# Republican: "Thank God For Obamacare!"



## Synthaholic (Mar 21, 2014)

*Scott Brown Awkwardly Finds Out That Obamacare Is Also Helping Republicans*



*snip*



Brown found that out on Saturday, when he stopped by the home of *Herb  Richardson, a Republican state representative.* Sitting in Richardson's  home, Brown called Obamacare a "monstrosity" that members of Congress  didn't even bother to read before they passed. At that point, according  to the Coos County Democrat, Richardson chimed in to explain that the  law had been a "financial lifesaver" for him and his wife. From the the piece (page 14): 


.


Richardson  was injured on the job and was forced to live on his workers' comp  payments for an extended period of time, which ultimately cost the  couple their house on Williams Street. *The couple had to pay $1,100 a  month if they wanted to maintain their health insurance coverage under  the federal COBRA law.*


Richardson said he only received some $2,000 a month in workers' comp. payments, however, leaving little for them to live on.


*"Thank God for Obamacare!" his wife exclaimed.*

*Now,  thanks to the subsidy for which they qualify, the Richardsons only pay  $136 a month for health insurance that covers them both.*​


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 21, 2014)

Nice. Good for them.


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 21, 2014)

omg, who makes up these stupid titles at the hufferpufferpost?

children in adult bodies?

I know I believe every damn word of that dumb shit.......................... about Scot Brown or this dumb article

now they're thanking G-d for some GOVERMENT ENTITLEMENT THAT we THE PEOPLE all get to pay for off our hard earned, blood, sweat and tears whether we VOTED FOR IT or not

sickening


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 21, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Nice. Good for them.


I'm waiting for a wingnut to try to debunk this as false, the way that *every single anti-Obamacare story* has been thoroughly debunked.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 21, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Nice. Good for them.
> ...



Well, Staph checked in.....but that is sort of cheating as she is too dumb to earn her place among wingnuts. The real wingnuts know that they are full of shit....but don't care.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 21, 2014)

Of course he thinks it's great, someone else is footing the majority of his costs.  Duh.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 21, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> Of course he thinks it's great, someone else is footing the majority of his costs.  Duh.


Interesting that you choose to see it that way as opposed to the possibility that he was being way overcharged with COBRA.

Is that because corporations can do no wrong in your eyes?

And where do you get the certainty that he is getting subsidized?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 21, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Of course he thinks it's great, someone else is footing the majority of his costs.  Duh.
> ...



Of course he was being over charged for COBRA.  And?

wtf?

"the Richardsons only pay $136 a month for health insurance that covers them both." is cheap cheap, they are being subsidized.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 21, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...


You've been properly conditioned.


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 21, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Nice. Good for them.
> ...



there is no reason to respond to you and debunk anything..you are such a subject of the government and the Democrat party you are hopeless

the majority hate ObamaCare and your dear leader but you just ignore them and post like a damn fool being used and like a good subject accuse everyone of LYING with their own stories of how ObamaScam has effected them


you are pathetic


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 21, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



. I do realize that by "subsidize" you probably are referring to the use of government funds to offset losses by the insurance companies. I am not certain if that is true or not. However, If only half of the new enrollees are paying premiums averaging 70 bucks a month each, that's no chump change.


----------



## Mojo2 (Mar 21, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> *Scott Brown Awkwardly Finds Out That Obamacare Is Also Helping Republicans*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No one claims that Obamacare doesn't help some people.

That isn't the point.

The point is that it is something the American people, as a whole, did not want, and it was forced on us by way of lies, conniving, mannipulation and a dishonest President and Speaker Pelosi to use our need for affordable Health Care coverage as a way of subjugating us to the Government.

When you control the peoples health care you control the people.

Obamacare has ALWAYS been about gaining control over us.

That is not why our founding fathers fought England for our independence.

All of you who support Obama and ACA are voting for Obama to be our King and you his subjects.

History and human nature say you are mistaken if you believe a Government will stay benign once it has total power.

ACA will give Obama total power.


----------



## MeBelle (Mar 22, 2014)

I agree it's awkward.  When a person 'earns' $200 a year being a local State of NH Rep it must be difficult for any other State Rep to swallow.
They don't receive health insurance as a benny for being an elected official.

Regarding the COBRA issue, it appears he injured himself in 2011. By law COBRA lasts 18 months only.  Although it does appear his employer wants him back after he has re-cooperated to full capacity. 

Technically they should have been eligible for Medicaid!
He's in his early 60's,  Medicare should kick in fairly soon.

The monstrosity I see is with New Hamp. Their elected non federal pols should be paid more than $200 a year.

A few other interesting notes for me are:

1) How can they afford $136 per month?
2) I cannot find what field Rita's employed in 
3) The move from a five bedroom 'mansion' to a trailer home in such a short time frame is mind boggling.

4)





> Richardson said he only received _some _ $2,000 a month in workers' comp. payments, however, leaving little for them to live on.


 Workers comp doesn't last for years, unless injuries (like back injuries) can't be proven. What is 'some'? Does it mean 'only' or 'short term'? Regardless, the company will  pay for the duration of his wrenched shoulder injury.

5) The article doesn't state what plan they have, nor average costs for their chosen plan are in New Hamp.

6) He is up for re-election this year.


----------



## Politico (Mar 22, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> Of course he thinks it's great, someone else is footing the majority of his costs.  Duh.



Exactly. Thank God for the poor folk fines.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 22, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Awesome reply!


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 22, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



"government funds"  wtf, are you on drugs?  The government doesn't have any "funds", it is taxpayer money that is footing the bill.  Anyone getting anything subsidized means someone else is paying for it; anyone who is paying more is paying for it.  _Period_.  It's only going to get worse.  There is no "probably" about any of that.


----------



## Vigilante (Mar 22, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



BTW, to answer your RED signature..."Black unemployment, which at the end of the Bush administration broke a decades-long pattern of being twice white unemployment, has resumed its disturbing and prolonged trend under President Obama, with the rate among African Americans now at 13.4 percent, according to a new Pew Research report.


Under Obama, black unemployment back to twice the white rate | WashingtonExaminer.com


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 22, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



exactly, some of these people who vote are damn scary they think the Government now has it's own magic money tree they just PLUCK the monies off it


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 22, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



Public school doesn't teach the meaning of the word 'subsidy'.


----------



## driveby (Mar 22, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



Indeed, whenever a democrat uses that word they use it incorrectly.........


----------



## RandomVariable (Mar 22, 2014)

I hope went all the people who could have signed up for Obamacare but did not because of Republican propaganda the people take it out on the Republicans and take Republicans out of office.


----------



## Vigilante (Mar 22, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> I hope went all the people who could have signed up for Obamacare but did not because of Republican propaganda the people take it out on the Republicans and take Republicans out of office.



You mean the LIBERAL PRESS is giving Republican's coverage to spread their propaganda?...Now, THAT'S FUNNY!


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 22, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> I hope went all the people who could have signed up for Obamacare but did not because of Republican propaganda the people take it out on the Republicans and take Republicans out of office.



You're an idiot.


----------



## MeBelle (Mar 22, 2014)

[MENTION=24278]Synthaholic[/MENTION]  [MENTION=32973]LoneLaugher[/MENTION]

Are the two of you speechless?  




MeBelle60 said:


> I agree it's awkward.  When a person 'earns' $200 a year being a local State of NH Rep it must be difficult for any other State Rep to swallow.
> They don't receive health insurance as a benny for being an elected official.
> 
> Regarding the COBRA issue, it appears he injured himself in 2011. By law COBRA lasts 18 months only.  Although it does appear his employer wants him back after he has re-cooperated to full capacity.
> ...


----------



## Pop23 (Mar 22, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> [MENTION=24278]Synthaholic[/MENTION]  [MENTION=32973]LoneLaugher[/MENTION]
> 
> Are the two of you speechless?
> 
> ...



Silly, hacks don't answer questions they simply post propaganda.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 22, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> [MENTION=24278]Synthaholic[/MENTION]  [MENTION=32973]LoneLaugher[/MENTION]
> 
> Are the two of you speechless?
> 
> ...



About what?


----------



## MeBelle (Mar 22, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > [MENTION=24278]Synthaholic[/MENTION]  [MENTION=32973]LoneLaugher[/MENTION]
> ...



The questions regarding the OP and your post #4 in this thread.





LoneLaugher said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


I'll take your response as a yes.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 22, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



As a yes to what?


----------



## MeBelle (Mar 23, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...





MeBelle60 said:


> [MENTION=24278]Synthaholic[/MENTION]  [MENTION=32973]LoneLaugher[/MENTION]
> 
> Are the two of you speechless?





			
				MeBelle60 said:
			
		

> The questions regarding the OP and your post #4 in this thread.



/


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 23, 2014)

Mojo2 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > *Scott Brown Awkwardly Finds Out That Obamacare Is Also Helping Republicans*
> ...




How are we being subjugated, Drama Queen?


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 23, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...




Please point to evidence of conservatives going apeshit over taxpayers subsidizing the most profitable company in human history, Exxon/Mobil.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 23, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> @Synthaholic    @LoneLaugher
> 
> Are the two of you speechless?



No, I'm a Liberal: I work for a living, and don't spend every waking moment looking to refute ignorance in the interwebz.

Not that you are ignorant . . .


----------



## Star (Mar 23, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


 

IOW's you're admitting you have nothing to refute the anti-Obamacare stories, so you just STFU and hope no one notices? 

Are you sure about "the majority hate ObamaCare"? An article posted by CNN on March 11 sez: "Not all of the opposition to the health care law comes from the right," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Thirty-nine percent say they oppose the law because it's too liberal, but 12% say they oppose it because it's not liberal enough."

That means half the public either favors Obamacare, or opposes it doesn't go far enough. Roughly 6% oppose the law but don't have an opinion on whether it is too liberal or not liberal enough."

But-----but if you're saying the Republican controlled House and the filibuster controlled Senate should replace Obamacare with what the majority favors, i.e robust public-option/single-payer/medicare for all -- I'm all in. 
.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 23, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> *Scott Brown Awkwardly Finds Out That Obamacare Is Also Helping Republicans*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A politician is happy that he can sponge off the taxpayers and you think that proves Obamacare is a good thing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 23, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Nice. Good for them.
> ...



Just curious, if every single anti Obamacare story is false, why the fuck did Obama delay it until after the next election?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 23, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Of course he thinks it's great, someone else is footing the majority of his costs.  Duh.
> ...



Interesting that you think someone actually paying for the coverage they get means they are overcharged.


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 23, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Nice. Good for them.
> ...



Please post proof that every person who has seen their premiums rise is lying.


----------



## Star (Mar 23, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


 

You're asking for false testament... the narrative is not that premiums rise, it's why premiums rise.

The pre-Obamacare non-system healthcare we've been living under, does virtually nothing to address rising healthcare cost. Obamacare does a little but not enough to address rising healthcare costs. 

My question for Republicans is, what has your party done to cope with rising healthcare costs?
.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 23, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



I'm sorry you can't comprehend that anyone getting anything subsidized means someone else is footing the bill, that goes for oil companies, green energy, agriculture, health insurance, etc.  It should all go.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Mar 23, 2014)

Star said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



The premium increase were slowing down do to the fact that the economy sucks, and now they are going up faster than they were when the economy was booming despite the fact that the economy sucks. The only significant change I see is Obamacare, if you see something else, feel free to point it out so I can factor it in.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 23, 2014)

Star said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



It's going to get worse.



> Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told House Ways and Means Committee members on Wednesday that she expects health insurance rates to increase as the Affordable Care Act takes full effect.
> 
> 'I think premiums are likely to go up,' she conceded under questioning, 'but go up at a slower pace' than they have already under Obamacare.
> 
> ...




Sebelius admits Obamacare will raise health insurance premiums in 2015, tells Congress to expect 'no delay beyond March 31' for the individual mandate | Mail Online


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 23, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...


I don't want to detract from this op by responding to quips about the wording in my signature.
Start a thread on the topic and if I see it I will respond!


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 23, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



Then where's the Right-Wing outrage over that, instead of food stamps?


----------



## auditor0007 (Mar 24, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> Of course he thinks it's great, someone else is footing the majority of his costs.  Duh.



I have no problem with low income earners getting their health insurance at a cheap price as I believe every American should have access to adequate healthcare.  The ACA does a great deal of good for many people, and that is a good thing.  That being said, some people are getting hit pretty hard with some really steep costs.  This seems to be affecting those who are older and are not eligible for any subsidies.  I've seen the plans and rates, and they are not a pretty site for someone who is only slightly over 400% of the poverty level.  

What really bothers me about this though, is not the fact that some people are getting hit extra hard but that nobody wants to address this problem and make some changes to fix this.  Instead, one side is calling to repeal the whole thing, which is not going to happen, and the other side thinks everything is just rosy.


----------



## hortysir (Mar 24, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> *Scott Brown Awkwardly Finds Out That Obamacare Is Also Helping Republicans*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You do realize that this "subsidy" is only repaid at tax time, right?
They still have to pay the monthly price


----------



## auditor0007 (Mar 24, 2014)

hortysir said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > *Scott Brown Awkwardly Finds Out That Obamacare Is Also Helping Republicans*
> ...



No, the subsidy is paid monthly from the government directly to the insurer.  You only pay your share after the subsidy.  Now, if your income changes and it is confirmed that you were receiving too large of a subsidy, then at the end of the year when you file your taxes, they could come after you for the difference.  This can make it very difficult to determine what level of subsidy to seek, especially for the self-employed who can see their incomes go up and down from year to year.


----------



## MeBelle (Mar 24, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > @Synthaholic    @LoneLaugher
> ...



*^^^^^lame comments from the self proclaimed doofus^^^^^*
​
I'll repeat myself.
Unless someone is working in the healthcare industry most have no clue as to the reality of the ACA.


