE.  A weapon that the Founders purposely put into the Constitution to stop an ABUSIVE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.


----------



## J.E.D (Aug 30, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



So, people should forego food and clothing for health insurance. Got it. Thanks for clarifying your idiocy


----------



## J.E.D (Aug 30, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > If Congress passes a bill that is outside the Constitution, a Presidential veto or a Supreme Court override is the next Constitutional step
> ...



The same SC that just struck down section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and gave a slight victory to opponents of affirmative action? Yeah, that SC sure is a bunch of commie liberals. 

Holy shit, you're fucking riot


----------



## The T (Aug 30, 2013)

J.E.D said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


TRY Section 4, numbnuts...


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2013)

shintao said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > I know, I know.... this thread will soon be filled with the most absurd spin from radical leftists like RDean and Rightwinger whose entire "case" will be that this isn't actually happening (even though it undeniably *is*) and this is "right-wing fear tactics", blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...
> ...



Sadly, because you libtards regurgitate the same tired rhetoric over and over, I'm not really "predicting" so much as I am simply explaining based on history.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2013)

shintao said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Progressives dont understand that less working hours means less money.... They are to fucking lazy.
> ...



And because of financial demands, the corporations will say "don't let the door hit you in the ass in the way out"... 

(I know you're not actually serious about what you're saying here - you're just trying to get a rise out of people)


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Your disingenuous responses just proved that you're on the wrong side of the facts as always (having health insurance makes me compliant with the law - it does not give me a waiver from it and *you know it*)


----------



## P@triot (Aug 30, 2013)

J.E.D said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > J.E.D said:
> ...



You mentioned several items which I responded yes too - obviously food is a necessity just like the insurance. Stop being disingenuous....


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 30, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> [
> 
> They are the problem if they are exempt from a LAW proposed to the ENTIRE NATION.  Why should they get a pass when everyone else has to OBEY THE LAW.
> 
> ...



Guy, I have to assume you live in a trailer park somewhere, or you wouldn't make such an asspoundingly ridiculous claim about how wonderful Corporate Healthcare plans are.  

Now, to be fair, I though mine was wonderful at my last job, until I actually tried to use it for something other than that cold I get every winter.  

First, I had to go through a year of very painful tests to get the procedure I needed.  

Then I found myself on the "We can't afford to fire you, so we'll try to get you to quit" list.  

Then they just paid me a bribe so they could fire me.  

Now I'm firing them. 

Single Payer, that's the ticket.  When the rich are in the same hospital wards as the poor, that's when we fix things.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Aug 30, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> I know, I know.... this thread will soon be filled with the most absurd spin from radical leftists like RDean and Rightwinger whose entire "case" will be that this isn't actually happening (even though it undeniably *is*) and this is "right-wing fear tactics", blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...
> 
> But here's the thing. When it's the end of the day, the pc is finally powered-down, and they are all alone in the dark with their thoughts, I refuse to believe that even the most radical among them believes this is actually good for America. To have some of the most well known corporations refuse to hire, cut back hours, or drop healthcare coverage for their employees all together is simply *not* good for America. Period. Obamacare has been one of the biggest embarrassing disasters in U.S. history. It was written half-assed, passed by Dumbocrats not one of which actually read it, implemented blindly.



*Good post.  I agree that Obamacare is a tragedy.  We had much better examples to use such as utilized in other 1st World countries in Europe.  The AHCA is a mess because the Republicans think as Alan Grayson explained:  "Die and die quickly." and wouldn't work with Obama on what he really wanted, what other 1st World countries have, universal healthcare.







And their stupidity was compounded when Bill Kristol showed upon Jon Stewart's show and Stewart turned him into a stuttering fool.
*

Bill Kristol Extended Interview - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 07/27/09 - Video Clip | Comedy Central


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Aug 30, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



*Spot on.  Spot on and high 5.  The cost of my spouse to die from cancer in 2009 after 3.5 years of chemotherapy and surgery:  $1,300,000.00

That's right.  And Empire Blue of New York fought it fucking tooth and nail down to the last drop of blood.

*


----------



## Missouri_Mike (Aug 30, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



You have to be beyond f*cking stupid if you think the rich political leaders will ever share the same hospital wards as you. They will always get better care and leave you in the swamp all the while taking your money to spend on their healthcare.


----------



## Missouri_Mike (Aug 30, 2013)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


So your wife got 1.3 million in healthcare pay outs. WTF do you think her life is going to be worth under a universal plan? Have you NOT heard of the IPAB? What exactly do you f*cking think their job is? Let me give you a hint you moron. It's NOT to have spent 2.6 million on her it's to CUT it to 650k if that.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 30, 2013)

AzMike said:


> [
> 
> You have to be beyond f*cking stupid if you think the rich political leaders will ever share the same hospital wards as you. They will always get better care and leave you in the swamp all the while taking your money to spend on their healthcare.



Not really, guy.  

I don't worry about the politicians.  The politicians want to get votes.  

That's why I trust a universal single payer program more than one by a big corporation only concerned about profits.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 30, 2013)

AzMike said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I think NTPP is a woman, and she's talking about her husband.  (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

But in any event, under a universal plan, people live longer, and they spend less.   Amongst the G-7 nations, the USA comes in DEAD LAST.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 30, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Ridiculous claims.  You think places like Chevron or Exxon or any Fortune 500 Companies don't have good health plans?  That's ridiculous to you.  I know a lot of people who have VERY GOOD PLANS, and the point was for a COMPARISON between the Unions and them.

And you understand the point, even though you dance around it.  A LAW should be for EVERYONE, and exceptions shouldn't be added in for the Unions or the IRS.

Single Payer is your goal anyway.  Always has and always will be.  This BS program was to get the foot in the door before you lost power.  Knowing it's a disaster from the get go.  So people will later want your Single Payer program.  That's what you are pushing and that's your plan.


----------



## J.E.D (Aug 30, 2013)

The T said:


> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Try section 5, dick-lips


----------



## Flopper (Aug 30, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


*
I asked you for a creditable link to support your statement that the IRS Union had asked for a waiver.  You gave me a remix of out of context statements protesting a proposed bill by house republican, David Camp to abolish federal employees group health insurance for all federal employees.  They are not asking for a waiver, they're protesting Republicans attempt to take away their group health insurance.*


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> [
> 
> Ridiculous claims.  You think places like Chevron or Exxon or any Fortune 500 Companies don't have good health plans?  That's ridiculous to you.  I know a lot of people who have VERY GOOD PLANS, and the point was for a COMPARISON between the Unions and them.
> 
> And you understand the point, even though you dance around it.  A LAW should be for EVERYONE, and exceptions shouldn't be added in for the Unions or the IRS.



Hey, ever hear of a young lady named Nataline Sarkisyan.  Nataline was a 17 year old girl who needed a liver transplant.  And her dad worked for Lexus, which no doubt by your standard is a "good company" with a "good plan".   

Well, funny thing happened.  Her insurance company, Cigna, which paid it's CEO Ed Hanaway an 83 MILLLION dollar retirement package, decided that her transplant was "expiramental". Even though her doctors said it had a 35% of working.  Her dad sued Cigna, and the courts ruled that because the contract was between Cigna and Lexus, he and Natline had NO STANDING.  

Nataline died. 





eagle1462010 said:


> [
> 
> Single Payer is your goal anyway.  Always has and always will be.  This BS program was to get the foot in the door before you lost power.  Knowing it's a disaster from the get go.  So people will later want your Single Payer program.  That's what you are pushing and that's your plan.



I wanted Single Payer from the Get-Go.  Because as long as you have assholes with 8 figure salaries sponging off the system and paying themselves more by denying treatment, you are going to have abuses.  As long as you have mid-level managers who decide to keep the health insurance costs down by firing people when they get sick or pregnant, you are going to have abuses.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



You Sir or still too Stupid to understand my point.  Or you simply DIVERT the topic to your own Mantra.

The point was and still is that NO ONE GROUP, or individuals should get SPECIAL CONSIDERATION under the law.  The law should apply to all PERIOD.  That is the way laws are supposed to work, unless you allow a Committee to decide who gets a pass and who doesn't.

That is the problem, and the problem with any type of Waivers under the law.  That is the problem when COMMITTEE'S can CHANGE THE LAW ON A DIME.

Law's are passed by sitting Congresses and the POTUS, not a committee.  THAT'S ONE OF THE POINT'S YOU REFUSE TO SEE.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> [q
> 
> You Sir or still too Stupid to understand my point.  Or you simply DIVERT the topic to your own Mantra.
> 
> ...



No, guy, your point is stupid. 

ALL law enforcement is largely based on discretion on those enforcing the rules.  It's why cops don't pull over people driving 31 in a 30, but they will pull over the guy who just pulled out of the bar parking lot and is driving too slow.  

I have no problem with a committee deciding who is "close enough".  Any problem, you clean up the more glaring problems first.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 31, 2013)

Labor Unions: Obamacare Will 'Shatter' Our Health Benefits, Cause 'Nightmare Scenarios' - Forbes

Labor unions are among the key institutions responsible for the passage of Obamacare. They spent tons of money electing Democrats to Congress in 2006 and 2008, and fought hard to push the health law through the legislature in 2009 and 2010.* But now, unions are waking up to the fact that Obamacare is heavily disruptive to the health benefits of their members.*

Last Thursday, *representatives of three of the nations largest unions fired off a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, warning that Obamacare would shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.*


Congressional Hearing: It's Time To Repeal Obamacare's Employer Mandate
Avik RoyAvik Roy
Contributor

Employers Can Minimize Their Exposure To Obamacare's Penalties By Offering Low-Cost 'Skinny' Coverage
Avik RoyAvik Roy
Contributor

White House To Delay Obamacare's Employer Mandate Until 2015; Far-Reaching Implications For The Private Health Insurance Market
Avik RoyAvik Roy
Contributor

Democrats' New Argument: It's A Good Thing That Obamacare Doubles Individual Health Insurance Premiums
Avik RoyAvik Roy
Contributor
The letter was penned by James P. Hoffa, general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Joseph Hansen, international president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union; and Donald D. Taylor, president of UNITE-HERE, a union representing hotel, airport, food service, gaming, and textile workers.

*When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act, they begin, you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat*We have been strong supporters of the notion that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision. *Now this vision has come back to haunt us.
*
Unintended consequences causing nightmare scenarios

The union leaders are concerned that Obamacares employer mandate incentivizes smaller companies to shift their workers to part-time status, because employers are not required to provide health coverage to part-time workers. *We have a problem, they write, and you need to fix it.*

*The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe, they continue. Perverse incentives are causing nightmare scenarios. *First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. *The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.*

What surprises me about this is that union leaders are pretty strategic when it comes to employee benefits. It was obvious in 2009 that Obamacares employer mandate would incentivize this shift. Why didnt labor unions fight it back then?

Regulations will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members

The labor bosses are also unhappy, because of the way Obamacare affects multi-employer health plans. Multi-employer plans, also called Taft-Hartley plans, are health insurance benefits typically arranged between a labor union in a particular industry, such as restaurants, and small employers in that industry. About 20 million workers are covered by these plans; 800,000 of Joseph Hansens 1.3 million UFCW members are covered this way.

Taft-Hartley plans, they write, *have been built over decades by working men and women, but unlike plans offered on the ACA exchanges, unionized workers will not be eligible for subsidies, because workers with employer-sponsored coverage dont qualify.*

*Obamacares regulatory changes to the small-group insurance market will drive up the cost of these plans. *For example, the rules requiring plans to cover adult children up to the age of 26, the elimination of limits on annual or lifetime coverage, and the mandates that plans cover a wide range of benefits will drive premiums upward.

But the key problem is that the Taft-Hartley plans already provide generous and costly coverage; small employers now have a more financially attractive alternative, which is to drop coverage and put people on the exchanges, once the existing collective bargaining agreements are up. That gives workers less reason to join a union; a big part of why working people pay union dues is because unions play a big role in negotiating health benefits.

*So the labor leaders are demanding that their workers with employer-sponsored coverage also gain eligibility for ACA subsidies. Otherwise, their workers will be relegated to second-class status despite being taxed to pay for those subsidies, a result that will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable and destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.*

*The law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans*

*The leaders conclude by stating that, on behalf of the millions of working men and women we represent and the families they support, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.*

*President Obama, of course, pledged that if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. But the labor leaders say that, unless changes are madethat promise is hollow*. We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions. We are looking to you to make sure these changes are made.

Delay of employer mandate troubling

These arent the only union leaders who have been critical of Obamacare. Kinsey Robinson, president of the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, said in April that their concerns have not been addressed, or in some instances, totally ignored, and that in the rush to achieve its passage, many of the acts provisions were not fully conceived, resulting in unintended consequences that are inconsistent with the promise that those who were satisfied with their employer-sponsored coverage could keep it.

Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO, is unhappy with the White Houses one-year delay of the employer mandate, calling it troubling. Hoffa, Hansen, and Taylor note that this is especially stinging [and] most disconcerting because the administration has responded to the concerns of businesses, but not those of labor.

But its the employer mandate which is responsible for all of the disruptions that Trumkas labor brothers are complaining about. If we repealed the employer mandate, wed get rid of the incentive that restaurants and other employers have to cut the hours of part-time employees.



Government health care harms unions

What a lot of people may not realize is that for much of our history, labor unions opposed universal coverage. Unionsderive some advantage of good will, power, or profit from serving as a financial intermediary in health care, writes Paul Starr in his Pulitzer Prize-winning history of the American health-care system, The Social Transformation of American Medicine.

If unions role in negotiating health coverage is taken over by the government, unions lose a big chunk of their utility. Employers and unions had both tried to use medical care to strengthen their hand in the battle for workers allegiances, Starr continues.

Labor unions opposed FDRs half-hearted attempt at universal coverage, and split on Trumans related proposal. Unions were fine with Medicare and Medicaid, because health benefits for retirees and poor people werent as relevant to their interests. It wasnt until the 1970s that the goals of progressives and labor unions became closely aligned on national health care.

Now, my primary concern isnt the power and influence of labor unionsrather, its the ability of Americans to have access to good jobs and affordable health insurance. And those latter goals are best achieved in a system where people buy health coverage for themselves, instead of getting it through their employers or the government.

That Obamacare encourages more people to buy insurance on their own, in part by incentivizing employers to drop health coverage, is one of the laws few salutary qualities. *Its unsurprising that this outcome makes labor unions unhappy. But they had every opportunity to take the bill in a different direction in 2009. That they didnt is no ones fault but their own.*

*    *    *

Follow @Avik on Twitter and Google+, and The Apothecary on Facebook.

Or, sign up to receive a weekly e-mail digest of articles from The Apothecary.

*    *    *

UPDATE: In May, Kevin Bogardus of The Hill discussed labors dissatisfaction with Obamacare in relation to Taft-Hartley plans, warning of political repercussions if people on Taft-Hartley plans remained ineligible for subsidies:

Earlier this month, the subject of how multi-employer health plans would be treated under ObamaCare was brought up at a private May 8 meeting between union leaders and the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee.

A number of people were making this point at that meeting. People said that their members are upset about this and the more they learn about it, the more upset they are, said one union official. I was pretty blunt about it, said Hansen. I told them it was a very serious issue. That it was wrong. Taft-Hartley plans should be deemed as qualified healthcare providers and I also said its going to have political repercussions if we dont get this fixed.

Hansen wants the Obama administration to use its regulatory powers to address the matter; a legislative remedy is all but impossible in the divided 113th Congress.

When [the Obama administration] started writing the rules and regulations, we just assumed that Taft-Hartley plans  that workers covered by those plans, especially low-wage workers  would be eligible for the subsidies and stay in their plans and theyre not, Hansen said.

Union anger on multi-employer plans has been percolating for months. In January, The Wall Street Journal reported that UNITE HERE and the Teamsters were pressing the administration. UFCW was also mentioned in that report. Asked why he decided to raise the volume on his worries about ObamaCare, Hansen said he needed to speak out in support of his members

What happens in 2014 could be at issue hereThere is going to be a lot of disenchantment with how did this happen and who was in power when it happened. No matter what I say, thats going to be there, Hansen said. They are upset already and it hasnt even taken effect already.

In a related op-ed, Joseph Hansen complained about the fact that Taft-Hartley plans wouldnt get special treatment under the law (i.e., that members with this form of employer-sponsored coverage wouldnt be eligible for ACA exchange subsidies intended for those with no such coverage):

The Obama administration has refused our request, citing legal hurdles. But since the treatment of Taft-Hartley plans is not fully described in the ACA, we believe the regulatory process is exactly the appropriate place to deem them qualified health plans eligible for subsidies. Any objective review of the evidence and reasonable definition of what our funds provide leads to this conclusion.

Wed be open to a legislative fix, but ultimately this is the administrations responsibility. They are leading the regulatory process. Its their signature law.

Again, contrary to Hansens rhetoric, what he and the other labor leaders are asking for is not equal treatment but special treatment. They want Taft-Hartley plans to be the only form of employer-sponsored health insurance whose members also benefit from subsidies directed to the uninsured. Theres no chance that any such change gets through Congress, given the prohibitive fiscal cost of making 20 million more people eligible for Obamacare subsidies.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > [q
> ...



aka You don't give a rats arse if some groups get special favors and the laws are interpreted unequally.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 31, 2013)

The Unions are going Bat Chit crazy over the deal.  They helped get it passed and NOW FINALLY UNDERSTAND THAT THE BILL IS BS.

So they want special favors so they DON'T HAVE TO GET HIT LIKE THE REST OF THE PEASANTS.  Aka the average American.

TOUGH TITTIES UNIONS.

YOU REAP WHAT YOU SEW..............................Time to join the masses and get fucked over by the Fed like everyone else.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> [
> 
> aka You don't give a rats arse if some groups get special favors and the laws are interpreted unequally.



Nope, I really don't.  I want the cops out catching real criminals, not the guy talking on his cell phone at a stop light. I'm funny like that.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> The Unions are going Bat Chit crazy over the deal.  They helped get it passed and NOW FINALLY UNDERSTAND THAT THE BILL IS BS.
> 
> So they want special favors so they DON'T HAVE TO GET HIT LIKE THE REST OF THE PEASANTS.  Aka the average American.
> 
> ...