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 24, 2014)

Star said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Im not a republican so I wouldn't know.

What I do know is my premiums went up 3000 a year because I , a single man with no kids must pay insurance premiums to cover things like maternity care and dental coverage for kids I don't have as well as drug and alcohol counseling which i will never use.

But according to you idiots I must not be telling the truth right?


----------



## bedowin62 (Mar 24, 2014)

Democrat who helped write Obamacare:  "It's a TRAINWRECK"

idiots and hypocrites


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 24, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



It's there, you just don't bother to see it.


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 24, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



Actually democrats love oil subsidies because more than 50% of them go to reducing the cost of oil for low income people, and farmers etc

The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them - Forbes



> Oil Change International is an organization focused on exposing fossil fuel subsidies. On their site they have a page on fossil fuel subsidies, which they define as any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers. They include a spreadsheet breaking down various fossil fuel subsidies utilizing data from a joint OECD-IEA report called Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Other Support. The summary of oil-related subsidies in the U.S. for 2010 totals $4.5 billion. That is a number often put forward; $4 billion a year or so in support for those greedy oil companies.
> 
> But look at the breakdown. The single largest expenditure is just over $1 billion for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is designed to protect the U.S. from oil shortages. The second largest category is just under $1 billion in tax exemptions for farm fuel. The justification for that tax exemption is that fuel taxes pay for roads, and the farm equipment that benefits from the tax exemption is technically not supposed to be using the roads. The third largest category? $570 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. (This program is classified as a petroleum subsidy because it artificially reduces the price of fuel, which helps oil companies sell more of it). Those three programs account for $2.5 billion a year in oil subsidies.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 24, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> Star said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 24, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > Star said:
> ...



Not all of us qualify for government hand outs like you do

both my premium and my deductible increased.


----------



## oreo (Mar 24, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> *Scott Brown Awkwardly Finds Out That Obamacare Is Also Helping Republicans*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, did you ever think WHO is paying for the rest of that $1100.00 dollar medical insurance bill?

I think these small business employee's know who is paying for it.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 24, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



If you are claiming that your premiums went up $3000 due to the ACA, then you are full of shit.


----------



## hortysir (Mar 24, 2014)

auditor0007 said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



You're gonna have to link me that one, because I see a price listed as "after tax credit'.
I have never heard of a monthly reoccurring tax credit


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 24, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> *Scott Brown Awkwardly Finds Out That Obamacare Is Also Helping Republicans*
> 
> 
> 
> ...






the people who run the republican party like the votes but don't care about the people


----------



## Star (Mar 24, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> Star said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...


 


Your premium went up "3000", since you forgot to specify, I'll presume you mean dollars not 3000X, not 3000%, not... but-----but that's the problem with using personal stories on a M/B, no one can dispute your claims - no matter how much they sound like BS but-----but my guess is (guess is all anyone can do about your personal-alleged experience) you're simply aping Republican BS and-----and according to PoltiFact, your claim that your premium went up "3000", whether true or false, is outside the norm: *Americans for Prosperity claims people are getting less at a higher cost under Obamacare*

*Our ruling*
Americans for Prosperity said "millions are paying more and getting less" under Obamacare. We found their explanation of "less" rather dubious. Most people on the individual market are getting more benefits under the law. At worst, theyre paying more to get more, though in many cases theyre actually paying less.

We rate this claim


.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 24, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> Star said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



You are lying.


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 24, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



The policy that I had got cancelled because of Obamcare so yes my premiums and deductibles both rose because of it.  If it wasn't law I would have the same insurance policy I had for the past 10 years and was perfectly happy with.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 24, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



You had the same policy for 10 years? Very interesting. What was the name of the policy? What is the name of your current policy?


----------



## driveby (Mar 24, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > Star said:
> ...



OMG! He dares to question dear leader, he must be lying! .......


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 24, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



I had policy for catastrophic care that didn't cover dental for kids, maternity, mental health counseling etc. 

i paid for routine physicals etc out of pocket.

It worked for me because I'm healthy and can afford to pay for routine care. Now I have to pay a higher premium and still pay for most of my care out of pocket because my deductible is over 6 grand a year.


----------



## driveby (Mar 24, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...




You're wasting your time explaining, clowns like LL are not interested in the truth. Protecting dear leader comes before all..........


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 24, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Nice. Good for them.
> ...



It can be beneficial, but people still want to choose to buy insurance, not be forced by govt.

I have seen no proof that the same benefits could not have been set up independent of federal govt, such as by organizing different systems "by party" and rewarding members for investing in the health care of their choice.

In fact, I think we are missing great opportunities to PUSH for govt reforms, especially on a state level, to fund health care provisions DIRECTLY by investing in medical education, hospital facilities and health service programs INSTEAD of focusing on forcing payments to insurance.

People who have been lobbying to replace the death penalty and drug wars with more cost-effective PREVENTATIVE measures could be using the opposition to ACA to push for better ways to save taxpayers dollars in order to use those resources to pay for health care, instead of charging citizens more money under threat of penalty, when we already spend billions of dollars on criminal justice and mental health systems that don't work. Why not take those dollars and invest them in health care directly? Why waste time and money on this plan to force citizens to pay additional cuts out of our paychecks to pay for insurance premiums, deductibles, and other costs, when all that could be covered already if we quit wasting so much money paying for incarcerating prisoners pulled out of the workforce?

So backwards. We could do so much better, if we didn't waste time and focus arguing
over the wrong way to go, when everyone could invest equally in the right way for them.
We could fund multiple solutions and options, instead of just pushing one way and alienating half the nation while resources spent on fighting could fund direct reforms.


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 24, 2014)

driveby said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



It's common sense that when you buy insurance with only the coverage you actually need that it will be less than a policy that covers shit you will never need or use but that you have to pay for anyway.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 24, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



I asked for the names of both plans. Can you provide this information, please?


----------



## driveby (Mar 24, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



How about his name and SS number while you're at it..........


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 24, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Why? 

I got the current plan off my state exchange through aetna it's a bronze plan with a 6300 dollar deductible  

I had the old plan through BCBS. I tossed the old policy so I don't remember the name


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 24, 2014)

Star said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > Star said:
> ...


Maybe he means 3000 pennies.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 24, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...




Putting aside your bullshit 3000 figure, your policy wasn't cancelled because of Obamacare.  

It was cancelled because your insurance company decided to cancel it instead of modifying it.

We all get statements and notices from banks regularly saying that they are changing their conditions.  We get emails saying "eBay is changing their site use terms" and such.

So there was no reason why insurance companies couldn't have just informed you that they have amended your policy so that you are now covered for per-existing conditions, etc.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 24, 2014)

driveby said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...


Hey, bud - this thread has been relatively retard-free, so take a hike.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 24, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...


You think your old policy was tailored to you, and gave you discounts for being a man who wouldn't get pregnant?

And you also seem to think you will never have need of mental health coverage.  



Dental isn't covered by the ACA.


----------



## Pop23 (Mar 24, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



^^^^obviously not^^^^^^^

Just sayin


----------



## Star (Mar 24, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> Democrat who helped write Obamacare: "It's a TRAINWRECK"
> 
> idiots and hypocrites


 

I presume you are alluding to Max Baucus?
Before making an accusatory statement like that again, you may want to school yourself on the issue you're commenting on but-----but just to be clear, the kinda-sorta Democrat Max Baucus didn't write Obamacare, uber-conservative Heritage Foundation employee Stuart Butler did and-----and the Butler did it way back in 1989 and-----and did you know that before Obamacare was part of the American vernacular "Even libertarian-conservative icon Milton Friedman, in a 1991 Wall Street Journal article, advocated replacing Medicare and Medicaid 'with a requirement that every U.S. family unit have a major medical insurance policy.'"

If you're still confused about where the elements of Obamacare came from -- "...here is Butler's original description of how the mandate would be enforced, from page 51 of the 1989 monograph:
The requirement to obtain basic insurance would have to be enforced. The easiest way to monitor compliance might be for households to furnish proof of insurance when they file their tax returns. If a family were to cancel its insurance, the insurer would be required to notify the government. If the family did not enroll in another plan before the first insurance coverage lapsed and did not provide evidence of financial problems, a fine might be imposed.​But-----but don't take my word for it, find it in the WSJ *here* and-----and be sure to check out the parts that are quoted from Forbes.

Now that you know who wrote Obamacare were you looking in a mirror when you wrote - "idiots and hypocrites"?
.


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 25, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



It was cancelled because the government made up some bullshit minimum coverage mandates.  I do not need maternity coverage or mental health and drug counseling coverage or dental and optical for kids under 12 coverage.

I am paying for stuff I do not need therefore I am paying more than when my insurance covered only what I need.  It ain't rocket science.

So now I pay about 250 more a month with a 6300 dollar deductible which means I still pay for my annual care out of pocket.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 25, 2014)

Mojo2 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > *Scott Brown Awkwardly Finds Out That Obamacare Is Also Helping Republicans*
> ...



That "point" only makes sense in that the American People, as a whole, wanted single payer, which you folks call "Socialism".

What they got was the conservative plan for health care reform.

The rest of your post is nonsense, Edgie.


----------



## driveby (Mar 25, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



The irony of that post astonishing.........


----------



## driveby (Mar 25, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > Star said:
> ...




The premiums of a lot of people i know went up more than that, but feel free to remain is your out of touch cloud of ignorance........


----------



## driveby (Mar 25, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...





The democrats fuck it up, now that they can no longer run from the fact that they fucked it up they scream "it's a conservative plan!". Priceless..........


----------



## natstew (Mar 25, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Nice. Good for them.
> ...



You're a liar, and shame on you for quoting the scumbag liar Harry Reid's despicable lies from the Podium of the Senate.


----------



## natstew (Mar 25, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



*Subsidizing?*  Exxon/Mobil gets the same tax incentives as all other corporations, no more, no less. Exxon/Mobil makes less profit than the Government collects in taxes from them. Or, to say it differently, Exxon/Mobil pays over 50% taxes on profits.


----------



## natstew (Mar 25, 2014)

*Please point to evidence of conservatives going apeshit over taxpayers subsidizing the most profitable company in human history, Exxon/Mobil.
*
Most profitable? That 8% profit average is spread among millions of stock owners. If you're on a retirement plan you probably own some Exxon/Mobil stock, MOfuckingRON!!

Exxon Mobil Profit Margin (Quarterly) (XOM)


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 25, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



People in hell want ice water, too.  There are basic requirements for living in a society and mooching off the taxpayers in case you get sick or hurt is not acceptable.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 25, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



No, it was cancelled because the corporation decided to cancel it instead of modify it.

It's really simple.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 25, 2014)

natstew said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


Show me one, then.


----------



## driveby (Mar 25, 2014)

The democrat party thrives on exploiting the people that mooch off the taxpayers, numbnuts........


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 25, 2014)

natstew said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...




$7 Billion per year, dope:


*America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies *

In a world where $100-a-barrel oil is here to stay, there's no need to pad the industry's bottom line.         ​


----------



## driveby (Mar 25, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...




If a plan is "modified" to fit the government mandate, causing the premium to increase,  the "current plan" is cancelled. The mandate came from the government, not the corporation.

It's really simple........


----------



## driveby (Mar 25, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> natstew said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Well done, comrade.......


----------



## Pop23 (Mar 25, 2014)

Let me get this straight, cuz this is awfully confusing. 

Everyone must purchase health insurance because it is such an important factor in our economy. If everyone buys health insurance that will drive down the overall cost of health care?

Those that refuse should pay a fine? Is that also correct?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 25, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



My brother had an individual policy from BC.  It was fairly minimal, very affordable, covered what he needed (and nothing he didn't need), he has used is a lot in the past ten years including hospitalization.

In order for him to keep that policy no changes of any significance could be made to it and even at that, he would only enjoy that grandfather status for a short period of time.  Since obama waved his magic wand, my brother gets to keep his original policy till June at which time it will change to comply with the law.  However, his premium has doubled and his deductible nearly doubled because the insurance companies don't base their rates on the waving of magic wands, they were based months and months ago on the (un)aca ... that obama has continuously changed/delayed.   

Saying that the insurance companies are the ones responsible for cancelling his (and millions of other) policy(ies) is nothing short of ridiculous.  The companies _have no choice but to comply with the law that is the (un)aca,_ so they complied and by doing so the original policies were effectively cancelled.  Again, the insurance companies have to comply with the law so existing policies that do not meet the 'standards' of the (un)aca have no place to go but away.  Cancelled.  They are no more.  They have ceased to be.  They are an ex-policy!

Spin it seven ways to Tuesday if you'd like but you are wrong.  This isn't on the insurance companies it's on the Ds, obama and the ever pesky (un)aca that you guys love so much.  You wanted it, you voted for it, you got it.  Suck it up, buttercup.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 25, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



So it's cheaper and better to subsidize insurance through govt than to
invest resources into cost-effective medical education and services directly?

That's fine if this is the better solution.
I just want to know if it's only politics preventing agreement on this as the solution,
or if it is more cost-effective to invest directly in education, facilities and services
and remove insurance from the equation except as an optional choice.

Hasn't it been shown financially that investing the same money spent on  insurance
would produce greater dividends if invested in "other forms of savings" (eg, compare
real estate, where investments pay off greater returns faster than 401K so people retire early.
wouldn't that model work better for paying for health care than govt mandates on insurance?).

So if the govt was going to choose a "middle man" system to invest in 
to cover medical costs and health care,
wouldn't OTHER venues of investment actually pay off better than insurance?

Has this been discussed at all?


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 25, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...




You're actually saying that insurance corporation profits are sacrosanct and cannot be part of the equation.


----------



## driveby (Mar 25, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



More coverage costs more money, ALMOST any idiot knows that. Democrats put forth the false notion that it's the insurance companies raising their rates on purpose, to increase profits. Good thing democrats have millions of useful idiots to help foster this notion because people with sense aren't buying it........


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 25, 2014)

Unbelievable. Every nutter here is (or intimately knows) someone who had a shit health insurance plan. Uncanny!


----------



## bedowin62 (Mar 25, 2014)

Democrat who helped WRITE the ACA: "IT'S A TRAINWRECK"

 idiots and hypocrites


----------



## driveby (Mar 25, 2014)

With the millions of plans that were cancelled, i can see how it would be nearly impossible to know anyone that had an individual policy......

On the other hand, i love how all the nutters here think that's impossible and it's great that Obama just wants everyone to have insurance........


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 25, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Unbelievable. Every nutter here is (or intimately knows) *someone who had a shit health insurance plan. *Uncanny!





My brother's plan wasn't shit, wasn't "junk", wasn't sub-par, he had it for years, it covered what he needed (and nothing he didn't need), he used the shit out of it including hospitalization.

But that just can't be!  zomG!  You're lying!  Go get me his plan name and all pertinent information!  obama!!

The people who have posted about these perfectly good plans being cancelled due to the (un)aca aren't lying.  

But please do continue to rant.  It's fun to watch.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 25, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



I'm saying that due to the (un)aca insurance companies _must comply_ (do you even understand that part??) with the law, _must provide_ certain 'essential benefits' which equates to MORE COVERAGE. MORE COVERAGE costs MORE MONEY. Oh, you think they should just you know, provide more coverage but not charge more?  I"m sorry you're having such a difficult time comprehending this.  But hey, o-bam-a!, right?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 25, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Unbelievable. Every nutter here is (or intimately knows) *someone who had a shit health insurance plan. *Uncanny!
> ...



Yes they are. Lying, that is. And so are you.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 25, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Nope, not one bit.

It's all true.

_Every__ word_.

On a scale of one to ten your complete denial of people having perfectly good policies cancelled due to the (un)aca is:







Congratulations on remaining blissfully ignorant.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Mar 26, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> *Scott Brown Awkwardly Finds Out That Obamacare Is Also Helping Republicans*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



whats these republicans here call them moochers


----------



## billyerock1991 (Mar 26, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



still whining about your brothers policy  every timne somebody shows you how good it is you whine about what your brothers policy use to be  ... well tuff ... now he has to buy a new policy ... tell him to put his big boy pants on and deal with it ...


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 26, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



So you admit it's true that people are seeing their premiums go up because they are forced to buy policies that covers shit they don't need or want.

Thank you for finally being honest about that.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Mar 26, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...


*yes this has been discussed many times before... it will not work ... you end up losing everything you own with your investment Idea of health care... the investor end up taking you to the cleaners ... when the investments go south on you, like they always do, hell look at what happen when your 401k went south ... you won't have a dime one to pay for anything concerning health care ... like last time the tax payer ends up paying for it ... this is a terrible idea for health care ... *


----------



## billyerock1991 (Mar 26, 2014)

driveby said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



do you ever stop saying stupid shit???? here's what these insurance companies did ... and this came from their employees ... they said they canceled these peoples policy fully knowing the could rise their rates and make more money ...... the problem Zoom-boing has is her brother has two choices and she whines about them... pay more money to continue on the policy he has, or pay 136 dollars a month and be forced to go to a different doctor ...  Zoom-boing will tell you that her brother doesn't like that Idea... so then I say take the more expensive plan keep your doctor, if he doesn't like that  Idea of a different doctor ... after all it was the insurance company that canceled his plan ... it was the insurance company who is forcing him to a different doctor, not obama ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Mar 26, 2014)

driveby said:


> With the millions of plans that were cancelled, i can see how it would be nearly impossible to know anyone that had an individual policy......
> 
> On the other hand, i love how all the nutters here think that's impossible and it's great that Obama just wants everyone to have insurance........



I guess you just love to say stupid shit


----------



## billyerock1991 (Mar 26, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



the only one here who is  having such a difficult time comprehending this is you ... you never went to the site to see if he could get a better plan ... you just took his currant plan and ran with it  ... then told us what the new cost would be ... like it was obama's fault and not the insurance company gouging your brother for more money ... just so you can come here and whine about it and say stupid shit like, "But hey, o-bam-a!, right" ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Mar 26, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Unbelievable. Every nutter here is (or intimately knows) *someone who had a shit health insurance plan. *Uncanny!
> ...



if they were perfectly good plans then why did they get canceled??? could it be they weren't so perfect as you claim them to be ??? could that be it ??? nooooooooooooooooooooooo you want to blame Obama for everything that you can... isn't that the real reason ... isn't that the real truth


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 26, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



My plan was perfectly good_* for me*_.  It is exactly what i wanted and it covered exactly what I need.

Why should I be forced to pay more for a plan that is good for someone else?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 26, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Because his plan wasn't compliant with the (un)aca.  My 56 year old single brother didn't have maternity and newborn coverage, didn't have pediatric coverage, didn't have drug coverage.  Now that he will have to have that coverage his old plan is non-compliant and, therefore, cancelled.  His new plan will be compliant and, therefore, more expensive because it covers more things.  Did you think the insurance companies were going to provide more coverage for the same price?  Oh, you did didn't you?  Derp.

Do you think if your car insurance started covering things like oil changes, inspections, and tire rotations that your premium wouldn't go up?

You're an idiot.


----------



## driveby (Mar 26, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Unbelievable. Every nutter here is (or intimately knows) *someone who had a shit health insurance plan. *Uncanny!
> ...




It's also hilarious how every nutter here can just deem these individual plans as "shit" plans. Without anything concrete of course, just because they say so.......


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 26, 2014)

driveby said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



My brother's plan provided him the necessary insurance coverage he needed, including hospitalization that he used, during a very difficult time.  He ended up having mercury poisoning (took them quite while to dx him), which wrecked havoc with his entire body.  Not your ordinary 'illness'.  He was covered with his individually purchased plan.  But the wingdings just scream "it was a junk plan, liar!" because .... obama!


----------



## bedowin62 (Mar 26, 2014)

King Obama has personally decreed a 2-year waiver of the very same "junk" plans left-wing nutjobs insisted they were saving Americans from. 

idiots and hypocrites


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 26, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Why should he go to any site?  He HAD insurance, he DID the responsible thing, o-bam-a! said that the (un)aca would not affect anyone who had insurance.  HE LIED.  The insurance companies are charging more because more services _are required by law_ to be included in his (and everyone elses) policy now.  What, you want he should see if he qualifies for a subsidy so some other shlup can fork over money for him?  Oh wait, I forgot ... you're a leftist, someone else footing the bill is par for the course for you.


----------



## driveby (Mar 26, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > With the millions of plans that were cancelled, i can see how it would be nearly impossible to know anyone that had an individual policy......
> ...




The cock smoking nutter disagrees, further validating my point.........


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 26, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



False, false, false.

The unaca mandates that more benefits be included in everyone's policy.  More benefits cost more money.  But somehow it's the insurance companies being evil and raising their prices.  They should just provide more benefits at no additional cost.   The unaca mandated that those policies were null and void _because they did not met the criteria for the new law_ ... but there you go spinning that it was the insurance companies cancelling them on a whim.  Waddadopeyouare.

obama said if you like your plan, your doctor you can keep them.  He's a fucking liar and you know it.  But there you go, just go switch doctors, just go get another plan.  

You betcha I'm bitching about his doubled premium and nearly doubled deductible.  And no matter how much you spin it, those increases are a direct result of the (un)aca, o-bam-a!care.  

You derp, he can't continue on a policy that has been cancelled.  Oh wait, o-bam-a! said he could for two more years.  But the prices were already set months ago based on the new law ... but o-bam-a! decided to just say 'eh, screw it'.  He's a bigger idiot than you and that's saying something.

You want my brother should go to some government website, provide all his personal info and what, get some shlup to pay for his subsidy?  You truly do not comprehend people who provide for themselves do you?  He HAD a perfectly good policy, he DID the responsible thing and had insurance.  The fucking obamacare screwed the pooch for him and millions like him.  

barack obama:  "If you like your plan you can keep your plan.  PERIOD." <---  Fucking ass liar.


----------



## Politico (Mar 27, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



And why should someone have to get a plan that covers babies they will never have?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 27, 2014)

Politico said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



Yes! The brilliance knows no bounds!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 27, 2014)

You know.............the day before yesterday, my room mate went to the doctor (who happens to be a Republican) for a check up.

During their conversation, she asked the doctor what he thought about the ACA, and he said that it's been a long time coming and it's about time it happened.

She then asked if he supported it and he said yes.

He also said that he was thinking of dropping his affiliation with the GOP because they've been acting like such asses over the ACA, which he said is not only a benefit for the people, but he supports it because he's going to be able to see more patients.

The ACA is doing great things for her, because now she can afford her medication.  Under a previous plan, she could only afford 1 prescription (she needs 4) because they're expensive, but the doctor (looking at all her options), showed her how the ACA could help her pay for all her meds.

1 scrip prior to her finding out about it was over 100 bucks.

Now?  She gets all 4 scrips filled for around 40.


----------



## Politico (Mar 27, 2014)

Good for her. And for every one she can afford a bunch of others will not.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 27, 2014)

Politico said:


> Good for her. And for every one she can afford a bunch of others will not.



Got any proof on that claim?

Interestingly enough, under the new rules of the ACA, I as a U.S. Navy retiree can now get my health care free from the VA (which I'm going to do).  I can't sign on dependents under the ACA, but it is now part of my benefits as a veteran.


----------



## Politico (Mar 27, 2014)

You are a veteran. You don't count.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 27, 2014)

Politico said:


> You are veteran. You don't count.



I asked you to back up the claim that for every scrip my room mate got, someone else had to go without.

Thanks for saying that veterans deserve to have health care provided to them by this country.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 27, 2014)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know.............the day before yesterday, my room mate went to the doctor (who happens to be a Republican) for a check up.
> 
> During their conversation, she asked the doctor what he thought about the ACA, and he said that it's been a long time coming and it's about time it happened.
> 
> ...



Oh goody for her, someone else is paying for it.  You do know that, right?  IF THE COST IS REDUCED FOR HER IT IS ONLY BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE IS PAYING FOR IT.  PERIOD.  They've screwed it for the 85% who were covered and who were happy with their insurance to 'help' the 15% who weren't, instead of leaving the 85% alone (oh, obama promised we wouldn't be affected, that we could keep our plans and our doctors he is nothing but a lying assed liar) and coming up with a fix for those 15%.  And yes, many others are getting screwed over royally on this.  Two people right here are feeling the effects in a very personal way.  You people are loons if you believe anything else.  Wake up. 


http://www.usmessageboard.com/8832461-post1200.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8814736-post151.html


----------



## Crystalclear (Mar 27, 2014)

Obamacare is a good thing. The Republicans are not that bad, but they should really change their stance on healthcare issues.


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 27, 2014)

Crystalclear said:


> Obamacare is a good thing. The Republicans are not that bad, but they should really change their stance on healthcare issues.



Good for who?

I'm getting screwed by it.


----------



## Crystalclear (Mar 27, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare is a good thing. The Republicans are not that bad, but they should really change their stance on healthcare issues.
> ...



For the people who cannot afford independent helathcare. At least, that is what I hear in the news in Western Europe. I'm not sure if this is really true, because I do not live in the US.


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 27, 2014)

Crystalclear said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > Crystalclear said:
> ...



Don't believe the hype.


----------



## Crystalclear (Mar 27, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...


But can you tell in short how you are screwed by it. I mean , this is something I haven't heard before.


----------



## driveby (Mar 27, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...




it'll be nice when yours can make it out of a 4x6 padded room......


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 27, 2014)

Crystalclear said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > Crystalclear said:
> ...



Premiums up 250 a month and a 6300 dollar deductible.

Basically I am still paying for my routine shit out of pocket because the deductible is so high.

I used to always pay for routine shit out of pocket and carried an inexpensive catastrophic policy for emergencies, cancer care etc

Now i have to pay for maternity care, dental and optical for kids I will never have, drug, alcohol and mental health counseling I will never use etc.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 27, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



No, I am not on drugs but anyone who hallucinates about &#8220;owning their tax dollars&#8221; could be. Obviously, you think only &#8220;conservatives&#8221; pay taxes. Reading your posts, you are obsessed with a distorted belief that  government subsidies spent on programs are (your) tax dollars being given to support various government programs you don&#8217;t agree with! Most of the workers and white collar types pay taxes, including so-called liberals, progressives and others including so-called conservatives.. How do you even form your mouth to say &#8220;your&#8221; tax dollars are being spent on this or that/  It is impossible  to differentiate between liberal tax monies or conservative tax monies.

That aside, Please copy and post an image of a US coin or currency with your name printed and stamped on it. Unless you share the name of a former deceased president or any former Secretary of the Treasury, it isn&#8217;t there. Technically, tax dollars belong to all of us as does other funds regardless of source. We The People ARE  the government...so your illusion that the government does not own or have any &#8220;funds&#8221; is pure fantasy.





			
				Stephanie said:
			
		

> exactly, some of these people who vote are damn scary they think the Government now has it's own magic money tree they just PLUCK the monies off it


 You are trying to be facetious but that &#8220;Magic Money Tree&#8221; is rooted in the US Mint, the Federal Reserve ( privately owned) and the US Treasury. Indeed, the 1% have been plucking monies off it, even as a river of tax dollars flow in to keep the ship of state afloat.



			
				Zoom-Boing said:
			
		

> Public school doesn't teach the meaning of the word 'subsidy'.