Or not. 

Incidently, I'm not sure who is getting "fucked over".  My plan is the same today as it was before ObamaCare.  So are most people I know.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



LOL

Glad you show your true Bias towards enforcement of Obamacare.  So in your view the Unions including the IRS Union should get a pass on ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW?

Proves your a commie.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > The Unions are going Bat Chit crazy over the deal.  They helped get it passed and NOW FINALLY UNDERSTAND THAT THE BILL IS BS.
> ...



So let's ignore the data of those getting Fucked over............................

Reminds me of a saying............................

A Recession is when someone else loses their job.  A Depression is when I lose mine.

So you are happy so screw everyone else........................................

The writing is on the wall.  But you refuse to see, because you want ACA to implode.........

Because the ultimate goal is single payer.  The ends justify the means, and never let a GOOD CRISIS GO TO WASTE.  This Crisis will be WHOLLY the fault of the ACA and Gov't.  And their solution will be your WET DREAM LIB.

Do you know what HONOR IS?  I don't think so.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



Unions take good care of their people.  It shows why they are hated by the Right Wing so much.  

So, no, I Don't worry about them, because anything they come up with is going to be as good a deal as they'd have gotten under ObamaCare.  

A big corporation doesn't deserve a fucking inch of slack, because they screw their employees over at every oppurtunity.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> So let's ignore the data of those getting Fucked over............................
> 
> Reminds me of a saying............................
> 
> ...



Guy, the system was in crisis before ACA hit.  

46 million without insurance and 25 million with inadequate insurance. 

62% of bankruptcies linked to medical crisis. 

Lowest life expectency in the industrialized world.

Highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world.

Highest spend per capita in the entire world despite these awful results- and medical inflation being three times regular inflation.  

Yes, it would have been nice if we went to single payer when the rest of the world did so, but there are too many people making obscene amounts of money in the current system.  That's why we have a crisis.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 31, 2013)

Jobs Reports: U.S. Turning Into a Part-time Worker Economy

When the two-part employment report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) was issued on Friday, the news was modestly positive: From its business &#8220;establishment&#8221; data it noted that employment increased by 162,000, a little less than expected but not far from the average of 175,000 new jobs a month that the economy has been generating for the last three months. The estimates for May and June were revised downward slightly, but July&#8217;s numbers were enough to push down the unemployment rate from 7.6 percent to 7.4 percent. The BLS reported also that the number of unemployed persons has dropped by 1.2 million over the last 12 months while the unemployment rate has come down from 8.2 percent to 7.4 percent in that same time period.

There was further good news: Unemployment rates for adult women (at 6.5 percent) and blacks (at 12.6 percent) declined in July while the number of &#8220;long-term&#8221; unemployed (jobless for 27 weeks or more) has declined by almost one million since July 2012.

Reuters was guardedly optimistic, noting that the labor force shrank during the month, &#8220;robbing some of the luster from the decline in the unemployment rate [but the report] reinforces the view that the job market is inching [its way] toward recovery.&#8221;

This optimism was not shared by Peter Morici, professor at the University of Maryland, who observed:

The economy is firing on three cylinders instead of six&#8230;.

Many of those [being hired] are part-timers. Increasingly Americans are [being] relegated to a contingent work force where they work temp jobs, part-time jobs&#8230;.

[Businesses] are finding health insurance too expensive to provide [full-time] employees and if they cut down to part-time workers, turning three jobs into four, they avoid all that&#8230;.

That&#8217;s what&#8217;s happening. Some folks will have to work two jobs to make ends meet, and they still don&#8217;t get healthcare. 

*This showed up in the other part of the BLS report, the &#8220;household&#8221; survey, which showed that in July 103,000 more Americans reported working part-time*. Tyler Durden at ZeroHedge has been predicting the slow conversion of the American workforce into part-timers for years. Back in December 2010 he wrote:* "It is surprising that over the past several years very little has been said in the popular media about the fact that America is slowly but surely transforming from a full-time to part-time employed society."*

*The trend that he noted at the time was clear: In December 2007, at the start of the start of the Great Recession, there were 121.7 million full-time jobs and 24.8 million part-time jobs. In November 2010 (at the time he was writing) there were just 111.1 million full-time jobs but part-timers increased to 27.6 million.*

Today, there are 117.7 million full-time jobs (a decline since the start of the recession of four million) while part-time jobs have grown by 2.6 million, to 27.4 million. Simply put, full-time jobs are being replaced by part-time ones.

Durden looked at last week&#8217;s BLS report and found something the media totally ignored: Of the nearly one million jobs the economy has created since the first of the year, only 222,000 of them were full-time. Put another way, three out of four jobs created since January 1 have been part-time.

Whenever a government policy intrudes into the working of the marketplace, the marketplace adjusts as best it can. With the advent of ObamaCare and the requirement that employers with more than 50 full-time employees must provide health coverage for them, business owners and managers are responding appropriately: *Where providing a full-time employee with health coverage doesn't make economic sense, they split the work load into two or three pieces, getting the same job done but with two or three people working fewer than 30 hours a week* (ObamaCare&#8217;s threshold for coverage).

Of course this is exactly the opposite of what the American people were told that ObamaCare would do: provide healthcare coverage for millions who aren't already covered. Instead of expanding coverage, the onerous law is now reducing it.

There is at least one irony here: Unions find it vastly more difficult to recruit part-timers into their unions, and so one of the strongest supporters of the Obama administration is suffering along with American workers.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> Jobs Reports: U.S. Turning Into a Part-time Worker Economy
> 
> When the two-part employment report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) was issued on Friday, the news was modestly positive: From its business establishment data it noted that employment increased by 162,000, a little less than expected but not far from the average of 175,000 new jobs a month that the economy has been generating for the last three months. The estimates for May and June were revised downward slightly, but Julys numbers were enough to push down the unemployment rate from 7.6 percent to 7.4 percent. The BLS reported also that the number of unemployed persons has dropped by 1.2 million over the last 12 months while the unemployment rate has come down from 8.2 percent to 7.4 percent in that same time period.
> .




I'll bet you blame rape victims for how they dress. 


Simple enough solution. 

You are now required to provide health coverage to your part time employees as well.  

Problem solved.  

Guy, the insanity here is making people get health care through their employers and then having the well-being of their families contingent on the whims of their managers.  

Having worked for enough douchebags who've managed to climb to the corner office, this is the definition of insanity.  

Their first response to ObamaCare is not, "how do we take care of our own", but "How do we screw people over!"  

Making the case for single payer better than I ever could.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 31, 2013)

Riddle me this............................................

A group of people, aka Libs, tell everyone they are for the poor and middle class................

They propose a bill that actually hurts them more than it helps....................

And then say it's for their own good...........................

And that the bad consequences of the law are simply a product of change for the better................

As they screw the people of the United States and the Unions that helped get it passed..............

Are they really for the average American, or are their purposes Self Serving to their agenda...........

Those against Obamacare, who warned them of the problems with it are proving to be DEAD ON THE MONEY about the problems with the ACA.....................

And losers like the one posting on this thread don't care at all.

They have a different purpose.  To get their foot in the door.  Pass a law that GUARANTEE'S CRISIS, and then use that Crisis to get a Single Payer system in place.

That has ALWAYS BEEN THEIR GOAL.  And that hasn't changed.

They are really bottom feeding animals in my opinion.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Jobs Reports: U.S. Turning Into a Part-time Worker Economy
> ...



So someone working 20 hours should be elligble. How about 10 hours..................

"Making the case for single payer better than I ever could."

Which is your goal, even as the ACA is IMPLODING.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> Riddle me this............................................
> 
> A group of people, aka Libs, tell everyone they are for the poor and middle class................
> 
> ...



Dumbfuck, it is a good law.  

Only the attempts by wealthy business owners to evade doing the right thing are causing bad consequence.  

It's kind of like if you put speed bumps on a street, and the hot-rodders go run over kids on another street to avoid it.  

Do you really, really think that an insurance company should be allowed to deny someone coverage after they paid insurance because of a "pre-existing" condition? 

Do you really think that companies should fire employees because they get sick because they are a "liability".


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> [
> 
> So someone working 20 hours should be elligble. How about 10 hours..................
> 
> ...



Not really.  The only thing that is becoming a problem is the employer mandate, which wasn't even the most key section to the law.  

Now, there's a simple enough solution.  Create a public option.  You don't want to provide insurance that is real insurance, then pay into the public option and let your employees get their coverage there.  

And this is the real problem.  Employer based coverage probably was fine in the 1950's when treatments were limited and inexpensive and you really needed a lot of people to run a factory. 

Now they aren't, so much.  

Does ObamaCare speed up or slow down the INEVITABLE collapse of employer based health insurance... Probably slows it down.  But inevitably, it's going to collapse.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Riddle me this............................................
> ...



Your precious law doesn't fix jack squat.  It is causing massive problems.  Problems brought up and ignored during the debates.  Ignored at the debates.

The problems of COST at the debates.  Solutions were offered and not taken, especially in the area of HIGH COST MEDICAL TREATMENTS AND CONDITIONS. Like Hurricane Insurance pools, yet the COUNTER OFFER WAS GOV'T SUBSIDIZING THESE POOLS.  

Completely ignored.

Your side WASTED A COMPROMISE POSITION.  The GOP was offering Compromise that might have actually made a difference, but your side was so arrogant on MINE MINE MINE, that you were TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND that problems could have been fixed before passage.

But the UTTER ARROGANCE OF THE LEFT was unmoving and so no we are stuck with this incredibly FUCKED UP LAW.

I must be getting under your skin DUMBFUCK.  You are a liberal Stooge and Marx would be proud of you, as we pave or way to HELL because of idiots like you.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> [
> 
> Your precious law doesn't fix jack squat.  It is causing massive problems.  Problems brought up and ignored during the debates.  Ignored at the debates.
> 
> ...



Actually, the GOP offerend nothing but obstructionism and racism. 

Here's the ugly little secret.  Do you know WHY ObamaCare wasn't a bigger issue in the 2012 election?  

Because it was THE EXACT SAME THING as RomneyCare.  

Except RomneyCare has worked just fine in MA.  So well that Romney could boast about it in 2008, but wouldn't be caught having a drink with it in 2012.  

But dumbfuck racists just can't stand that a black guy solved the problem, even if he used a Republican's idea.  

Now, where I fault Obama was that he tried way too hard to work with the Republicans.  He should have just went with a public option and a tax on employers who don't provide coverage and called it a day.  But he was too busy accommedating Republicans and Democratic Senators who like the Coffee over at Faux News like Evan Bayh.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



aka They should have bent over and taken it up the arse..............

They did offer compromise, and they did offer OBSTRUCTION.  Because they didn't want a take over by the Federal Gov't of 1/3rd of the GDP of the entire economy.

Secondly, you refuse to remember when they OFFERED SOLUTIONS because the solutions interfered with your LIBERAL MANTRA.

So your side passed a pile of shit that HIT'S THE FAN NEXT YEAR.

Personally on the Unions problems.  You helped make the shit sandwich, too bad that you now have to take a bite.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> [
> 
> aka They should have bent over and taken it up the arse..............
> 
> ...



Yeah, blah, blah, blah... you guys have been predicting this for years now, and it hasn't happened yet.  

You know what will happen.  People will find they like it.  that's what really scares the shit out of you.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



BS  As you ignore the current situation and the effect it is having on the economy.  But as long as Gov't get's bigger your happy right.

POP Quiz

SHOOT THE HOSTAGE

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRmhneo5A48]Speed (1994) Theatrical Trailer - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> [
> 
> BS  As you ignore the current situation and the effect it is having on the economy.  But as long as Gov't get's bigger your happy right.
> 
> ...



Again, blaming ObamaCare for the greed of big corporations is like blaming a rape victim for her short skirt. 

Do you really think these big corporations wouldn't be finding ways to screw their employees without ObamaCare?  Really?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I'm blaming Obamacare for passing a law with so many holes in it that it looked like Swiss Cheese.

They are supposed to understand these things, and pass laws that take these matters into consideration.

Are they JUST THAT INCOMPETENT, or did they do it on purpose?  They knew this chit was gonna happen when they passed it, didn't they????????

Which goes back to your Single Payer option...........They purposely passed a law to fail to get something different later.  Which is exactly how I see it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> [
> 
> I'm blaming Obamacare for passing a law with so many holes in it that it looked like Swiss Cheese.
> 
> ...



The problem was, the pre-ObamaCare status quo had even more holes in it.  

Your whine here is that the IRS union is saying, "Hey, our health care is good enough, we don't need to make changes to it. Our employees are happy with what they have."  

Okay. Not seeing a problem here.  

In my last job, they changed my insurance three times, each time to something a little shittier.  And when I ran up 50K in medical bills, they found an excuse to let me go.  

Never did they ask my opinion on any of those decisions.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 31, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> Riddle me this................................
> 
> Currently Snowden and the NSA scandal.  America including the Dems are yelling out about how the Gov't is spying on us all.  It has caused a public outrage including the Libs.
> 
> ...



not only that 

then the IRS enforcement division will insure that you do


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



So the new plan is to launch a ship that is already flooding, and sinking at the stern?

Then they try and fix the flooding by counter flooding.  A method used is damage control, which adds more water to keep the ship from capsizing.  Problem is, until you find a way to stood the uncontrolled flooding, the SHIP IS GOING DOWN.

Eventually, the ship cracks in half, which is a key problem with Liberal Ideology.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> [
> 
> So the new plan is to launch a ship that is already flooding, and sinking at the stern?
> 
> ...



The problem with your analogy here is that the ship was already in the water and was already sinking.  

ObamaCare blocked up the big holes (46 million without insurance, Insurance companies cheating their employees by 'redaction") but didn't worry so much about the little holes.  

So the IRS union gets a waiver.  So what?  They weren't the problem, were they?


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



46 Million.........Umm how many of those were illegals again.  How many times did these numbers change as they passed these laws?

Obamacare fixed a giant hole..........Excuse me, people are currently losing coverage, the prices are going up, and business is cutting to part time.

You call that blocking up a Giant hole............................

REALLY................................


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 31, 2013)

Seven million will lose insurance under Obama health law - Washington Times

Obama&#8217;s health care law will push 7 million people out of their job-based insurance coverage &#8212; nearly twice the previous estimate, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday.
CBO said that this year&#8217;s tax cuts have changed the incentives for businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they&#8217;ll choose to pay a penalty to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next decade.
But the non-partisan agency also expects fewer people to have to pay individual penalties to the IRS than it earlier projects, because of a better method for calculating incomes that found more people will be exempt.
Overall, the new health provisions are expected to cost the government $1.165 trillion over the next decade &#8212; the same as last year&#8217;s projection.
With other spending cuts and tax increases called for in the health law, though, CBO still says Mr. Obama&#8217;s signature achievement will reduce budget deficits in the short term.
During the health care debate Mr. Obama had said individuals would be able to keep their plans.


Read more: Seven million will lose insurance under Obama health law - Washington Times 
Follow us: [MENTION=39892]Was[/MENTION]htimes on Twitter


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Single Payer, that's the ticket.  When the rich are in the same hospital wards as the poor, that's when we fix things.



*So you admit that single payer will result in the "rich" getting worse healthcare? 

Yep, leave it to a libtard Dumbocrat to work to lower the standard of living in America!

Dumbocrats: Creating 3rd-world conditions since 1890!*


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 31, 2013)

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....................

Forget about those 7 Million people......................

Keep it quiet...............................


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I DEMAND EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW.  Not favors for one over the other.

If not.  THE LAW IS TOTAL BULL SHIT.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



Illegals still get sick, they still show up at emergency rooms, they still affect the overall health picture. 

It's not okay if they suffer because they came here "illegally". 

And, yes, expanding coverage is a big deal.  

Now, really, if employers want to shoot themselves in the foot by going "part time", and shifting more people to MedicAid, that just gets us to single payer that much quicker.   They are kind of dealing away the only card they have pretty quickly.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> The cost of my spouse to die from cancer in 2009 after 3.5 years of chemotherapy and surgery:  $1,300,000.00
> 
> That's right.  And Empire Blue of New York fought it fucking tooth and nail down to the last drop of blood.



*So why didn't you start your own hospital, charge exponentially less - causing everyone in America to come running to your hospital - and retire a billionaire who helped society greatly?

Folks, nothing sums up the Dumbocrat like this ignorant post above. If they don't like the cost of something, they don't work to become wealthier OR enter that particular market themselves and lower the cost through competition - nope! Instead, they go crying to daddy (or in this case, Uncle Sam) and like spoiled children, scream "make them give me what I want"!*


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > The cost of my spouse to die from cancer in 2009 after 3.5 years of chemotherapy and surgery:  $1,300,000.00
> ...



Buttsoiler's advise to rape victims.... Go out and buy yourself a strap-on and do rape more "gently".


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> It's not okay if they suffer because they came here "illegally".



Then *YOU* pay for them! Oh wait - what am I saying - you're a greedy parasite who mooches off of others. Like a good little Dumbocrat, you don't share anything you have.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



Oh, you are for equality? 

Okay. Single Payer. Everyone gets the SAME treatment, even the rich.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> ...



AhAhAhAhAhAhAh!!! Watching you fall apart because you can't respond to an intelligent post is hilarious!!!


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > It's not okay if they suffer because they came here "illegally".
> ...



No, I pay about 25% of my income in taxes, thanks for asking. 

And you are already paying for them. 

They show up at Emergency rooms, and doctors HAVE to treat them. Not only is it the law, but there was that little thing called a Hippocratic Oath.  

It's just that treating them in an emergency room is 10 times more expensive than treating them at a general practitioner's office.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



It's not an intelligent statement.  NoTea wasn't even talking about hospitals, she was talking about insurance companies.  

It is unacceptable that we don't provide decent health coverage to every American, so that a few people can enjoy wealth and power.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> ...