Public schools? Is that why you think you are so obtuse? I guess picking  up a dictionary is considered a weakness in your neighborhood. Here you go chap... I&#8217;ll be brave, charitable  and do it for you!



			
				dictionary said:
			
		

> subsidy |&#712;s&#601;bsid&#275;|
> noun ( pl. -dies)
> 1 a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive : a farm subsidy | they disdain government subsidy.
> &#8226; a sum of money granted to support an arts organization or other undertaking held to be in the public interest.
> ...



given the dictionary verification the following dunce still comes up with this:



			
				Driveby said:
			
		

> Indeed, whenever a democrat uses that word they use it incorrectly..



HAHAHA! I guess those democrat economic professors have spent years defining the word subsidy incorrectly. One of them probably wrote the definition in your dictionary. I suppose Right wingers have recently coined their own definition of the word while simultaneously abandoning their hallowed traditionilsm in a fit of desperation!


----------



## Meister (Mar 27, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



Those who are paying higher premiums and larger deductibles would overwhelmingly disagree with your drivel, pubic.

Side note...look at your avatar then look at mine, which avatar do you think the world would most identify obama with?


----------



## 007 (Mar 27, 2014)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know.............the day before yesterday, my room mate went to the doctor (who happens to be a Republican) for a check up.
> 
> During their conversation, she asked the doctor what he thought about the ACA, and he said that it's been a long time coming and it's about time it happened.
> 
> ...


You're a bald faced liar...


----------



## rdean (Mar 27, 2014)

Wow, these right wingers are so damn dumb.  They think Americans don't want health care?  How could they be so stupid.  And that DB Stef, I bet she thinks she paid for that road she walks down.

Jesus,

Well, you can always pick your source:

Herb Richardson wife thank god for obamacare


----------



## 007 (Mar 27, 2014)

rdean said:


> Wow, these right wingers are so damn dumb.  They think Americans don't want health care?  How could they be so stupid.  And that DB Stef, I bet she thinks she paid for that road she walks down.
> 
> Jesus,
> 
> ...


You do realize that you are the MINORITY that think ovomitcare is GOOD. It has HURT, FAR MORE people than it has it HELPED.

That is because the ONLY people it HELPS are the TAKERS. The SLACKERS, the LAZYS and the WELFARE CASES.... LIKE YOU.

Well sorry there skippy, but that ain't gonna win you any elections. The VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN AMERICA RIGHT NOW, ARE PISSED OFF at you fucking DEMOCRATS for RAMMING OVOMITCARE down the throats of EVERYONE, and it's hurting people IN SPITE OF the kenyan ILLEGALLY ALTERING THE LAW 30+ TIMES ALREADY!

You fucking liberals are TRASH, you're PARASITES, and you all have a MENTAL ILLNESS.


----------



## Politico (Mar 28, 2014)

ABikerSailor said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > You are veteran. You don't count.
> ...



I don't have to. For everyone who gets the bennies someone has to pay. There's no free lunch.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 28, 2014)

Politico said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Politico said:
> ...



Quick question.................

I've got bennies from serving this country for over 20 years (my TIS is around 21), and I've been the recipient of a letter as of this Monday that said I could get free health care if I signed up at the VA office.

I went in and applied today (March 27th, 2014), and was told that not only did I receive free heath care (because of the ACA), but I was also told that my insurance (received from the VA because of the ACA) would only cost me 8 bucks/prescription for every thirty days that I required it.

Sorry................but I really like the ACA.  Not only that, but I also found out that everyone who is retired is entitled to receive free health care (if they can prove their service) as well as those who served over 4 years and received an honorable discharge for their service (you've gotta provide a DD214 if you served less than 20). 

The premiums are less than what the civilian companies are providing.

If you're a vet, and served over 4 years and were discharged Honorably under your last discharge, I'd advise you to check out what the VA has to offer.

Me?  I served over 20 years for the military, and am glad that I can get free health care.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 28, 2014)

Meister said:
			
		

> Those who are paying higher premiums and larger deductibles would overwhelmingly disagree with your drivel, pubic.



Just how many people are we talking about, genius? 5, 10, 15 or 20?



			
				Meister said:
			
		

> Side note...look at your avatar then look at mine, which avatar do you think the world would most identify obama with?



In the real world, most people would identify Obama with MY avatar. Yours is limited to the small world of frustrated angry white males and the  few women who love them!


----------



## Politico (Mar 28, 2014)

The ACA and VA shouldn't be mixed. That's all I'll say about it.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 28, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> No, I am not on drugs but anyone who hallucinates about *&#8220;owning their tax dollars&#8221;* could be. *Obviously, you think only &#8220;conservatives&#8221; pay taxes.* Reading your posts, you are obsessed with a distorted belief that  government subsidies spent on programs are (your) tax dollars being given to support various government programs you don&#8217;t agree with! Most of the workers and white collar types pay taxes, including so-called liberals, progressives and others including so-called conservatives.. *How do you even form your mouth to say &#8220;your&#8221; tax dollars are being spent on this or that/  It is impossible  to differentiate between liberal tax monies or conservative tax monies.*



Funny, I never said any of the above bolded.  That's just typical leftist projection on your part.  Feel free to go get links from me supporting your bullshit.  

"Government subsidies" ARE taxpayer monies spent on whatever the government subsidizes.  Whether I like what they spend it on or not is irrelevant.




> That aside, Please copy and post an image of a US coin or currency with your name printed and stamped on it. Unless you share the name of a former deceased president or any former Secretary of the Treasury, it isn&#8217;t there. Technically, tax dollars belong to all of us as does other funds regardless of source. We The People ARE  the government...so your illusion that *the government does not own or have any &#8220;funds&#8221; is pure fantasy*.



Nope.  The government has nothing unless it takes or borrows it from someone else. Sorry you weren't aware of that.  And yes, people are fed up with the government using us as a well for their never ending spending.  We can't afford it.



> You are trying to be facetious but that &#8220;Magic Money Tree&#8221; is rooted in the US Mint, the Federal Reserve ( privately owned) and the US Treasury. Indeed, the 1% have been plucking monies off it, even as a river of tax dollars flow in to keep the ship of state afloat.



Your omission of the biggest piece of the pie tells me everything I need to know about you.  




> Public schools? Is that why you think you are so obtuse? I guess picking  up a dictionary is considered a weakness in your neighborhood. Here you go chap... I&#8217;ll be brave, charitable  and do it for you!



Point went over your head.  Naturally.


----------



## Meister (Mar 28, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





this guy/girl diets on Kool-Aid


----------



## Spoonman (Mar 28, 2014)

rdean said:


> Wow, these right wingers are so damn dumb.  They think Americans don't want health care?  How could they be so stupid.  And that DB Stef, I bet she thinks she paid for that road she walks down.
> 
> Jesus,
> 
> ...



healthcare they want, obamacare they don't


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 28, 2014)

Spoonman said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, these right wingers are so damn dumb.  They think Americans don't want health care?  How could they be so stupid.  And that DB Stef, I bet she thinks she paid for that road she walks down.
> ...



Eggsactly.


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 28, 2014)

rdean said:


> Wow, these right wingers are so damn dumb.  They think Americans don't want health care?  How could they be so stupid.  And that DB Stef, I bet she thinks she paid for that road she walks down.
> 
> Jesus,
> 
> ...



I had a perfectly good insurance/ health care plan but the control freaks in government now tell me I have to do what they think is best for me that costs me more and delivers no more value for that extra cost.

That's the thing I have issue with


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 28, 2014)

Well this is just completely unacceptable and goes counter to the Repub meme being bandied about these last 5 or so years. It would mean that GOPTV (Fox) is feeding their viewers lies


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 28, 2014)

Meister said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Don't mind Meister. He's a "frustrated angry white male" w/ a butt hurt avie just like you said.

As to the OP yeah- Repubs are vociferously against stuff until they use it .


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 28, 2014)

rdean said:


> Wow, these right wingers are so damn dumb.  They think Americans don't want health care?  How could they be so stupid.  And that DB Stef, I bet she thinks she paid for that road she walks down.
> 
> Jesus,
> 
> ...



1. paying for insurance is not the same as paying to provide health care services and facilities. I would rather invest directly in medical education and internship programs that train people while providing health services to the public.

Unfortunately that is not an option under Obamacare.

I am penalized if I choose to invest my money directly into more sustainable means of health care, in place of paying insurance companies which don't provide health care.

2. The people forced to sign up for insurance cannot necessarily afford the premiums, the deductibles, or the costs of care not covered by insurance.

3. Nothing was stopping people from setting up their own health care cooperatives and exchanges through their own organizations or even their Party.

Now, thanks to ACA, we'd have to pass legislative reforms to give back this choice of funding health care without going through insurance, since the bill made insurance the only legal way to pay for health care (except if you meet narrow restrictions on exemptions).

Singlepayer advocates also cannot exercise their beliefs under this system, that requires them to pay "insurance companies" instead of investing in creating a national network of health care provisions that could cover more people.

This ACA is like someone holding a gun to our heads. And neither the Police on the right or the People on the left can agree on how to stop this gunman. So they are arguing and blaming each other for not doing anything, instead of anybody doing anything, while the gunman continues to hold everyone hostage, forcing us to pay money to insurance companies because we don't agree on all the options we could be paying for instead. 
Do we have to AGREE on all the options? Why not stop the gunman first, and agree to give back the money so everyone can pay for the options they believe in? Who says we need to all agree who to give our money to, in order to stop the gunman from forcing our money to go to insurance companies? Why can't we choose to buy insurance freely as before? Why is paying for insurance the only way to avoid getting shot in the head with fines?


----------



## Spoonman (Mar 28, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Nice. Good for them.



OBAMACARE

5,000,000  - Lost their coverage

1       -    successful client served.


Hey, they're on a roll




Let me ask you this.  WTF happened to the 40,000,000 uninsured who were clamorning for healthcare we had to pass this mess for?     Do they all of a sudden not need insurance?    or those just more bullshit democratic numbers?


----------



## whitehall (Mar 28, 2014)

Does the desperate left wing search the Country every day to find a single republican who likes the ironically named "affordable health care act"? Why are lefties on the defensive? They know the 3,000 page law that nobody read is a freaking mess and it will hurt the democrat party badly in the mid term election.


----------



## Meister (Mar 28, 2014)

Spoonman said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Nice. Good for them.
> ...



Less than 6 million that have paid and a mandate forcing 300+ million people to buy overpriced insurance is a win for the liberals


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 28, 2014)

thangod that Republican was covered


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 28, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> Crystalclear said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare is a good thing. The Republicans are not that bad, but they should really change their stance on healthcare issues.
> ...


So you say.


----------



## Politico (Mar 28, 2014)

See Spider? You're fine. Sytheholic said so.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 28, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > Crystalclear said:
> ...



In honor of your avatar and sig ...


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 28, 2014)

but, but, OBAMACARE!!!


----------



## rdean (Mar 28, 2014)

When did right wing nuts turn against America?


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 29, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > No, I am not on drugs but anyone who hallucinates about *owning their tax dollars* could be. *Obviously, you think only conservatives pay taxes.* Reading your posts, you are obsessed with a distorted belief that  government subsidies spent on programs are (your) tax dollars being given to support various government programs you dont agree with! Most of the workers and white collar types pay taxes, including so-called liberals, progressives and others including so-called conservatives.. *How do you even form your mouth to say your tax dollars are being spent on this or that/  It is impossible  to differentiate between liberal tax monies or conservative tax monies.*
> ...



Here are the exact words you said: 





			
				Zoom Boing in a hissy fit said:
			
		

> "government funds" wtf, are you on drugs? The government doesn't have any "funds", it is taxpayer money that is footing the bill. Anyone getting anything subsidized means someone else is paying for it; anyone who is paying more is paying for it. Period. It's only going to get worse. There is no "probably" about any of that.



I  think I read you right! You still think taxpayers and  the government are two different things whether you actually say so or not. Your entire premise reeks of  the piteous belief. When I clarified it, you panicked and  overlooked words like obviously in the emboldened text... words which should have precluded your knee jerk reaction. You do know that when I used the adverb  obviously to describe a behavior or intent on your part it is not referring to an actual quote, dont you? The other emboldened text was formed as a question extrapolated from your over concern about taxpayers money. You never even considered that the majority of voters who put Obama in office twice  pay taxes too and that its THEIR tax dollars that foot the bill for progressive causes. Just think of it this way...your conservative tax dollars are being spent on DEFENSE or on all the bases we have around the world!



> "Government subsidies" ARE taxpayer monies spent on whatever the government subsidizes.  Whether I like what they spend it on or not is irrelevant.



When the tax payer mails the check which he has made payable to the IRS, any  proprietary interest  in the exchange is lost unless he overpays and a refund is due. Your likes or dislikes, indeed, have no bearing on how the government distributes monies from the check you wrote!




			
				JQPublic1 said:
			
		

> That aside, Please copy and post an image of a US coin or currency with your name printed and stamped on it. Unless you share the name of a former deceased president or any former Secretary of the Treasury, it isnt there. Technically, tax dollars belong to all of us as does other funds regardless of source. We The People ARE  the government...so your illusion that *the government does not own or have any funds is pure fantasy*.





			
				Zoom-boing said:
			
		

> Nope.  The government has nothing unless it takes or borrows it from someone else. Sorry you weren't aware of that.  And yes, people are fed up with the government using us as a well for their never ending spending.  We can't afford it.



That someone else is usually a  body of individuals called American citizens.  Their role in self governance is spelled out quite clearly in the  Preamble to the United States Constitution:





			
				Founding Fathers PREAMBLE said:
			
		

> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.





			
				JQPublic1 said:
			
		

> You are trying to be facetious but that Magic Money Tree is rooted in the US Mint, the Federal Reserve ( privately owned) and the US Treasury. Indeed, the 1% have been plucking monies off it, even as a river of tax dollars flow in to keep the ship of state afloat.





			
				Zoom-boing said:
			
		

> Your omission of the biggest piece of the pie tells me everything I need to know about you.



And you lack of knowledge of the US Constitution tells me all I want to know about you! 




			
				JQpublic1 said:
			
		

> Public schools? Is that why you think you are so obtuse? I guess picking  up a dictionary is considered a weakness in your neighborhood. Here you go chap... Ill be brave, charitable  and do it for you!





			
				Zoom-boing said:
			
		

> Point went over your head.  Naturally.



No, it didnt go over my head, I just threw it back in your face!


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 29, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> but, but, OBAMACARE!!!



The fact that you are in denial does not negate the fact that my insurance premium rose because I am being forced to pay for shit I neither need nor want.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 29, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > but, but, OBAMACARE!!!
> ...



Awwww. Look at you with all your facts! 

What was the name of your old plan again? And the new one? Also....how old are you, where do you live and who is on the policy? Finally, what is your AGI!


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 29, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



I told you I tossed my old policy when it got cancelled I do not remember the name of the policy because like most people I tossed it in a drawer and put the card in my wallet and forgot about it. I now have a bronze level plan through Aetna

414 a month with a 6300 deductible.  246 more a month than I was paying for my old catastrophic care insurance

I am the only one on the policy as I am single and have no kids but somehow my policy has to cover maternity care and dental and optical for children under 12 not to mention mental health drug and alcohol counseling that I will never use.

My Agi last year was 283,659.  I know that because I just got my taxes back.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 29, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



Your AGI is $283,659?


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 29, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Yes.

Why is that impossible in your mind?

I own over a dozen rental properties with 50 rental units (90% occupancy last year) with rents averaging just over 900 a month.  All but 4 of the properties have no mortgages at all.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 29, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



Wow! You are one impressive guy! Such a high earner! I am going to have to reevaluate my take on you. You simply must be brighter than you are letting on here. 

How many employees do you have? 50 units is a good sized operation. A dozen properties! Oh wait...you said "over a dozen". You might have 18. You have so many that you can't keep track of them. Awesome. 

I know a few people who are high earners like you. I will have to ask them if they would bitch about paying less than 2% of their AGI on health insurance. 

My guess is that you spend more than that on car insurance. 

Yep. You are an enigma. Can you please start saying something intelligent.....make me believe again!


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 29, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Don't have any employees. Although I am thinking about hiring a couple people because I want to take more time off.

I subcontract out any maintenance work I don't do myself. I'm a contractor and can do any repairs that come along I give a couple guys a break on rent to mow lawns and plow. I own one car (a 10 year old Ford F350 that I paid cash for 6 years ago)  My insurance for that vehicle is less than 200 a month.

I'm sorry if I think paying for shit I don't need or want is not a good thing.

I suppose just because I can afford something I should buy it and pay more than I have to even if I don't need it.

I'm extremely frugal always have been and it's a habit I'm in no hurry to break


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 29, 2014)

Hmmmm. 50 x $900 = $45,000. 

$45,000 x 12 = $540,000

Please tell me that you have other sources of income. Because if your total revenue is $540,000 and your AGI is $284,000, you are a fucking financial genius.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 29, 2014)

What? You contract out the maintenance? What is the yearly maintenance cost per unit?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 29, 2014)

Those guys you give breaks to.......are they on your books?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 29, 2014)

You don't have anyone in an office somewhere taking phone calls, doing your banking, maintaining files, etc? 

You do all of it yourself? 

Fucking awesome!


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 29, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Hmmmm. 50 x $900 = $45,000.
> 
> $45,000 x 12 = $540,000
> 
> Please tell me that you have other sources of income. Because if your total revenue is $540,000 and your AGI is $284,000, you are a fucking financial genius.



Yeah mortgages that i am tripling payments on and charitable donations don't count huh?

Not to mention the costs of several building projects that I am invested in. I also bought several foreclosed properties last year that I plan on flipping later this year.

But hey what do I know right?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 29, 2014)

Where did ya go? Fixing a leak somewhere? LOL!


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 29, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmmm. 50 x $900 = $45,000.
> ...



Oh ! There you are! 

What was that average maintenance cost per unit again?


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 29, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> You don't have anyone in an office somewhere taking phone calls, doing your banking, maintaining files, etc?
> 
> You do all of it yourself?
> 
> Fucking awesome!



I have an accountant, and lawyers and other people that are not employees that i pay to do things like that.  All my mortgages and bills are set up as bank drafts so All I have to do is balance the checkbook every month.  And that's not so hard I'm sure even you can do it.

Really I don't get very many phone calls.  When i have open units I let a real estate agent rent them and pay a commission he takes all those calls.  He'll even check on recently empty units and tell me if they need any repairs.  I have a local cleaning company that comes in and cleans empty units for me.



There's this new thing called a computer and these things called programs that make filing and record keeping really easy these days.  you should look into it.

It's not rocket science

Tell me do you think everything is more complicated than it actually is?


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 29, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Here let me give you my accountant's phone number right after you sign a confidentiality agreement.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 29, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



You ought to stop now. You are going to wear out that shovel. 

Nice playing with you, chief.


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 29, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Those guys you give breaks to.......are they on your books?



Of course not.

You show me one person who has an arrangement like that who is on their landlord books if you can.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 29, 2014)

No.....really.......just stop. I am starting to feel sorry for you.


----------



## Spiderman (Mar 29, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Tell me what's your income, who pays you, what's your cost for utilities every year, income taxes. real estate taxes medical bills.

Go ahead give me the answer right now or else I'll call you a liar and even if you could give me all those answers right now I still would not believe you.

I have nothing invested in this board or in any of you so do you really think I care what you think?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 29, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



No you dont'.  ^ More projection on your part, disguised as you 'thinking' you're being clever.   




> When the tax payer mails the check which he has made payable to the IRS, any  proprietary interest  in the exchange is lost unless he overpays and a refund is due. Your likes or dislikes, indeed, have no bearing on how the government distributes monies from the check you wrote!



You just reiterated what I said.  Derrrr.   You continue to dodge my last sentence.



> That someone else is usually a  body of individuals called American citizens.  Their role in self governance is spelled out quite clearly in the  Preamble to the United States Constitution:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Rambles on yet still doesn't mention that big old piece of pie.  



			
				JQpublic1 said:
			
		

> Public schools? Is that why you think you are so obtuse? I guess picking  up a dictionary is considered a weakness in your neighborhood. Here you go chap... Ill be brave, charitable  and do it for you!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nah, you fumbled and are trying to recover.  Fail!


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 29, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Ah ha ha!  Typical LL m.o.  Go on, run away.  

You demanded his info, he provided it, you then still say he's a liar and change the subject to "you make all that $ you have nothing to complain about spending 2% on health insurance".  You can't even remotely address his point, can you? Loser.

You are SO FULL OF SHIT.  What part of his premium/deductible has risen substantially because he is BEING FORCED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO BUY SOMETHING HE DOES NOT NEED, DOES NOT WANT, WILL NEVER USE do you not get?  Just because he has the money you think it's fine for him to be forced to spend it on shit he won't ever use?  Who the fuck put YOU in charge of what someone else should spend THEIR money on?? What a fucking moronic idiot you are.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 29, 2014)

rdean said:


> When did right wing nuts turn against America?


Whenever there's a Democrat in the Oval Office.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 29, 2014)

Spiderman said:
			
		

> I subcontract out any maintenance work I don't do myself. I'm a contractor and can do any repairs that come along I give a couple guys a break on rent to mow lawns and plow. I* own one car (a 10 year old Ford F350 that I paid cash for 6 years ago) My insurance for that vehicle is less than 200 a month.*


  The emboldened text certainly makes you sound like a fool! Anyone paying $200 per month for insurance on a 10 year old vehicle is either lying or a fool. A wise man would just pay liability and cut his insurance costs dramatically. After all, your insurance company is not going to give you more than a couple of hundred dollars if you total it!

You damage your wisdom and credibility further with references to your frugality and self aggrandizements :



			
				Spiderman said:
			
		

> ]I'm sorry if I think paying for shit I don't need or want is not a good thing.
> 
> I suppose just because I can afford something I should buy it and pay more than I have to even if I don't need it.
> 
> I'm extremely frugal always have been and it's a habit I'm in no hurry to break



Poor lad. Like most  pseudo-conservatives you don't even know who you are. Neither can you cope efficiently with even the most rudimentary challenges in life. You are simply projecting what you want to be, not what you are!


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 29, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > When did right wing nuts turn against America?
> ...


Another* sunshine patriot *is revealed! Democrats, OTOH love their country no matter which party holds the reins.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 29, 2014)

Now you have lowered the bar. Losers. like you, run out of arguments rather quickly. That being done, you abandon ethics and honor by revising or omitting elements of your opponent&#8217;s quotes. I have no need or desire to converse with such a cretin as you have turned out to be! 

For those who study the insane, compare Zoom-Boing&#8217;s chopped up version of my quote to the original and make your diagnosis known to all! The man is psychotic!



Here are the exact words you said:



			
				 Zoom Boing in a hissy fit said:
			
		

> "government funds" wtf, are you on drugs? The government doesn't have any "funds", it is taxpayer money that is footing the bill. Anyone getting anything subsidized means someone else is paying for it; anyone who is paying more is paying for it. Period. It's only going to get worse. There is no "probably" about any of that.&#8221;





			
				 JQPublic1 in response to Zoom-Boing hissy fit! said:
			
		

> I think I read you right! You still think taxpayers and the government are two different things whether you actually say so or not. Your entire premise reeks of the piteous belief. When I clarified it, you panicked and overlooked words like &#8220;obviously&#8221; in the emboldened text... words which should have precluded your knee jerk reaction. You do know that when I used the adverb &#8220; obviously&#8221; to describe a behavior or intent on your part it is not referring to an actual quote, don&#8217;t you? The other emboldened text was formed as a question extrapolated from your over concern about taxpayer&#8217;s money. You never even considered that the majority of voters who put Obama in office twice pay taxes too and that its THEIR tax dollars that foot the bill for progressive causes. Just think of it this way...your &#8220;conservative&#8221; tax dollars are being spent on DEFENSE or on all the bases we have around the world!


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 29, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> Now you have lowered the bar. Losers. like you, run out of arguments rather quickly. That being done, you abandon ethics and honor by revising or omitting elements of your opponent&#8217;s quotes. I have no need or desire to converse with such a cretin as you have turned out to be!
> 
> For those who study the insane, compare Zoom-Boing&#8217;s chopped up version of my quote to the original and make your diagnosis known to all! The man is psychotic!
> 
> ...



I didn't chop up your post that's how it copied when I quoted it.  It drops quotes as you go along. Sorry you weren't aware of this.  You want to go fix it be my guest.  I already did that in my previous post, wasn't going to do it again.   I notice you failed to get any posts of mine that say what you've projected onto me.  Fail.

What part of this is false:  "The government doesn't have any "funds", it is taxpayer money that is footing the bill. Anyone getting anything subsidized means someone else is paying for it." *note, by 'government' I am referring to the DC crowd.  

Three times you failed to address key points, as I noted in previous posts.  

I'm done here.


----------



## Spoonman (Mar 29, 2014)

Meister said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



an even bigger win for the insurance companies,  who this bill was really written for anyway


----------



## JQPublic1 (Mar 30, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:
			
		

> I didn't chop up your post that's how it copied when I quoted it. It drops quotes as you go along. Sorry you weren't aware of this. You want to go fix it be my guest. I already did that in my previous post, wasn't going to do it again.



Funny, I never had that problem or has anyone else that I know of. I am not saying it isn't possible, but when dealing with "conservatives" one has to be on guard for treachery and tricks! Still, the content of your character is called into question when you reveal that you would allow a post to misrepresent a fellow debater due to a glitch. You are still responsible for that post and should be held accountable for it



> I notice you failed to get any posts of mine that say what you've projected onto me. Fail.


 Aww, fellow, you whine too much. You just did not like the response given.



> What part of this is false: "The government doesn't have any "funds", it is taxpayer money that is footing the bill.



All of it is false! The government does have funds. And since you apparently did not read my post explaining that premise, I will post it again: When you put your tax payment in the mail, it is payable to the IRS and that money no longer belongs to you. Now, if you really want to be technical about it, even as you generate your income, part of the money from that labor already belongs to the government



> Anyone getting anything subsidized means someone else is paying for it." *note, by 'government' I am referring to the DC crowd.



I suppose one could look at it like that! Another viewpoint is that taxpayer funds are just one source of government income. With some government funds being generated by land leasing, interest on loans and fines, or other myriad sources, your premise is not entirely true. Yours is a specious belief that rests entirely on nebulous assumptions. My point is that you cannot differentiate between taxpayer funds or funds generated by interest on outstanding loans. That renders your premise as little more than speculation at best!



> Three times you failed to address key points, as I noted in previous posts.



What key points? All I have seen from you is an obsessive push to revise the definition of "subsidize."


> I'm done here.


 You were done long before now.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 30, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


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



You're quite the odd one. 



JQPublic1 said:


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



No, you projected, can't find anything that I posted that supports your projection, and now resort to 'you're whining!'.  You fail.



JQPublic1 said:


> All of it is false! The government does have funds. And since you apparently did not read my post explaining that premise, I will post it again: *When you put your tax payment in the mail, it is payable to the IRS and that money no longer belongs to you. *Now, if you really want to be technical about it, even as you generate your income, part of the money from that labor already belongs to the government.



So once again class.  Where does the government get its money from?  

Thank you for proving my point.