*Just think of what you could do for society and your fellow man - which your PRETEND to care about - if you weren't too lazy to get off of your fat ass and actually create more affordable healthcare instead of begging government to force others who did get off their ass to do it for the price you want (ahem - communism).*


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Which is the whole problem - being forced to treat CRIMINALS for FREE.

Change the law to say the hospital can tell them "go fuck yourself" and turn them away. Problem SOLVED!

(see how simple that was, stupid?)


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 31, 2013)

Riddle me this....................

Obama and the Dems said that the ACA would bring down costs......................

Obama and the Dems said that the ACA would provide insurance to the needy via Credits...........

Obama and the Dems said that the ACA would lower Insurance Premiums............

and etc.................................

Here's the problem.  Economics.  You can't give away Tax Dollars to the needy and subsidize Insurance Costs without someone PAYING FOR IT.  Part of this TAXING STRATEGY was to Tax POLICIES directly, something that has never been done before..................

Which, UNLESS YOU ARE A BLITHERING IDIOT, you would understand THAT INSURANCE RATES WOULD NECESSARILY GO UP.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> It is unacceptable that we don't provide decent health coverage to every American, so that a few people can enjoy wealth and power.



*It's completely acceptable. In fact, it's the only thing that's acceptable. It's called FREEDOM you ass-wipe parasite moocher!*


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> It's not an intelligent statement.  NoTea wasn't even talking about hospitals, she was talking about insurance companies.



Really? Allow me to educate you (as usual):


Quote: Originally Posted by NoTeaPartyPleez 
The cost of my spouse to die from cancer in 2009 after 3.5 years of chemotherapy and surgery: $1,300,000.00

Mmmm... did the insurance company charge $1.3 million or did the *HOSPITAL*?!?

You can't even follow a simple conversation... No wonder you can't understand any solution other than Dumbocrat "force someone because that's how you get what you want" policy...


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



sorry, man, not a medical professional. 

And frankly, just because someone went to medical school doesn't give him the privilage of raping me on costs when he knows I'm sick and desperate.  

We spend more per capita than any other country, and we get the worst overall results. (That means, for those who aren't rich enough to afford consierge doctors.)  

So, yeah, I've concluded that For Profit Health care doesn't work if we are spending billions treating the terminally ill who can afford it while those with treatable conditions suffer because no one is making a profit off of them.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Yeah, you see, the problem is, I don't see "criminals".  I see hard working folks who are just trying to get by in life who are being exploited by rich folks who don't want to pay an American a fair wage. 

And the hilarious thing is that those rich people are cheating you, too, in the process, when they have to go to an emergency room for treatment. 

Sucker!!!!!


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > It is unacceptable that we don't provide decent health coverage to every American, so that a few people can enjoy wealth and power.
> ...



I don't look at suffering children and see "Freedom".  

I would like to say that I'm surprised you do, but having read your drivel.. I'm not the least surprised. 

And that's sort of sad.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 31, 2013)

Hang on guys.................

I just broke my arm............

I'm going down to Blue Cross and Shield, they will set the arm for me while I fill out the claim forms.........


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > It's not an intelligent statement.  NoTea wasn't even talking about hospitals, she was talking about insurance companies.
> ...



But her complaint was that the insurance companies fought her tooth and nail on every payment.  

Not what the hospitals charged, which was outrageous.  

But you see, that's the problem, for all your whining about "Socialized" medicine.  They were passing the costs of those who couldn't pay onto those who could.  

So again, single payer, everyone is covered, and you pay for what it actually costs to treat the person.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 31, 2013)

Yawn........................

I'm over this idiot..................

He doesn't want to talk about the Fact that the ACA is a POS...............

So he moves on to his Wet Dream, Single Payer.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> Yawn........................
> 
> I'm over this idiot..................
> 
> ...



Just don't consider it relevent. 

The ACA has problems.  It is still better than what we had before.  

And frankly, blaming the ACA for the shitty behavior of employers doesn't fly with me.  They'd engage in shitty behavior no matter what the law is.


----------



## Geaux4it (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Yawn........................
> ...



Say's who?

I have no issue with my health coverage or cost.

-Geaux


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



*You don't have to be a doctor to start a hospital. Are you really this stupid?*


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



*Actually, yes it does. And just because you are too lazy to earn a proper living, doesn't give you the right to force his labor at the price you want. Period.*


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> So, yeah, I've concluded that For Profit Health care doesn't work



But here's the thing - _guy_ - nobody gives a fuck what you think. The only "conclusion" (and I use that term lightly) you ever come to is that communism "works" and that's because you start with the premise that you don't want to have to work & provide for yourself, and then you work backwards from there on how you can force others to provide for you (ie the *only* "conclusion" you can come to is that for profit healthcare "doesn't work").


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Yawn........................
> ...



*So again - you lazy piece of shit - why don't you become an employer and proved people with a better life?!? Why isn't it always someone else's responsibility?!?*


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



It doesn't matter what you think you "see". If you entered this country illegal, you are a CRIMINAL. Period. That is an indisputable *FACT*.

Stop being such a disingenuous, naive ass wipe that these people are "hard working, innocent children of Jesus who save puppies in their spare time". They are members of MS-13 and you fucking know it.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



It's not the doctors who are causing the children to "suffer" (that was caused by their disease, their accident, etc.). 

I know you Dumbocrats are the party of slavery and love slavery - but you do *not* have the right to _force_ someone else to labor for you at the price _you_ want. Selfish, lazy, prick. Go be a doctor and charge less for your services if that's what you want....


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Yeah, because a lack of competition _always_ drives down prices... 

God, it's astounding just how STUPID you really are....


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> But you see, that's the problem, for all your whining about "Socialized" medicine.  They were passing the costs of those who couldn't pay onto those who could.
> 
> So again, single payer, everyone is covered, and you pay for what it actually costs to treat the person.



Lets break down your "logic" here:


You claim we already pay for everybody under the current system


You claim that drives up cost


You propose a single payer system as a "solution"
So your solution to a system of covering everybody regardless of their ability to pay is to create a government run monopoly which covers everybody regardless of their ability to pay.... 

Hey dumb ass, the people who can't afford insurance now will NOT be paying into the system (just like now). Yet, they will be covered MORE than now (people without insurance only get emergency coverage now - under your "solution" they will have coverage for a hang-nail).

Leave it to a libtard to propose solving a problem of people getting free healthcare and burdening others by creating a system where people get free healthcare and burden others....


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

Pauli007001 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

Uh-oh!!! Looks more proof that JoeB., Barack Obama, and the rest are full of shit.. 

Republicans have long blamed President Obama's signature health care initiative for increasing insurance costs, dubbing it the "Unaffordable Care Act."

Turns out, they might be right.

For the vast majority of Americans, premium prices will be higher in the individual exchange than what they're currently paying for employer-sponsored benefits, according to a National Journal analysis of new coverage and cost data. Adding even more out-of-pocket expenses to consumers' monthly insurance bills is a swell in deductibles under the Affordable Care Act.

Obama's Affordable Care Act Looking a Bit Unaffordable - NationalJournal.com


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> We spend more per capita than any other country, and we get the worst overall results.



The *facts* show otherwise. The *facts* show you're a blithering idiot who can't stop lying because you're too lazy to work.

Here is a child of the "wonderful" single payer system of England whose community raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to get her out of England's single payer system and into the U.S.'s for profit system to drastically improve her chances of surviving:

_A total of of nearly £300,000 was raised in two appeals to take her to the US for treatment._

BBC News - Hundreds attend Ruby Owen's funeral


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 31, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > I guess we will have to go with the man who most of this country thought was the right man for the job.  Obama.  ObamaCare it is then.
> ...



My fear, however, is that by the time the temporary power has morphed into something more rational and less authoritarian and oppressive, the damage will have been done for the foreseeable future.  We have been seeing fewer and fewer, proportionately, Americans entering medical school as the federal government has become more and more intrusive into the process via Medicare, Medicaid, mandates, and regulation.  And it is THAT which has been the single larger factor driving up costs beyond the reach of the uninsured.  Yet the truly committed seem to have faith that total government control would fix that.

It is almost impossible to find a general practitioner who treats the whole body any more.  I have been spending most of my time at the hospital with a sick relative this past week.  During the week she has seen I believe eleven different doctors for this or that.  And not one of them was American born.  Several of her nurses have been foreign born.  They come here because the reduced government pay here looks good to them compared to where they came from.   But more American doctors are leaving or contemplating leaving the profession than are choosing it these days.

Hospital staffs continue to cut back.  The understaffing was apparent and appalling to me during this entire past week.   (I say this as somebody who has worked a lot of years in America's hospitals.)

And then you look at the effects on the population as a whole.  The big corporations have always provided benefit packages because they cannot compete for the best people otherwise.  So of course most were behind Obamacare 100% as they knew it would disadvantage their smaller competition.

But as the time for full implementation approaches, their smaller competition are cutting work forces, cancelling expansions, and utilizing more and more part time workers to avoid the more onerous provisions of Obamacare.

Further, costs cannot help but increase as millions more Americans are covered under government insurance.  And. . . .



> WASHINGTON (AP)  Insurance companies will have to pay out an average of 32 percent more for medical claims on individual health policies under President Barack Obama's overhaul, the nation's leading group of financial risk analysts has estimated.
> 
> That's likely to increase premiums for at least some Americans buying individual plans.
> 
> ...



And we haven't gotten into all the exemptions for Obama, members of Congress, federal employees, unions, and some big donors to Democratic campaigns--so many of these that it cannot help but affect the whole.

If our elected legislators had any common sense or compassion they would repeal this boondoggle immediately before the U.S. health system has been destroyed beyond repair.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



They found a reason to let you go?  Are you sure it wasn't the fact that you actively worked against the best interests of the company?  Are you certain it wasn't that fact that you were sabotaging the goal of your employers?  Your subversive nature?  If you were working to destroy everything I had worked to build all my life, I would fire your ass too and from the way you portray yourself on this site, I would guess that is exactly what happened.

Immie


----------



## Flopper (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


There is no IRS union and there is no request for a waiver.  IRS employees are members of the National Treasury Employees Union.  The waiver is a creation of right wing media and the Republican House members.  David Camp, a House Republican proposed a bill to abolish the group health insurance for all federal employees, the largest employer sponsored health insurance plan in the country.  A number of representatives of federal unions protested, not just the IRS. Right wing media framed federal employees objection to the Republican proposal to abolishing their group health insurance as a request for a waiver.

Since millions of people are not losing their insurance under Obamacare, the Right has  proposes legislation that would actually do so by abolishing the largest group healthcare insurance plan in the country.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

Don't kid yourself - this is exactly what Obama wants. People unemployed and dependent on government for everything.

An Open Letter on Obamacare | FreedomWorks


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

Flopper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



 Folks, you simply can't make up this kind of ignorance 

"There is no IRS Union - IRS employees are members of the 'National Treasury Employees Union', that's all" 

Dude - you can't even call that "semantics". What you just said is so absurd, so inane, it defies logic. Saying the IRS wants a waiver is 100% accurate and much simpler than declaring "IRS employees of the National Treasury Employees Union are demanding a waiver".

God - you people are completely incapable of having an HONEST conversation and accepting REALITY.

By the way ass-wipe, stop blaming libtard wing-nuts running and screaming from Obamacare on a *proposed* bill. Nobody takes *any* action on a *proposed* bill. A proposed bill can be voted down, rejected by the Senate if passed, and veto'd by the president if it gets by the Senate.

You really are a disingenuous fuck'n moron with this absurd rhetoric...


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

Flopper said:


> There is no IRS union and there is no request for a waiver.  IRS employees are members of the National Treasury Employees Union.  The waiver is a creation of right wing media and the Republican House members.  *David Camp, a House Republican proposed a bill to abolish the group health insurance for all federal employees*, the largest employer sponsored health insurance plan in the country.  A number of representatives of federal unions protested, not just the IRS. Right wing media framed federal employees objection to the Republican proposal to abolishing their group health insurance as a request for a waiver.
> 
> Since millions of people are not losing their insurance under Obamacare, the Right has  proposes legislation that would actually do so by abolishing the largest group healthcare insurance plan in the country.



Yeah stupid - it's called "dogfooding" and you're ignorant, uneducated ass should look of up sometime.

The *PROPOSAL* (and that's _*all*_ it was ass-wipe, which elliminates your outrageous claim that that is what caused the IRS to demand an exemption from Obamacare) is that if Congress passed Obamacare, they should have to live under Obamacare. After all, if Obamacare is so great, why does the federal government need a "group healthcare plan"?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

Flopper said:


> There is no IRS union and there is no request for a waiver.



Uh-oh flopper, looks like the *FACTS* indicate otherwise. Just curious - are you going to deny that the Teamsters are running away from Obamacare also? 

First the Teamsters, UFCW, and UNITE-HERE expressed their belated disapproval of the ObamaCare Tax monstrosity, and now the IRS employee union wants to be exempted from Obamacare.  The Teamsters, et al., made points that weve been making since 2009, points they willfully ignored and openly scoffed at us for making:

"When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), *you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat. Right now*, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, *the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class*. (full text of letter sent to Pelosi and Reid)"

Yes, they are just now realizing that the new normal mandated by ObamaCare is a 30-hour work week, something that many of us warned would have massive economic and cultural repercussions, many of which would hurt the middle and lower-middle classes.  Its not rocket science, but for some reason, these unions are only now thinking it through.  Ditto the fact that Obama was disingenuous, knowingly so, when he repeatedly told Americans that if we liked our insurance, we could keep our insurance.  Even a cursory reading of only the first four-hundred or so pages of the ACA (all that I managed to wade though) proved that to be false.  Frankly, common sense said that had to be a lie, just as common sense revealed the ridiculous fabrication that was Obamas claim that ObamaCare would not raise the federal deficit by even one dimea claim he later acknowledged was patently false.

On the one hand, Im not unhappy that these unions are finally figuring out what weve been saying all along: ObamaCare will do far more harm than good, not only to our countrys health care system and economy but to the majority of Americans who are currently covered by either private or public plans.  *It never really made sense to destroy a system that was satisfactory to the majority (253.4 million) to accommodate a mere fraction of that (10-30 million, depending on sources)*; well, it made sense if the goal was ultimately a national health service, but thats another story.

And on the other hand, these are some of the same unions who, immediately upon the passage of the ACA and ever since, received a flurry of waivers from it.  So here they are again, seeking special exemptions from something that they admit they worked hard to push:

We have been strong supporters of the notion that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision.

They pushed it, they can live with the results just like the rest of us.  Congress should not be permitted to exempt itself and its staff on the same grounds: you think its great for everyone, then you need to enjoy the fabulousness along with the rest of us.

The latest union to resist ObamaCare is even more ironic. And outrageous.  Not only will the IRS, in whom and with good reason Americans now have very little trust and for whom many of us have even less respect, be the primary enforcers, but they will also have access to still more personal information, personal information with which theyve demonstrated they cannot be trusted.  I find it particularly abhorrent that the same group who will be enforcing the ObamaCare Tax on the rest of us think they, themselves, should be exempted.

IRS Union | Obamacare | Waiver


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

The head of the agency tasked with enforcing ObamaCare said Thursday that he'd rather not get his own health insurance from the system created by the health care overhaul. 

IRS chief says he'd rather not switch to ObamaCare plan | Fox News


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

Flopper said:


> There is no IRS union and there is no request for a waiver.  IRS employees are members of the National Treasury Employees Union.  The waiver is a creation of right wing media and the Republican House members.  David Camp, a House Republican proposed a bill to abolish the group health insurance for all federal employees, the largest employer sponsored health insurance plan in the country.  A number of representatives of federal unions protested, not just the IRS. Right wing media framed federal employees objection to the Republican proposal to abolishing their group health insurance as a request for a waiver.
> 
> Since millions of people are not losing their insurance under Obamacare, the Right has  proposes legislation that would actually do so by abolishing the largest group healthcare insurance plan in the country.



*IRS employee union: We dont want Obamacare*

IRS employees have a prominent role in Obamacare, but their union wants no part of the law.

National Treasury Employees Union officials are urging members to write their congressional representatives in opposition to receiving coverage through President Obamas health care law.

The union leaders are providing members with a form letter to send to the congressmen that says *I am very concerned about legislation that has been introduced by Congressman Dave Camp to push federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and into the insurance exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act*.

Wait a second - why are they "concerned"? I thought Obamacare was a "wonderful" thing?!? 

IRS employee union: We don?t want Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com


----------



## Flopper (Aug 31, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Republicans claim Obamacare will cause people to loose their insurance and they propose a bill to abolish the largest group healthcare plan in the country.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 31, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Isn't that like a liberal, who creates the laws, and then goes..............................

OH SHIT, I just Fucked over the Unions.  Finally bending the law to Grant them Amnesty from the law.

Then the same idiots blame others for their Screw Ups.  The LAW SHOULD APPLY TO ALL OR NONE.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Yes - it's called "dogfooding". Why would YOU not want Congress to be forced to abide by the laws they create? If Obamacare is so good - then why shouldn't Congress be enrolled in it?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

Pauli007001 said:


> The plan was designed to be a complete fuck up.
> I can't fucking wait until the whole thing collapses( within 2 years ) and the administration declare a state of Emergency in healthcare and force through a single payer/socialized system.
> When they wait 6 weeks to visit their primary care physicisn(PCP).
> Several years on an unofficial waiting list before they get on the official waiting list to see a specialist.
> ...





Don't kid yourself - this is not one liberal that doesn't know ALL of this is 100% true. They don't care. As long as they get someone else to pay for their healthcare, they are happy.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 31, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> The ONLY word for this is tragic



The only word for the OP is hack. 

The lies that make up the test are being promulgated by the Heritage Foundation.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



I also don't need to start a hospital to fix health care. 

We just pass laws. Problem solved.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > The ONLY word for this is tragic
> ...



Hey stupid - EVERY company listed has said the same thing in the main stream liberal media... Game. Set. Match


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



*Oh yeah - you really "fixed" the problem with Obamacare...*


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > The ONLY word for this is tragic
> ...



CCJ humiliated once again... Here is radical left-wing NBC reporting on Obamacare causing UPS to drop coverage for employees spouses:

_UPS has told non-union employees their spouses will no longer be eligible for company-sponsored health insurance if they can get coverage through their own jobs, blaming the decision on President Obama's healthcare reform law.
_
As health costs rise, some companies blame Obamacare* - NBC News.com


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



So you agree that you're too lazy and would rather FORCE other people to perform their labor for you at the price you want rather than the price they want? In other words, the same communism you professed to in another thread. Got it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> > So again, *single payer*, everyone is covered, and you pay for what it actually costs to treat the person.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Poodle, EVERY country that has single payer spends LESS per capita than we do.  

People drive up to Canada to get prescription drugs because they are affordable up there. 

Yes, single payer does bring down costs. 

But I want to address a more serious issue.  You seem to like to call everyone who disagrees with you stupid.  

I won't stoop to your level.  I'll even concede that you  (and pretty much all USMB Posters) are very bright people who are well informed and understand complex issues better than 95% of the drooling masses.  

Your big flaw is your lack of compassion and mercy.  

It would be wonderful if you guys on the right came up with an alternative to ObamaCare that accomplished the same thing.  The problem is you don't care.  They're just poor people. Or illegals. Or "welfare people".  Fuck them.  

I support attempting to reform the health care system because it is smart (we pay the most of any country and get some of the worst results) and because it is compassionate... 

I do honestly hope when you grow up or at least get older, you will understand how foolish your blather sounds.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> So you agree that you're too lazy and would rather FORCE other people to perform their labor for you at the price you want rather than the price they want? In other words, the same communism you professed to in another thread. Got it.



Actually, I think doctors who are doctors because they want yatchs or mansions are doctors for the wrong reasons.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



yeah, we really did. Which is why you guys are going apeshit.  

Rick Scott just folded on Exchanges.  So did Snyder in Michigan.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

Pauli007001 said:


> [
> 
> What we had before obamacare was choice.
> It was the best healthcare on earth.
> ...



I think what you leave out is "People with MONEY in the UK." 

Not the average person living in a apartment complex, but really rich people send their kids here.  

On average, though, British people live longer and they have a lower infant mortality rate.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > But you see, that's the problem, for all your whining about "Socialized" medicine.  They were passing the costs of those who couldn't pay onto those who could.
> ...



Again, it's that lack of compassion thing we talked about earlier. 

"We can't give poor people health care.  They might use it when they AREN'T dying!!!!!" 

Okay, so they go in for a hangnail, which they get treated for all of $50.00.  

Probably better than waiting for it to get infected and being treated for hundreds of bucks when they show up at an emergency room.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > We spend more per capita than any other country, and we get the worst overall results.
> ...



Two problems 

The kid died anyway.  So really, a lot of well meaning people gave money to send her to the US for expensive treatment that merely prolonged her life.  

OVERALL- the UK has a lower infant mortality rate and child mortality rates than the US.  

Second problem- For every Ruby Owen I can raise you a Nataline Sarkisyan.  She was the girl who needed a liver transplant, but Cigna (which paid its CEO 83 million for this sort of thing) denied her coverage and fought her dad in court AFTER the man had worked for and paid for insurance. 

Now, here's the thing. I don't see the NIH as necessarily a good model, because the government runs the hospitals as well as just paying the bills.  Canada would be a better one.  

But they are way ahead of us.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 31, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> [
> 
> They found a reason to let you go?  Are you sure it wasn't the fact that you actively worked against the best interests of the company?  Are you certain it wasn't that fact that you were sabotaging the goal of your employers?  Your subversive nature?  If you were working to destroy everything I had worked to build all my life, I would fire your ass too and from the way you portray yourself on this site, I would guess that is exactly what happened.
> 
> Immie



Yeah, I'm pretty sure it wasn't, as I have six years of reviews where I was rated as "above average" or "exceptional" in my performance and got the maximum raise allowed. (Which probably made me a more attractive target during downsizing...)  

I handled purchasing for the biggest account this company had, handling over 12 million in sales a year.  I'm not going to go into a lot of inside baseball here, but I was in a key position with pretty critical responsibility.  Until, of course, the geniuses in sales lost that account. 

So, yes, my behavior in this affair was exceptional.  The Office Manager (whom I am still friends with) has apologized to me several times for the company's behavior.   

And here's the kicker.  In the five years since I've left, they've hired and fired about six people to fill that same position.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Poodle, EVERY country that has single payer spends LESS per capita than we do.



Because they all operate at a significantly lower standard of living than we do. Guess what, houses are also much cheaper in Mexico than they are here... 



JoeB131 said:


> People drive up to Canada to get prescription drugs because they are affordable up there.



And Canadians drive here for life saving surgery. You get what you pay for. I'd rather pay more and have world class quality healthcare.



JoeB131 said:


> But I want to address a more serious issue.  You seem to like to call everyone who disagrees with you stupid.
> 
> I won't stoop to your level.  I'll even concede that you  (and pretty much all USMB Posters) are very bright people who are well informed and understand complex issues better than 95% of the drooling masses.
> 
> Your big flaw is your lack of compassion and mercy.



*Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all*. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain. &#8213; Frédéric Bastiat

I am *not* lacking in compassion and mercy. I am educated. I've studied history and know that the private sector does _everything_ exponentially better than the inefficient, wasteful, fraudulent government ever could.



JoeB131 said:


> It would be wonderful if you guys on the right came up with an alternative to ObamaCare that accomplished the same thing.  The problem is you don't care.  They're just poor people. Or illegals. Or "welfare people".  Fuck them.



First of all, we have - it's called the free market and competition. Unfortunately, competing (which improves quality while driving down costs) is something you guys on the left fear because it requires effort.

Secondly, it would be wonderful if you guys on the left would return to Constitutional government. The cost of ANYTHING is none of the business of the federal government. It would be wonderful if they would focus on the 18 enumerated powers that they are responsible. It's funny how you guys on the left never really figured out that everything you want is legal and not controversial at the state level (just ask Mitt Romney and Massachusetts).



JoeB131 said:


> I support attempting to reform the health care system because it is smart (we pay the most of any country and get some of the worst results) and because it is compassionate...



The Constitution did not guarantee "compassion". It guaranteed *FREEDOM*. Your "compassion" does not supersede my rights. Your "compassion" does not entitle you to force someone to labor for you on your terms (that's called slavery - something the Democrats have a long history of loving but which they need to let go of already).



JoeB131 said:


> I do honestly hope when you grow up or at least get older, you will understand how foolish your blather sounds.



Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing about you and your communism...


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Why are you changing the subject? Compassion wasn't the issue. You claimed a single payer system would drive down costs (see bolded in red above). I pointed out how the system you proposed is the _exactly_ the same as the system we have now with the exception of who controls it (the people vs the government).

So please explain how covering everyone regardless of their ability to pay under a single payer system will become affordable as opposed to our current system of covering everyone regardless of their ability to pay which you claim is unaffordable...


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



If what you say is true, then the people of Cigna should be prosecuted both criminally (for breach of contract) and civilly (for pain & suffering). But that doesn't justify unconstitutionally altering our healthcare system. I was 100% happy with our current system - who are you to force me out of it?


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I disagree with you. But what you and I think doesn't matter. Who are we to tell someone else why or if they should become a doctor? This is (well, _was_) a free nation where people had the right to decide for themselves why they would choose a particular field.


----------



## P@triot (Aug 31, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



And _how_ is that "fixing" the problem? You know who else is "folding"? Companies all over America who can't afford the 18 new taxes in Obamacare and the costly new regulations.

You're idea of "fixing" things is to put men and women out of work and ensure their children become hungry, homeless, and uninsured? Yeah, you sure are the "compassionate" one....


----------



## MeBelle (Sep 1, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > you a Nataline Sarkisyan.  She was the girl who needed a liver transplant, but Cigna (which paid its CEO 83 million for this sort of thing) denied her coverage and *fought her dad in court AFTER the man had worked for and paid for insurance. *
> ...



It's not true.
Death of Nataline Sarkisyan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 1, 2013)

Pauli007001 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




Okay, guy, lets start with your top one. 

Yes, they have less cancer and heart disease?  Why?  EVERYONE Has access to a doctor. 

And frankly, you make it out like their diet is not as "rich" as ours.  They do eat better than we do and less of them are fat.  But again, that has a lot more to do with. 




Pauli007001 said:


> [
> 
> They live in a country with a very gentle climate.
> Their weather conditions are not as deadly.
> ...



All of those things don't kill that many Americans.  Not enough to account for the fact that Brits live longer and less of their babies die in infancy.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 1, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Uh, yeah, it is true.  

And, no, Cigna can't be prosecuted.  The court found that because Nataline's Dad's employer had paid for the insurance, he had no standing to sue them.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 1, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Guy, any company that is folding because they can't afford ObamaCare is a company that was going to fold in any event.  

Because the people running them were incompetent.  

But since you can't process info, the fact was, the Repuke Governors all stomped their feet and said they won't expand Medicare..  but they are all folding like cheap shirts now.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 1, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> If what you say is true, then the people of Cigna should be prosecuted both criminally (for breach of contract) and civilly (for pain & suffering). But that doesn't justify unconstitutionally altering our healthcare system. I was 100% happy with our current system - who are you to force me out of it?



The problem is, they can't get sued.  

They did not have a contract with Nataline nor her father.  They had a contract with Nataline's employer.  

And no one is forcing you out of it, guy.  If you have a health insurance plan through your employer, it probably isn't changing. 

(Waiting for Poodle to tell me how it is... should be interesting.)


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 1, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> Why are you changing the subject? Compassion wasn't the issue. You claimed a single payer system would drive down costs (see bolded in red above). I pointed out how the system you proposed is the _exactly_ the same as the system we have now with the exception of who controls it (the people vs the government).
> 
> So please explain how covering everyone regardless of their ability to pay under a single payer system will become affordable as opposed to our current system of covering everyone regardless of their ability to pay which you claim is unaffordable...



Because poor people will insist on being treated whether they can pay or not.  

Those fuckers, they just refuse to die.  They just vote for Democrats.  

Single payer WILL bring costs down because they will bring efficiencies.  Such as dispensing anti-biotics for $10.00 instead of $500.00 in an Emergency room. 

Every country that does this spends, less, they live longer and less of their kids die in infancy.  

(I think this is where you blurt out ... "but..but...but... Freedom". )


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 1, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Sure they can.  

And we can tell the, "This is what you will get paid for services rendered." 

Because we are the payer.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 1, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> Because they all operate at a significantly lower standard of living than we do. Guess what, houses are also much cheaper in Mexico than they are here...



Poodle, we aren't talking about Mexico. We are talking about Germany and Canada and Japan- countries that have equivlent standards of living to what we have.  Except those damned dirty socialists have less mansions and less slums.  





Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> ...



No, RICH Canadians drive down here.  Guy, I know you are really concerned about the international brotherhood of Rich Douchbags, but the rich are gonna be fine, really.  They are even going to be fine under Obamacare.  




Rottweiler said:


> [
> *Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all*. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain. &#8213; Frédéric Bastiat



I'm very glad yo ufound a quote you think is clever.  Now if you tried thinking for yourself, that would be fine.   Point was, the reason why we have PUblic Education- (Hint, the guy who first advocated it in America was Thomas Jefferson, who you often misquote on other issues)- is because the private sector DIDN'T provide it to most people.  




Rottweiler said:


> [
> I am *not* lacking in compassion and mercy. I am educated. I've studied history and know that the private sector does _everything_ exponentially better than the inefficient, wasteful, fraudulent government ever could.



I don't care how "educated" you think you are, you've bought into propaganda.  YOu think the Private Sector does things better because the Private Sector spends billions propagandizing it. 

I on the other hand have worked in both the public sector and private sector.  I've seen private sector companies that were so awful they collapsed.  I've seen public sector agencies that were damned good at what they did.  




Rottweiler said:


> [
> First of all, we have - it's called the free market and competition. Unfortunately, competing (which improves quality while driving down costs) is something you guys on the left fear because it requires effort.



Guy, this is what tells me you don't work in the private sector.   Usually when costs are driven down, quality suffers.  Trust me, this is what I do for a living.  A solid chunk of my day is beating up vendors because they decided to "drive down costs" by using inferior materials or hiring inept operators.  



Rottweiler said:


> [
> Secondly, it would be wonderful if you guys on the left would return to Constitutional government. The cost of ANYTHING is none of the business of the federal government. It would be wonderful if they would focus on the 18 enumerated powers that they are responsible. It's funny how you guys on the left never really figured out that everything you want is legal and not controversial at the state level (just ask Mitt Romney and Massachusetts).



Why should I wait for my state to get off its ass and fix the problem when we can (and should) fixt it on the national level.  Frankly, I think all you guys who whine about "constitutional" stuff should be reduced to the Roots and Leeches medicine that was practiced by the Founding Slave Rapists. 




Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> ...



Guy, this is laughable for a number of reasons. 

First, any private sector insurance program is EVERY bit as socialist as a government run program.  Either you are paying in more than you are receiving or you are taking out more than you paid in if you get sick.  The only question is whether the government can run such a pool better than Cigna.  

Hint, MEdicare doesn't pay its CEO 83 million for denying people care.  

Polls of patient satisfaction,where Medicare and the VA rate consistantly higher than private insurance, indicates the government does. 






Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> ...



Yawn, guy, calling everyone "Communist" is kind of silly.  Screaming "Freedom" is what a child who has read too much Ayn Rand does.   I think you have some serious growing up to do.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 1, 2013)

I want to throw one more thing out to Poodle, who lives in mortal terror that a few pennies his employer has thrown him might end up going to treat a poor person.  

62% of bankruptcies are linked to medical crisis.  In short, people walk away from their debts and obligations because they've run up too many medical bills... Of those, 75% of them had insurance when the crisis started.  

Now, here's the thing. Who do you think ends up paying that when Citibank or Well's Fargo ends up writing off that debt?  

The rest of us do.  

I'm sure Poodle's answer will be... 

"Taking care of poor people!!!!  You are infringing on my Freedom, you COMMUNIST!!!" 


Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies: Study



> Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year&#8212;making health care the No. 1 cause of such filings, and outpacing bankruptcies due to credit-card bills or unpaid mortgages, according to new data. And even having health insurance doesn't buffer consumers against financial hardship.
> 
> The findings are from NerdWallet Health, a division of the price-comparison website. It analyzed data from the U.S. Census, Centers for Disease Control, the federal court system and the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that promotes access, quality and efficiency in the health-care system.
> 
> ...


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 1, 2013)

I like my insurance coverage and it's a fair service at a fair price.

They should leave those of us who like what we have the hell alone

-Geaux


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 1, 2013)

Geaux4it said:


> I like my insurance coverage and it's a fair service at a fair price.
> 
> They should leave those of us who like what we have the hell alone
> 
> -Geaux



They are


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 1, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > I like my insurance coverage and it's a fair service at a fair price.
> ...



Alone as not invading my privacy by having the Nazi goons at the IRS combing over my 1040 seeing if I have insurance. None of the governments business is my point

-Geaux


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 1, 2013)

Geaux4it said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



Whiny bitch

You have the exact same insurance you always had. Now bitch like a little girl because you have an extra line to fill out on a tax form


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 1, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Plus I get to pay for freeloaders to have it as well. Instead of 'single', or family option, now I have to pay for deadbeat option..

What a deal

-Geaux


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 1, 2013)

Geaux4it said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...


You have always paid for deadbeats.  Why do you think your hospital bills are so high?

Only now, those deadbeats have actual insurance and do not have to use emergency rooms when they have a cold


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 1, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Oh, you mean all the illegal alien criminals will not be clogging up ER?

What a solution

-Geaux


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 1, 2013)

Geaux4it said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



Yes illegals, people who do not qualify for Medicaid, the self employed, low income people without employer healthcare.....

You know...the ones Republicans say, Let them die


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 1, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



So, the answer to those that break the law, clog up ER, is to have you and me pay for their insurance? What a crime deterrent

-Geaux


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 1, 2013)

Geaux4it said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



Actually, it is

I don't want people dying in our streets, spreading diseases, giving birth in public restrooms just because they lack immigration papers


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 1, 2013)

Geaux4it said:


> I like my insurance coverage and it's a fair service at a fair price.
> 
> They should leave those of us who like what we have the hell alone
> 
> -Geaux



Sure, why not.  

Mostly, it does.  But that's okay. I  know you need to be angry at the black guy. 

Can you tell me what about your plan ObamaCare changed, or are you just upset because it's Obama?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 1, 2013)

Geaux4it said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



No, you just want them to do the menial jobs you'd never take for a pittance.  

You want to eat cheap lettuce and shit on a clean public toilet. And you don't want to think too hard that a real person had to do that work.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 1, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



No it's *not* true. You're being disingenuous here and you _know_ it. The FACTS show that they denied treatment at first because the transplant only gave her a 65% chance of survival for 5 months.

Well no shit they are going to deny that. And guess what liar? The U.S. government will absolutely DENY that as well! Who is going to dump tons of money into a treatment which has a 35% chance of failure and only adds 5 months if successful?!?


----------



## P@triot (Sep 1, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You're lies get more egregious by the minute. There are literally MILLIONS of Americans who have lost their coverage and MILLIONS more who cannot keep their doctor.

Thanks to Obamacare - I lost my insurance AND I lost my doctor. And that is just a simple *FACT* ass-wipe.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 1, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



*Oh - you mean the ones your greedy, selfish ass refuses to pay for? If you "care" sooooo much about them, why don't YOU pay for them? Stop forcing me to pay for them, set up your own foundation for these criminals and YOU and JoeB. pay for them.

Oh wait, that's right, parasites like YOU don't help anyone. You just hurt everyone.*


----------



## P@triot (Sep 1, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



"Actually it is" a "crime deterrent" how is this deterring them from breaking the law when you're promising them FREE healthcare from the nation with the best healthcare?!?  Do you even attempt to think before you go off half-cocked in a post? 