JQPublic1 said:


> *I suppose one could look at it like that! *Another viewpoint is that taxpayer funds are just one source of government income. With some government funds being generated by land leasing, interest on loans and fines, or other myriad sources, your premise is not entirely true. Yours is a specious belief that rests entirely on nebulous assumptions. My point is that you cannot differentiate between taxpayer funds or funds generated by interest on outstanding loans. That renders your premise as little more than speculation at best!



There is no "suppose" about it.  The government does not produce anything, can't purchase anything without getting its 'funds' (revenue) from someone else.  _That would be joe taxpayer._   Here, this will help you understand.  United States Government Revenue History - Charts



JQPublic1 said:


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



Dodge ball again. Heads up!



JQPublic1 said:


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



Oh look, you think you're being cute.  Awww.  

Now, go quote this post and see how it drops quotes.


----------



## Meister (Mar 30, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


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


 oh brother


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 30, 2014)

Meister said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



He's tedious, isn't he?

*Note the dropped quotes.


----------



## Meister (Mar 30, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...


He just likes to insult the intelligence of the conservatives.....trying to baffle them with bullshit.


----------



## rdean (Mar 30, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



So I'm sitting here Googling "aetna insurance for 168 a month single person" from 2000 to 2008 and what I found were numbers closer to this:

MONTHLY RATES START AT: $714 single / $1,808 family

and what you get is this:

When using your own doctors, you have 
$5000/$15,000 deductible 
60% coverage up to $10,000, 100% thereafter 
Hospitalization 
Mental Health  20 visits 
Chiropractic 
When using AETNA doctors, you have 
$25/$40 Office copay 
Preventative Care 
Hospitalization - $500 deductible 
Mental Health  $40 copay/ 20 visits per year 
Chiropractic 
Plan includes a $20 generic/$30 brand/$50 drug card w/$200 deductible

------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps you should review that old insurance plan and see what the "fine print" actually says?  Or maybe you could scan it an post it through one of those sites that lets you post pictures anonymously.  You could ink out names and locations.


----------



## Rozman (Mar 30, 2014)

All I know is before ObamaCare I went to the doctors office 4 times a year...
BP tested,blood taken,EKG performed and twice a year the ECHO/Sonar thing where they listen to blood flow.

Cost $80 to me....

Now I have a $6,000.00 deductible.

Office vist alone is now $250.00
Forget about the tests on top of that.
A few grand maybe...

I cancelled a scheduled appointment that I had for this month and told them why.
They said they understood....

Thanks Obama...


----------



## Zoom-boing (Mar 31, 2014)

rdean said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Link?


----------



## rdean (Mar 31, 2014)

Rozman said:


> All I know is before ObamaCare I went to the doctors office 4 times a year...
> BP tested,blood taken,EKG performed and twice a year the ECHO/Sonar thing where they listen to blood flow.
> 
> Cost $80 to me....
> ...



Under your old plan, you probably didn't have hospital coverage at all.  If you did, you would have posted it.


----------



## rdean (Mar 31, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Spiderman said:
> ...



Don't you know how to use Google?  The person before me provided no link.  Why should I?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 1, 2014)

rdean said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Typical.  

Rozman is suppose to provide a link to his own personal experience?  

Link for the info you posted.  TIA.


----------



## rdean (Apr 1, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



"Own Personal Experience"?  Well, it was my "own personal experience" to learn how to use Google.  And I did.  Why believe that and not this?  Because you don't want to know the truth.  If you did, you would spend 5 minutes using Google to prove I'm wrong.  Only you won't.  And we both know it.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Apr 2, 2014)

Zoom-Boing, it seems the crux of our debate turns upon the following exchange.:




			
				JQPublic1 said:
			
		

> I suppose one could look at it like that! Another viewpoint is that taxpayer funds are just one source of government income. With some government funds being generated by land leasing, interest on loans and fines, or other myriad sources, your premise is not entirely true. Yours is a specious belief that rests entirely on nebulous assumptions. My point is that you cannot differentiate between taxpayer funds or funds generated by interest on outstanding loans. That renders your premise as little more than speculation at best!





			
				Zoom-Boing said:
			
		

> There is no "suppose" about it. The government does not produce anything, can't purchase anything without getting its 'funds' (revenue) from someone else. That would be joe taxpayer. Here, this will help you understand. United States Government Revenue History - Charts




We disagree here. But to  drive my point home to less obstinate and more objective readers I point to your own link which clearly shows that 8% of government revenue comes from fees, *This includes but is not limited to land leasing fees  for various mineral extractions and visits to national monuments/parks.* You may have to do a little math but we are talking about billions of dollars. *Non of those funds are generated  by taxes*.


----------



## oreo (Apr 2, 2014)

rdean said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > All I know is before ObamaCare I went to the doctors office 4 times a year...
> ...




There is no such thing as a medical insurance policy that doesn't cover hospitalization----

That is SPECIFICALLY the number ONE reason why people get medical insurance in the first place.

Now if you have a deductible--you will pay that amount first, and or the policy will pay 80% of the bill--and you pay 20% until your deductible is met-- then the policy will take over by 100% of the hospital costs.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 2, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> Zoom-Boing, it seems the crux of our debate turns upon the following exchange.:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Where does the government get the money they use to buy/lease those lands?

Where does the government get the money to loan and collect interest on?

So joe taxpayer isn't the one paying the fees to enter monuments and parks?  Who is, Smokey the Bear?  Sorry for the confusion.  Instead of 'joe taxpayer' I'll call them 'we, the people'.  Better?  Derp.

Point IS ... the government is primarily funded by joe taxpayer, er we the people, one way or another.  Don't know why you keep arguing this.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 2, 2014)

rdean said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



You made the statement and even went so far as saying you googled it ... yet you just can't seem to produce the link but instead insist that others go find it.   You made the claim, it's on you to provide the linky link link link.

  rderping, you're doing it right!


----------



## JQPublic1 (Apr 2, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-Boing, it seems the crux of our debate turns upon the following exchange.:
> ...



Your circular approach doesn't advance the conversation. While the biggest source of funding comes from income taxes and payroll taxes billions are generated by tourists and even foreign companies or multi-nationals.



> So joe taxpayer isn't the one paying the fees to enter monuments and parks?  Who is, Smokey the Bear?  Sorry for the confusion.  Instead of 'joe taxpayer' I'll call them 'we, the people'.  Better?  Derp.


  A sensible person would see that the Russian bear, the Chinese dragon and the German Adler are all well represented in  American tourism as are  the national symbols of myriad other countries. Although many citizens from those parts of the world could probably pass for "joe the taxpayer" even you could eventually tell the difference. Then again.....



			
				Zoom-Boing said:
			
		

> Point IS ... the government is primarily funded by joe taxpayer, er we the people, one way or another.  Don't know why you keep arguing this.



The key word is "primarily." Looks like you finally realize that there is more to government funding than meets the eye. Thanks for agreeing with me! I cannot argue with your last sentence as it accounts for sources beyond " joe the taxpayer." Thanks!


----------



## whitehall (Apr 2, 2014)

Does the radical left actually search every state to find a provocative statement by a republican? I guess they have the resources courtesy of Soros' MM.  Wouldn't you think a state elected official would have decent health insurance without going into the ironically named ACA and hoping for a decent price in a gigantic pool that hasn't even been fully implemented? Something ain't right about the Huffington editorial.


----------



## rdean (Apr 2, 2014)

oreo said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Rozman said:
> ...



I can't believe that you could get some ignorant right wingers to agree with you.

You know, you could even go to wikipedia to find out the truth.  

You could get a plan that says hospital, but really refers to getting a mammogram or some procedure not available in the doctors office.  Or you could get a "scheduled plan" which allows only a couple of visits a year to a doctor and a limited number of tests.  It's these kinds of "moron plans" that Obama is trying to get rid of and Republicans are fighting to keep.  But come one, what do you expect people living off Social Security and Medicare while screaming to have their benefits cut?


----------



## rdean (Apr 2, 2014)

whitehall said:


> *Does the radical left actually search every state to find a provocative statement by a republican? *I guess they have the resources courtesy of Soros' MM.  Wouldn't you think a state elected official would have decent health insurance without going into the ironically named ACA and hoping for a decent price in a gigantic pool that hasn't even been fully implemented? Something ain't right about the Huffington editorial.



We don't have to.  There is so much rich material being thrown in our faces.  Republicans constantly call us liars.  Even after we post video and audio, uncut, unaltered and in context.


----------



## oreo (Apr 3, 2014)

whitehall said:


> Does the radical left actually search every state to find a provocative statement by a republican? I guess they have the resources courtesy of Soros' MM.  Wouldn't you think a state elected official would have decent health insurance without going into the ironically named ACA and hoping for a decent price in a gigantic pool that hasn't even been fully implemented? Something ain't right about the Huffington editorial.



They must believe that Obamacare doesn't cross party lines----

Sure Obamacare is great for those who get it for free under the expanded Medicaid programs--and it's great for lower incomes.  There is no disagreement there.

But in reality--Obamacare is nothing more than a sucker punch to working middle class Americans.  *It's nothing more than wealth redistribution via health care.*  Only this time it's not the rich that is paying for all of the new Medicaid enrollees or all of the subsidized policies, it's working middle class Americans whom are seeing their premiums double to sometimes even triple to what they were paying to pay for all the rest.

Obama has frantically delayed extensions--and postponed the employer mandate until after this coming mid-term election cycle.  Because they know that millions more in the nation will see their employer/employee based policies cancelled due to all of the mandates within Obamacare.  Such as everyone--without exception--is required to have maternity--drug and alcohol abuse coverage, which has spiked insurance rates across this country.  If your current employer policy does not meet these requirements--be assured your policy will be cancelled.  IOW--it's not if Obamacare will affect you, it's when.

Enrollment in Obamacare Exchanges: How Will Your Health Insurance Fare?





And here is what small business employees are looking at in blue state PA.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 3, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



Jesus you are just dense.  Primarily means that joetaxpayer foots the bill for the vast  majority of anything the gov't does.  Again, I don't know why you're arguing about 'other sources' as _joetaxpayer foots the bill for the vast majority of anything the gov't does. _ What was it they took in last year from us, 3T?  They consider a billion here or there as chump change to the T that they get.  

The original post of yours I responded to was in reference to "gov't funds" for those getting subsidies from obamacare.  You then decided to go off on a tangent, stretching your neck around to say 'ah ha!  see?  gov't gets money from other sources other than joetaxpayer!'.  Aye yi yi.  

In reference to your post I responded to, it isn't _gov't_ anything, they are just acting as the middle man.  Those dollars - the subsidies - are coming from_ we, the people_, in the form of more taxes and higher premiums for others.  If someone is getting a government subsidy (for anything but specifically in this discussion for obamacare) it means that someone else, some other joetaxpayer, we the people, are footing the bill. That's a fact, jack. You want to argue that, you want to say "oh, but wait, gov't gets money from xx and yy too!", have at it.  You'd be wrong.  _Those_ monies are not paying for the subsidies for those receiving them from obamacare.   Our premiums went up 44% this year.  Why?  So that someone else gets to pay less.  21 new taxes in the pos bill.  Just wait until the other shoes drop in the coming years ... and we the people --- well, _some of us _--- are on the hook for it.  

You, like so many others, want to keep your ears and eyes closed to it?  Go ahead.  It won't change the facts.


----------



## Meister (Apr 3, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



  Spot on, Zoom.  But, Pubes will come back and try and baffle you with his BS like he has tried so far in this thread.


----------



## rdean (Apr 3, 2014)

oreo said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Does the radical left actually search every state to find a provocative statement by a republican? I guess they have the resources courtesy of Soros' MM.  Wouldn't you think a state elected official would have decent health insurance without going into the ironically named ACA and hoping for a decent price in a gigantic pool that hasn't even been fully implemented? Something ain't right about the Huffington editorial.
> ...



You've got to stop posting bullshit from the Heritage Foundation.  Don't you know that organisation doesn't care about the middle class?  They have been caught in so many lies they are constantly scrubbing their website.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 3, 2014)

rdean said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



At least she posted a link to info she provided.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Apr 5, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



 I color coded those points you made in red which are unlinked. I'll take those allegations as wild assed guesses. Facts are based on documented and properly linked sources not gut feelings and speculation. Your hunches are nothing more than fodder for you and your fellow right wingers. If that is all you have the conversation is over.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 5, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



You're a fucking idiot, you know that?

WE THE FUCKING PEOPLE ARE FOOTING THE BILL FOR THIS POS LAW.  If you don't know that?  You must be a liberal.  Not my problem you're stupid.

I can't link _our _ (MY FAMILY'S) 44% increase in h/i premiums.  You can call me a liar.  You'd be wrong.  

Here's MORE info.  on rising costs.  

http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/...-rise-under-a-c-a/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth...fordable-care-act-goes-into-effect-obamacare/
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...ally-increase-healthcare-costs-for-businesses



> A federal actuarial report predicts that 65% of small businesses will see their health-insurance premiums increase under part of the Affordable Care Act.



http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304834704579403581288810194


You fucking moronic moron.  Fucking go get a clue.  You're a complete idiot.

ObamaCare Tax: Full List of ObamaCare Taxes

unsub because you're a moron with shit for brains.


----------



## Meister (Apr 5, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



At least the twit said the conversation was over, Zoom.  
That in itself is a blessing, was getting tired of his empty drivel.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 5, 2014)

Meister said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



omG I even went back in and edited my post with MORE links for the idiot to read.  He's a leftist lemming, not worth the time.  He's too stupid. Of course the conversation is over, he has nothing to offer and falls back on the typical "wild ass guesses" and the like reply.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 5, 2014)

^ rightist lemming post 

Come on zany zoomy. Can you do better than that? From your link:

The History of ObamaCare



> The concept behind ObamaCare was an individual mandate to coupled with subsidies for private insurance. The concept was first put forth by The Heritage Foundation, a politically conservative think tank. Their idea was that this was an acceptable alternative to the single-payer initiative, Medicare for All, being proposed by the Clinton Administration. Since that time health care reform was proposed and expanded upon by both parties until it was implemented in Massachusetts by then-Governor Romney. During the 2008 elections, health care reform became a major plank on the platform of the Democratic party.



stop w/ the rw hive mind fake outs


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 5, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> WE THE FUCKING PEOPLE ARE FOOTING THE BILL FOR THIS POS LAW.