By the way, nobody cares what you want. If you want it, why don't YOU PAY FOR IT?!?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 1, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



65% is actually pretty good odds.  And frankly, Medicare already pays for more expensive treatments with worse prognosis...  but they don't have a CEO that make nine-figures.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 1, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



Poodle, somehow I suspect, RW and I, being more advanced in our professions and careers, probably have paid more tax than you have over a lifetime.  

But as long as I'm forced to pay for your wars for Oil and Israel, you are forced to pay for treatment for poor people.  

Actually, you're paying for it in any event, through bankruptcies and emergency room visits and soaking those with insurance to pay for those who don't.   But I'm suspecting math isn't your strong suit.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 1, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



First of all, 65% is AWFUL odds Mr. Disingenuous and you know it. Second, it was 65% *for only 5 months* (isn't it funny how you leave that part out because it proves you are wrong). After 5 months, she was expected to die.

And you know the funny thing about Medicare? I can't choose another option once the government runs everything. With Cigna, I can see if they are doing a shitty job and go somewhere else.

But lets be honest (something you've refused to do so far) - goose stepping Dumbocrats *hate* options. They want to force people into their view of utopia.

How about you make Obamacare a CHOICE? You know - the FREEDOM to CHOOSE - which is what the nation is intended to be? Allow people to completely opt out of Obamacare if they CHOOSE. They are not bound to it but they get *no* "benefits" from it either (as if there were any ).

No? Yeah, I didn't think a goose-stepping Dumbocrat would agree to give people the freedom to decide for themselves.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 1, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> First of all, 65% is AWFUL odds Mr. Disingenuous and you know it. Second, it was 65% *for only 5 months* (isn't it funny how you leave that part out because it proves you are wrong). After 5 months, she was expected to die.



If you ask someone if they wanted to die RIGHT NOW or five months from now, I suspect most people would pick five months from now.  

And there was a very good chance she'd have made a full recovery.  

But in any case, I'd trust her doctors, who knew what her prognosis was, over Ed Hanaway, who wasn't a doctor.  





Rottweiler said:


> [
> And you know the funny thing about Medicare? I can't choose another option once the government runs everything. With Cigna, I can see if they are doing a shitty job and go somewhere else.



Well, that's not true, because you can pick Medicare Part C and have them pay for private insurance... 

On the other hand, Nataline's father didn't have a choice.  Cigna was the company his employer chose.  He could get another job, but Pre-ObamaCare, whatever insurance company he picked could have called Nataline's condition a "Pre-existing" condition and refused to pay for it. So he was kind of screwed either way.  




Rottweiler said:


> [
> But lets be honest (something you've refused to do so far) - goose stepping Dumbocrats *hate* options. They want to force people into their view of utopia.
> 
> How about you make Obamacare a CHOICE? You know - the FREEDOM to CHOOSE - which is what the nation is intended to be? Allow people to completely opt out of Obamacare if they CHOOSE. They are not bound to it but they get *no* "benefits" from it either (as if there were any ).
> ...



Guy, you keep mistaking ObamaCare for single payer.  It isn't. 

I still have the same insurance I had before ObamaCare.  And since ObamaCare, we stopped having those yearly meetings about how the coverage was going to be a little shittier than it was last year.  

And frankly, you seem to mistake "Freedom" for "Acting like a douchebag".


----------



## P@triot (Sep 1, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Funny - last night you claimed I was "mean" and you weren't going to "stoop to my level". Today you've thrown at least 3 insults in every post.

First of all, defense is a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government. It provides FREEDOM. The same FREEDOM that affords you the luxury to spend your life bitching and crying about the United States. And even though you abuse that FREEDOM more than anyone, you _still_ don't have to pay for it. The U.S. gives you the FREEDOM to leave any time you want.

Second, the only reason I pay for this stuff now is because government decided several decades ago that a doctor is a slave and must perform their labor even if the recipient of that labor is unable to pay for it (_brilliant_) . Now that we've had several decades to see that government interference has created a catastrophe, moron's like you declare that we need more government! Because, you know - it's always good to add more of the problem to a problem . 

Can you say Who Is John Galt?


----------



## P@triot (Sep 1, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> And frankly, you seem to mistake "Freedom" for "Acting like a douchebag".



Folks, I rest my case. Goose-stepping Nazi Dumbocrats believe freedom equates to "acting like a douchebag" because you're not forced to do their bidding.

Because I want to opt out of Obamacare (while still leaving of for YOU) makes me a "douchebag"? I'm speechless...


----------



## eagle1462010 (Sep 1, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo]Obama to Jane Sturm: Hey, take a pill - YouTube[/ame]

Riddle me this........................................

After being asked the question, he immediately goes in to MANAGING WASTE........................

Then ends with maybe she would be better off taking the pain pill..........................

In this ladies situation, the DOCTORS DECIDED if the surgery was possible NOT THE GOV'T.  Under the ACA will they now have that same right for a 99 year old as in this situation.

Rationing HAPPENS in the countries with Universal Care.  It is done as a matter of BUDGET.  But that RATIONING IS VIA THE GOV'T, and not the case by case issue from the Doctors and patients.

It's 2 a.m. and Grandma is rushed to the hospital.  She's 99, and needs care soon or will die.  Will she have to wait for a BurroRAT to decide if the procedure is authorized, even if she could die while they decide.........................................Who the hell knows.  

Obama says FUCK IT.  Take the pill because you are too dang old anyway.  

Don't get me going on this one.  Because I really don't want to have to remember the scum bags who helped write's this laws OPINIONS ON THIS SUBJECT.  I didn't like what they said back then, and wouldn't like what they said about it now.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 1, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, you keep mistaking ObamaCare for single payer.



_Where_ do you get _that_?!? I've *never* claimed its single payer. Never. Not once. But I can't opt out of Obamacare. I must pay for it with crushing new taxes (over $4,000 _additional_ taxes this year) and I must carry health insurance whether I want to or not.



JoeB131 said:


> I still have the same insurance I had before ObamaCare.  And since ObamaCare, we stopped having those yearly meetings about how the coverage was going to be a little shittier than it was last year.



Well good for you. I'm glad for you. But I lost my previously exceptional insurance and thus I lost my doctor. How ironic that the person 100% happy with their healthcare lost it, and the person who has bitched about it day and night has the same insurance they've been bitching about. But that's what happens when government gets invovled - epic failure.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Sep 1, 2013)

Obamacare Is Turning Walmart Workers Into Temps - Forbes

It&#8217;s company directive, according to sources interviewed by Reuters who asked to remain anonymous.

&#8220;Full-time people are getting slimmer and slimmer,&#8221; said a supervisor at a store in North Carolina, who asked not to be named, as did other store-level employees who were interviewed for this story, because she is not authorized to talk to the media.

She said that the five new employees hired this year at the store are all temps and hours of existing employees are being cut.

&#8220;Everybody who comes through the door I hire as a temporary associate,&#8221; said a store manager in Alaska, who asked not to be identified. &#8220;It&#8217;s a company direction at the present time.&#8221;

Walmart was a proponent of Obamacare and its increasingly clear why, the retailer is shifting health care costs and responsibility to the state. It&#8217;s creepy move that has a lot of people upset, but it&#8217;s not illegal.

But it very well could backfire.

I don&#8217;t cover healthcare, but I know retail. Benefits and pay are moving targets and payroll gets manipulated depending on the weather (as weather actually impacts sales). In 2005, Walmart was pressured to provide health benefits to part-time workers and its closest competitor Target TGT +0.25% quickly followed suit.

In December, after backing Obamacare, Walmart announced it would no longer insure part time workers (Target still does). Since then, its part-time ranks have swelled, according to reports.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 1, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> On the other hand, Nataline's father didn't have a choice.  Cigna was the company his employer chose.  He could get another job, but Pre-ObamaCare, whatever insurance company he picked could have called Nataline's condition a "Pre-existing" condition and refused to pay for it. So he was kind of screwed either way.



You are either the most _ignorant_ poster on USMB or you are the biggest _liar_ on USMB (I suspect it's a lot of both).

It does not matter what company his employer chose for their health insurance plan. He always had a *CHOICE*. He could have turned down their plan and gone on his wife's. Or he could have turned down their plan and paid out of his own pocket (god forbid, right commie?) for the plan of his choosing. Or he could have actually read Cigna's plan and accepted it. He had OPTIONS. He had CHOICE. Something that you goose-stepping Nazi Dumbocrats hate and have now prevented with Obamacare.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 1, 2013)

It could have been so simple.  The federal government gets out of the healthcare business altogether and returns it to the states where it belonged.

The federal government works with and provides incentives to encourage state laws that will break up the insurance monopolies in the states so that the free market can work. The federal government provides incentives to move healthcare policy ownership from employers to employees.  In other words, the employee owns his policy, it is completely portable, and the employer has the option to help pay the cost of it for employees as they now have the option to provide insurance coverage for employees.

Initiate sufficient tort reform so that once the government has cleared a procedure or drug for use, the pharmaceutical and medical supply companies have limited liability if some unforeseen side effect crops up.

Without the deep pockets of government to look to, all components of the healthcare will have to find ways to become more competitive and provide affordable healthcare.  Otherwise they would have no market share at all.

Given the federal government's track record in managing much of anything, the naive assumption that more and more government control of healthcare will make anything better is short sighted at best, and insane at worst.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 1, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



Even before Obamacare, I paid for it. So did you.

Only we paid for emergency rooms instead of health clinics. 

For all you "Let em die" conservatives

What exactly do you propose to do with the uninsured?  You want them dying in the streets?  Calcutta where we round up the dead in the morning?

is this a conservative America?


----------



## P@triot (Sep 1, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Here is what I propose: CRIMINALS (and that is exactly what they are) are rounded up and imprisoned. After a reasonable time incarcerated (which can be debated - I would say 5 years), they are deported back to their own fucking country. If they ever come back here illegally again, they are automatically imprisoned for life. While here, if they go to a hospital, they are REFUSED treatment of ANY kind. If they die - fuck 'em. I could care less that we have one less CRIMINAL in the U.S. If they are imprisoned for life, they are also refused healthcare. Again, if they die while incarcerated - fuck 'em. I have zero "compassion" for CRIMINALS.

For Americans that are uninsured - there is a simple solution. Your inability to pay today is no indication of your ability to pay _tomorrow_. So you are put on a payment plan and you pay what you can (even if that is $1 a week) until the entire cost is paid off. In addition to that, we have CHARITY assist with the cost. Bill Gates has spent around $30 billion of his own money on charity (without being FORCED by government). We have people *like* him (if he wants to of course), Warren Buffet, etc. (those uber elites, of their own free will) set up charitable foundations to assist with healthcare costs. Those exist today. We simply expand them by lowering taxes, getting government out of where it doesn't belong, and not paying healthcare for CRIMINALS.

That very simple proposal there would cause the cost of healthcare to drastically plummet (and there is much more I could propose but won't for the purposes of brevity). But you won't see one single person on the left support such a simple solution because it takes power and control away from the left. And despite their faux "compassion", the _*only*_ thing they really care about is power & control.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 1, 2013)

"I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University." -William F. Buckley, Jr.

The fact is, George W. Bush graduated from Yale, Barack Obama from Harvard, and if people were to be very honest with themselves, they would admit that neither one of these buffoons are fit to lead a nation.

The Ivy League certainly has its place. They produce great mathematicians, scientists, and doctors. But they can't produce leaders for shit. America needs to stop making the fatal assumption that because someone graduated from an Ivy League school, they are capable of _any_ job. History has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that simply is *not* the case. Our nations greatest Presidents (George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, etc.) did NOT attend an Ivy League school.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 1, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Well I'm not quite as tough as you Rottie, because I wouldn't refuse emergency care to anybody regardless of who they are.  Hospitals and doctors never have refused emegency care to anybody and I worked in the business in four different communities before government seriously screwed up the system, so I can say that based on pesonal experience, up close and personal.

But those who showed up for care paid for that care or they got a bill and, as you recommended, a payment schedule to pay their bill.

But that was in the days when healthcare was handled pretty much like any other maintenance.  We all paid out of pocket for our doctors' visits, the kids' shots, the x-ray for the possibly broken toe, etc. until we had satisfied a pretty hefty deductible and our insurance kicked in.  And because we did pay for those pre-deductible expenses, our insurance was quite affordable.  Most policies did pay for an annual checkup, even if the deductible had not been satisfied.  Meanwhile we all were conscious of the costs and didn't abuse the system because we would only hurt ourselves if we did.

Such a system, most especially with the government providing some extra incentives by allowing tax free medical savings accounts, could work today just as efficiently and effectively.

For the uninsured with big expenses, there were the churches and other civic organizations who ran fund raisers and families came to the rescue.  But no more died from lack of access to healthcare then than die now with all the socialist medicine we enjoy these days.  

Yes, those who decided to buy a new car or take expensive vacations instead of buying health insurance sometimes got wiped out from a major accident or illness.  But in those days, we operated under a concept that people choose whether or not to be responsible and accept the consequences if they do not choose wisely.

Again, there are so many ways to deal with healthcare costs by utilizing the free market system, I don't understand why anybody who values freedom would want to turn something as critical as their healthcare over to government to ration out to them.


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 1, 2013)

Screw it. Have insurance or you are on your own.

The law of nature

-Geaux


----------



## P@triot (Sep 1, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Well you just said - they don't value freedom. They only thing the left "leaders" care about is power & control. And the only thing the left minions care about is getting free shit so they don't have to work and provide for themselves.

And that is why this country is going to shit. That is why we have less freedoms and more taxes than ever in our history.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> Funny - last night you claimed I was "mean" and you weren't going to "stoop to my level". Today you've thrown at least 3 insults in every post.



Poodle, pointing out a fact isn't an insult.  Deal with it.  Come on, out with it, how old are you and how long have you actually been in the workforce.  




Rottweiler said:


> [
> First of all, defense is a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government. It provides FREEDOM. The same FREEDOM that affords you the luxury to spend your life bitching and crying about the United States. And even though you abuse that FREEDOM more than anyone, you _still_ don't have to pay for it. The U.S. gives you the FREEDOM to leave any time you want.



Guy, I got no problem paying for defense.  

Invading Iraq wasn't "Defense".  Iraq wasn't a threat to us.   They didn't even do what we had accused them of.  The Oil Companies and Zionists wanted Saddam gone, but he wasn't bothering most of us.  

Second point, the same constitution that calls for "the common Defense" also calls for "Promote general welfare".  Well, making sure every citizen has access to health care falls under that.  




Rottweiler said:


> Second, the only reason I pay for this stuff now is because government decided several decades ago that a doctor is a slave and must perform their labor even if the recipient of that labor is unable to pay for it (_brilliant_) . Now that we've had several decades to see that government interference has created a catastrophe, moron's like you declare that we need more government! Because, you know - it's always good to add more of the problem to a problem.
> 
> Can you say Who Is John Galt?



Wow, you really are a fan of Ayn Rand's Horseshit!!!!  

Guy, the government didn't make a doctor a slave.  The Doctors did that themselves when they took something called a Hippocratic oath.  It's his duty to heal the sick.  

Most of the world, doctors are not compensated as well as they are in the US. They are actually in it because they want to heal the sick.  

So one more time, are you willing to let a poor child die because her parents can't pay for treatment?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > On the other hand, Nataline's father didn't have a choice.  Cigna was the company his employer chose.  He could get another job, but Pre-ObamaCare, whatever insurance company he picked could have called Nataline's condition a "Pre-existing" condition and refused to pay for it. So he was kind of screwed either way.
> ...



Okay, a whole lot of conditions there you can't prove.  

Did his wife even work? 
Did his wife's company even offer insurance?
Did his wife's company have an insurance company that was just as Evil as Cigna? 
Could he really have afforded a $350,000 treatment out of pocket?  
Would a bank have fronted him that kind of money? 

Frankly, you are saying, "Well, you should trust a big corporation, but totally accept it when a big corporation cheats you, because Ayn Rand says so!" 

Point was, he took a job and paid a co-pay and worked for a company with the promise of insurance to cover his family, and Lexus and Cigna didn't come through for him. 

And then you are REALLY surprised when people vote to put a stop to that sort of shit? Really?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > And frankly, you seem to mistake "Freedom" for "Acting like a douchebag".
> ...



Yeah, guy, you really are a douchebag.  

Has nothing to do with freedom.  You live in a civilized society. Civilized societies have rules. What you want is the BENEFITS of living in a civilized society without any of the RESPONSIBIITIES.  

I can kind of see why real rich people think this way, but since I doubt you even have a job, I'm not sure why you do.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 2, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Poodle, pointing out a fact isn't an insult.  Deal with it.  Come on, out with it, how old are you and how long have you actually been in the workforce.



I take it you are schizophrenic? The other night you practically crying like a little girl about insults. Today you are "big tough guy" with your "deal with it" rhetoric. And since all I did was point out the *fact* that you are indeed stupid (and even you know that much), then we both agree that I was not insulting you.



JoeB131 said:


> Guy, I got no problem paying for defense.  Invading Iraq wasn't "Defense".  Iraq wasn't a threat to us.   They didn't even do what we had accused them of.



Really? Oh wow - I didn't realize your top secret national security clearance had granted you access to that information. Hey everybody - JoeB. says Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat to us... you can all go home now. Turn off your tv's and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. JoeB. has his finger on the pulse of national security and he has declared "all clear" 

Do you have any idea at all how immature you are? You literally get all of your information from Hollywood. It's time you put down the Oliver Stone DVD and take off the tin foil hat. The left is so deeply incompetent, they cling to just a couple of buzz words and concepts that they teach each other. To "fix" the economy, the only "idea" they have is the comical "invest in infrastructure" (even though none of them know what infrastructure means without looking it up and wonder how many of them don't even know what invest means) and to explain the Iraq war they cry "we did it for oil" (believing they have some classified insight into a top secret conspiracy ).

Except there is one problem with that conspiracy which gives all of you a "Chris Matthews tingle up your leg" feeling: we didn't keep _any_ oil. After capturing Saddam Hussein and destroying his army, we handed the oil fields, Saddam, and Iraq back to the Iraqi's. Duh...my name is JoeB. and simple facts allude me because my tin foil hat is interfering with the natural electrical signals of my brain... 



JoeB131 said:


> Second point, the same constitution that calls for "the common Defense" also calls for "Promote general welfare".  Well, making sure every citizen has access to health care falls under that.



First of all, _promote_ does *not* mean _provide_. Promote means to set the environment for success - like low taxes, limited regulations, and protecting intellectual property (one of the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government incidentally). So that is Epic Fail #1 

Second, what Obamacare has done is eschew the GENERAL for the extreme MINORITY. The GENERAL population had health insurance you fuck'n moron. The _worst_ case estimates were that 30 million American's did not have health insurance. Well, if that were true, that means 300 million American's (or a monumental 10x's as many) *had* health insurance. So you're take on "promote the GENERAL welfare" is to fuck over the overwhelming majority for the extreme few? _Really_? That is Epic Fail #2 



JoeB131 said:


> Wow, you really are a fan of Ayn Rand's Horseshit!!!!



Dumbocrats implement Medicare & Medicaid (citing a "crisis") in 1967 under Lyndon B. Johnson and against the warnings and the will of the Republicans. Fast forward a few decades and Barack Obama stands on a dozen stages for a year repeating over and over and over that Medicare and Medicaid are "broke" and something must be done. The Dumbocrats "solution" to their inability to handle their interference in a small portion of the healthcare system is to interfere in a larger portion of the healthcare system. That was the *exact* premise of Ayn Rand's warnings!

Leave it to JoeB. to refer to reality as "horseshit". God Bless this intellectually inferior buffoon. He tries so hard to sound even a little smart. He really does. You have to give him credit for effort, even if the results (like his life) is an overwhelming F-.



JoeB131 said:


> Guy, the government didn't make a doctor a slave.  The Doctors did that themselves when they took something called a Hippocratic oath.  It's his duty to heal the sick.



When then the Hippocratic Oath is unconstitutional because the Constitution outlaws slavery and the Constitution trumps all other law. So again, epic fail. You lose in your very weak attempt to sound "smart".



JoeB131 said:


> Most of the world, doctors are not compensated as well as they are in the US. They are actually in it because they want to heal the sick.



And the U.S. is better than most of the world. In fact, the U.S. is better than ALL of the world. Which is why, for all of your bitching & crying about it, you refuse to leave the U.S. and go live in any one of these countries that you pretend are soooo "wonderful".



JoeB131 said:


> So one more time, are you willing to let a poor child die because her parents can't pay for treatment?



So one more time, are you willing to pay for a poor child dying out of your own pocket instead of trying to force others? No? Yeah, didn't think so. Because you don't really care about the children. Like all Dumbocrats, the only thing you care about is yourself and your greed.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 2, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



_Wow_...talk about "conditions you CAN'T prove". When did Lexus and Cigna promise to "cover" his family?!? They offered health insurance with limitations. His failure to read the policy contract (and your ignorance to refuse to accept the fact that this girl was simply dying) does not justify communism for the U.S.

Incidentally, I noticed that you didn't step up and offer to pay for this poor girl in her desperate time of need. I guess your computer and internet subscription so that you could go on USMB and bitch like a teenage girl 24x7 was more important to you, uh? Typical...


----------



## P@triot (Sep 2, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



It has everything to do with freedom. Your opinion if what constitutes a "douchebag" does not trump my Constitutional freedoms. Your opinion of what constitutes a "civilized society" does not trump my Constitutional freedoms.

Also ass-wipe, I'm the one who is screaming PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. You're the little bitch who wants Larry Ellison to pay your way through life for you 

I want *no* BENEFITS. I want the RESPONSIBILITY to be left the fuck alone and have to survive on my own. The only question is, why doesn't your crying, whining, lazy ass want the same thing?


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 2, 2013)

And then there is always the concern that you don't base the policy or structure or needs of an entire nation on the situation or predicament of a very few as that is always going to be destructive to the free market and will eventually hurt everybody, even those you intend to help.

Had the federal government been concerned about people not being able to get insurance, it could have set up its own insurance exchange similiar to national flood or earthquake insurance.  That would have been far less costly to the taxpayer than dragging every human on the planet into a perfectly good free market system and totally screwing it up.

As previously posted, there are a lot of things the federal government could have done in the interest of the general welfare to help the free market work better in healthcare and that would have helped everybody, rich and poor alike.  

The government can do some things right; i.e. apply anti trust laws and implement necessary regulation to prevent the states from doing economic or physical violence to each other.  But it doesn't run programs well and shouldn't even try.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Poodle, pointing out a fact isn't an insult.  Deal with it.  Come on, out with it, how old are you and how long have you actually been in the workforce.
> ...



Not that I thought you were going to answer the question, but how was asking a simple question- not screaming that someone is a communist or stupid- but a simple question of how old are you and how much have you paid in taxes over a lifetime-  insulting you, exactly. 

The fact you are unwilling to give a straight up answer speaks volumes.  




Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> ...



Guy, Bush made two presenations to the American people. 

1) Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (he didn't.)
2) Saddam was working with Bin Laden (he wasn't.) 

As such, going to war with him was NOT defense as you've defined it.  




> Do you have any idea at all how immature you are? You literally get all of your information from Hollywood. It's time you put down the Oliver Stone DVD and take off the tin foil hat. The left is so deeply incompetent, they cling to just a couple of buzz words and concepts that they teach each other. To "fix" the economy, the only "idea" they have is the comical "invest in infrastructure" (even though none of them know what infrastructure means without looking it up and wonder how many of them don't even know what invest means) and to explain the Iraq war they cry "we did it for oil" (believing they have some classified insight into a top secret conspiracy ).
> 
> Except there is one problem with that conspiracy which gives all of you a "Chris Matthews tingle up your leg" feeling: we didn't keep _any_ oil. After capturing Saddam Hussein and destroying his army, we handed the oil fields, Saddam, and Iraq back to the Iraqi's. Duh...my name is JoeB. and simple facts allude me because my tin foil hat is interfering with the natural electrical signals of my brain...



We set up a puppet government and the big oil companies were doing business in Iraq again.  Um, yeah, they benefitted.  So did the Zionists, who wanted Saddam gone and he was gone. 

What we didn't get was the WMD's Bush insisted were there. 






> First of all, _promote_ does *not* mean _provide_. Promote means to set the environment for success - like low taxes, limited regulations, and protecting intellectual property (one of the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government incidentally). So that is Epic Fail #1



Again, the constitution doesn't prohibit a universal health care.  



> Second, what Obamacare has done is eschew the GENERAL for the extreme MINORITY. The GENERAL population had health insurance you fuck'n moron. The _worst_ case estimates were that 30 million American's did not have health insurance. Well, if that were true, that means 300 million American's (or a monumental 10x's as many) *had* health insurance. So you're take on "promote the GENERAL welfare" is to fuck over the overwhelming majority for the extreme few? _Really_? That is Epic Fail #2



Please explain how the "General" are losing health insurance because of ObamaCare.  Because, guy, it ain't happening.  Oh, a few companies are dropping health care, but they were doing that before Obamacare came along. 



> Dumbocrats implement Medicare & Medicaid (citing a "crisis") in 1967 under Lyndon B. Johnson and against the warnings and the will of the Republicans. Fast forward a few decades and Barack Obama stands on a dozen stages for a year repeating over and over and over that Medicare and Medicaid are "broke" and something must be done. The Dumbocrats "solution" to their inability to handle their interference in a small portion of the healthcare system is to interfere in a larger portion of the healthcare system. That was the *exact* premise of Ayn Rand's warnings!



Well, good thing for that old bag Ayn she did, because at the end of her miserable, selfish life, after her husband dumped her and most of her fans forgot her, she had to rely on Medicare and Social Security to live.  




> When then the Hippocratic Oath is unconstitutional because the Constitution outlaws slavery and the Constitution trumps all other law. So again, epic fail. You lose in your very weak attempt to sound "smart".



Guy, you need to get over your Constitutional Fetishism.  The constitution means what people think it ought to mean.  We have an expectation of medical professionals. It's why we call them "Doctors"... 

This really does get to the heart of the argument.  Is health care a consumer good or a public service.   Most sensible, sane people think it should be a public service.  

And then there are people who think that selfishness is a virtue.  Like you and Ayn.  





Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> ...



Why would I want to do that, when we can fix this county and expunge you hateful little selfish fucks and make you pay for our healthcare?  Frankly, you make my argument for higher taxes for me. 




Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> ...



Guy, as I've said, I've probably paid more taxes lifetime than you ever will.  

My guess is I have ties that are older than you.  

But to the point, I would bet that if you let people pick where their tax money goes, paying for medical treatment for the poor would get funded long before Wars for Oil and Welfare for Zionists, your favorite programs.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 2, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Guy, I was paying or working for about $6000 bucks a year that went directly to Cigna, so I kind of was paying into it.  So was Mr. Sarkisyan, who paid a co-pay and was working for insurance.  

So the argument here is, "He should have known that Cigna would cheat him at the first oppurtunity, and have chosen better".  

really?  And this is the system you support, one that is based on promising a service and then not providing it?


----------



## P@triot (Sep 3, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



The fact that you are so concerned about my age speaks volume. The reality is, even when we post indisputable facts - quacks like you, RDean, and RW cry "right-wing propaganda". So what good will posting my age do when you'll just claim it's not true anyway? 

(Hint: I'm _much_ older than you think I am)



JoeB131 said:


> Guy, Bush made two presenations to the American people.
> 
> 1) Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (he didn't.)
> 2) Saddam was working with Bin Laden (he wasn't.)
> ...



From Chuck Pfarerr's book, Seal Target: Geronimo

*It is a chilling fact that thousands of chemical weapons have been uncovered in Iraq*.  These weapons have been used by Al Qaeda against coalition and NATO forces on dozens of occasions.  This has been confirmed by countless sources, most recently in the released WikiLeaks cables.

So why haven't the American people been told of the stock-piled caches of chemical WMD's uncovered in Iraq or of the chemical weapon attacks by Al Qaeda?

The Republicans wont touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralize the danger of Iraqi WMD (instead of preventing Weapons of Mass Destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists, the 2003 invasion of Iraq has accelerated the acquisition, manufacture, and use of chemical weapons by Al Qaeda). The Democrats wont touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment.  And the press won't touch it because they had already convinced themselves, and most of the American public, that Saddam Hussein didnt have any WMD's.  The media turned a blind eye to continued reports of chemical weapon attacks because its own credibility was threatened. Several major outlets were deeply invested with the story line of an unjustifiable war".  Not many people can bear to admit they were wrong, especially in print, and especially if they have been very wrong for a very long time.

Sarin-loaded bomb explodes in Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq | NBC News

NewsMax Archives

*Oops!*





JoeB131 said:


> We set up a puppet government and the big oil companies were doing business in Iraq again.  Um, yeah, they benefitted.  So did the Zionists, who wanted Saddam gone and he was gone.



Tin foil hat boy strikes again! Did our "shadow government" set up their "puppet government"? 

By the way - what is this "we" shit? You're a coward who sits at home bitching about the U.S. and crying about defense. Like everything else in life, you're not willing to stand up and put your ass on the line.



JoeB131 said:


> What we didn't get was the WMD's Bush insisted were there.



See above! Can you imagine if just *once* you were educated on a particular topic before opening your mouth about it?





JoeB131 said:


> Again, the constitution doesn't prohibit a universal health care.



You're right.....at the state level. Unfortunately for you, Obamacare was implemented at the federal level. And the Constitution explicitly "prohibits" (your word) any action by the federal government outside of the 18 enumerated powers. *Oops!*



JoeB131 said:


> Please explain how the "General" are losing health insurance because of ObamaCare.  Because, guy, it ain't happening.  Oh, a few *companies are dropping health care*, but they were doing that before Obamacare came along.



You just answered your own question (surprised you were 50% honest there, even though you lied about the "few" part).



JoeB131 said:


> Well, good thing for that old bag Ayn she did, because at the end of her miserable, selfish life, after her husband dumped her and most of her fans forgot her, she had to rely on Medicare and Social Security to live.



And just when I thought you couldn't possibly expose your ignorance any further, you go and embarrass yourself by swallowing a load of one of the most egregious liberal lies ever. You really are the good slave of your liberal masters, aren't you?


First of all, Ayn was collecting royalties on her books (having made hundreds of thousands of dollars) right to the very end. She was quite comfortable.


Second, Ayn was on the record as stating that people should draw from any government program from which they were forced to pay into as a way of recovering what was wrongfully taken from them.


Third and finally, Ayn Rand actually fought against her own attorney to stop from receiving any form of Social Security or Medicare (even though collecting would have been very much in line with her beliefs).

Classically Liberal: Lying about Ayn Rand and Social Security

*Oops!*





JoeB131 said:


> Guy, you need to get over your Constitutional Fetishism.



Yeah - we need to get over that pesky little highest *law* in the land which is preventing your dream to an unimpeded march to communism.



JoeB131 said:


> The constitution means what people think it ought to mean.



Well by that logic, we can imprison you for life and torture you, because I most definitely believe that doing just that to communists is what the Constitution "ought to mean". 

Of all of your absurd statements, this is by far the most asinine. Since everyone would have their own opinion on what it "ought to mean", who gets to decide? Let me guess, you? And before you say "the Supreme Court" - remember that you just declared "what people think it ought to mean", which means we would get to decide that the Supreme Court has no authority to rule on it 

If it were intended to be whatever each person thought it "ought" to be then it wouldn't have been written down and signed into law dumb ass. It would have simply been shared verbally and left to each person from there 



JoeB131 said:


> This really does get to the heart of the argument.  Is health care a consumer good or a public service.  Most sensible, sane people think it should be a public service.



First, no they don't. Most sensible, sane people understand that the Constitution is the highest law in the land and not "what people think it ought to mean" 

Second, it doesn't matter what people think. It matters what the law says. For instance, assholes like RDean _thought_ that George Zimmerman should go to prison. But the _law_ said he was justified to use lethal force in self-defense.



JoeB131 said:


> And then there are people who think that selfishness is a virtue.  Like you and Ayn.



No, we think personal responsibility and abiding by the highest law in the land is a virtue. Meanwhile, people like you think being a parasite on society is something you are entitled too.



JoeB131 said:


> Why would I want to do that, when we can fix this county and expunge you hateful little selfish fucks and make you pay for our healthcare?  Frankly, you make my argument for higher taxes for me.



Why would you do that? Because you're so enthralled with other nations and you hate this one. Or maybe you just realize that without hard working conservatives, liberal parasites like you have no one to mooch off of...



JoeB131 said:


> Guy, as I've said, I've probably paid more taxes lifetime than you ever will.



What does paying taxes have to do with your refusal to stand up and pay for children who are dying because they don't have healthcare coverage? You're a greedy, selfish ass-wipe who lets children die and then tries to convince himself that he "cares" because you are *forced* to pay taxes. Your tax dollars are not voluntary - so you've committed no great benevolent act.  

I do enjoy exposing your bullshit and then watching you desperately try to change the subject and/or spin reality (ie "I am forced to pay taxes so I care").



JoeB131 said:


> But to the point, I would bet that if you let people pick where their tax money goes, paying for medical treatment for the poor would get funded long before Wars for Oil and Welfare for Zionists, your favorite programs.



So then why don't you simply solve that pesky little Constitutional problem by amending the Constitution to make healthcare the responsibility of the federal government (you know, since sooo many people support your socialism over defense)? Oh wait, that's right, because you can't get the votes for it 

Which just proves that you are _full_ of shit and lying through your teeth as usual


----------



## P@triot (Sep 3, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Who cares that you paid into Cigna?!? When this girl was denied further treatment by Cigna, why didn't YOU stand up and pay for her healthcare needs?

Because JoeB. *only* cares about JoeB.


----------



## MeBelle (Sep 3, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



*Uh, no, it's not true.*

This was your original quote:



JoeB131 said:


> ...a Nataline Sarkisyan.  She was the girl who needed a liver transplant, but Cigna  denied her coverage and *fought her dad in court AFTER the man had worked for and paid for insurance. *



Can't have it both ways, dude.

Try to spin it as much as you want but your own words tell a different story, period!


----------



## MeBelle (Sep 3, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > You are either the most _ignorant_ poster on USMB or you are the biggest _liar_ on USMB (I suspect it's a lot of both).
> ...



Death of Nataline Sarkisyan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Sarkisyan had health insurance coverage under the employer coverage of her *parents*
Parents = both. It doesn't say Father's insurance.

Know what I find odd, I can't find any reference to the Father anymore.

Hilda Sarkisyan, Northridge Real Estate Expert - Top Real Estate Agent

Perhaps you should look into the facts of the whole story before you throw out a name.

This tragedy was about much more than a mere liver transplant.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 3, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> The fact that you are so concerned about my age speaks volume. The reality is, even when we post indisputable facts - quacks like you, RDean, and RW cry "right-wing propaganda". So what good will posting my age do when you'll just claim it's not true anyway?
> 
> (Hint: I'm _much_ older than you think I am)



Guy, it kind of has everything to do with it, and the fact you too ashamed to give a number says it all.  You are a kid who reads Ayn Rand and listens to Limbaugh and Hannity and mistakes that for wisdom.  

Get back to me when you've lived a bit and done something. 




Rottweiler said:


> [
> From Chuck Pfarerr's book, Seal Target: Geronimo
> 
> *It is a chilling fact that thousands of chemical weapons have been uncovered in Iraq*.
> So why haven't the American people been told of the stock-piled caches of chemical WMD's uncovered in Iraq or of the chemical weapon attacks by Al Qaeda?



Yeah, Santorum tried to claim this before the folks of PA threw him out on his ass. 

Here's the thing, as I explained to you the last time you tried to pass this shit off.  Nobody was going to war over the cutting edge weapon of 1914.   Bush claimed there were nuclear and biological weapons.  There weren't.   A weapon that can only spread damage over an acre and is easily foiled with a gas mask just isn't that scary.  And most of what was found was expired, outdated or impotent. 



> By the way - what is this "we" shit? You're a coward who sits at home bitching about the U.S. and crying about defense. Like everything else in life, you're not willing to stand up and put your ass on the line.