Nah, it'll pay for itself.


----------



## MeBelle (Apr 5, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> ^ rightist lemming post
> 
> Come on zany zoomy. Can you do better than that? From your link:
> 
> ...



Perty isn't it?

Fortunately the idea put forth by the Heritage Foundation was merely an idea, not a mandate.


----------



## Zander (Apr 5, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > WE THE FUCKING PEOPLE ARE FOOTING THE BILL FOR THIS POS LAW.
> ...



You can't be that stupid.....


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 5, 2014)

come on people. Let-up on the rw hate.


----------



## rdean (Apr 5, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...



When did links ever matter to right wingers.  I post them all the time.  They only believe what they want to believe.  I even posted links from the right wing Christian Science Monitor and USMB right wingers will call it a lie.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...sperately-need-barrack-obama.html#post8889010


----------



## MeBelle (Apr 5, 2014)

rdean said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Try again 

There is also an international weekly newspaper, The Christian Science Monitor, which has won several Pulitzer Prizes.[4] *The Monitor is a secular newspaper*; however, there is one religious article in each issue.

Christian Science Publishing Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 5, 2014)

rdean's right. We Progs post numerous links but rw hive mind types are too lazy or they know their links will be laughed at for being too zany


----------



## Truthbetold (Apr 5, 2014)

Ill keep it simple.  

Obamacare
Cost to tax payers over 10 years: 1.5 trillion
Cost to tax payers per year: 150 Billion
Enrolled: Lets say 8 million end up enrolling with the extensions.

Cost of the couples insurance in the OP: 135/month $1,620 a year.

Cost per year to the tax payers: $18,750 X 2 since 2 people enrolled = $37,500

Thanks Obamacare.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 5, 2014)

rdean said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...





Liar.



rdean said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


----------



## Zoom-boing (Apr 5, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> ^ rightist lemming post
> 
> Come on zany zoomy. Can you do better than that? From your link:
> 
> ...



Speaking of buzzing ...before he was for it, obama was against the mandate.

btw, how did that mandate thing work out back in the 90's?  Republicans evolved and realized it was a poor idea so it was shelved, only to be brought back to life by the D's.

You guys own it lock, stock, and barrel ... no matter how much you whine about it being a Republican idea.


----------



## MeBelle (Apr 5, 2014)

Zoom-boing said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > ^ rightist lemming post
> ...



*^^^^That's a wrap, folks^^^^*

*^^^^/thread^^^^^*
​


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Apr 6, 2014)

Another Republican says ...


----------



## whitehall (Apr 6, 2014)

What do democrats "thank God" for? The forum should be full of posts by lefties describing the accomplishments of the Hussein administration which is in it's 2nd term but all they do is attack the minority party and pretend that they are victims. What does that tell you about the administration's agenda?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Sep 3, 2016)

OP didn't get one vote up. That's just sad.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Sep 3, 2016)

Synthaholic said:


> *Scott Brown Awkwardly Finds Out That Obamacare Is Also Helping Republicans*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And once again, we see a social safety net at work.

That Obamacare has some successes is inevitable....it's a law of percentages.

Overall, it sucks.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Sep 3, 2016)

JQPublic1 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



It is chump change when you consider we are spending 8,500 per person per year.  70/month gets you 840/year, which means others are making up 90% of the difference.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Sep 3, 2016)

rdean said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



And yet you dicks want to credit them with starting Obamacare.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Sep 4, 2016)

,308 perperson





Sun Devil 92 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



Whoa. The  cost of subsidies was  projected to be around 4,308 per person in 2016.  I agree that is still too damn much. I am beginning to think socialized medicine would be far better for our teeming masses!


----------



## billyerock1991 (Sep 4, 2016)

whitehall said:


> What do democrats "thank God" for? The forum should be full of posts by lefties describing the accomplishments of the Hussein administration which is in it's 2nd term but all they do is attack the minority party and pretend that they are victims. What does that tell you about the administration's agenda?


this tell us how ignorant you are... first of all, the democrats is the minority party in the congress ...so why would democrats attack themselves
we Got osama Bin Laden did ya for get that,  drum roll


----------



## billyerock1991 (Sep 4, 2016)

theres more if you like...
 here read it for your self  A LONG List Of President Obama’s Accomplishments (With Citations)


----------



## billyerock1991 (Sep 4, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > *Scott Brown Awkwardly Finds Out That Obamacare Is Also Helping Republicans*
> ...


in only sucks in states that didn't accept it ... in my state Colorado, one the state that Trump needs to win, that he won't get ... why ???  people are getting health care at a great cost... people are benefiting from its cost ...  thats why you don't get it ... 

example: just had  several herniated disc repaired ... my cost ??? big fat goose egg ... prior to OBAMA care  I got just a MRI it cost me 5000 dollars and I had health care ... they said they would cover it ... after obama care, my MRI cost me nothing .... the insurance covered it it ... Plus it was a pre-existing condition to boot ...now I walk a lot easer without pain and you're trying to tell me Obama care sucks ??? you must live in a state that doesn't accept it ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Sep 4, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...


actually you aren't paying for it ... the tax payer isn't paying for anything ... remember one of the things the republicans tried to do and took it to the supreme court... if you're able to remember... one of the taxes passed to help cover for subsidies was medical equipment ... well that 2.2 percent has so far covered all of the states that have subsidies  ... you see if your state doesn't accept obama care you don't get that subsidiary...so only a little more the half get subsidies .. where you got your information from is beyond me ... probably from some right wing I had everything obama site


----------



## billyerock1991 (Sep 4, 2016)

JQPublic1 said:


> ,308 perperson
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 again the tax payer isn't pay that cost .. there were taxes passed to companies that would cover the cost of these subsidies ... no more then 2.2% to that company


----------



## billyerock1991 (Sep 4, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...


what have you been smoking ...


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Sep 4, 2016)

billyerock1991 said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Yes it does.

It sounds like you got the health care you needed.  That is great.  But the truth is that a lot of other people paid for it who were not paying into your insurance.

My state does accept it.

It still sucks.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Sep 4, 2016)

billyerock1991 said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



You are telling me that the left does not constantly crow that the individual mandate didn't come from some dork at Heritage.

I think you need to be looking at your own cigarettes....you are from Colorado....right ?


----------



## billyerock1991 (Sep 5, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


then you pick the wrong plan ..


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Sep 5, 2016)

billyerock1991 said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



I don't have it.

My employer pays my insurance.

I know plenty of people who have been hurt by it.

Your little quip is meaningless.


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 8, 2016)

billyerock1991 said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Dear billyerock1991

How about this analogy

A. if we didn't rely on Chinese slave labor, we couldn't afford the cell phones, and other electronics, clothing etc. that rely on Asian and also South/Central American slave labor

B. But since we still have these markets and outsourcing to rely on, we are able to afford the goods, even at the expense of other people who can't afford to buy their own goods they are producing.
People in Africa and other third-world countries have been starving to death for centuries
though their continent is wealthy in resources. Other people benefit, and are happy with the set up, but the people paying the cost are complaining and this isn't "social justice."

So does this justify keeping the system as it is, because it benefits US on the receiving end?

Or is it still necessary for humanity's sake to make sure the people PAYING the cost
also receive the benefits of their labor. That it should be PROPORTIONATE and fair.

Can you understand this analogy, and why both scenarios need to change to something
MORE SUSTAINABLE and not just shortcuts benefiting one side of the equation?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Sep 8, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> Can you understand this analogy, and why both scenarios need to change to something
> MORE SUSTAINABLE and not just shortcuts benefiting one side of the equation?



You are correct.

Right now, it is just cost shifting.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Sep 11, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


get yourself a health care broker ... to many people go on line they see a package and they buy that package without really knowing what they are buying ...I've even seen people who bought their health care and didn't look up their subsidiary ... you have to apply for that too ... that's why I say get a health care broker they know all the in's and outs ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Sep 11, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


I understand what you are saying here ... but you're comparing apples to oranges ... you're saying income for americans is the problem ... I understand this ... it all started with Nixon then with nafta ...a plan created by Ronald reagan Administration  ... it was going to be passed by George H.W. Bush in january 1992 but he lost the election ... where we Dems felt it was a good Idea back then along with the republicans too ... we did have some benefit at first as time went on not so much ... when they started allowing companies to move out of country for tax reason, then sell their product back here in the US dodging all the taxes that they use to pay ..that was the biggest mistake the congress ever made you know this and so do I...

finally under Nixon he was the one that decided to have supported national health insurance with privater companies to insure you ... along with copays, that we never had a copay of any kind prior to his plan... Nixon felt it was a good Idea to have you pay a little money extra for your health care this was supposed to bring down the cost of health care it didn't it went up  .. again copays another republican Idea... that went south on us all... were all know through the congress as time went on they allow health care companies to pass laws that allowed them to deny you health care ... they allow them to say what they covered ... that was done so they could make a profit ... before this new health care all health care was non-profit  ... so along with passing Nafta type bills and allowing health care companies to refuse you health care, we all got fuck ... we should charge these companies leaving the country just to get a better tax rate on their product, then coming back into this country to sell it at a higher price... to imply our health care problem in this country was created by Obama care . Just don't buy it


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 11, 2016)

billyerock1991 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



Dear billyerock1991:


I think you are thinking as long as some "bigger corporation" is paying the difference, then it isn't on the taxpayers.
Well, then why aren't the "bigger corporations" AGREEING to carry that cost if it is "saving money" to be "making money" WITHOUT FORCING customers to pay and buy from them?

The issue is FREE WILL -- if the mandates didn't rely on FORCING people to buy, then you could say it is all "voluntary" and the money paid out is covered by the money coming in by FREE MARKET choices. Like how McDonald's will make enough profit to pay enough to workers to CHOOSE to work there. Nobody is FORCED to buy or work at McDonald's in order for them to cover costs, and people CHOOSE to go there and PAY to get good service at affordable rates. So because that works, other restaurants have to compete to be as cost-effective with what they provide in order to draw business by FREE CHOICE.

And there ARE examples of health and medical services that run VERY efficiently serving those in need by VOLUNTARY participation and funding.
(See below for comparison to Doctors Without Borders. If you want to talk about insurance companies, USAA testified before Congress and was assessed as "already providing equitable services WITHOUT any need for legislation" -- so that should have been the model instead of trying to FORCE anyone to buy services unless they committed a crime and owed debts or restitution for costs they incurred to the public.)

A. For taxpayers who HAVEN'T committed crimes, haven't incurred medical or health care debts they haven't paid for, and don't owe any compensation they don't agree to pay VOLUNTARILY without being FORCED through govt.

The comparison that avatar made to "servitude" may put it in perspective for you, as it did for me:
* as long as health care/medical services RELY on material resources and human labor,
then TRYING TO MANDATE THAT THIS BE PROVIDED FOR FREE, with no obligation by the recipient to cover the costs,
is forcing SOMEONE to give up their labor to cover the services and labor.

* compare to FREE MARKET and CHARITY by CHOICE such as Doctors Without Borders:
NOBODY is forced to give to the Red Cross, to the Jude's Childrens Hospital, to MSF/Doctors without Borders.
THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE, do you get it?

If a group like McDonald's or Red Cross does a GOOD JOB providing economical and efficient services, people VOLUNTARILY give them their money to get that.
NOBODY is forced to fund McDonald's and McDonald's is not FORCED to provide services to people.
It runs because it meets the demands and answers to the public.

So if you want economical health services that is RESPONSIBLE to the public,
I would look at CORPORATIONS THAT WORK and use that model.

B. Now, if you want to talk about people who CAN'T afford their care, such as mentally ill, disabled or criminally ill or convicted people,
AGAIN, why can't the funding be VOLUNTARY where the MOST EFFECTIVE service providers COMPETE to get that business such as the
well-managed nonprofits like AmeriCares that has higher than 86% of its resources going into services or Doctors without Borders as a MODEL.

If communities have to COMPETE to reduce their CRIME RATE and health care problems in order NOT to strain their services and resources,
this STILL puts responsibility on PEOPLE to IMPROVE their behavior in order to AFFORD HEALTH CARE.

There has to be CONSEQUENCES based on BEHAVIOR.

So it is still taking shortcuts and taking the burden off the people incurring the costs, if this is FORCED ONTO TAXPAYERS.

WHY DO YOU THINK THE PRISON/Health care/Mental Health system is in SHAMBLES and bankrupting the states.
They are having to cut costs by releasing dangerous criminals, and can't keep people medicated in the mental hospitals that have no room, so they release them to "halfway houses" (without curing them, just medicating them enough to justify releasing them) to take in new crises every day! So the same sick people rotate in and out.

billyerock1991 This is a very deep issue that I intend to address with my Congresswoman who sent out an update on both prison reform and health care reform.
I'm saying the two are directly connected, because
A. that's where the resources are that could be SAVED to cover health care
B. that's where we CAN MAKE A DISTINCTION between people who HAVEN'T been convicted of a crime (and don't owe the govt a reduction or restriction on liberties)
and those who HAVE incurred debts or damages for which they owe penalties, or loss of liberty under DUE PROCESS before being deprived of such.

This is VERY important to understand the difference.

The rightwing Constitutionalists and Christians tend to get that the responsibility lies with PEOPLE first, not with govt to take care of people without condition.
But the leftwing that uses the Govt as their "church" tend to push things onto Govt that others have been using churches and charities for.