Uh, served for 11 years.  Five as a reservist, six active duty.  Got out at the rank of E-6, MOS 76y30.    But I did get out after the first Gulf War because I was disgusted by the whole thing. 




> You're right.....at the state level. Unfortunately for you, Obamacare was implemented at the federal level. And the Constitution explicitly "prohibits" (your word) any action by the federal government outside of the 18 enumerated powers. *Oops!*




Guy, we've been over this. This horse left the barn 80 years go when FDR implemented the New Deal or 40 years ago when LBJ implemented the Great Society.  Fuck your enumerated powers.  I'm done being cheated by the insurance companies and so is everyone else.  



And sorry, Fat Ass Ayn spent her dying years relying on government handouts. 





> Well by that logic, we can imprison you for life and torture you, because I most definitely believe that doing just that to communists is what the Constitution "ought to mean".
> 
> Of all of your absurd statements, this is by far the most asinine. Since everyone would have their own opinion on what it "ought to mean", who gets to decide? Let me guess, you? And before you say "the Supreme Court" - remember that you just declared "what people think it ought to mean", which means we would get to decide that the Supreme Court has no authority to rule on it
> 
> If it were intended to be whatever each person thought it "ought" to be then it wouldn't have been written down and signed into law dumb ass. It would have simply been shared verbally and left to each person from there



Guy, there's a communist hiding under your bed, right now. Plottin to make you pay your fair share on whatever McDonalds pays you for being head fry cook.  

The Supreme Court ALREADY ruled ObamaCare constitutional.  This is a done issue, guy. 




Rottweiler said:


> [
> Second, it doesn't matter what people think. It matters what the law says. For instance, assholes like RDean _thought_ that George Zimmerman should go to prison. But the _law_ said he was justified to use lethal force in self-defense.



yeah, when you get a racist jury tryng a white man for murdering a black child, that's the result you get.  Just ask Emmett Till. 







Rottweiler said:


> [
> What does paying taxes have to do with your refusal to stand up and pay for children who are dying because they don't have healthcare coverage? You're a greedy, selfish ass-wipe who lets children die and then tries to convince himself that he "cares" because you are *forced* to pay taxes. Your tax dollars are not voluntary - so you've committed no great benevolent act.



Why should I pay money when the money is already out there.  

Once more time. We spend more than ANY COUNTRY ON THE PLANET.  But that money is going to pay assholes like Ed Hanaway 9 figure retirement packages and investors on wall street playing casino when it SHOULD be going to pay medical bills.  I paid my taxes, I pay my co-pay to Cigna. And now I'm insisted the money be used for the purpose it was meant for.  What a fucking concept. 




Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> ...



Uh, no, we just vote in people to do that.  We've ALREADY established government should provide healthcare.... Geez, why are you fighting issues that were resolved before you were born, dude?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 3, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> [
> 
> Death of Nataline Sarkisyan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



Yes, it was.  It was about the greed of the insurance companies.  The whole affair sicked one Cigna Vice President named Wendell Potter that he quit and became an advocate for heath care reform.  

Apparently he missed the day of Executive Orietnation where they suck out your soul.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 3, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



Okay, one more time. 

When you get insurance through your employer, you are WORKING FOR IT. 

That's the whole purpose.  The Employer is not giving you insurance out of the goodness of his heart, it's part of the compensation package you receive.  

And usually, there's a co-pay you have to pay into it.  

So Nataline's Dad WORKED FOR and PAID FOR insurance, and had a reasonably expectation that when his CHILD got sick, that insurance would be there.  

That's a REASONABLE expectation. 

And Cigna did it's very best to cheat them. 

It couldn't find money to pay for her liver transplant,but it could find 83 MILLION dollars to pay Ed Scumwad Hanaway to retire.. 

Now, here's the thing.  If we all had to negotiate individually for our insurance, the insurance companies would be out of business pretty quickly.  the Young wouldn't buy, the Old would be charged too much and be damned angry about it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 3, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> Who cares that you paid into Cigna?!? When this girl was denied further treatment by Cigna, why didn't YOU stand up and pay for her healthcare needs?
> 
> Because JoeB. *only* cares about JoeB.



Or, and get this... paying more money into a broken system doesn't fix the system, dipshit. 

Here's how it goes.  The insurance companies NOW have to do what they promised.  

No more lying, no more cheating, we'll let them have a few more years before we put everyone on medicare, which is what we should have done to start with.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 3, 2013)

Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them | Alternet



> Ayn Rand was not only a schlock novelist, she was also the progenitor of a sweeping moral philosophy that justifies the privilege of the wealthy and demonizes not only the slothful, undeserving poor but the lackluster middle-classes as well.
> 
> Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and "moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor (her husband was Frank O'Connor).
> 
> As Michael Ford of Xavier University's Center for the Study of the American Dream wrote, In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.







> Rand also believed that the scientific consensus on the dangers of tobacco was a hoax. By 1974, the two-pack-a-day smoker, then 69, required surgery for lung cancer. And it was at that moment of vulnerability that she succumbed to the lure of collectivism.
> 
> ....
> 
> The initial argument was on greed, Pryor continued. She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didnt watch it. Since she had worked her entire life, and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it. She didnt feel that an individual should take help.



Sorry, Poodle, your "Hero" went hat in hand to the "Communists" and asked for help.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 3, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the thing, as I explained to you the last time you tried to pass this shit off.  Nobody was going to war over the cutting edge weapon of 1914.   Bush claimed there were nuclear and biological weapons.  There weren't.   A weapon that can only spread damage over an acre and is easily foiled with a gas mask just isn't that scary.  And most of what was found was expired, outdated or impotent.





Watching you get your ass handed to you with facts is comical. You're getting owned worse than I have ever seen on USMB (and that is saying a _lot_). You're direct quote from post #347:

"Guy, Bush made two presenations to the American people. 

1) Saddam had *weapons of mass destruction* (he didn't.)"

Chemical weapons _are_ WMD's ass-hat. And you've very own radical left-wing MSNBC reported on them! 

Oops!



"Guy" all you do is spit the same angry rhetoric over and over. And when I own you with facts, you move the goal posts. You're a crying, whining bitch. There's a reason you've spent your life as a loser. Because that's what you are. You've been fired over and over because your useless _and_ lazy. Which is why you cry about insurance companies but won't start your own to show the people how one "should" be run...


----------



## P@triot (Sep 3, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them | Alternet
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry ass-hat, already debunked this libtard *LIE* above... 

Furthermore, she was on record stating that everyone who was forced into those programs have every right to draw from them to recover what was wrongfully taken form them by force.

You know what they say, don't you Joe?


----------



## P@triot (Sep 3, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Or, and get this... paying more money into a broken system doesn't fix the system, dipshit.



Wait, wait, wait...did you seriously just say _that_?!?! 

Mmm...lets see...Medicare - broke system. Medicaid - broke system. And you're answer is to expand them via Obamacare?!? Bwahahahahahahahha! 

Yes Joe, for once you are right, paying more money into a broken system doesn't fix the system...


----------



## P@triot (Sep 3, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Here's how it goes.  The insurance companies NOW have to do what they promised.
> 
> No more lying, no more cheating, we'll let them have a few more years before we put everyone on medicare, which is what we should have done to start with.



The real question is, how old are _you_ Joe? Listening to this guys communist rhetoric that the state is the most pure, honest, benevolent, loving entity known to man is just _creepy_.

It's also hilarious considering he has cried, pissed, and moaned about George Bush and the Republicans being "evil" and "liars" 

Under the free market, insurance companies are forced do what they promised. That's why there is a contract, _stupid_. And if you have a problem with how they handled something, you have the CHOICE to go somewhere else. When the "evil" Republicans are running things, where are you going to go Joe?


----------



## P@triot (Sep 3, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, served for 11 years.  Five as a reservist, six active duty.  Got out at the rank of E-6, MOS 76y30.    But I did get out after the first Gulf War because I was disgusted by the whole thing.



"Guy", what aren't you "disgusted" by? There is nothing about the U.S. you _don't_ bitch about. The military? Disgusted. Capitalism? Disgusted. The U.S. Constitution? Disgusted. Politicians? Disgusted. Your job? Disgusted. Your health insurance plan? Disgusted.

You're just a hateful little loser who won't get off his fat, lazy ass and improve his life. Frankly, _everybody_ on USMB is tired of listening to your incessant bitching.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 3, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> yeah, when you get a racist jury tryng a white man for murdering a black child, that's the result you get.  Just ask Emmett Till.



Except that George Zimmerman wasn't white you lying jack-ass. He was 100% *hispanic*. Any more lies you want to embarrass yourself with?


----------



## P@triot (Sep 3, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Why should I pay money when the money is already out there.
> 
> Once more time. We spend more than ANY COUNTRY ON THE PLANET.  But that money is going to pay assholes like Ed Hanaway 9 figure retirement packages and investors on wall street playing casino when it SHOULD be going to pay medical bills.  I paid my taxes, I pay my co-pay to Cigna. And now I'm insisted the money be used for the purpose it was meant for.  What a fucking concept.



So first you claim that the "evil" insurance company hung this poor girl out to dry. When I asked why you didn't step up to the plate for this poor young girl if you cared so much, you danced around the question with the nonsensical "I pay taxes" (as if you have a choice). When I point out that has nothing to do with the issue, you claim "why should I pay more when the money is already out there". However, in the next breath you claim that money is not going to the people with healthcare needs but the CEO's 

Watching you dance because you know I've now pinned your stupid ass into a corner with your own words is hilarious. So, I'm going to ask again (because I love to laugh):

Why didn't you step up and help this girl in her time of need? You literally left her to die (and she did) and the best answer you can give for why you fucked her over is that you're forced to pay taxes (which you claim go to the CEO's anyway)...


----------



## P@triot (Sep 3, 2013)

Yeah JoeB., the government you worship at the feet of like they are God sure is doing a bang up job of bringing down healthcare costs with Obamacare... 

For example, Ohio announced that premiums in their exchange will *increase on average by 41%* compared to the premiums that Ohio companies reported at the end of 2012. In addition to premium projections, the Ohio Department of Insurance also provided a projection for the *increase in the total cost of coverage*, called the average index rate, which is projected to be *a dramatic 83% increase*.

Countdown to Obamacare Exchanges


----------



## P@triot (Sep 3, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the thing, as I explained to you the last time you tried to pass this shit off.  Nobody was going to war over the cutting edge weapon of 1914.   Bush claimed there were nuclear and biological weapons.  There weren't.   A weapon that can only spread damage over an acre and is easily foiled with a gas mask just isn't that scary.  And most of what was found was expired, outdated or impotent.



JoeB. "logic" at its finest here folks. First of all, chemical weapons of today are "cutting edge". Claiming they are "not scary" weapons from 1914 is as retarded as claiming that nuclear bombs of 1940 are "not scary". Both have been drastically upgraded.

Furthermore, claiming that chemical weapons are "easily foiled with a gas mask" is hilarious considering you specifically cite biological weapons as "scary WMD's" and those are *more* "easily foiled with a gas mask". 

(Hell, chemical weapons can burn the skin - biological weapons must make their way internally in some capacity before they can cause _any_ harm).

Watching you stumble, mumble, and bumble your way over facts in your quest to support you uneducated, misinformed position is worth the price of admission alone!


----------



## P@triot (Sep 3, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Most of the world, doctors are not compensated as well as they are in the US. They are actually in it because they want to heal the sick.
> 
> So one more time, are you willing to let a poor child die because her parents can't pay for treatment?



Again I have to ask - how old are you? Because you are as naive as a wide-eyed philosophical freshman with acne... 

First of all, how is this immature utopian philosophy working out in Cuba? How is the healthcare down there? Do they have world-class facilities with the finest physicians and state-of-the-art technology? No? _Really_? _Mmmm_...gee...I wonder why that is? This is just so puzzling...

(Hint: when you remove motivation, you remove results - something everyone except an immature naive communist knows)


----------



## P@triot (Sep 3, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Well, good thing for that old bag Ayn she did, because at the end of her miserable, selfish life, after her husband dumped her and most of her fans forgot her, she had to rely on Medicare and Social Security to live.
> 
> And then there are people who think that selfishness is a virtue.  Like you and Ayn.



*Ayn Rand* - lived under the epitome of communism in the U.S.S.R. from 1905 to 1926 (21 years for those who struggle with math - like JoeB.). Saw the poverty, the misery, and the oppression first-hand. Experienced life without the motivation of reward. Understands better than any one born in America the dangers of giving government power and asking for table scraps in return. Saw millions of her fellow countrymen _murdered_ when the state could no longer provide food, healthcare, etc. for them.

*JoeB*. - born into the epitome of freedom in the U.S.A. Spent his entire life whining that life was not handed to him on a silver platter. Acts like a spoiled child complaining that freedom is not enough and that every want & need should be provided by government.

Now I ask any of you who can show an ounce of unbiased ,rational thought: who is exponentially more qualified to speak about what works and what does not with regards to have government in charge?


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the thing, as I explained to you the last time you tried to pass this shit off.  Nobody was going to war over the cutting edge weapon of 1914.   Bush claimed there were nuclear and biological weapons.  There weren't.   A weapon that can only spread damage over an acre and is easily foiled with a gas mask just isn't that scary.  And most of what was found was expired, outdated or impotent.
> ...



No, guy, as much as you misrepresent things (Sorry, only fired once, and that was after they paid me a "please don't sue us" bribe), the fact is, people don't consider chemical to be a WMD.  No one is going to send his son off to die over mustard gas.  If they did, Obama would have his declaration of war against Syria by now. 

Bush and his cronies said there were nukes.  They saidthere was anthrax.  They said there was Sarin.  

Expired cannisters of mustard gas aren't the same thing. 

History wlll neve forgive Bush or think that Iraq ws a good idea.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the world, doctors are not compensated as well as they are in the US. They are actually in it because they want to heal the sick.
> ...



Cuba's got a better infant mortality rate than we do.   And if the only way you can defend your system is to say, "Well. well, we're better off than a third world country we've been punishing for half a century for rejecting us"... 

Compare us to Japan, or Germany, or Canada, or the UK, and we don't come off so good.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> JoeB. "logic" at its finest here folks. First of all, chemical weapons of today are "cutting edge". Claiming they are "not scary" weapons from 1914 is as retarded as claiming that nuclear bombs of 1940 are "not scary". Both have been drastically upgraded.
> 
> ...



Guy, I've taken NBC Training. 

While some chemical weapons we have today are more advanced, that's not what we 'found' in Iraq.  In Iraq, we found a few rounds of Mustard gas, which had lost potency because they were manufactured back in the 1980's.  

As for biological weapon, to foil those, you need to usally go to full MOPP status, covering evey inch of your body in protective gear.   And also take innoculations.  

Now, I know you guys need to justify the war we never, ever should have fought, but the fact is, Bush lied, people died, and the GOP was over after they did that.


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 4, 2013)

If you are so concerned about the 'poor children' whose parents cant pay, then by all means. *YOU PAY FOR* it since you are Joe Concerned. But leave us that *DO NOT* want to pay out of it.

Sounds fair to me

-Geaux


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > yeah, when you get a racist jury tryng a white man for murdering a black child, that's the result you get.  Just ask Emmett Till.
> ...



His father was German his mother was Peruvian. 

Hispanic isn't a "race", it's a "culture".


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2013)

Geaux4it said:


> If you are so concerned about the 'poor children' whose parents cant pay, then by all means. *YOU PAY FOR* it since you are Joe Concerned. But leave us that *DO NOT* want to pay out of it.
> 
> Sounds fair to me
> 
> -Geaux



Guy, you are ALREADY paying for it. 

If you have insurance, you are ALREADY paying for those poor people who show up at emergency rooms.  

The problem isn't that there's not enough money.   We spend more than any nation on Earth. 

It's the problem that we spend it inefficiently with too many people making a profit off of it


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> The real question is, how old are _you_ Joe? Listening to this guys communist rhetoric that the state is the most pure, honest, benevolent, loving entity known to man is just _creepy_.
> 
> ...



Guy, I deal with contracts all day. 

Contracts exist to protect the wealthy from the rest of us.  

Not that I am worried about the Republicans ever getting back into power.  If the cast of clown you ran last time, your party doesn't evenknow it's dead yet.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Uh, served for 11 years.  Five as a reservist, six active duty.  Got out at the rank of E-6, MOS 76y30.    But I did get out after the first Gulf War because I was disgusted by the whole thing.
> ...



Fighting a war against a third world country because the Zionists were oooo, sooo scared of what he might do with his 1914 vintage weapons?  

Tanks the Soviets stopped using in the 60's?  

Not to worry, guy, the Zionists just gave Boehner his marching orders.   They want to get Assad because that would set a precedent to go after Iran.  

So yeah, the GOP won't fix the economy or health care, but the Zionists scream "Jump" and the GOP asks "How High?"


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 4, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > If you are so concerned about the 'poor children' whose parents cant pay, then by all means. *YOU PAY FOR* it since you are Joe Concerned. But leave us that *DO NOT* want to pay out of it.
> ...



Then what are you complaining about if the poor little children are already being paid for?

The system was working just fine in my book. But for all the unhappy folks like yourself who are worried about the kids? You pay for the additoinal cost at reduced quality

You folks are messing up a good thing

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 4, 2013)

Screw all this liberal crap. I'm off for the desert to lay down some lead!

-Geaux


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2013)

Geaux4it said:


> [
> 
> Then what are you complaining about if the poor little children are already being paid for?
> 
> ...



No, we're fixing a fucked up thing.   Because, we have the worst life-expectency, infant mortality and medical bankruptcy figures in the Industrialized world for all our spending. 

Clearly, waiting until a child is SO sick you have to take him to an emergency room and then incurring a bunch of debt you will never be able to pay off is NOT a good system.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Or, and get this... paying more money into a broken system doesn't fix the system, dipshit.
> ...



Medicare works just fine, guy.  

Besides you don't understand the difference between "broken" (not working) and "Broke" (out of money),  Medicare is hardly "broke". It is taking in enough money to pay expenses.  It runs out of money in the 2040's, if we don't raise taxes, which we will probably end up doing. 