Because the liberals tend to represent the people unable to manage or access resources, this has shifted to the Democrats and to the Govt to take care of the charity cases where the resources are divided, wasted or otherwise poorly managed.

But that is not an excuse to PUNISH taxpayers and take liberty away from people who support WELL MANAGED nonprofits that COULD handle the demand if Govt is modeled
after WORKING programs that are SUSTAINABLE.

C. another big issue is that the ability to serve the greater population depends on spiritual healing and health, that is based on FREE CHOICE
and cannot be dictated or regulated by govt.

So people should have a choice:
A. if you want the FREE MARKET approach, using free choice of business, charities, schools, nonprofits,
then these PRIVATE groups CAN require Spiritual Healing to remove and cure any and all causes of abuse, addiction or other mentally or physically ill behavior that is running up costs and taking up resources that could help people who can't help their situations. If you are drinking, smoking, into crime or doing other unsafe, addictive or sick behaviors, then the private groups can choose not to waste resources unless people are willing to help themselves.

B.  if you want to force govt to cover you regardless of your behavior, then each group that wants certain conditions should set up their own programs and restrictions through govt and require anyone who CHOOSES to participate in that program (or commits a crime and owes restitution for debts or damages) can be regulated under that.  But not FORCE anyone.

People must be given a FREE CHOICE, just like CHOOSING whether to follow Christian or Muslim or Buddhist rules of living.  Health care involves HEALTH and LIFE choices, so that's why we keep running into problems with govt regulating that. People don't all agree on lifestyle choices, so that's why we need programs that OFFER and RESPECT free choice!

Then there will be accountability for costs
on both the receiving side, where people AGREE to meet the terms of the program and aren't FORCED to join or pay in,
and on the providing side, where people who AGREE to provide help can choose the terms and not be forced to pay for conditions that were the fault of someone's willful behavior that person should be held accountable for.

Thank you billyerock1991 if you have faith in govt providing health care, that's fine, but people like you should pay for that and set up the rules.
AND NOT force your system of conditions on people who believe in the churches and charities providing cost-effective health care for low to no cost because
spiritual healing is used to cure the cause of illness.  People should have a CHOICE and that is what is missing here.

NOTE: I have NO PROBLEM with people believing in Govt providing health care under conditions YOU agree to set if YOU agree to pay for that program; where we are ALL running into conflicts is NOT AGREEING on the terms of paying in or out -- so there is NO ACCOUNTABILITY just like the failed govt mental health care programs because there is NO requirement to cure people, only to medicate them and re-release them in a revolving door system. As long as the costs aren't based on cutting them by CURING and PREVENTING relapse, there is NO incentive and the cost just keep getting dumped on the public forced to pay for prisons and mental health systems that are backlogged and can't meet demand.

Avatar4321 if you're still around, can you help me write up this to be shorter, so I can present it to my local Congress and Senate officials and Texas Governor.
I'd like Texas to be the model for dividing the systems by Party so both approaches can be used, developed and perfected to work for those populations.
Instead of forcing one on the other where we waste energy, time and other resources fighting for control; why not offer both tracks and let people choose
what works and make that plan work cost effectively. Thank you !

People who believe in spiritual healing and prolife, and holding people accountable for costs of abuse, addictions and crime in order to pay for their health care should have a track for that.
And people who want to use govt to help anyone regardless of condition like the prison system pays for convicts, should be in charge of funding and setting up conditions they believe are inclusive and affordable.  And let people CHOOSE if they want the spiritual healing to cure the causes of addiction, abuse, crime, mentally and physical illness, depending which program they want to subscribe to and also which to fund. This can't be forced onto people by govt, but our "free choices of both tracks" can be PROTECTED by govt where nobody should be mandated to fund any such program against their beliefs (such as anti-abortion or anti-death penalty people who believe in funding cures correction and prevention instead of terminating life as a religious or spiritual issue of belief for them.).


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 11, 2016)

billyerock1991 said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



Dear billyerock1991
What you are saying is like "let govt force people to go through spiritual healing so they can find out it cuts costs of cancer, crime, abuse and addiction where everyone can afford health care"

Sorry billyerock1991 but no matter how good Spiritual Healing is at saving lives and cutting costs
IT IS NOT THE JOB OF GOVT TO FORCE PEOPLE TO USE IT TO COVER HEALTH CARE FOR THE PUBLIC.

Spiritual healing has saved people's lives from cancer, drug addiction, etc DIRECTLY and it has helped medical doctors and nurses serve more patients
cost-effectively to improve response rate and reduce the recovery time and costs. But insurance doesn't cure any disease, correct or prevent the causes.

So billyerock1991 if the issue is paying for health care, if you were FULLY informed and educated instead of being ignorant and excluding Spiritual Healing and its effects, then you would be pushing for Spiritual Healing instead of insurance as the key to universal health care coverage and sustainable resources/education/training for service providers and recipients.

But this is like forcing Christianity on people through govt because if EVERYONE WERE A MEMBER THEN WE'D CUT THE COSTS OF CRIME AND ABUSE
and provide HOUSING and HEALTH CARE for the MASSES.

No. Sorry, even if that is the solution and it would work to save lives and costs,
*IT IS NOT THE JOB OF GOVT TO REQUIRE PEOPLE AND DICTATE THAT CHOICE.*

A. ^ Do you understand this point ^ 
B. Even if you don't agree, do you understand it is the BELIEF of conservatives/Christians/half the nation that have THIS BELIEF that govt is NOT the authority for charity and that health care i involves personal choices and beliefs that are OUTSIDE GOVT AUTHORITY
C. you don't have to agree with Christianity to respect that people have that choice of belief and can't be forced into it or out of it. So can you understand the same with health care beliefs? That nobody should be forced by govt to change their beliefs, about health care or right to life or right to choice. Do you get that this is the issue with Govt getting involved in the first place?

Do you understand the DIFFERENCE between
* a program that would save lives and cut costs
* FORCING PEOPLE THROUGH GOVT INTO SUCH A PROGRAM WITHOUT FREE CHOICE AND CONSENT

If not, we need to focus on that point regardless what the program is that you believe in so much.
Even if it is the best program in the world, if it involves PERSONAL free choice and beliefs
then Govt has not the authority to FORCE or regulate people that way.
Not unless they commit a crime and are convicted so they are deprived of LIBERTY by due process of LAW.

Do you understand the difference between people who have and have not committed a violation yet?
And you do not have the right through Govt to deprive people of liberty if no crime has been committed by THAT PERSON.

Do you understand you are committing the equivalent of Collective Punishment,
and because SOME people cannot pay for their health care and don't believe in working with churches or nonprofits that could have helped them,
you are trying to force this through govt in ways that DEPRIVE LAW ABIDING citizens of liberty and FREE CHOICE what to fund
WHEN THOSE PEOPLE losing their free choice DID NOT COMMIT crimes or incur costs, and have no consent in the matter?

Do you understand this point?


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 20, 2016)

billyerock1991 said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



1 Part ONE

Dear billyerock1991

This still isn't addressing the real conflict, but skirting it completely.

This is like two people arguing
Person A: Govt should not be in charge of banning abortion and punishing people for making that choice.
Person B: Well, then don't have an abortion. If you look into the process, you'd see you don't want to go that route anyway.

^ So this is completely denying the whole concept and objection Person A  has that govt should not be regulating people's free choice anyway.

billyerock1991 you sound just as unsympathetic and in denial as someone who thinks there wouldn't be an argument about defending prochoice if people did the right thing, made the right choices, so they don't end with abortion as a bad choice.

Do you get this:
Why is govt in charge of regulating those choices anyway? That's the issue. Quit trying to justify it, like the prolife people saying "abortion isn't really a choice anyway, it's a bad idea, so giving up that choices isn't a loss."

CONT'D see 2 Part TWO next


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 20, 2016)

2 Part TWO
billyerock1991

If this affordable health care coverage has reduced costs for people as  you said, and isn't costing taxpayers,

A. Then WHERE did the trillions of dollars come from that Obama doled out to the corporate insurance interests so they would agree to the plan that was passed?

B. If taxpayers paid for the cost of corporate insurance to transition to the new rules, where is the RECIPROCAL side where insurance companies pay the cost of covering everyone's health care and medical costs?

C. Why is this relationship one sided where taxpayers pay for
1. the trillions paid to corporate insurance
2. the federal govt officials to have top  health insurance and medical coverage

But
3. neither of these recipients of tax paid benefits is paying for our side of the deal -- ie what WE would have asked to have covered in order to AGREE to the terms and conditions?

If we are parties to the contract, where did WE get to lobby and make sure OUR interests and what WE wanted in the deal WAS MET?

it wasn't.

Because we weren't represented in the deal. Only the corporate interests who lobbied Congress and the President, and the federal officials made sure they got themselves covered.  And later certain unions that backed out of mandated requirements got what THEY wanted which was out of the deal. But what about everyone else.

How come when we ask for singlepayer, or free market choice to participate or not, or to delay the individual mandate since the employer mandate was delayed,
none of those conditions was met.

Only the corporate insurance lobby that wrote into the deal with Obama that they get paid Trillions of dollars up front.

Where's OUR trillion dollars to pay for our cost of participating?

Do you see the point of my question
in PART TWO?

1. Do you agree it ISN'T free to taxpayers, but the trillions paid up front to corporate insurance companies was put on the taxpayers. But we aren't getting health care for what we paid, that money went to corporate insurance interests who lobbied for their own costs and profits.

Do you agree we are paying, but it isn't going to health care but to corporate insurance companies benefiting off the deal regardless if it works or fails, they covered themselves.

2. The contract was ONE SIDE
the business interests lobbied and got what they wanted written into the deal
or they would REFUSE to comply.

But when citizens make demands, we get stuck with whatever the other side came up with.

Who does that, billyerock1991

Would you really agree to follow a BUSINESS contract
requiring you to pay and buy services that you had no say in.
And only the insurance companies are getting paid on terms they lobbied for and got passed.

What kind of deal is that?

Like a prearranged marriage where only the husband has a say in the terms of marriage
but the wife is coerced into complying in whatever terms the husband and families come up with?

Do you get this concept or not?

Just because YOU are happy with a prearranged marriage
and don't mind the terms because of the benefits you are getting,
doesn't mean it's right to impose these terms on OTHER PEOPLE WHO DON'T CONSENT.

That's what I don't get billyerock1991

Why is it that just because YOU consent to the deal
you think you have the right to abuse govt to
force OTHER PEOPLE to comply with the deal under penalty of fines and seized wages.

Even if you don't agree with this viewpoint billyerock1991
can you see that there is something WRONG with not giving people
the choice of REPRESENTATION and CONSENT to a contract?

I don't have to agree or disagree with Christianitty, Buddhism, Islam, Atheism etc.
to UNDERSTAND that it is a BAD IDEA to force these on anyone
against their free will, much less THROUGH GOVT.

Why aren't other liberal prochoice Democrats arguing for this?
How is this NOT a similar principle to
* prochoice and not giving up personal private decisions and autonomy over to govt to control
* separation of church and state, and not imposing beliefs through govt in conflict
with people's beliefs who are facing fines and penalties for believing in free choice?


----------



## billyerock1991 (Sep 20, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


you have lost your mind ... what I was trying to do was to help the person to pick a good health care plan... by telling him/her emily cincola to get a broker... to many people try to do it themselves a health care broker will not cost you a dime ... thats all I was trying to do ... the rest of your bull shit 1 and 2 is what it iS totally out their lost your mind bull shit...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Sep 20, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> 2 Part TWO
> billyerock1991
> 
> If this affordable health care coverage has reduced costs for people as  you said, and isn't costing taxpayers,
> ...


you're still as nutty as you always been ... we aren't talking about abortion we aren't talking about family we aren't talking about religion ... we are talking about the best bang for the buck in the health care system ... like always you go off the deep end


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 20, 2016)

billyerock1991 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...


You miss my point again.

Why can't people pick a good plan by free will free choice free market.

You are the one claiming there is no charge to taxpayers.

So who pays for the trillion dollar handouts to corporate insurance.

Why do we pay for them but still have to pay for deductibles and plans that go way past our budgets.

Can you answer that billyerock1991 

Who's out of their minds here:
The people saying this isn't free choice if we are forced to buy insurance or pay fines to govt?

Or ppl saying it's the only choice?


----------



## emilynghiem (Sep 20, 2016)

billyerock1991 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > 2 Part TWO
> ...



If it's the best bang for the buck
Then why aren't we getting our costs covered for the trillions we paid up front.

Why isn't there a free choice like whether to shop to get the best deal?

Do you seriously not see the conflict with "freedom of choice" here?

Really, are you that dense or biased by agenda, that you see NO parallel with the political control of health care choices and reproductive health care choices. Why is free choice of abortion protected from penalty by govt, but not free choice of paying for health care?

billyerock1991 of course these choices are not the "same". In fact it's backwards: the choice of abortion has greater risk of irreversible harm yet it's not penalized by govt. The choice of paying for health care yourself can still be done that way, and still avoid causing any risk to life or health, yet this is penalized by govt. So (a) those choices are NOT the same (b) that's my point, because health care choices pose less risk of harm than choice to have abortion WHY penalize the harmless choice but fight to defend the other choice.

These don't have to be the same, to compare the conflict in penalizing people for a harmless choice of wanting to pay for and provide health care through free market choices.

Why is that penalized more than the choice of abortion????


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Oct 4, 2016)

"Bang for the buck" ?

Isn't that illegal ?


----------



## emilynghiem (Oct 5, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> "Bang for the buck" ?
> 
> Isn't that illegal ?



Apparently it's not illegal to get screwed for money
as long as Govt is doing the screwing? What???


----------