Realistically, the current private system will have probably broken down by then and we'll have gone to a single payer by then, anyway.  

Just like every other industrialized country has done.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 4, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



*(Uh...Joe? Psssst.....Joe! Perhaps....just perhaps....you should have clicked on the link in post #349 before commenting on it? See - the article was about Sarin Gas in Iraq and it was from none other than radical left-wing MSNBC)*

Sarin-loaded bomb explodes in Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq | NBC News


----------



## P@triot (Sep 4, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Nobody speaks from a place of ignorance more than JoeB. But God Bless him, that never stops him from speaking anyway....


----------



## P@triot (Sep 4, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



What's really funny is that you don't even have to actually click on the link to see that it's about SARIN GAS....


----------



## P@triot (Sep 4, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Ok - lets compare us to Canada. If there system is so great, why do their elite come to the U.S. for life saving surgery? 

Does Canada have world-class facilities with the finest physicians and state-of-the-art technology? No? _Really_? _Mmmm_...gee...I wonder why that is? This is just so puzzling...


----------



## P@triot (Sep 4, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> but the fact is, Bush lied, people died, and *the GOP was over* after they did that.



That's why the Dumbocrats were voted out in record numbers all over this nation in the 2010 mid-term elections....


----------



## P@triot (Sep 4, 2013)

Geaux4it said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



See what I mean about this guy stumbling, bumbling, mumbling over himself to support his position? The more he tries to act like he's educated and informed on this issue, the more he contradicts himself. The funny thing is, in another debate on healthcare, he admitted he was a communist. I don't know why he just can't admit that he believes in communism and stop trying to back up his communism with facts that don't exist (like how "wonderful" his vision for healthcare is working in Cuba )


----------



## P@triot (Sep 4, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



   

Then why under RACE is there an option for HISPANIC on ANY form?


----------



## P@triot (Sep 4, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Uh...my party is already in control dumb-ass.... 

Congress makes law - *not* the president. And Congress controls the national bank account - *not* the president.

The fact that you don't know this is glaring evidence of both your ignorance of how your own government functions and your belief in dictatorial communist control.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 4, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Hispanic isn't a "race", it's a "culture".



   I can't get over this comment   

By this "logic" - race doesn't exist at _all_.

"White isn't a race, it's a culture"

"Black isn't a race, it's a culture"

"Oriental isn't a race, it's a culture"


----------



## P@triot (Sep 4, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



First of all, Iraq was not a "3rd World Country". They are significantly developed. However, a band of rag-tag radicals from an *actual* 3rd World Country took down the World Trade Center buildings and killed 3,000 people all in a matter of a few hours... 

(Will you _ever_ realize how stupid you sound?!?)


----------



## P@triot (Sep 4, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



What "people" Joe? Desperate, uneducated ass-wipes like you who have lost the debate built on facts? I know you communists prefer propaganda over facts Joe, but how about we we look at facts just this once?

weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Coined in reference to aerial bombing with *chemical* explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as *chemical*, biological, radiological, or nuclear. This differentiates the term from more technical ones such as *chemical*, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (CBRN).

Weapon of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Sep 4, 2013)

Chemical weapons are indeed a component part of that group of weapons known as WMD.

The "people" hit with sarin gas all agree.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 4, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Chemical weapons are indeed a component part of that group of weapons known as WMD.
> 
> The "people" hit with sarin gas all agree.



And since the conventional wisdom is that Saddam DID have WMD but during the 12-weeks President Bush tried to get the U.N. to enforce its own resolutions, there are reports of a LOT of trucks leaving various sites in Iraq and all of them were headed to Syria.  No conclusive proof.  Just something to think about.

And in these weeks that our Congress and the U.N. et al thrash out a course of action or decide not to take one, is it not feasible that somebody in Syria would have the presence of mind to remove any 'incriminating evidence'?

And why is this being discussed on an Obamacare thread?  Several good Syria threads are active.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 4, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Chemical weapons are indeed a component part of that group of weapons known as WMD.
> 
> The "people" hit with sarin gas all agree.



This is why so many people block him - because he takes being disingenuous to the _extreme_. There isn't an idiot on the planet who doesn't know that chemical weapons are unquestionably WMD's.

What's funny is that because he gets lonely, he tries to goad people into staying around by declaring that people have blocked him because he "defeated" them


----------



## P@triot (Sep 4, 2013)

*43% Pay No Federal Income Taxes*

A little more than 43% of U.S. households -- or 70 million homes - will end up owing no federal income taxes for 2013.

Who doesn't have to pay federal income taxes? 43% of Americans - Aug. 29, 2013

Hey Joe - who is going to foot the bill for Obamacare? For Medicare? For Medicaid? For Social Security? You know the few cannot support the many (even though you'll lie about it and pretend otherwise).


----------



## P@triot (Sep 4, 2013)

Report: Health Care Premiums to Increase Up to 125% in Wisconsin Due to Obamacare

A local report from Green Bay, Wisconsin says that health care premiuns could increase up to 125 percent because of Obamacare:

"Half a million Wisconsinites will soon have to open up their pocket books for health care coverage," says a local anchor. "And new estimates show, it may be costly. ... The state's office of the commissioner of insurance released estimates of how premium rates for individuals will be changing under the Affordable Care Act."

Report: Health Care Premiums to Increase Up to 125% in Wisconsin Due to Obamacare | The Weekly Standard


----------



## MeBelle (Sep 4, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Did you refute your contradicting comments and the court's decision? No.

Nataline's Dad did NOT PAY FOR INSURANCE. 
Co-pays have zero to do with this incident.
CIGNA did not cheat them.
Again, read the more of the story to get WHOLE picture of what happened in this case.

Quit throwing lies into this story!


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Um, okay, guy, you know, a bunch of Japanese cultists mixed up some Sarin in their kitchen... 

WHere where the huge fucking stockpiles of it they said was ready to go?  

Oh, right. There weren't any


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 4, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Can't see it from my house.. I could care less...... about life-expectency et al

-Geuax


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> What "people" Joe? Desperate, uneducated ass-wipes like you who have lost the debate built on facts? I know you communists prefer propaganda over facts Joe, but how about we we look at facts just this once?
> 
> weapon of mass destruction (....]



Guy, 62% of Americans polled said the Iraq War was not worth it.  

Popular opinion in the United States on the invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Certainly not over expired Mustard Gas.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 4, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> [
> 
> Did you refute your contradicting comments and the court's decision? No.
> 
> ...



I have.  You can defend evil insurance companies until the cows come home, but Ed Hanaway is a murderer.  

Deal with it.


----------



## MeBelle (Sep 4, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Deal with your lying? I'm getting used to it Joe.  



> I have



You have what? 


I did not defend insurance companies, you can't defend your contradictory statements so you spin away. 
You should be proud of yourself!


----------



## P@triot (Sep 4, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



You've moved the goal posts so many times now, I've completely lost track. What is this, the 32x now or the 33x? First you said chemical weapons weren't WMD'S. I pointed out they were, you then said "well yeah, but they didn't have Sarin - just mustard". When I pointed out that it was in fact Sarin and not mustard, you're response is "yeah, well, were are the huge stockpiles" 

If you would read any of the links, quotes, and reports that I post (instead of just being angry all the time and going off half-cocked), you would know that "it is a chilling fact that thousands of chemical weapons have been incovered in Iraq".

This is thoroughly documented in the State Department cables released by WikiLeaks (imagine if you only took the time to read real information like that instead of the drivel spooned to you by MSNBC & Think Progress).


----------



## P@triot (Sep 4, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Ah - now he moves the goal posts to "was it worth it?". I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about WMD's (since *you* are the one who brought them up).

It's hard for me to take this seriously since there are two glaring flaws:

1.) There are uninformed ass-hat's like you running around out there, completely ignorant of the *fact* that thousands of WMD's have been uncovered in Iraq

2.) Many polls are designed by ass-hats like you who have an agenda of starting with their conclusion and then working backwards to find something that supports their pre-determined conclusion.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 5, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> [
> 
> You have what?
> 
> ...



I'm standing up for poor sick children, you're standing up for rich insurance companies... 

I should be proud of myself.  

Why you are so happy being a peasant is beyond me.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 5, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> You've moved the goal posts so many times now, I've completely lost track. What is this, the 32x now or the 33x? First you said chemical weapons weren't WMD'S. I pointed out they were, you then said "well yeah, but they didn't have Sarin - just mustard". When I pointed out that it was in fact Sarin and not mustard, you're response is "yeah, well, were are the huge stockpiles"
> 
> ...



Guy, we did not go to war over expired mustard gas or some Sarin that Al Qaeda mixed up in the kitchen.  

We went to war because Dubya and Cheney and Condi talked about "mushroom clouds" and cities being destroyed.   

The goal post is "was the threat posed by Iraq serious enough to justify the loss of 5000 American lives and a trillion dollars spent", to which the answer is "no", not matter how many google hits you find about mustard gas.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 5, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> Ah - now he moves the goal posts to "was it worth it?". I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about WMD's (since *you* are the one who brought them up).
> 
> ...



Guy, we did not go to war over the cutting edge weapon of 1914.  Bush presented an IMMINENT threat posed by Saddam. 

As a result, he made Iraq safe for the Ayatollahs.   And now the Ayatollahs can resupply Syria with impunity.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Sep 5, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Joe:

Stop it.  You're simply and openly wrong and your assertions are false.

You are NOT "standing up" for sick kids.  You are contending that some vaporous "others" OUGHT to pick up the costs associated with ALL children being sick.

What you see as all noble and good and kind and generous is actually just another example of you being compassionate enough to spend other people's money.

Lots of more or less wealthy people already contribute far more than you ever will to the overall welfare of children and society, in terms of health care and in numerous other ways.  It is their choice and their right to do so.  But as long as you construct your fantasy universe entirely of cartoonish "us" vs "them" stereotypes, you think you have some right to compel them to pay what YOU imagine is necessary and appropriate.  

I have a dislike of insurance companies in many ways.  But I would indeed defend them against YOUR efforts to encroach on the property rights of either the companies or the insured folks who provide the capital to insurance companies.  You do not get a vote in how other people must spend their income or their wealth.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 5, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



The problem with your delusion here, Welchy, is that someone's money is being taken.  

Guess what.  The money has already been allocated.  We spend more than any country on Earth on Health Care.   The problem is, not enough of it goes to treating the sick, and too much goes to fatten the wallets of the Ed Hanaway's of the world. 

The $350,000 to pay for Nataline's Liver Transplant WAS there.  Unfortunately, it was part of the 83 million they paid old Ed to retire.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 5, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



First of all, who are you to say that "not enough money goes to treating the sick"?

Second, if you don't like it, become the next Ed Hanaway and fix it.

You won't because you don't care. As it always is with the left, this is simply about control. You hate yourself and your life and you want to feel the power of controlling others. That's all this is. It's sad and it's very transparent.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 5, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...


----------



## P@triot (Sep 5, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...


----------



## MeBelle (Sep 5, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Proud of yourself for lying again? 

You aren't standing up for poor sick children.

You don't even have the balls to deal with your contradicting statements.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 5, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Dude - we already disproved your asinine "cutting edge weapon of 1914" quote that you keep using because you keep losing.

You yourself said that Sarin Gas would have been legitimate - and that's *exactly* what was found in Iraq.

It was a WMD. Bush was right. Get over it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 6, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> First of all, who are you to say that "not enough money goes to treating the sick"?
> 
> ...



Uh, guy, this is what you don't get. Maybe you are dense.  

We ALREADY fixed it. 

Insurance companies can't disallow for pre-existing conditions. 

They are required to spend 85% of their budgets on treatments. 

They can no longer set maximums on coverage. 

GET IT.  We DEMANDED they do it right.  And they will. Or they'll go out of business and we get single payer. 

I don't really care which.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 6, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Stockpiles of Sarin Gas would have been legitimate. 

Something someone mixed up in his kitchen wasn't.  

But you avoid the point.  Who runs Iraq now?  Those Iraqi Thomas Jeffersons you guys all claimed would come out of the woodwork when Saddam was gone?  

Nope.  The Ayatollahs run Iraq now.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 6, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



Your lack of reading comprehension and inability to reason is not a contradictory statement.  

Come back and bother me when you are less retarded...


----------



## P@triot (Sep 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



You haven't "fixed" _shit_. What you've done (as libtards always do) is broke our healthcare system and our economy.

And there is no "we" Joe. _You_ are on the outside fringe with the rest of the communists. Now WE (ie normal Americans) are trying to fix the disaster you and a few radical ass-wipes created.

Now that we've cleared up your bullshit - back to the question you keep running from: *why won't you get off your lazy ass and become the next Ed Hanaway and do it better?*

(It's a _simple_ question Joe - why do you fear it and run from it?)


----------



## P@triot (Sep 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



It's run by the Iraqi people (psst...Joe....the Ayatollah is Iran)


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 8, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> You haven't "fixed" _shit_. What you've done (as libtards always do) is broke our healthcare system and our economy.
> 
> ...



Guy, I don't want to be the next Ed Hanaway. 

Ed Hanaway is a reprehensible human being who was willing to let a teenage girl DIE. 

I want a world that doesn't have Ed Hanaways in it. 

But, yeah, we fixed the insurance industry and their evil... and frankly, republicans are already "learning to live with ObamaCare".  

Cause it's never going away.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 8, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Pssst.... I think you are showing your ignorance here.  

Ayatollah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_Ayatollah ( is a high-ranking title given to Usuli Twelver Sh&#299;ah clerics. Those who carry the title are experts in Islamic studies such as jurisprudence, ethics, and philosophy and usually teach in Islamic seminaries_

In short, they have Ayatollahs in Iraq.  Because 65% of the Population of Iraq is Twelver Shi'ites. 

More to the point, when we pulled out, the Iranians moved right in. 

Arianna Huffington: Iraq and Iran: A Partnership Made in America

_With the war there officially "ended" and most of our troops back home, Iraq isn't getting much ink these days. But the story is far from over. Indeed, according to Wadah Khanfar, former director general of Al Jazeera, Iraq is still the most important story in the Middle East -- with a far greater impact on the region's future than Syria. "Nobody's paying attention to Iraq anymore," he told me during dinner in London over the weekend, "but it's becoming a client state of Iran, with a giant amount of oil between them." This state of affairs is, of course, primarily our doing.

In truth, we've "teamed" with Iran in propping up the Shiite government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- so stability and self-reliance remain elusive goals for Iraq. And Iraq's closest partnership is no longer with the U.S. but with its Shiite neighbor. The evidence increases by the day.

The Associated Press last week called Iran the "big brother" to Prime Minister al-Maliki's government, noting that Iran "helped create" the al-Maliki administration in 2010 and is now "calling in favors among its allied factions in Iraq" to keep the al-Maliki government from falling in a no-confidence vote. "Iran's fingerprints are all over al-Maliki's inner circle," the AP noted._


Or to put it in terms your tiny mind can get around. 


*OH SHIT!!!!!! *


----------



## jasonnfree (Sep 8, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Rottweiler said:
> ...



Broken "our" healthcare system?   The most expensive healthcare system in the world.  What makes republicans worship corporate wealth and hate the average person?   If  modern republicans were alive during the boston tea party times  they'd  be posting hate messages about the tea partiers throwing tea overboard that belonged to a corporation.  Good thing these anti american repubs are a dying breed.


----------



## kiwina (Sep 10, 2013)

Zona said:


> I guess we will have to go with the man who most of this country thought was the right man for the job.  Obama.  ObamaCare it is then.
> 
> Deal with it.



realy? are you listing? Are you saying that we should elect some on and let them leed us around by the nose? Are you saying that our opion only os valid at election time when the man was voted on by his good looks, "stupid is as stupis does"


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 11, 2013)

kiwina said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > I guess we will have to go with the man who most of this country thought was the right man for the job.  Obama.  ObamaCare it is then.
> ...



Well said, bro.


----------



## thanatos144 (Sep 11, 2013)

LoneLaugher said:


> kiwina said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



your avatar is offensive...


----------



## P@triot (Sep 11, 2013)

jasonnfree said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



It was the *BEST* healthcare in the *world*. Who gives a flying fuck what the cost is? You get what you pay for ass wipe. Are you such a tight-wad cheap-ass that you want Detroit Dollar Store open heart surgery when you could have Rodeo Dr. Gucci open heart surgery?!? 

You're a fuck'n moron! Cuba has done this with their healthcare - how is that working out ass-hat?


----------



## P@triot (Sep 11, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



And that's why I said become the *NEXT* Ed Hanaway and do it *BETTER*. I did not say become Ed Hanaway.

You keep running from this and pretending like you don't understand because it proves you're a worthless asshat and ends the debate.

It's over stupid. You're a lazy, worthless, communist who wants government to put a gun to the head of the American tax payer and *force* them to provide for your lazy, worthless ass. You've been exposed for what you are...

As they say Joe: "*Liberalism: Ideas so good, they have to be FORCED on other people"*


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 11, 2013)

Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> And that's why I said become the *NEXT* Ed Hanaway and do it *BETTER*. I did not say become Ed Hanaway.



Guy, I want a world where people like Hanaway are identified as children and RECONDITIONED not to be douchebags.   Probably the first time they rip someone off they have to do 1000 hours of community service for poor people.  






Rottweiler said:


> [
> It's over stupid. You're a lazy, worthless, communist who wants government to put a gun to the head of the American tax payer and *force* them to provide for your lazy, worthless ass. You've been exposed for what you are...
> 
> As they say Joe: "*Liberalism: Ideas so good, they have to be FORCED on other people"*



Yes, they do.  

Because, frankly, a lot of you people are stupid.  

I already pay insurance companies a lot of money to cover my health insurance.  I would just as happily pay that into Medicare and have medicare be universal. 

Because here's the thing. People on Medicare are generally happier with their coverage than people with private insurance. 

Imagine that.  

You are like the House Slave of old who really thinks he's better than the other slaves because you suck up to the Massa...  It's really kind of pathetic.


----------

